From Virginia, the state’s U.S. Senate candidate, Tim Kaine, a Democrat, said that he’s open to having a “minimum tax level for everyone.” Kaine went on to say he feels the minimum tax level should be an individual $2000 tax credit, a position largely consistent with President Obama and his economic advisors. Obama team insiders are said to be debating a minimum tax ranging from Kaine’s $2000 tax credit to a $10000 tax credit per household. Policy makers are also considering allowing qualifying households to opt for a Chevy Volt in lieu of the minimum tax tax credit.
On the campaign trail, the President decried the “bitter clinging” of mob violence, intolerance, mayhem, and destruction of property said to be planned by Mormons in response to the hit Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon.” Internet sources reveal the President is said to have his concerns sharpened based on Homeland Security briefings which relied upon unimpeachable Southern Poverty Law Center and The New Republic sources for their conclusions.
Appearing on Fox News, Presidential advisor David Axelrod responded to The American Spectator’s challenge to Name a single thing that has improved under his [President Obama’s] rule. Axelrod told host Shemp Smith that many things have increased under the President’s governance including gasoline prices, unemployment, food stamp usage, and the federal debt. Smith then challenged Axelrod saying, “While those are increases, almost no one views them as improvements.” Axelrod countered with, “This campaign won’t stoop to partisan politics,” and walked off the set in apparent disgust as soon as the show went to break.
In Washington, several high-level GOP senators emerged from a top secret briefing with senior Administration officials, incensed that the Obama team offered no new information while failing to answer questions regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans. In response, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Adm. Sandy Winnefeld told the media they felt the briefings—which in an unusual turn, had been outsourced to the Southern Poverty Law Center and The New Republic—were “accurate, timely, and well received.”
It’s now been more than 100 days since U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. began a “medical leave of absence.” Jackson’s staff has not disclosed when he may be able to resume his official duties but denied that his absence is related to alleged drug abuse. Skeptics have questioned this assessment with the revelation that Jackson has already been announced as starring in the season premier of the A&E Network’s popular reality show Intervention.
In the debates associated with the hotly contested campaign for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, Senator Scott Brown was said to have dismantled his foe, Elizabeth Warren. Warren surprised—and terrified—observers by showing up in a Cherokee head dress, Prada shoes and matching bag, and nothing else. For her part, a Warren campaign spokesman said Warren scored points by saying Brown “spoke with forked tongue.”
In a move disquieting to knowledgeable economists, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has decided to skip QE3, 4, and 5 and proceed directly to QE6. Bernanke said, “Tripling our money supply in six years has clearly not done the trick. I hope QE6 will.” When asked by CNBC host Larry Kudlow later that day, “Just what is the trick you’re trying to accomplish, Mr. Chairman?”, Bernanke shrugged. Bernanke soon departed the CNBC set for a fundraiser for President Obama intended to dishonor street economists Fo’pak (University of Chicago) and Notorious H.A.Y.E.K. (University of Freiburg).
Stay tuned for updates which will occur as time and conditions permit.
The President is busy, busy, busy jetting around in Air Force One, doing all those fundraisers and re-election events and whatnot. So did his fatigue cause him to reveal more to the American people than is appropriate for his own good (emphasis added)?
…There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Yes, success is now attributable to—and limited to—the idea that it takes a (government) village.
Mr. President, have your handlers finally driven your modest intellect and learning over the economic cliff? If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. Really?
No business can succeed with with unending and unsupportable deficit spending. So what does the President do? He calls for more ruinous spending, advocates for class warfare (more taxes for the most successful; more bills for the young), and props up failure and rigs the game with government-driven market interference: bailouts, takeovers, public-sector spending, and crony capitalism.
The President made himself the face of the U.S. economy but as it turned out, his mouth was writing checks that neither his economic ideas nor his government authority could deliver. If voters don’t make him pay for the failures of Obamanomics in November, we’ll be getting the government we deserve.
Elizabeth Warren’s U.S. Senate candidacy is the comedy gift that just keeps giving. From The Boston Globe:
US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.
But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.
In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.
