David Axelrod was shredded by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Wallace kept Axelrod on defense and off balance throughout the segment.
Like his former boss, Axelrod seems almost at a loss to respond once the talking points are challenged. But I imagined his invitation to choose “between economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we are on, and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace,” might just become a Mitt Romney campaign ad. Obviously, the only thing left to do is to scare people that unless we reelect President Barack Obama we’ll be going back to the bad old days of President George W. Bush.
There was plenty more that Axelrod said that was downright wrong or misleading. He “accuses” Romney of wanting the rich to pay at a lower tax rate; what he doesn’t say is both Romney and the Simpson-Bowles plan take away deductions and credits so the rich won’t be paying less taxes relative to the rest of the population.
He used the president’s favorite straw man: “No one can argue that it makes sense that people who are making a million dollars a year or more to pay less than the average middle-class worker in this country.” And no one is. In fact the top 10 percent of earners have been paying roughly 70 percent of the taxes. The bottom 50 percent pay about 3 percent of the tax load.
But let’s take a step back. Where in this is a plan to accelerate growth and job creation? How does creating a sort of new minimum tax for 4,000 taxpayers assist in the recovery? Maybe that’s why Obama and Axelrod spend so much time on gimmicks and phony “fairness” arguments. They haven’t got a clue how to create an economic environment in which investors, employers and consumers will all benefit.



I can’t believe the BDN printed this.
Yeah, I agree, we are so much better off with our heads buried in the sand.
The only surprise in Ms. Rubin’s column was her inability to link Axelrod’s comments to Islamic Jihad. Funny and sad to watch conservatives flail rightward into the abyss of irrelevancy trying to distinguish themselves from Obama’s moderate conservative (circa 1992) economic policy record.
Solyndra. Fast N Furious..yeah..we conservatives have to try REAL REAL hard to distingush ourselves from Obama alright. How about you go ask Brian Terry’s family about Oblamers distinguished record. Maybe the part about Barry pushing the infantacide bill through the Illinois house is “distinguished” in your mind, but to the rest of us its been 3 years and 6 trillion bucks wasted on an arrogant and ignorant communist wannabe professor’s Aulinskyish pipe dream.
You won;t make any liberal friends with your comments, but you sure hit the nail on the head! Thanks for getting it right!
While you’re at it, look up a few of the ex-Enron employees. You’ll likely find them behind the counter at McDonald’s, or near the entrance at WalMart, enjoying the fruits of their “retirement” package. Or have you forgotten them?
Quite frankly it’s a refreshing surprise !
If disingenuous right wing spin is the sort of thing you find “refreshing,” I suppose that’s your prerogative, but publishing this drivel reflects an enormous lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the BDN.
Apparently you haven’t been paying attention, the BDN prints several conservative commentators.
If the BDN continues, they could have a much larger subscription rate and on-line readership. Now that Rep. Chellie Pingree Sussman’s husband, Donald (the billionaire hedge fund manager who received $210 million in stimulus funds) owns the majority of the southern Maine newspapers, they will never be fair and balanced. This is a great opportunity for the BDN.
Yes, a great opportunity. Tell conservatives what they want to hear rather than the truth, and sales will almost certainly go up. Of course, if they just printed porn, sales would improve even more. Because readership is the goal, right? Not facts?
The BND is about as far right as MSNBC.
Joe Scarborough is to MSNBC as, ummm, uh-hold on a sec, I’ll think of somebody….Sarah Palin is to FOX? Darn, can’t come up with one. BTW, Alan Colmes doesn’t count – radio show vs cable tv show for Joe. I mean we ARE being fair and balanced, correct?
I probably didn’t make my point
_____
They have been printing these types of articles over the last two weeks or so. Perhaps they have gotten wind of the complaints people have been making about their appearance of partisanship.
Does this mean you are going to start a big hate thing on the BDN? Demonize them? Link them to the Koch brothers somehow?
But they BDN clipped the video.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/04/15/david-axelrod-and-ed-gillespie-talk-general-election-strategies?page=2
I wonder if anybody believes this article? It doesn’t have anything to do with reality. It’s right wing wishful thinking.
Of course you don’t believe it because it IS reality. Watch the WHOLE video on Youtube.
I did watch the whole video. I think what you saw must have been what Charles Krauthammer referred to as the alternate reality that Fox News creates for it’s viewers.
You can’t grow the economy without a comprehensive plan, i.e. a Budget, and the President hasn’t had a plan approved by Congress since March 2009. By rejecting the recommendations of the Commission he created (Simpson-Bowles) he proved he was not going to make the tough decisions. BO’s latest Budget submissions were rejected 414 – 0 in the House and 97 – 0 in the Senate. Washington will continue to run staggering deficits thus growing our natinal debt into the stratosphere until it produces a Budget. BO has demonstrated he does not have the ability to form compromises, i.e. leadership, to get our country moving forward. He should be held accountable for his inaction in November.
