Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Categories: '

(55) Comments - Add Yours!

1. BevAG

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM

   After I wrote my post I read Cathy’s post about the union in retail, private sector. Since I only worked in government and owned a small business, I didn’t have the same experience that Cathy has had with the union in the private sector.

   So with what Cathy said, that the union really didn’t get them great pay or anything else worthy of paying union dues, then I’d say people should have a choice whether they want to join a union or not. If the union benefits them in some way, they’ll choose to join. If it doesn’t, they’ll keep their dues in their own pocket and spend it the way they choose.

2. Mark

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM

   @Bev
   ——————————
   When you tax the rich, they then have less incentive to create more jobs. Most rich know it’s beneficial to create jobs. They want to increase their portfolios. There will always be some that aren’t interested, but at least they’ll be spending. They’ll increase their portfolios in other ways than the obvious creation of jobs.

   Since the rich have extra disposable income, they can spend a lot of money. They create jobs in other ways than the obvious opening a business to create jobs.
   ———————————
   I think you can make this argument for somebody making under a million(and probably even less then that) but once you get to a certain amount any tax break you get probably will end up in a bank account in the Cayman islands

   Giving somebody making millions a tax break won’t do anything to help the economy basically. This whole idea of rich people being job creators is a joke, every single customer who buys stuff are the job creators, basically you want to get as much money as possible in the hands of people who will spend the cash as opposed to invest it. Put it this way giving 1000 homeless people 100 each(ie 100k) would do more for the economy then giving a person making millions 100k, since the homeless people would at least spend it

3. Ralph Hahn

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM

   @Michael” >>> You can always count on 1nancy2 to show how ignorant she really is. Next to Jeff and Mark2 1nancy2 takes the prize as who is more ignorant… <<<

   Sorry, Michael, I don't buy it. NO TWO PEOPLE are more ignorant than Jeffie and Mark2. Just can't be! Rachel Maddow is their god.

4. Sunshine

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM

   @Raz

   Looks like things are falling back into pre-election numbers. As much as people do not like sore losers, they dislike ingracous winners even more, which MSNBC certain was and is.

   —————-

   And that’s exactly why I quit posting.

5. BevAG

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM

   Mark:

   If a rich person wants to put their money in the Cayman Islands, that’s their right. No one should tell you how to spend your money or me.

   I couldn’t care less if a rich person put every red cent they own in the Cayman Islands. (That’s not really a smart investment move, but that’s certainly their choice).

   Now, if we’re a Socialist country and the government determines who makes how much money and the government then tells you how you can spend it, well, then rich people won’t be able to put their money in the Cayman Islands unless the government says it’s okay. Thank goodness we’re still a Capitalist country and we can spend our money or invest how we see fit.

6. 1966

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM

   hi sunshine!!!

7. Sunshine

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM

   Hiya 1966 !!!

8. BevAG

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM

   Mark, thinkprogress is a Left Think Tank. I wouldn’t believe anything they said without looking at other sources as well just like I wouldn’t with a th Right Think Tank either. Everything one reads in those sources one should back up with other sources.

   Left and Right Think Tanks will always manipulate statistics and numbers to benefit their argument. It doesn’t make them liars. You just never take them at face value. You need to look deeper into those numbers and see if they left out other sources of information because if they used a certain source that would have changed the outcome.

   Left and Right Think Tanks have agendas.

9. Matthew

   Posted December 7, 2012 at 1:10 PM

   When you tax the rich, they then have less incentive to create more jobs. Most rich know it’s beneficial to create jobs. They want to increase their portfolios. There will always be some that aren’t interested, but at least they’ll be spending. They’ll increase their portfolios in other ways than the obvious creation of jobs.

   Since the rich have extra disposable income, they can spend a lot of money. They create jobs in other ways than the obvious opening a business to create jobs.

   For this argument to be sensible, it requires that one buy into a large number of macroeconomic fallacies. Let’s start with the most obvious though:

   Hiring, especially domestic hiring, is an inherently inefficient action. It comes with all kinds of unpredictable costs, risks, and general hassle. If you can, you always either squeeze more efficiency out of your current labor force, look to technology, or look overseas. Domestic hiring is an act of last resort, something you do when there is literally no better method for meeting demand.

