Brenda

6:26PM 6:26PM Apr 19th 2009

Does anyone still watch MSNBC???? I thought Americans finally grew smarter than that!!
Although I have had a few chuckes of that Chris Matthews tingle down the leg thing...lol

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

Allie

6:23PM 6:23PM Apr 19th 2009

I'm sure this "actress" who ever she is, makes far more money than I
do, and lives in a much bigger house. I paid almost $20,000 in taxes
last year... imagine what I could have done with that money. I could
have given to the charity of my choice, I could have adopted a child,
or I could have paid off a few bills.. my money, I earned it, I should
be able to do what I want with it. But the government took it and did
what they wanted with it, some of those things were killing babies
(abortion), giving out welfare checks to people who are probably
making more money under the table than I make all year, supporting
drug addicts on social security disability for a self inflicted
wound... AND then not testing them for drugs. Mad? you betcha!!!

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

doc

6:59PM 6:59PM Apr 19th 2009

janeane garofalo? who the hell is she? some no-body that was in some stupid television show once? and as for your assessment of the contents of my crainial cavity, i reply in words you can understand "shut the f*ck up, bitch"

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

doc

7:02PM 7:02PM Apr 19th 2009

how much to you get paid by the DNC to post bullshit?

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

gazoo

9:23PM 9:23PM Apr 19th 2009

Unfortunately from what i saw as i drove past the demonstration in my town, she is right on! Also not a darky in the crowd and there are plenty here! Guess they were too busy riding around with their stereos blaring at 900,000 decibels beating up their girlfriends! Anyway, where were the protesters when the bush administration was pouring billions of dollars a month of our TAX money into the iraq war? A war that was waged based on lies, misinformation, and the manipulation of easily manipulated chicken chit, skerd of their own shadows americans! Its just like the neocons to be a day late and a dollar short! Were you busy raping your children cuz the bible says its okay? Frequenting prostitutes as your way of stimulating the economy? Trying to pick up men in bathroom stalls? Busy at a Klan meeting????? Where were you when this country really needed you????? You know im not one for that nostradamus crap but a part of me hopes that it does come to fruition! To think that on 12/21/12 the world will end is actually kind of exciting!

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

BELLCORD

9:37PM 9:37PM Apr 19th 2009

GOSH, IF IT'ED BEEN ANN COULTER SPEWING CRAP YOU COULDN'T HIT THE FLOOR FAST ENOUGH TO LAP IT UP...

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

escort6768

9:51PM 9:51PM Apr 19th 2009

If tea protesters are racist, what do you call a State Rep. (assistant majority whip) who, while in the middle of a heated discussion with another State Rep who happened to be African American, used the "n" word? Does the fact that he is a Democrate make it OK?

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

General

10:27PM 10:27PM Apr 19th 2009

Janeane Garofalo must really get around, to have interviewed each and every teabag protester to determine their ethnic and educational backgrounds. Guess what, Miss Garofalo? My friends and I were at a recent tea party rally, and we are made up of blacks and whites. Who are you to tell us that we're rednecks for wanting the government off our backs and out of our lives? You should learn more about us, before you judge us. www.thirdpositionjustice.net

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

TKBELL97

12:12AM 12:12AM Apr 20th 2009

FORGIVE THE LARGE LETTERS, I CAN BARELY SEE. NOW I MEANT TO SEEK AND ANSWER OUT HERE IN THE COMMENT SECTION REGARDING GOVERNOR RICK PERRY FROM TEXAS AND HIS IDEA THAT TEXAS SHOULD " LEAVE THE UNION "".

WELL OKEY OKEY. HOW CAN TEXAS LEAVE THE REPUBLIC OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN WHEN TEXAS IS STILL A REPUBLIC.

GOODNESS ONLY BUSH CHENEY AND THEIR FOLLOWING CAN MAKE ANY SENSE OUT OF THIS.

MUFFIN

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

Ron M.

1:33AM 1:33AM Apr 20th 2009

(:> , Is her name really Janeane Garofolo?
/:) , Is whose name really Janeane Garofolo?