Where on earth did you get those figures. You might think it’s OK to lie, but at least make up stuff that is believable. Most of Simpson-Bowles was rejected by the NO party, you know, the Party who will say anything or do anything to America, no matter how harmful, because they don’t like the president. On Fact check , you would get a huge “pants on fire” or 5 pinocchios
The House rejected the President’s Budget on March 28, 2011 in Roll Call vote #143. The Senate rejected the President’s Budget last submitted to the Senate on May 25, 2011 in Roll Call vote #78. If you bothered to check original authoritative sources you wouldn’t need to rely on third parties for accurate information. Nothing in the press despite any and all disclaimers gives them supreme authority over facts.
Simpson Bowles was presented and rejected when the Democrats still held a super-majority in Congress.
Actually in the recent past the “Democrats” have not held a “Super Majority” in the recent Senate (60 votes) Bernie Sanders is a Independent, as is Joe Lieberman. and they were never even close to a super majority in the House.
When somebody caucuses with the democrats, they are counted as such for majority control purposes. Try again with another attempt to distort the truth.
If the people caucusing with Democrats are not in fact Democrats then Democrats do not have a “super majority” you can cay liberals have a super majority, but then I think you would have a problem pushing Joe Lieberman or Jim Webb into that category.
So you can attempt to push your ridiculous point or you can relax and have a beer. Either way no skin off my nose.
Those numbers are absolutely correct. You might want to check your britches.
I’m glad this was captioned as “commentary.” I’d sure hate for anybody to confuse this as a factual news story.
What was unfactual about it?
Axelrod would have made a very good point….if he was working for a challenger, rather than for an incumbent.
Why would any legitimate Democrat even go on the Fox Propaganda Channel. They spew nonstop lies and always over-talk the guest to get their lies in. Going on Fox is akin to talking with the Devil himself.
I’m sure Old Nick would agree with you.
Maybe you should actually observe something for yourself before you criticize it, rather than just being another sheep, blatting all the liberal talking points? Lots of liberals do go on FOX, and what they have to say is analyzed and discussed and both sides are argued, as opposed to the cheerleading for anything liberal that so frequently happens on the other major “news” channels. You really should try actually watching FOX, you’ll be surprised when BOTH sides are presented.
Did you know that 60% of people who watch Fox news believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11? 20 % believe we found WMD’s in Iraq. Crazy
That is crazy, sounds like something Wolf Blitzer would say to try to salvage his ratings. I watch FOX news a few times a week and I have NEVER heard anyone say that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 911.
They’ve given up on that particular lie, but if you’d watched FOX between 2003-2007 or so, you’d have heard that lie implied as truth left and right.
During the past four years, they’ve focused their energy on trying to paint the president as an anti-American Marxist atheist Muslim liberal fascist African Chicago gangster who wants to kill middle-aged middle-class white people and harvest their organs to further his socialist agenda.
Neither have I, I have heard Ed Shultz call a fellow commentator a s1ut.
I watch Fox (occasionally) and I do not believe those things. I also watch MSNBC, and except for the talking points, I really don’t see a difference. On MSNBC the Republicans are the devil, and on Fox the Democrats are Joe and Mao.
Personally I don’t find any news today”fair and balanced.
80% of the people who watch MSNBC regularly cannot identify the Vice President of the United States. For that matter neither can the VP.
Probably the same percentate that think the President was the one that actually shot, Bin Landen. The way he sounded.
Fair and UNbalanced!!
I watched FOX once, when I went over to friend’s house whose father was watching it. Within the span of an hour, he’d said that the one token liberal on the discussion panel “should be hanged” (for thought crimes against conservatism, I suppose) and that President Obama “ought to be picking cotton.”
My friend tells me that her father used to be a very smart and likable man, until he retired and started watching TV all day long, and it was only when he switched from watching the Discovery channel most of the time to FOX that his ability to think rationally slipped away from him. FOX’s supply of hate, lies and fear-mongering rotted his brain and turned my friend’s dad from a bright and friendly man into mindless fool. And he’s not the only one.
More likely your friend didn’t know her dad was an ignorant bigot until he stayed at home all day after retiring. Hardly a reason to condemn millions of people who can see the spin from both sides of the partisan networks.
FOX caters to ignorant bigots. Ignorant bigots are their target audience.
It’s a positive feedback cycle: an uninformed, illiberal person is the sort of person willing to listen to the crap FOX broadcasts. Hearing FOX’s nonsense causes whatever bigotry and fear they already have to grow. Increasingly ignorant and afraid of the unknown, they become more and more distrustful of liberals, socialism, the mainstream media, brown people, foreigners, non-Christians, etc. They become loyal FOX viewers, treating right wing dogma as truth and truth as a liberal conspiracy.
