Giuliani, Edwards and the liberal media

[addabox]

OK. So: Edwards' haircut. Really, really interesting story, at least judging by how the liberal media got on it, once Drudge said go.

NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and, of course, a great deal of yammering on the cable "news" shows.

Fine. Maybe it says something about the man, or his candidacy, or his hair. Whatever.

It definitely says something about the liberal media's appetite for trivia, as long as it seems to grant insight into "character".

Except...... Rudy Giuliani. His campaign calls up some working class Iowans who had donated to his campaign, asks if they want to host a campaign rally. They're thrilled and eagerly agree. Well, here, let's let the Anamosa Journal-Eureka, "The Official Newspaper of Anamosa, located in Jones County, Iowa" tell the story: (http://www.anamosaje.com/NewsArchive/2007/May/3/news.html#1)

Last weekend Deb and Jerry VonSprecken of Olin received a call from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign office asking them if they would be interested in holding a campaign rally on May 4, after she had donated to his campaign.

“We thought it would be an honor and agreed,” said Jerry.

The campaign office continued to contact the VonSpreckens throughout last weekend and were told a security check would be needed. The couple passed the security check and began putting plans in place.

“We started making phone calls. We got the sheriff and fire department and Olin school was going to let out early. We were also expecting kids from the Anamosa school,” Jerry explained. “Deb even went around and personally invited people.”

On Tuesday Deb received a call from Giuliani’s Des Monies office and was asked to call New York.

“They wanted to know our assets,” she revealed, and added that she and Jerry have a modest 80 acre farm and raise cattle.

Later she received a call from Tony Delgado at the Des Monies location.

“Tony said, ‘I’m sorry, you aren’t worth a million dollars and he is campaigning on the Death Tax right now.’ then he said they weren’t going to be able to come,” Deb continued.

The Death Tax is a federal version of the Iowa Inheritance Tax.

The VonSpreckens then called Delgado back and told him how upset they were that the event had been cancelled, how much work they had done and that they had been expecting 75-100 people at their farm.

“I invited him into my home,” Deb said of Giuliani, fighting back tears.

She said she then got a call from New York later the same day asking her to introduce Giuliani at a rally in Cedar Rapids, also scheduled for May 4. They offered her one-on-one time with Giuliani and to have her photo taken with him.

“My feeling is that they’re trying to cover their butts,” said Jerry.

“I may go and give him a piece of my mind, but I’m not going to introduce him,” Deb included.

Preparations had already been put in place for traffic control and bleachers and Deb’s mother, sister and niece were planning to fly from Texas to meet Giuliani.

“Now they pull this,” Jerry exclaimed. “It’s really sad that we aren’t good enough because we aren’t millionaires.”



Huh. Personally, don't really care, but given the liberal media's appetite for this kind of stuff, they must be all over the..... what's that? Nothing? Nothing? Wait, wait, here's some local Iowa coverage, the Des Moines Register and, uh, Agricultural Industry Today, and certainly the blogs are all atwitter, so that will probably it get picked up by... ah, fuck it. Guess if Drudge doesn't say go it doesn't exist.

So what's the deal, liberal media fans? How come something like the Edwards' haircut gets such big play but the Giuliani campaign pretty much slapping the salt of the earth in the face, the very heartland farmers that are supposed to be the people beltway insiders like Hillary have such contempt for apparently never happened, as far as the mainstream pundits are concerned? Aren't mainstream pundits all about seizing on examples of arrogance and getting too big for your britches and being out of touch with "the people" and shit?

Theories? And please don't tell me Edwards' haircut is newsworthy or interesting whereas dicking over and humiliating Iowa farm couples, and doing it pretty with no class at all, is not. In my book neither rises to the level of much of anything, but I'm curious how those of you absolutely convinced the mainstream media sits around scheming how to bring conservatives low can explain how this works.

[SDW2001]

OK. So: Edwards' haircut. Really, really interesting story, at least judging by how the liberal media got on it, once Drudge said go.

NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and, of course, a great deal of yammering on the cable "news" shows.

Fine. Maybe it says something about the man, or his candidacy, or his hair. Whatever.

It definitely says something about the liberal media's appetite for trivia, as long as it seems to grant insight into "character".