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

shakesome

2:22AM 2:22AM Apr 20th 2009

Quote: Begala went on to a call tea partiers "Wimpy, whining weasels" who "don't love their country." APPARENTLY THIS MORON DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COUNTRY AND A GOVERNMENT. I LOVE MY COUNTRY BUT I FEAR MY GOVERNMENT (AS THE FOUNDERS DID, AND INTENDED FOR US TO DO). THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THESE MORONS HATE THEIR COUNTRY (I.E., THE VALUES AND SPIRIT OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE POWER THAT GUIDED THE FORMATION OF THE ONE COUNTRY 'UNDER GOD') BUT LOVE THEIR GOVERNMENT. THEY LOVE, LOVE IT, LOVE... AND THE BIGGER IT IS THE MORE THEY LOVE IT. IF YOU LOVE PAYING TAXES, YOU'RE NOT PATRIOTIC, BECAUSE YOU LOVE THE THING THAT'S KILLING YOUR COUNTRY.

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

Jose

2:34AM 2:34AM Apr 20th 2009

I am a Dem but cant stand her. She saids stupid things. I think the people at those tea parties should look into suing her because she called them all racists.

I disagree with them completely but racist they arent its just a different political ideology which in last 8 yrs under Bush has been a failure.

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

Cory

2:51AM 2:51AM Apr 20th 2009

Timothy,

You're nothing but a blowhard huckster. "If you don't pay any Federal Income Tax (and many low-paid workers don't) then your share is ZERO."? Nope...wrong. Anyone who works pays federal income tax no matter how "low-paid" they are. Unless, that is, they're working "under the table". You'd have to be an extraordinarily low-paid worker in order to NOT pay a federal income tax and, last time I checked, minimum wage was at least approximately $6.55 per hour which, I believe, is taxed. If you're making less than $6.55 per hour, you're probably a migrant worker working off the books or, a worker who receives tips, of which, are considered income and are taxable. Give me the name of anyone you know who gets paid such a low wage (on the books) that they don't pay federal income taxes...I challenge you.

"THAT PART OF THE ECONOMY THAT IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. The Reagan and Bush administrations (both Bushes) saw the size of that debt rise, relative to the size of the economy. The preceeding administrations had all seen a steady decrease in that important factor, but GOP tax cuts enriched the wealthy by passing on more debt to [']our grandchildren['] for the first time since the Second World War."

What part of the economy is it you consider subject to federal income taxes? And, prove your BS that the "Reagan and Bush administrations (both Bushes) saw the size of that debt rise, relative to the size of the economy. The preceeding administrations had all seen a steady decrease in that important factor". During both Clinton's and Bush's administrations, average yearly spending, national debt and GDP all grew pretty much proportionately to each other. And, each year's average spending, debt and GDP had risen pretty much proportionately to each other since at least Carter. It's easily charted. So, I'd like to see you demonstrate with some factual statistics here that can add some credibility to your statements.

Further, this statement "but GOP tax cuts enriched the wealthy by passing on more debt to [']our grandchildren['] for the first time since the Second World War" is the phoniest most theatrical statement I've seen in my life. EVERY year since at least Gerald Ford, "more debt was being passed on to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War". Considering debt was as follows between 1941 and 1945, during World War II; 1941: $49 billion, 1942: $72 billion, 1943: $137 billion, 1944: $201 billion and, 1945: $259 billion, average yearly debt since 1977 was as follows: 1977: $629 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1978: $706 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1979: $776 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1980: $829 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1981: $909 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1982: $994 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1983: $1,137 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1984: $1,371 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1985: $1,564 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1986: $1,817 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1987: $2,120 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War."); 1988: $2,345 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1989: $2,601 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1990: $2,867 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1991: $3,206 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1992: $3,598 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1993: $4,001 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1994: $4,351 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1995: $4,643 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War."); 1996: $4,920 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1997: $5,181 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1998: $5,369 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 1999: $5,478 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2000: $5,605 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2001: $5,628 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2002: $5,769 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2003: $6,198 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2004: $6,760 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2005: $7,354 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2006: $7,905 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2007: $8,451 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"); 2008: $8,951 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War") and, 2009: estimated $9,654 billion ("more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War"). So, in no year since at least Ford was the debt "less" than it had been since World War II. It sounds pretty dramatic and scary when you say "passing on more debt to [']our grandchildren['] for the first time since the Second World War" until one understands that EVERY year's debt "pass[ed] on more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War." And, considering it's unlikely prices will go down significantly during oBOWma's tenure? For every year he's president, I suspect, oBOWma is going to be "passing on more debt to 'our grandchildren' for the first time since the Second World War."