I guess all this fraud and deception can be justified in that she’s trying to win the seat long held by Ted Kennedy.
You know, tradition.
If Elizabeth Warren were a Republican, she’d be getting something worse than the Christine O’Donnell treatment.
In fact, she is a Village Person of color.
I’m sure her campaign is relieved they will still be able to stay at the Taj Boston and not the YMCA.
Elizabeth Warren was once a woman of color? I guess it depends on how you define color:
…a 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color,” based, according to the notes at the bottom of the story, on a “telephone interview with Michael Chmura, News Director, Harvard Law (Aug. 6, 1996).”
The mention was in the middle of a lengthy and heavily-annotated Fordham piece on diversity and affirmative action and women. The title of the piece, by Laura Padilla, was “Intersectionality and positionality: Situating women of color in the affirmative action dialogue.”
Intersectionality and positionality? If Naomi Riley is available to mock Laura Padilla, I’d say she could start with affirmative action “programs [that] are often slipshod, academically non-rigorous, and repositories for “grievance” politics.”
But I digress on Warren as a woman of color. White is a color.
And she might have a freckle or something.
(Not that I’d know or want to know…in fact, eww.)
As far as the Warren campaign is concerned, it’s gotta be worth a try.
From the aptly monikered Big Government site:
Despite an avalanche of irrefutable evidence that demonstrates beyond any doubt that Elizabeth Warren has no proof to back up her phony claims of Native American ancestry, the embattled Massachusetts Senate candidate doubled down and repeated her heritage lie on CNN today.
“You know, I’m proud of my Native American heritage,” Ms. Warren stated this morning on CNN.
Now bear in mind that the whole Native American thing was simply a modest capitalization error; a typo.
Warren meant native American. You know, native: being such by birth or origin.
Like Bruce Springsteen, you were born in the USA, so give it a shot Elizabeth.
What do you have to lose? You’re already a national laughingstock.
The topic of Barry Oh’s! academic records, transcripts, standardized test scores, papers, and the likes are hermetically sealed and somehow unavailable to the public despite the theory that all information wants to be free.
I mean pirated DVD copies of the new Avengers flick were probably for sale on the streets of Beijing before it was in U.S. release, yet the President’s records are somehow absolutely leak-proof. That’s dedication, my friends. Either that or David Axelrod had everything destroyed.
But why would the President’s records need to be sealed in the first place? Simple: think Elizabeth Warren.
Warren is finally getting the vetting she deserves and as Warren Zevon would say, it ain’t that pretty at all. Affirmative action hire? Check. Sketchy scholarship? Check. Empirical emptiness? Check.
Could Barry Oh’s! record reveal the same?
Enjoy every sandwich.
Elizabeth Warren’s diversity double-dip gets worse each time she opens her mouth. It’s reminiscent of the John Kerry Christmas in Cambodia
lie false memory.
“I listed myself in the [law school] directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren.
Warren’s statement fails to pass the smell test. I’m shocked her campaign hasn’t placed the issue off-limits for both the media and the candidate.
I’m also disappointed no one seems to have photoshopped a headdress onto Warren’s mug.
Ward Churchill is the disgraced former University of Colorado full professor, sans terminal degree, sans academic ethics, and it turns out, sans the Native American bona fides he claimed to possess. Churchill, in one of the better headlines I’ve recently read, was categorized as a Reprobate Without A Cause.
Ward Churchill was fired from Colorado University in Boulder in 2007 for “repeated intentional academic misconduct.” The firing resulted not from his noxious comments about victims of terrorism, or his virulent anti-American rantings, but from proven instances of plagiarism, duplicitous writings, and questions about his unsubstantiated claim of having a Native American heritage.
Elizabeth Warren is a darling of the left, former Obama Administration worker and Harvard professor, and U.S. Senate candidate. Warren has claimed to be part Cherokee (one thirty-second), earning double bonus points on the diversity scorecard: female and Native American. The downside for Warren is that even if it’s true—she bases the claim on “family stories”—the game is over.