Except...... Rudy Giuliani. His campaign calls up some working class Iowans who had donated to his campaign, asks if they want to host a campaign rally. They're thrilled and eagerly agree. Well, here, let's let the Anamosa Journal-Eureka, "The Official Newspaper of Anamosa, located in Jones County, Iowa" tell the story: (http://www.anamosaje.com/NewsArchive/2007/May/3/news.html#1)



Huh. Personally, don't really care, but given the liberal media's appetite for this kind of stuff, they must be all over the..... what's that? Nothing? Nothing? Wait, wait, here's some local Iowa coverage, the Des Moines Register and, uh, Agricultural Industry Today, and certainly the blogs are all atwitter, so that will probably it get picked up by... ah, fuck it. Guess if Drudge doesn't say go it doesn't exist.

So what's the deal, liberal media fans? How come something like the Edwards' haircut gets such big play but the Giuliani campaign pretty much slapping the salt of the earth in the face, the very heartland farmers that are supposed to be the people beltway insiders like Hillary have such contempt for apparently never happened, as far as the mainstream pundits are concerned? Aren't mainstream pundits all about seizing on examples of arrogance and getting too big for your britches and being out of touch with "the people" and shit?

Theories? And please don't tell me Edwards' haircut is newsworthy or interesting whereas dicking over and humiliating Iowa farm couples, and doing it pretty with no class at all, is not. In my book neither rises to the level of much of anything, but I'm curious how those of you absolutely convinced the mainstream media sits around scheming how to bring conservatives low can explain how this works.

I don't think they are similar issues. One is an issue concerning vanity and potential hypocrisy. I mean, who gets a $400 haircut? You're right in that it doesn't matter...but there is at least some headline value in the fact that Edwards is Mr. Help The Poor and Mr. Two Americas.

The other issue would seem to be a misunderstanding of why the campaign was orignally interested. I agree it sucks, but while lady in question might have felt like they were saying "you're not good enough or rich enough" that's not what the campaign was really saying. I'm sure they were trying to cover their asses, because it was a gaffe...and an unfortunate one. Applying little benefit of the doubt (which I realize you simply will not do for a Republican), it's easy to understand how someone assumed the farm was worth more than it was. One of the prime arguments for repealing the Death Tax is that it breaks up family farms more than anything else.

So, my answer would be that while superficial, the first headline was at least an eye-grabber. The second...I'm not sure it's newsworthy. GUILIANI CAMPAIGN MAKES MISTAKE, OFFENDS DONOR OVER MISUNDERSTANDING, OFFERS OFFENDED PERSONS OTHER OPPORTUNITY! FILM AT 11!

[BRussell]

The story is pitiful on several different levels. There's the snub, of course. But it also underlines how ridiculous the "death tax" line is. Republicans want to appeal to the middle class with its opposition to taxes like this death tax. And yet this tax, and the other kinds of taxes they want to cut, tend to very heavily favor the wealthy. So, in order to find symbols of this tax, they have to find rich people and snub middle class people.

Furthermore, the whole premise is basically a big lie. I believe it's true that there hasn't been a single documented case of a family farm being lost to the estate tax, ever. Republicans always go out looking for these cases, and they can't ever find any.

The fact that Rudy had to disinvite himself from this family farm just points to the basic deception underlying their whole "death tax" spiel.

[trumptman]

The story is pitiful on several different levels. There's the snub, of course. But it also underlines how ridiculous the "death tax" line is. Republicans want to appeal to the middle class with its opposition to taxes like this death tax. And yet this tax, and the other kinds of taxes they want to cut, tend to very heavily favor the wealthy. So, in order to find symbols of this tax, they have to find rich people and snub middle class people.

Furthermore, the whole premise is basically a big lie. I believe it's true that there hasn't been a single documented case of a family farm being lost to the estate tax, ever. Republicans always go out looking for these cases, and they can't ever find any.

The fact that Rudy had to disinvite himself from this family farm just points to the basic deception underlying their whole "death tax" spiel.

So from this line of reasoning we can conclude the Democrats oppose Republicans repealing taxes that apply to no one?:no:

Perhaps you should clarify that just because one does not LOSE the farm does not mean that one does end up paying an onerous tax.

Also while Adda and others might condemn the action, Giuliani campaign has to find an example of who Democrats want to tax. They want to tax the "rich" and so he has to find appropriate examples.