   Second, above the S-Corp level, there is very little statistical relationship between taxation of personal income and hiring; this is an argument that would make a lot more sense if we were talking about a huge corporate tax hike, but we’re not, we’re talking about a 4.5% increase on the upper bracket. The junior executives at Such and Such Corporation aren’t hiring workers with their freaking salary.

   And, again, this argument only barely makes sense at the S-Corp level. Let’s get real about what this tax increase means: for a person making $300,000, a return to the old top rate for income in excess of $250,000 means they’ll have $2250 in additional taxes. $2,250 isn’t chump change, but it’s also not preventing someone from hiring; if the demand is there, they will hire.

   Finally, the argument of the rich being significant drivers of demand is contingent upon the idea that most of the wealthy live like rock stars or Lohans. They most certainly do not, especially those who are self-made millionaires. Many people attain such status because they are not frivolous with their money, thus leading to a higher propensity-to-save at upper income brackets.

   As a general rule, 100 people making $40,000 a year will tend to put less of their money into savings than one person making $4 million a year. It is for this reason that top-heavy tax cut plans produce poor fiscal multipliers, relative to many other types of stimulus.

   Sorry, but a return to 90s tax rates isn’t going to be the death of American enterprise, and if you’re afraid it will be, maybe you should consider the possibility that this is not a good time to be promoting austerity.

10. BevAG

    Posted December 7, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    Matt:

    Even if a rich person is a miser, like Buffet is, he still has cars to buy, office buildings. He employs people. If nothing else, people pay him to speak, thereby another business in itself. He is an industry in himself.

    Even if a rich person is not spending like a “rock star,” his meager lifestyle is still an industry.

    The only way a rich person is not an industry is if he’s putting his money under the mattress and he’s not purchasing anything. In that particular case, the government isn’t even going to know about his money to even tax it any level.

    But for the most part, most rich people are spenders. And I am all for wanting them to spend. I am happy supplying them with all their needs. I make money anytime the rich “need” something and many of us do.

11. Matthew

    Posted December 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM

    Spending is relative, which is why propensity-to-save matters. Obviously, a billionaire is spends more as an INDIVIDUAL than another INDIVIDUAL who is making only $25,000, but whom, on average, consumes or invests with a greater proportion of their income? A lot of rich people are in engaging in the wealthy equivalent of ‘putting your money’ under the mattress. Some goes to investment, some goes to consumption, but a lot also goes where it will be ‘safe.’ This is important to understand when we’re talking about reducing deficits, because not all tax cuts are created equal.

    We have several decades of macroeconomic data, all showing little-to-no correlation between GDP growth, unemployment, and the top marginal rates. There is no data that displays significant stimulatory effect from cutting top rates, so why should raising them result in the next depression? It’s just not supported by existing data.

    If we’re going to operate under the premise that the debt should be our top priority (which is not a notion I accept, but whatever), then raising top rates is one of the LEAST damaging things we can do, because those top cuts have such poor multipliers to begin with. Anything we do to reduce the deficit is going to slow and hurt the economy, so it’s best to target the spending and tax cuts which are of least macroeconomic value.

12. Lance

    Posted December 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM

    Rachel being off Wed. & Thurs. is hurting MSNBC’s primetime lineup almost as much as it hurts FNC when O’Reilly takes the night off.

13. Ratboy

    Posted December 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM

    Hi Everybody!! Hi Sunshine, I have missed ya!!
    I just spent the entire day at the board of Realtors and trying to catch up!

14. Debsafan

    Posted December 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

    I see where MSNBC is back in the hole where they belong.

15. cathy

    Posted December 7, 2012 at 6:03 PM

    I keep posting links to prove my numbers about how staten island voted but the posts keep disappearing. So, let me ask this. Google Staten Island 2008 election results and Staten Island 2012 election results and you will see that my numbers are correct.