I just can’t shake the ridiculous image of you, Liz — a blue-eyed blonde almost as pasty white as me — letting yourself be described as a minority professor, a Native American, for years.
You’ve played the Indian card. You’ve grabbed for minority cred without enduring the minority grief. It’s poached diversity.
Here’s the problem for you, Liz: We’re not talking some elaborate, arcane, confusing financial irregularity here that nobody can understand. Everybody gets this. It’s letting everyone think you’re something that you’re not. It’s letting stand the idea that you’re part of an aggrieved class of people.
First it was the zero interest twenty year loan. Then it was the massive professorial salary that didn’t really require teaching. Now, it’s the family story race card.
So, is it like Ward Churchill? That is, game over, Elizabeth, game over? (Maybe you can build a fire or sing a couple of songs.)
(if you must, read the original here)
By PAUL RUGMANN
This week President Obama offered the obvious: that the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal taxes, should not bear any responsibility in reducing the long-run budget deficit. Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan responded with shrieks of “class warfare” and this shrieking is getting tiresome.
Because Obama is rubber and Ryan is glue, what Ryan says bounces off Obama and is simply untrue. In fact, it’s people like Mr. Ryan, who want to exempt the very rich (“his people,” as AG Eric Holder might say) from deficit reduction. The reality is the rich should pay more — their fair share — and make our finances sustainable.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II. The first lesson: class warfare corresponds with the end of the disco era.
And because it may not support my case, I’ll ignore the incomes of the very rich (the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution) in the generation after World War II and the effect of the confiscatory (87 percent in 1954) federal income taxes. I’ll also ignore the income growth of the poor because I’m not interested in class warfare, but only in the very rich, that .01 percent of all Americans.
Instead, my point is between 1979 and 2005, the income of the very rich rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a miss print. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million. Another lesson: that’s more than any human being should be allowed to earn without a deep wallet cleaning by the taxman. As George Harrison advocated, there’s one for you, nineteen for me.
Still another lesson: because these very rich earn more, it’s obvious that Republicans are waging class warfare.
The CBO’s numbers show the federal tax burden has fallen for all income classes but because I’m only interested in the federal tax burden, I’ll ignore other taxes: property, vehicle, state and local income taxes, sales taxes, taxes on capital gains and dividends, estate (so-called “death” taxes), and the large litany of other consumptive taxes (tobacco, alcohol, telecommunications, “luxury” taxes, etc.). I’ll also ignore the taxes paid by businesses like payroll taxes and corporate taxes.
But what does it mean? That a very rich man like Warren Buffett can use all of the wealth he’s accumulated to buy lawyers, lobbyists, and love, and can “get by” with paying himself a $100,000 salary because he’s put almost all his wealth into a tax-avoiding trust. One final lesson: this cheats Uncle Sam. Now, I know the Bush-led right will respond with misleading statistics and fraudulent moral claims about whose money it is in the first place.
On one side, taxes paid by the rich are rising, but this is because they’re richer than they used to be. When middle-class incomes grow barely 20 percent while the incomes of the .01 percent rise by a factor of six, how could their tax share of the rich not go up? In other words, they’re paying more, but so what?
On the other side, we have the dubious assertion that the rich have the right to keep their money, an assertion which entirely misses my major point: I don’t think that’s right. How much income and wealth should the government allow each very rich person to keep? I’m not sure, but it’s less than it is now.
Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate seat that used to be Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat, recently made some eloquent remarks that are, on the left, getting a lot of attention. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody,” she declared, pointing out that the rich can only get rich thanks to the government letting them keep some of the income and wealth they’ve earned.
Which brings us back to those shrieks of “class warfare.”
Republicans claim to be deeply worried by budget deficits. Indeed, Mr. Ryan has called the deficit an “existential threat” to America. Yet they are insisting that the wealthy — who presumably have a stake in the nation’s future — should not be called upon to play a greater role than they already are in warding off that existential threat.
Well, that amounts to a demand that a small number of very lucky people (skills, ability, and hard work don’t make any difference) be less affected by a government redistribution scheme that has a greater effect on everyone else. And that, in case you’re wondering, is what real class warfare looks like.