Finally the last reason I doubt it is reported on as much is a campaign handler is not the same thing as the candidate him or herself. It isn't as if they are reporting on the cost of the various Edwards campaign aides haircuts.

Nick

[BRussell]

So from this line of reasoning we can conclude the Democrats oppose Republicans repealing taxes that apply to no one?:no:

Perhaps you should clarify that just because one does not LOSE the farm does not mean that one does end up paying an onerous tax.

Also while Adda and others might condemn the action, Giuliani campaign has to find an example of who Democrats want to tax. They want to tax the "rich" and so he has to find appropriate examples.

Finally the last reason I doubt it is reported on as much is a campaign handler is not the same thing as the candidate him or herself. It isn't as if they are reporting on the cost of the various Edwards campaign aides haircuts.

Nick I can't speak for all Democrats, but my basic question to all of these Republican talking points on taxes is this: What spending will you cut, or what other taxes will you raise, when you get rid of this tax? Republicans tend to evaluate taxes in isolation, or at least that's how their rhetoric sounds. "Taxing people when they die is wrong." "Double taxation is wrong." "The income tax is unconstitutional." They rarely talk about taxes as one side of the budget equation, with spending on the other side. And I think the consequences of that type of thinking are clear when you look at what Republicans do to budgets.

[trumptman]

I can't speak for all Democrats, but my basic question to all of these Republican talking points on taxes is this: What spending will you cut, or what other taxes will you raise, when you get rid of this tax? Republicans tend to evaluate taxes in isolation, or at least that's how their rhetoric sounds. "Taxing people when they die is wrong." "Double taxation is wrong." "The income tax is unconstitutional." They rarely talk about taxes as one side of the budget equation, with spending on the other side. And I think the consequences of that type of thinking are clear when you look at what Republicans do to budgets.

First and foremost, you've read where I have condemned the lack of spending cuts on these forums. However I also have to condemn those parties who take the most basic cuts, even cuts in the rate of growth, and label them with extreme rhetoric designed to shut down discussion. I've linked to flash animations on the DNC website where a caricatured George Bush is pushing Grandma off a cliff while in a wheel chair. When welfare reform was passed, and that time frame was really the last time we had Republicans following through on spending cuts, the rhetoric declared that millions would be starving in the streets.

I absolutely agree Republicans should grow a spine and label the spending cuts along with their tax cuts. I think anyone who tosses out hysterical claims should have them seriously questioned as well. Finally I find it sad that no one seems to promote slowing the growth of government and reducing the level of involvement it has in our lives. I was calling Bush and those like him not very conservative well back into his first term. People on this board treated me like a nut job for such claims.

We have no true conservatives running which is why Republicans aren't very excited about the next election cycle. No one running is declaring the current deficits, levels of spending, etc. to be bad. I doubt a Republican will get elected until they realize and speak clearly and honestly about such matters.

Nick

[tonton]

I can't speak for all Democrats, but my basic question to all of these Republican talking points on taxes is this: What spending will you cut, or what other taxes will you raise, when you get rid of this tax? Republicans tend to evaluate taxes in isolation, or at least that's how their rhetoric sounds. "Taxing people when they die is wrong." "Double taxation is wrong." "The income tax is unconstitutional." They rarely talk about taxes as one side of the budget equation, with spending on the other side. And I think the consequences of that type of thinking are clear when you look at what Republicans do to budgets.

Didn't you get the memo? Cutting taxes increases revenue! :lol:

[Jubelum]

Didn't you get the memo? Cutting taxes increases revenue! :lol:

Um, yes they do (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070510/federal_budget.html). Let more money move, and the government takes in more. Shown time and time and time again.

[BRussell]

Um, yes they do (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070510/federal_budget.html). Let more money move, and the government takes in more. Shown time and time and time again.

Haha. Republican articles of faith: The earth was created in seven days, global warming is a hoax, a zygote is a person, and you increase taxes by cutting taxes. Economic growth over the past 5 years has been weaker than it was after other recessions, not stronger. Of course revenue eventually increases - population increases, inflation, and the like ensure that. Normally we take in "record" revenue each year due to such factors. But we have far less revenue than we would have had if not for the tax cuts. Revenue decreased in real numbers after the tax cuts, and has only in the last two years been creeping up again. Bush's own economists and projections reject the idea tax cuts cause increased revenues. At best, they believe tax cuts lose maybe 90% rather than 100% of their absolute amount. Others believe that tax cuts, if financed by deficits, actually lose more like 110% of their amount, because economic growth slows in the fact of large, long-term deficits.