You have me confused with your comments: “I watched FOX once,” preceded by “but if you’d watched FOX between 2003-2007 or so”. If you only watched the channel once how can you make broad generalizations about the content of the entire program schedule if you haven’t seen it. Like MSNBC, the Fox channel mixes programs for news in between programs for commentary. It is comparable to saying watching Chris Mathews’ (a commentator) “chills up his leg” show represents the content of its news programs. I watch both channels frequently and can tolerate both news programs and some commentators (e.g. Maddow and Wallace). I thought “liberal” or “progressive” meant being more open to other things as written in the PPH a couple of days ago. Maybe you are not that kind of liberal?
I only watched FOX once (I don’t have cable, and watching wingnut propaganda isn’t really my cup of tea) but I’m quite familiar with the sort of garbage they broadcast, thanks to all the liberal sources which keep tabs on all the BS that goes on on that channel.
For the record, I don’d read the Portland Press Herald or watch MSNBC either (save for the occasional YouTube clip of Maddow or Wallace being awesome). I get my news from quite a few different online sources and NPR.
And, yes, being liberal means being open to different opinions – but it certainly doesn’t mean pretending that all opinions all equally reasonable or valid.
“My friend tells me that her father used to be a very smart and likable
man, until he retired and started watching TV all day long, and it was
only when he switched from watching the Discovery channel most of the
time to FOX that his ability to think rationally slipped away from him.”
Didn’t they used to say that about children and comic books?
Unlike MSNBC, which is not even remotely propaganda? How come the I hate fox news crowd is always so silent about msnbc, cnn, cbs etc etc?
Because those other channels, unlike FOX, actually have a respectable amount of journalistic integrity. Their reporting is sensationalistic and oversimplified, but overall they report the facts fairly and objectively.
FOX, on the other hand, is nothing more than a stream of propaganda thinly disguised as news. No reasonable person would ever mistake FOX “News” for actual journalism.
Nor MSNBC. Same tactics different POV.
Nice ad hominem but I doubt you can substantiate a single charge you have made.
legitimate Democrat? Now there is play on words.
I agree,,,… BUT Chris Matthews Al Sharpton, and Ed Shultz do the same thing, just with different people.
Funny how an article that is supposedly supposed to undercut the talking points employs them as well. Typical manufactured outrage and hypocrisy.
Just another blame game Democrat. They have no idea how the economy works and have deep jealousy of the rich.
Yeah all those “poor Democrats jealous of the rich, like
Sen. John Kerry, (D. Mass)$193.07 Million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $76.30 Million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $65.91 Million
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $55.07 Million
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93* Million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
In fact in the list of top ten richest members of congress 7 are Democrats… only three are Republicans.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $294.21 Million
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $44.21 Million
“In fact the top 10 percent of earners have been paying roughly 70 percent of the taxes. The bottom 50 percent pay about 3 percent of the tax load.”
Complete and utter “hog wash”, just saying!
The top 10% own 80% of the wealth, they should be paying 80% of the taxes. I can find absolutely NO confirmation of your 70% figure. The highest figure I can find for tax rates for the VERY VERY wealthy is 35%. That is the top rate right now.
You are wrong. We tax income and not wealth in this country. Wealth is what a person has after taxation. You also did not pay attention to the previous comment. The top 10% of earners in this country pay 70% of all income taxes paid.
Here is a reference for you.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
The post I replied to said “70 percent of the taxes.” it said NOTHING about income tax. You folks have it wrong, not I.
By the way we DO tax wealth (property) in the USA. So why do you not pay attention.
Other than property tax on real estate we do not tax wealth.
I know cause I haven’t had to file on the contents of the safety deposit box.
You are grasping at straws. Not one of my bank accounts has ever been taxed. This discussion is about income taxes. As for property taxes, the wealthy pay far more in property taxes than the lower income earners,
No, the wealthy who itemize their taxes get to deduct property tax from both State and Federal income. PLUS the wealthy can move their money off and on shore as is in their financial interest.
You are right about bank accounts not being taxed Federally (although some States do) Stocks and bonds are not taxed as property either, BUT residential real estate is. So for the average man, the one for whom his home is his largest investment, he pays a tax that wealthy folks avoid.
Funny how those laws work.
Everybody who itemizes is allowed to deduct property taxes. Try again.
You’re right, the top 1% earners’ tax burden now exceeds that of the bottom 95%.
The bottom 50% pay 2.25% Look it up.
Under Clinton the top 1% contributed only 33.89%
Under W. it ROSE to 40.42%
Under Obama it is back down to 36.73%
Interesting. The top 1% paid more under Bush than either of the Democratic presidents. And the bottom 50% paid less under Bush than under Clinton.
