Charlie Gibson Sucks
Posted by Joe Rivett on 04.18.2008
The ABC debate was the worst ever. To make matters worse, Gibson doesn't understand capital gains taxes, I'll give him a lesson.
I don't like to use the phrase "ever" often but that was the worst debate EVER! Much has been made about the attacks on Obama. I won't comment on that because it is pretty self-evident that he was overly attacked. I prefer Clinton yet I felt bad for Obama. But I won't get into that because there really is no debate that he got served.
What pissed me off even more than 45 minutes of not getting into the issues was the other hour that contained issues Democrats do not care about.
I would expect Republican talking points from Sean Hannity but I didn't think Gibson would do that. Asking for a tax pledge? Democrats aren't paranoid about taxes. If they were, they would vote Republican. The worst was his misrepresentation of capital gains taxes.
Gibson made the argument that when capital gains taxes are lowered, revenues go up. This is true… for the first year. Here is how it happens. Imagine your local government is going to drop sales tax from 10 percent to 5 percent for one week, what do you think would happen? Revenues would rise. Why? To take advantage of the savings everyone will go out and buy a car and other expensive items. The same happens with capital gains taxes. When the rate is lowered, a lot of people cash in right away and sell business to make a quick buck in case the taxes get raised. In fact, it will go back to 20% in 2011 so expect revenues to be real high in 2010 and for revenues to go down in 2011 but after 2011, revenues will climb as people will be making money in the market. Charlie didn't tell you that. He also didn't tell you that if you make under 43,000 you pay no capital gains tax.
Charlie then told another ridiculous lie. He stated that raising the capital gains tax will be a tax increase on 1/3 of the American population. Many Americans own stock but that doesn't mean they trade stock. Most Americans own an IRA and don't cash in for several years. When they do cash in, they are taxed as if it were income and pay no capital gains taxes!
The Capital Gains Tax is actually a great deal for the rich. If you make 10 million dollars a year, you pay a tax of 35%. If you make 10 million in the stock market, you only pay 15%. In essence, you are getting taxed less on money you didn't work hard for unlike your regular job.
Another reason revenues skyrocketed when Clinton lowered the rate to 20% is largely due to the dotcom revolution. Revenues were increasing before the drop and after the drop they continued to climb mostly due to over-speculation in the market which later got corrected when a bunch of companies went bust in early 2001. Enron? This also means that revenues are more tied to stock market performance than a tax rate.
Don't believe me on this information? Here is a quote from the Congressional Budget Office "The cut's overall impact on the economy might be negative: its growth-promoting effects on investment demand could be insufficient to overcome either the decline in investment resources resulting from additional government borrowing or the effects of the government's need to raise taxes later to make up for the lost revenue."
When the rate was 20% in 2000, people cashed in 119 billion dollars which means the government made about 25 billion. In 2007 with the rate 15%, the government took in 122 billion which means the government made about 18 billion. That is right Charlie, revenues have declined as a result of the of the capital gains drop.
Before I finish, there are other things that pissed me off about Gibson and Step such as the second amendment. Again, Democratic voters don't give a shit about the government taking guns away. What if the military generals say a pullout is unwise is also a question that is irrelevant to Democratic voters. Generals come up with tactics but the commander in chief makes the decision on force strength.
Maybe Wolf (Leslie is his real name) Blitzer wasn't so bad after all?
WAAHHHH! Charlie rocks. BO just not used to being asked anything on the spot that isn't answered with "I'm pumped up and ready to go". BO is a baby!
Posted By: Terri (Guest) on April 18, 2008 at 08:19 AM
Please go take an Econ 101 class before expounding on a topic you do not fully understand. If you can't do that, read the Wall Street Journal and look at the data from the IRS on how many people (79%) below $100,000 income paid capital gains tax. It's not just the rich, it's lots of people.
I work pretty hard, and put in long hours of study to make money in the stock market, and I also have a regular job. Your statement that making money in the market is easy is not correct.
Posted By: Musashi (Guest) on April 18, 2008 at 08:52 AM
Charlie Gibson Sucks?
How unfair ABC got to ask all the questions on Obama no MSM willing to. Suck? The MSM are real suck!
Posted By: Substance (Guest) on April 18, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Wow, there are some scary statements in this article. "The government made about 18 billion" How did the government make this money? Don't you mean the government collected 18 billion? People and corporations made this money. All the government did was collect it. This is money that could have been reinvested into the economy by people. I trust individuals to invest and use the capital better and more efficiently than the government. You know that same people who pay $800 plus for a hammer.
You also seem to forget that most of the money was made on already taxed money. This is a form of double taxation. Why should someone have to pay taxes on money that has already been taxed? They shouldn't.
Posted By: MrMe11 (Guest) on April 18, 2008 at 07:53 PM
I don't know anything about the capital gains tax but I agree that Charlie Gibson sucks big sweaty bawls (Yes, I spelled it wrong on purpose). I hated that he interupted Obama repeatedly. When you ask somebody a question, let them get a whole sentence out before you attack them. Otherwise, you might as well be Bill O'Reilly. All he does is shout people down. He rarely has an intelligent debate with people.