Sorry, the idea that you get more revenues if you cut taxes than if you leave them alone or raise them is not taken seriously by any economist, liberal or conservative, R or D. It is only pushed by politicians and people who believe them.

[FormerLurker]

Um, yes they do (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070510/federal_budget.html). Let more money move, and the government takes in more. Shown time and time and time again.
Funny thing - that's NOT what the article you linked has to say...

The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher. But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush's tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.
Emphasis added for the benefit of the willfully ignorant.

[trumptman]

One idea that I think Republicans ought to warm to is the idea of using tax cuts and raises as a means of helping steer the economy. Now we all know that this is supposed to be the job of the Federal Reserve. However the Fed still has to do its job regardless of what the government is doing. Right now to slow the economy, the federal reserve keeps raising interest rates and also reduces the money supply. (At least they are supposed to reduce the money supply, we have so many dollars abroad due to trade deficits that this might be impossible this time.)

If we believe that excessively high taxes can harm and slow the economy, then we ought to be willing to apply said brake when the economy is overheating.

Regardless of what BRussell desires to believe, tax cuts can and do have the ability to grow revenue streams. You apply any simply analogy regarding price and people will alter their buying decisions based on price. The same is true for taxes. Much like price though, there is a point where the pricing power, or taxing power loses this ability to alter behavior. When Reagan took office the top rate was, I believe 78% with regard to income. We can absolutely argue that people might not alter their behavior to avoid taxes when Bush was arguing for a change from 38% to 35%. Yet to claim that they would not do this if they went back 78% or that they wouldn't even if they went to 100% just defies reason.

Anyone who wants to argue against that is benefiting from some willful ignorance as well.

Back on the thread topic, speaking about Edwards, it seems like the man is constantly finding ways to make money that are unsavory all while "advocating" for the poor. Trial lawyer and hedge fund manager aren't exactly adding value and benefits to the life of your every day person.

Nick

[BRussell]

Regardless of what BRussell desires to believe, tax cuts can and do have the ability to grow revenue streams. You apply any simply analogy regarding price and people will alter their buying decisions based on price. The same is true for taxes. Much like price though, there is a point where the pricing power, or taxing power loses this ability to alter behavior. When Reagan took office the top rate was, I believe 78% with regard to income. We can absolutely argue that people might not alter their behavior to avoid taxes when Bush was arguing for a change from 38% to 35%. Yet to claim that they would not do this if they went back 78% or that they wouldn't even if they went to 100% just defies reason.

Anyone who wants to argue against that is benefiting from some willful ignorance as well. There's no doubt that reducing taxes changes economic behavior. It just doesn't cause a net increase in revenues.

[trumptman]

There's no doubt that reducing taxes changes economic behavior. It just doesn't cause a net increase in revenues.

It can if the amount or price for the economic behavior is so high due to taxes that people avoid the behavior all together.

Look BRussell, I'm not arguing this or that spot on say, the Laffer curve for example. However if you tax someone 100% of their income, they simply won't work and thus the revenues will go down. It isn't just possible, but it is very probable if people act rationally.

You also have to remember you are talking to a fair trader here. I do believe that if you want to participate in the world's largest economy, there is a price (tariff) to pay. We shouldn't just tax our own people while letting other countries off the hook.

However there clearly is an elasticity of work with regard to tax rates. If you end up making nothing for working, then clearly rational people would choose not to work or work less at a minimum. I've already gladly conceded that I don't think the tax rate is so inelastic that a change from 38 to 35% would alter behavior, however Kennedy brought the rate down from 91% for example.

Don't you think 91% was altering behavior with regard to work?

Would you work as you do now to keep only 9% of what you are paid?

Nick

[franksargent]

It can if the amount or price for the economic behavior is so high due to taxes that people avoid the behavior all together.

Look BRussell, I'm not arguing this or that spot on say, the Laffer curve for example. However if you tax someone 100% of their income, they simply won't work and thus the revenues will go down. It isn't just possible, but it is very probable if people act rationally.