With respect to your third line of thought? First, it isn't only the wealthy who take advantage of tax loopholes in order to get out of paying as much in taxes as they normally would otherwise, without such loopholes. Most anybody who pays taxes takes advantage of such loopholes. In fact, how much advantage did YOU take in those loopholes...hypocrite? Further, the rich generally have a tendency to donate to charities, encourage and finance research and development, start businesses and provide jobs, etc., etc., etc. While, on the other hand, your normal average everyday worker generally does not. Further, what makes you think rich folks' money is yours? And, got any proof they don't pay their fair share in Social Security (FICA) taxes? Since I'm sure many of them are at least smart enough to understand that they themselves might at some point in their lives be dependent upon their Social Security? I suspect they make quite sure they pay their Social Security taxes. See, the thing is, you want the "rich" to pay all their taxes with no benefit of loopholes or write-offs AND spend their money to create businesses and jobs AND spend their money to encourage research and development AND donate to charity AND pay for all the lefts' entitlement programs whether the rich agree with it, or not. And, before you tell me the rich aren't donating to charities and, the rich aren't creating businesses and providing jobs and, spending money to encourage research and development? Well now, it CERTAINLY isn't the poor doing so, now is it? When you say, for example, the rich aren't donating to charities? I don't want you to just merely utter the words...because, I'm just going to find that doesn't mean squat too me. I want you to add some legitimate credibility to your BS...K?

See, here's my line of thought. If I make a minumum wage of say, $6.55 per hour and, work 6 to 8 hours a week and, pay perhaps $10, $20 or maybe even $50 per month to some particlar given ONE charity but don't, however, spend my money to create business and/or jobs nor, spend my money to finance and encourage research and development, such as research into cleaner alternative fuels, etc.? Then, I'm going to be of the mindset that I'm going to be expected to pay a little more in taxes than others who might have more money than I do, of whom, DO endeavor in those activities I describe above. But, of course, when I DO pay my taxes? Naturally, like most anyone else, I'm going to take advantage of any and every legal tax loophole I possibly can, in order to keep from paying as much in taxes as I normally would without the advantage of such tax loopholes and write-offs.

Now, if we want to get technical about this? In fact, a rich person who owns a business or several businesses and employees a given number of individuals? Well now, everytime his or her workers are taxed...HE/SHE'S taxed...since, that money of which he/she is paying to pay his/her employees was originally HIS/HER money, in the first place...isn't it now? I could go on and on forever but, I hope you get my point.

And, lastly, make no mistake about it. We ALL pay a federal tax, no matter how "low-paid" we are. We don't even have to be working, in order to pay a federal tax. If you buy gas, if you buy a pack of cigarettes, if you buy booze, if you buy chewing tobacco, if you buy most anything else, a portion of that money goes toward a federal tax. My federal taxes just went up, when oBOWma raised cigarette taxes. And, I suspect, they'll go up even yet again, when oBOWma certainly will raise federal gas taxes.

