25 thoughts on “Maria Bartiromo”

  1. Obama was elected on that political platform. Are you expecting him to pull back? On his 2nd term to boot? He will just roll back the Bush tax cuts on the higher brackets and leave the rest as is pending the next election for Congress. At least that’s what I would do.

    1. I think Republicans should do that and when raising taxes on the rich people doesn’t magically solve the problems with our economy, point and laugh. Let it burn.

      This fiscal cliff nonsense is a farce. Obama is arguing for net increases in spending and Republicans are not even proposing cuts that would half our deficit. We’re f’d.

      1. Well, I don’t know.

        The deal with the Bush tax cuts is that the reduced tax rates “on the rich” are what are suppose to have the Supply Side effect of unleashing the powers of wealth creation — for everybody. You know, the “discredited trickle down theory.” The tax cuts for peons like us was “the bribe” to get the legislation through Congress.

        The other thing, if y’all read your Milton Friedman, is that government interventions in the economy have long and variable time lags. So the “Bush” tax cuts are discredited “because they don’t work” until the effects of those tax cuts finally kick in (years later), and then we repeal those tax cuts and go “See! See! Raising taxes on the wealthy brings about Prosperity!” It will be another long time lag for that to bring about another economic crunch, and by that time another Republican will get elected and shoulder the blame.

        But there is this other thing, “Starve the Beast.” Remember just a short time ago, the Democrats (cough, Speaker Pelosi, cough), were clamoring that the Bush Tax Cuts were starving the gummint of revenue (as in tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect) and that ev-er-y-bo-dy’s taxes need to go up. Now they want everbody’s (except the Rich) to stay low.

        Now the Conservatives/Libertarians/TEA Party people are all saying that every dollar in raised revenue is going to be spent — and then some.

        How about that the House Republicans simply agree to the President’s “deal.” That is, only let taxes rise on people above 400 K with all of the vague promises of “spending cuts.” I mean, people, give up on this idea of negotiating some Grand Bargain on Entitlements because this President . . . is . . . not . . . gonna . . . do-it . . . not . . . gonna!

        And the President “owns” the economic effects, if any, perceived or otherwise?

        I mean, what is our side going to do? “Oh, no-se, the Republicans were stiff-armed into raising taxes, I am going to vote for a liberal Democrat in 2014!” Are our people as stoopid as we project/attribute/blame the general electorate to be?

        I heard from WaPo or someplace that the Democrats are clamoring to make the peon tax rates permanent? I mean that is where the “heavy lifting” of supplying tax revenue takes place anyway. Permanent, you say? Well, don’t be thinking of throwing me in that briar patch, over there!

        Starve the beast . . .

        2. Now the Conservatives/Libertarians/TEA Party people are all saying that every dollar in raised revenue is going to be spent — and then some.

          Which is probably quite accurate especially in this day and age.

          I mean, what is our side going to do? “Oh, no-se, the Republicans were stiff-armed into raising taxes, I am going to vote for a liberal Democrat in 2014!” Are our people as stoopid as we project/attribute/blame the general electorate to be?

          Vote libertarian or not vote at all. And a lot of those Republicans will face serious primary challenges, I bet.

          And the President “owns” the economic effects, if any, perceived or otherwise?

          It hasn’t worked that way in practice. It’s always somebody else’s fault. My bet is that the rich will be blamed for not participating or even actively sabotaging the Glorious Leader’s economic plan. You know typical Emanuel Goldstein stuff.

          1. If history is any guide, for every dollar of increased revenue, they’ll spend at least $1.40.

            It was like when the Cold War ended and various congressional factions wanted to spend the “peace dividend.” In the end, it went something like:

            50% went to rebuild the cities
            50% went to reduce the debt
            50% went to farm assistance
            50% went to improve infrastructure
            …

    2. Godzilla, I recognize that he was elected on a soak-the-rich platform, but he was also elected on a “we’ll break Washington gridlock” platform.

      1. In 2008. In 2012 his pitch was that the GOP “fever” would break if he won, and then he’d be able to work with them. Judging by the Plan B vote, the fever hasn’t broken.

        1. He hasn’t tried to work with anyone. Pounding his chest yelling, “I won!” isn’t cooperation or compromise.

          Obama is pissing on everyone and yelling at them to say thank you.

    1. She’s also worth $22M ken, so her ox is about to be gored from snout to tail. Honestly, I’m surprised more of the talking heads don’t speak up. It’s not like getting one of those lead jobs is a quick, easy thing, nor is it a minimum wage gig.

      1. The top rate increases that the Dems are insisting on only affect 1-2% of the population, but virtually every talking head on TV is in that category. No wonder Bartiromo and the rest are more outraged by increases to the top tax rate than, say, Social Security benefit cuts.

        1. Jim,
          are you EFFING kidding ME?!

          Some of the (R)’s are offering up ANYONE making over $250K. And if they offer them up, the WH / Senate will go even deeper.

          Do you ever pay attention AFTER “X” story leaves the current events? When, oh when, have the (D)’s ever pushed for the MAX, then gone deeper when the (R)’s fold like a cheap suit?

          As I said, you’d think these people were in line for some kind of waiver like the ones doled out for Obamacare.

        2. Most of those talking head votes d for Obama and act as his propaganda wing. We need a special tax for journolists, movie stars, and athletes. Give them what.they voted for.

  3. She very well might be Bookered.

    It will be interesting to see if the MSM are able to rub two synapses together and recognize a little reality

  4. Because nothing says real journalism like an explicit link between you and your employer, such as “The Wall Street Journal Report with Maria Bartiromo”. And real journalists may criticize their employers’ opponents, but only by coincidence.

      2. I was misled by the WSJ branding of her show. She does seem to tilting towards the Republicans, who have failed to produce any proposed legislation on reducing or capping deductions and tax preferences.

  5. I don’t understand why the House Republicans don’t take Levin’s ( and others) advice and simply pass a bill that makes the Bush tax cuts for the middle class permanent.

    And then sit back and say ok your move guys. You CLAIM you are for the middle class – prove it.

    Don’t want to vote for this bill? Then you can live with the consequences.

    1. Boehner tried an even milder version of that — his “Plan B” bill, which extended the Bush tax cuts for income up to $1M — and couldn’t get his caucus to support it. The House GOP would rather let rates go up for everyone than agree to a rate hike for people earning more than $1M/year.

      1. Well, Jim, you ignorant slut, that’s because we already know that those tax increases on “the rich” that you so desperately want won’t even make a dent in the deficit. So do explain, again, why we should make the tax structure even more deeply progressive than it already is.

      2. Thanks to Obamacare the tax rates on everyone are already at Clintonian levels.

        But more importantly, Jim, is that you STILL fail to see the words as they are written down:

        I said “permanent”. Not “extended”.

        Boehner never tried that. Nor came close to it.

      3. The House GOP would rather let rates go up for everyone than agree to a rate hike for people earning more than $1M/year.

        As they should.

        Why should those making less be able to vote for larger programs without making their own tax cost higher?

        Otherwise, you are just seeing someone else with more money than you and saying you can use their money to fund a program to benefit you.

Comments are closed.