And as for the other posters...
Terri is an idiota, somebody tell Musashi they don't teach the capital gain tax in Econ 101 and, Substance, the last time I checked ABC was the mainstream media.
Posted By: Pennsy Woman (Guest) on April 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM
It was a good debate because it was the first time Barack Obama's butt wasn't kissed and we had an opportunity to see how he copes with pressure.
Not very good at all. It's clear to me that he will not be able to cope with what the republicans will throw at him and I think he is a very weak candidate.
I didn't like that he lied about his relationship with Bill Ayers, they actually have a deeper history.
I didn't like that he lied about the liberal survey concerning banning handguns. His handwriting was on it. Obama wants to ban handguns.
I don't like that he lied about saying that he would never wear the flag pin. It's a lie. The videotape of him saying it is all over youtube.
He definitely did not know the issues nearly as well as Hillary Clinton.
He looked really grouchy and tired and sweaty and flustered and awful---he stammered the whole time which is how he always sounds whenever he gets asked questions. "Uh"
He also refused to answer questions. He got angry and arrogant about being questioned instead of using those tough questions as a GIFT to clear up prior misunderstanding or problems. He really blew it.
Hillary was amazing, I mean she is far more presidential than Barack Obama. She knew her stuff and she even faced the Bosnia situation and apologized.
I wish Obama would make a sincere apology. Not just a concession that something was offensive or a mistake or an excuse, or a justification, or a lie or a spin, etc.
Many Americans are already very tired of all these problems that he has brought to us.
You realize that he is hurting Americans. We've all been, even children, have been exposed to his GD America US of KKK pastor. He hurts us with his elitist words, and stereotypes "typical white person," etc. And a lot more.
Then, after the debate, the one time the media got real with him, he flipped out. He brushed off his shoulders like Big Pimpin' JAY-Z, and he stuck his middle finger up at Hillary. The crowd knew it, and he the smirk on his face showed he knew it as well.
He is unpresidential and a true shame to the democratic party.
Posted By: Katherine (Guest) on April 19, 2008 at 06:03 AM
This was an interesting article, if for nothing else, to read a socialist get upset when people criticize Democrats wanting to raise taxes.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on April 19, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Got news for ya... I make less than 40 K and I paid capital gains tax.
Posted By: Brian (Guest) on April 20, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Its all so personal this year. Is that new? I guess not, maybe I'm just too young. Why do so many Hillary-loving posters just shamelessly gush about her and hit the same tired notes about Obama every time? Why do republicans persist in calling us Dems socialists? There's no law against being socialist, we could do that instead if we felt like it. Why is the only thing anyone can think to say about Obama is that's he all talk, an argument which, as it neglects the fact that he's not currently president and so can't really act on the things he says he'll do when he gets there, seems to have what we in the profession would call "a major logical flaw." Why can't anyone think of anything new to say about either of these guys (posters. I thought Mr. Rivett's article was super, and I really don't like ol' Hillary), and is it possible that repeating it enough times will FINALLY make it true?
Also, I really don't understand why the Fed is only trying the same tactic, over and over again, putting more money in people's pockets. The dollar is worth shit. The one surefire way of making something worse LESS is producing it in greater quantities. You get a big fat wallet that's worth as much as your skinny wallet now. Or at least, that seems logical to me. Guess it's cause I'm so socialist.
SO socialist.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on April 20, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Mr. Tobolowsky there is nothing wrong with socialism per say, but as an economic system it fails miserably. Most thriving economies are capitalistic or a mixed economy. Very few are socialistic. China started to thrive once they allowed more capitalistic policies.
You are correct in pointing out how the Fed is screwing us. The more money the Fed pumps into the economy the higher inflation will be. They need to let the economy have a recession and weed out the weaker businesses. Look at what happened in the airline industry. When one fails, another company is there to pick up their business. In the end, the consumer is better off. If the government kept bailing out the airline industry there would be no AirTran, SouthWest, or JetBlue. Businesses had to fail so these companies could move in.
Yes, recessions are hard on people. Yes, it causes pain and suffering on individuals, but that is life. Once a recession is over and the economy picks back up it will be stronger. Look at the historic data. Sadly, recessions are unavoidable.
If you think politics are bad now, read about how bad it was in the 1800’s. Back then it was brutal.
Posted By: MrMe11 (Guest) on April 20, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Yeah, I'm not a socialist, it just seems to never fail that anytime a liberal writes a column on here, he gets called a socialist. Or something worse. I'm sayin' we could be Socialists if we wanted, but actually we've decided to be Dems. Also, why appreciate your commnets, why assume I haven't read what you've read? Every century has done that much better than the last of course, but I think I'd still like to see more...
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on April 21, 2008 at 04:40 AM
STAY CURRENT