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

Cecil Jones

2:58AM 2:58AM Apr 20th 2009

How many times do I remember standing outside the White House sharing the opposition message to President Clinton and President Bush being called "Crazy, Un-American, or a Hater?" It's no party or any picnic to be forced to walk alone and hated for having the courage to support and defend the Constitution. I saw it as "Doing My Duty" and getting dootied on. With 8 years of Clinton cheating, lies, media manipulation and corruption along with 8 more years from President Bush; now the Conservatives understand? Didn't it take them forever to "Get it?" President Clinton violated some young thing in the White House Oval Office and lied when he didn't have to. Everyone falls short of the goal of perfection and impeachment would have gone away with a "He who is without sin cast the first stone." President Bush would have made a stronger case for "Missile Defense" if he hadn't called his election a "Mandate" and started swatting every domestic fly he could stir up. Stop crapping and the flies aren't attracted to the White House. MSNBC has found the courage to stand in opposition to the Bush administration, but they are still hypocrites unable to be critical of Clinton and now President Obama. The GOP are hypocrites and racists because they only stand in opposition to President Obama. Where was America when Clinton failed? You lose all credibility based on what you did as history was made. Giving Clinton a pass makes the GOP look racist now. Remember, the GOP did not take credit for Clinton's impeachment. How could they Newt was guilty of the same crime of vanity and ego. Both thought they were above the law and Obama got elected by a growing angry American electorate demanding accountability and change. What divides us and breaks us into mudslinging camps is the hypocrisy. Not holding Clinton accountable, or President Bush make the entire political world look silly or angry taking out their frustrations on Obama. The only way to be credible is to review your actions for the past 20 years. God is great!

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

wwwelling

3:36AM 3:36AM Apr 20th 2009

Jeaneen Garafalo is a liar. Plain and simple. She is a marxist bomb thrower and a liar. She alleges that the tea parties were about ONE thing and one thing only. Obama's race. That statement is obviously false, and it just shows that she is the quintessential marxist hack because the oldest trick in the marxist playbook is to label people racists rather than deal with what they are actually saying. I bet she spent time in Moscow and studied under Putin.

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

Cory

4:07AM 4:07AM Apr 20th 2009

For all the pathetic disingenous leftists alleging Bush's tax cuts favored only the rich.

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)
Did The Bush Tax Cuts Favor The Wealthy
January 21, 2008

"As Congress debates whether to renew tax cuts enacted early in the George W. Bush presidency, as well as various economic stimulus plans, critics often label the measures as [']tax cuts for the rich.['] Yet a new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive, no matter how progressivity is measured. In fact, the report concludes that every major tax change (Republican or Democrat) over the past two decades has increased the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans.

[']It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy,['] said Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report. [']The accusation does not match the reality.[']

The progressivity of the tax system can be measured in four ways: (1) the share of taxes paid by different income groups, (2) the share of income paid in taxes, (3) the change in taxes relative to the change in income over time, and (4) a comparison of inequality of income to the inequality of taxes over time.

Looking at the first three measures, the report found that:

* The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.

* During the same period, the percentage of income the top 1 percent of tax filers paid in federal income taxes rose from 18.3 percent to 19.6 percent. By contrast, the percentage of income the bottom fifth of tax filers paid in federal income taxes dropped from 0.4 percent to zero.

* The income share of the top 1 percent rose 7.7 percentage points, from 11.3 percent to 19 percent, while their income tax burden rose even more, by 11 percentage points, from 26 percent to 37 percent.

The final measure compares the inequality of income to the inequality of taxes paid over time among all income groups. This measure is the [']progressivity index,['] and is a numerical representation between 0 and 1. The closer the index value is to 1, the more progressive the tax system. For example:

* From 1990 to 2000, the progressivity index increased from 0.476 to 0.617, during a period where marginal tax rates increased but capital gains tax rates fell.

* From 2001 to 2004, under George W. Bush's tax reforms, the tax progressivity index continued to rise from 0.608 to 0.664.

[']Its(sic) important when discussing tax reforms to consider how the system reacts, because of the great discretion high earners have in how they earn income and therefore pay taxes,['] said Stroup. [']Bush's reforms have helped diminish the income gap between rich and poor, rather than make it worse.[']"

Copyright © 2009 National Center for Policy Analysis. All rights reserved

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

Greg

5:19AM 5:19AM Apr 20th 2009

you are right these two don't have the stability of Glen Beck and his well reasoned nonparanoid rants!

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!

jim

7:48AM 7:48AM Apr 20th 2009

chairman obama is

Rating :    Reply to this commentReport!