You also have to remember you are talking to a fair trader here. I do believe that if you want to participate in the world's largest economy, there is a price (tariff) to pay. We shouldn't just tax our own people while letting other countries off the hook.

However there clearly is an elasticity of work with regard to tax rates. If you end up making nothing for working, then clearly rational people would choose not to work or work less at a minimum. I've already gladly conceded that I don't think the tax rate is so inelastic that a change from 38 to 35% would alter behavior, however Kennedy brought the rate down from 91% for example.

Don't you think 91% was altering behavior with regard to work?

Would you work as you do now to keep only 9% of what you are paid?

Nick

And you can demonstrate that ANYONE actually paid that rate on their DELTA NET WORTH for a given tax year??? :err:

Oh, that's right were talking about INCOME TAX BRACKETS and a PLETHORA of TAX LOOPHOLES! :wow:

PS - The highest rate was 94% per US tax rates in history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Tax_rates_in_histo ry)

[SDW2001]

The story is pitiful on several different levels. There's the snub, of course. But it also underlines how ridiculous the "death tax" line is. Republicans want to appeal to the middle class with its opposition to taxes like this death tax. And yet this tax, and the other kinds of taxes they want to cut, tend to very heavily favor the wealthy. So, in order to find symbols of this tax, they have to find rich people and snub middle class people.

Furthermore, the whole premise is basically a big lie. I believe it's true that there hasn't been a single documented case of a family farm being lost to the estate tax, ever. Republicans always go out looking for these cases, and they can't ever find any.

The fact that Rudy had to disinvite himself from this family farm just points to the basic deception underlying their whole "death tax" spiel.

That's bullshit, BRussell. It happens all the time. Do you know how easy it is to have a family farm valued at the threshold for the death tax?

[SDW2001]

I can't speak for all Democrats, but my basic question to all of these Republican talking points on taxes is this: What spending will you cut, or what other taxes will you raise, when you get rid of this tax? Republicans tend to evaluate taxes in isolation, or at least that's how their rhetoric sounds. "Taxing people when they die is wrong." "Double taxation is wrong." "The income tax is unconstitutional." They rarely talk about taxes as one side of the budget equation, with spending on the other side. And I think the consequences of that type of thinking are clear when you look at what Republicans do to budgets.

Right, because the same kind of logic is never employed by the Democrats. And you know...all Republicans view it the very you describe it. :no:

I do agree that the revenue from the Death Tax would have to be replaced or offset by spending cuts.

[SDW2001]

There's no doubt that reducing taxes changes economic behavior. It just doesn't cause a net increase in revenues.

Yes it does. You just refuse to see it. The reason is simply that the economy is stimulated and the tax base expands. In the short term, revenues can go down. But in the long term? You're wrong.

[BRussell]

Yes it does. You just refuse to see it. The reason is simply that the economy is stimulated and the tax base expands. In the short term, revenues can go down. But in the long term? You're wrong.

I thought we'd already come to an agreement on this SDW. Revenues go up over time without raising tax rates. The population increases. Inflation occurs. Economic growth occurs. But tax cuts cause less revenues to come in than otherwise. If your child eats glue, and he grows taller, would you say the glue made him taller?

At the least, address this: Why, if you believe it so strongly, do economists - and not just unhinged left-wing economists, but economists currently employed by the Bush administration, not believe it? Can you answer that? Examples (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm):
In recent testimony before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee, Edward Lazear, current chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, stated, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”

N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”[13]

Commenting on President Bush’s claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, the Economist magazine recently wrote, “Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will pay for themselves.”[14]

The President’s own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”[15] The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard.

And I just want to clarify that that's what you're saying: That by cutting taxes, you increase revenue. You get more revenues than you would have otherwise gotten if you had left the taxes in place. That you not only don't lose any revenue, you get more revenue.

That's bullshit, BRussell. It happens all the time. Do you know how easy it is to have a family farm valued at the threshold for the death tax?

If it happens so often, then why have we never heard of even a single example? Why was the American Farm Bureau Association, leading the fight against the estate tax, unable to find a single example of it happening (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22American+farm+bureau+federation%22+%22estate+ tax%22+%22single+case%22&btnG=Google+Search) when asked to provide examples?