Really? Those are accurate numbers.
You are FOS Regressive taxes (sales, property, payroll, excise, telephone, gas and many more) are paid by the people you refer to as the Bottom 50%
ALSO the top ten percent use a very high level of government services compared to the average business commuter. When was the last time you used a federal port, or the services of the air traffic control board? When was the last time the government mobilized forces to protect your off-shore interests, and Does the diplomatic corps consider what is good for your bottom line before writing policy?
Want to know what would be REALLY fair? If Bill gates had to pay the same percentage of his income (when he gets a speeding ticket) as I pay of mine. That would make each of his speeding tickets about 1.7 million dollars.
Also the top 10% may be assessed at 70% but do they actually pay that rate? After their tax attorneys get done, I doubt that they are really forking over that much.
General Electric paid ZERO US income tax again this year. ExxonMobil paid ZERO income tax in the USA last year.
That is stimulus money, at least in part. GE green energy credits.
Not actually Cheesecake. They (as international Companies) get to choose where they pay income tax. Exxon Mobil chose Liberia, and G.E. chose the Grand Caymans.
Not true Harry. You are making a few things up.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/09/15/ge-extend-clean-energy-tax-credits-or-well-go-to-germany-china/
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/01/20/cree-dow-ge-get-millions-tax-credits-cleantech-green-building-products
http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/want-know-how-ge-paid-0-income-taxes-think-green
GE is a leading investor in solar, wind, and greenhouse gas permits. I don’t know how many tax credits it gets for these “green investments,” but they go part of the way to explaining why GE is paying zero federal income tax for last year.
So if liberals like Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold are upset that GE isn’t paying enough taxes, maybe its time to end all these tax credits.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/want-know-how-ge-paid-0-income-taxes-think-green#ixzz1sLrL6Gd6
Gee, thanks Ms. Rubin. No one in the middle or on the left never had a clue where you stand. Thanks as well for keeping those of us who ignore Faux News up to speed. What a spin around the block that was!
What particular point do you object to?
Typical crap. “Whats 2+2?”
“well the question is blah blah blah”
Want to help the debt? Fine these jackasses everytime they refuse to answer a straight fwd question.
We should tax the wealthy, im sure it will turn out well.
I know I will encourage my son to go to 8 years of school, so he can get taxed to death. Strange how incentive encourages innovation
The rich paying a 15% rate is not the same as me paying a 30% rate. The Koch brothers and Romney can afford to pay the same rate I do, and they should kiss the Flag of the country that made it possible while writing their checks.
When you consider that the “rich” already paid an incremental 35% rate on the income that earned the capital gain tax you are referring to, you are not even close to paying as much as they do. Aside from that, you are not paying 30% on your income.
They pay an effective tax rate on earned income of 35% and then get their write offs, so no problem. They earn millions from investments and pay 15% and then get further write offs on those…….Problem. The so called 35% becomes a 10% or even a negative income rate for corporations where you and I pay them to make a profit. Learn your topic from facts, not Fox.
You do not know what you are talking about. Nobody pays an effective tax rate of 35%. You also have no idea what you are talking about regarding “writeoffs”. Deductions are taken before calculating net income taxes. Tax rates are tiered based on income levels. Learn from a pro like myself, literally.
Tell me more about that 30% rate you are paying.
Remind me not to have you do my taxes. I see you avoided the corporate tax rate. You also avoided the topic of comparative EFFECTIVE tax rates. I don’t care how they earned it, it is income. My pension, my Social Security, is taxable at a rate above 15% and I “already paid taxes” on that money.
Go ahead and keep defending those who are laughing at you.
“Learn from a pro like myself, literally.”
My jaw about hit the floor when I read that bit. I thought to myself: that was about the most arrogant or the most ignorant statement I have read all day, and that included the commentary of Ms. Rubin. After thinking a minute I realized it was both. The last group of conservative creative accountants that took us over the cliff, whom we are still bailing out, considered themselves “pros” as well.
Never the less no one pays an effective tax rate of 35%. The most generous way I can put it is that the poster is misinformed.
Poster would have to have no deductions at all and $85k in taxable income to have paid an effective tax rate above 15%. Much higher than that if he took any deductions at all.
If he earned under 34K it is likely he paid zero income tax.. according to IRS stats.
Where on earth do you get your numbers from, may I ask ?
Even if the rich pay more the debt will still continue to increase.
So Axelrod wants to get us off of the road we are on? Well Dave your boss is the one who has had us on this road for 3 years now. You didnt “inherit” this road you and Barry chose it. So how about you finally get to work doing something to fix the “road we are on” and stop talking about it.
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/04/17/fox-news-wins-pulitzer-for-fiction/
Fox News wins Pulitzer prize for fiction
deleted