Homophobe Alan Simpson: Smears Rachel Maddow as a ‘That’

November 26, 2010


Comments

5 Responses to “Homophobe Alan Simpson: Smears Rachel Maddow as a ‘That’”

  1. john on November 26th, 2010 1:52 pm

    I’m not so sure this rises to the level of homophobia. Simpson is enough of a jerk that there is no need to make up stuff about him. He’s mostly just a heartless conservative who, somehow, became very rich while working for the U.S. and now doesn’t understand why everyone else hasn’t gotten rich too.

    For a better critique of Simpson see today’s NYT’s Krugman column.

  2. hsr0601 on November 26th, 2010 3:23 pm

    1. “Extending all the Bush tax cuts through 2020 would add more than $4 trillion to the debt—coincidentally, about the same amount that the chairmen’s [Simpson-Bowles] ‘painful options’ are designed to cut in the same time frame” (NY Times, 11/10/10).
     
    2. The starting point to any serious effort at deficit reduction must be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. There is no evidence that these tax cuts created even a single job. In fact, the available evidence is the exact opposite: the Clinton tax increases created 20 million jobs & a record surplus.

     
    3. Everything is supposed to be on the table, but repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is not part of the proposed package. Nor are other notable increases in taxation of the best-off. Two thirds of the deficit-reduction would come from cuts in spending, and the proposed revenue increases would mostly hit the middle class.
     
    4. Currently, American businesses are sitting on approximately $2.3 trillion in reserves, which, of course, could be used to create jobs, whereas the recommendations issued by co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles would cost 4 million jobs over three years and reduce economic growth by 0.7 percent in 2012, 1.4 percent in 2013 and 1.9 percent in 2014, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute.
     
    The Simpson-Bowles approach calls for job-cutting budget austerity to begin in October 2011, even though most economic forecasters expect unemployment to remain as high as it is today or even increase by then.
    Meanwhile, despite low interest rates, banks are reluctant to lend and businesses are hesitant to invest. Mortgage foreclosures keep rising and real estate values falling. And with the federal stimulus petering out, state budgets anticipate more service cuts and layoffs.

     
    In a deep and prolonged slump, the economy needs more public outlay, not less, to make up for a paralyzed private economy. With depressed consumer spending, reduced business investment, weak banks, and declining property values each dragging the other down, standard economics dictates that only government demand can step into the breach.
     
    5. There is no immediate need to address Social Security. It can pay all scheduled benefits through “2039” and will be able to pay 78 percent of benefits after 2039. The Trust Fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus (U.S. Treasury bonds) and is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion in 2023. Washington elites know that Social Security is “not” an entitlement. Americans have PAID for these benefits. Why is Social Security on the chopping block when it has a separate stream of financing and “has not added a dime” to the deficit? Remove the payroll cap of $106,800 so that millionaires pay the same percentage as everyone else and it will be solvent for the next 75 years.

     
    6. Plus, of all the policy steps available to Social Security reformers, raising the retirement age is the most regressive, and is pushed due to a faulty understanding of America’s increasing life expectancy. Average life expectancy has been rising, but largely as a result of increases among upper income earners. Middle- and low-income workers have not seen the same increases. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it, “there has been a sharp rise in inequality in life expectancy by income over the last three decades that mirrors the growth in inequality in income.”

     
    7. A recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research report showed that an overwhelming 69% of voters agreed that “politicians should keep their hands off Social Security and Medicare” when they address the deficit. The public hates this.
     
    Only 6% of the public says the government’s priority should be deficits now. The public hates this.
     
    An AARP poll finds that 90% of people aged 18 to 29 say Social Security is important. The public hates this.
     
    An NBC/WSJ poll finds that 57% are against cutting Social Security no matter how bad the deficit is. The public hates this.
     
    A USA Today poll finds that the public by 66/31 says don’t cut benefits to fix the deficit. The public hates this.

  3. steveknows on November 26th, 2010 6:40 pm

    If he wants to start in on Lesbians, maybe he should start with same stater Cheney’s daughter. Also, they didn’t cut SS, they only recommended that it be done. Hardly the same.

  4. anon on November 28th, 2010 1:52 pm

    Why should people she disrespects with such vitriol be expected to respect her in return? Or are you just mad that conservatives have decided to hit the liberal hardball with a metal baseball bat?

  5. hilbert on December 21st, 2010 11:30 pm

    Another member of the mythical “Greatest Generation” unbelievable. These idiots were nothing but sexist, racist backwards hatemongers.

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.