Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Diane Ellis, Ed. ·
Sep 27, 2011 at 4:22pm
I've only ever watched the Daily Show twice. The first instance was when our own John Yoo mopped the floor with Jon Stewart over the topic of enhanced interrogation.
The second was last week's interview with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Though he appeared a bit irritated with Stewart at points, I thought the Governor presented himself well. Here's part one of the interview.
Find part two here, and part three here.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
By Jon Stewart's logic, Walmart is really holding itself back, by not charging Neiman Marcus prices. If only they quadrupled their prices, imagine how successful they could be...the billions would just be rolling in.
Mar '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
If revenue increased after the tax cuts went into effect, how do they count as spending?
Oct '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
I think we now know two things for sure: Mitch Daniels isn't ready to run for president, and Jon Stewart is a Democrat man. He clearly tried to trap Mitch in ways that come straight out of the Democratic handbook.
No, Mr. Stewart, tax reform will not reduce revenue, and in the end it probably will raise more. No Jon, raising taxes on the top 1% will not contribute much revenue, at least not with the Clinton rates. You can soak the rich with lower tax rates simply by cutting out all the deductions and credits, or you can cut their taxes with higher rates by adding in more. It's a stupid argument.
Oct '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Ugh! I really wanted Daniels to be a viable candidate. But he really didn't acquit himself well here. The tax questions should have been easy (they won't raise much revenue; you can soak the rich with lower rates, so arguing over the marginal rates is stupid, etc). The "Republicans were big spenders" is easy too; just quote one of Paul Ryan's many apologies for that.
Edited on Sep 27, 2011 at 6:28pmJan '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Stewart's argument is utterly stupid. The Bush tax cuts, as Mitch Daniels said, improved revenue dramatically.
The benefit of that policy was swamped by the tidal wave of debt coming from other policies. Democrats claim that Bush had tax cuts, and by time Obama took over, the economy was in serious trouble. The mortgage crisis that triggered the plunge had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The tax cuts were good, successful policy. The subsidy of Fannie Mae, and the pressure to extend home ownership to people who really couldn't afford it ... that was a Democrat policy that precipitated the disaster we faced, and yet (to no one's surprise) the Jon Stewart's of the world won't mention that connection.
Intellectually, this is a smear. If the tax cuts were so great, why did things go bad ... five or six years later? They blur the real damage that their policies caused, and try to widen the blame to policies they can pin on Republicans. This is a textbook smear.
Dec '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
KC Mulville: Stewart's argument is utterly stupid. The Bush tax cuts, as Mitch Daniels said, improved revenue dramatically.
The benefit of that policy was swamped by the tidal wave of debt coming from other policies. (...) The mortgage crisis that triggered the plunge had nothing to do with the tax cuts. (...) The subsidy of Fannie Mae, and the pressure to extend home ownership to people who really couldn't afford it ... that was a Democrat policy that precipitated the disaster we faced, and yet (to no one's surprise) the Jon Stewart's of the world won't mention that connection.
KC, to call this a smear is to deny our own culpability. While Steward played dumb on the increase in revenue, his question is valid. Why didn't the debt go down? Well...we spent it all.
Until Republican own the tremendous amount of spending they did while in power we are doomed to repeat the folly. Mitch completely dropped the ball and deserved the chuckles he got from the audience. Republicans subsidized Fannie and Freddie too.
No policy is not merely Democratic policy after a Republican president and majority in both houses jump on board.
Jan '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Maybe we're quibbling on semantics here. The tax cut policy was successful. The Democrats are suggesting that all conservative policies were discredited by the collapse in 2007-2008, but that's nonsense.
Of course, no one can deny that the Bush administration spent a fortune - which conservatives also opposed. But to acknowledge that criticism is different from saying that everything the GOP did was responsible for the mess that occurred in 2007-2008. That smears the issues into a giant black hole.
To set the record straight, Bush did oppose the Fannie Mae policies, but the Democrats (notably Barney Frank) demagogued it as "Republicans being unwilling to lend a helping hand to the poor." Bush didn't fight when he should have. Still, the mortgage collapse wasn't a case of the Bush tax cuts not working, or spending the Bush tax cuts ... they had nothing to do with the mortgage collapse. They were two utterly different stories.
And the need to reform entitlements is, again, yet another story.
Jun '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Do you have a source for that claim?
Jun '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I've only ever watched the Daily Show twice. The first instance was when our own John Yoo mopped the floor with Jon Stewart over the topic of enhanced interrogation.
The second was last week's interview with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Though he appeared a bit irritated with Stewart at points, I thought the Governor presented himself well.
Mitch Daniels is no John Yoo. I hate to say it but Jon Stewart mopped the floor with the Governor.
Did Mitch really respond to any of Jon's questions? Did he say anything of substance in the whole interview?
Jun '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I've only ever watched the Daily Show twice. The first instance was when our own John Yoo mopped the floor with Jon Stewart over the topic of enhanced interrogation.
The second was last week's interview with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Though he appeared a bit irritated with Stewart at points, I thought the Governor presented himself well. Here's part one of the interview.
Find part two here, and part three here. ·
I must say, I disagree. In Daniels' dogged attempt to play Mr. Nice, he backpedaled during the entire interview. In part 2, Stewart brings up the ridiculous "rich should pay their fair share" argument. How on earth can any person not quote back the percentage of federal revenue that is paid by the rich along with the fact that 50% of this country pays zero, zilch, nada. It undercuts the point in its entirety. In Daniels' attempt to sound reasonable, he sounded inept. Not until I saw this video was I fully content he decided not to run.
Edited on Sep 27, 2011 at 10:09pmJan '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Daniels, for one.
Mar '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
He still doesn't have the Romney or Perry hair.
Jun '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
For Joseph from this source
Jun '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Sorry, the graph was there but disappeared when I posted the comment. Basically if you click on the source you will see that in 2003 US revenues were a little over 3.6T. They had started to grow marginally, but had dropped from a little under 4.2T in 2000. After 2003 (so called Bush tax cuts) US revenues began a dramatic ascent to just over 4.8T in 2007. That represents a 33% increase in 4 years. Yes it is amazing that the mostly Democratic program (but not entirely D) that caused the crash of 2008 is totally ignored by those claiming that Bush tax policy caused this terrible economic condition. I really don't understand why it is so important for some people to clutch the meme of "tax us more, please". I also do not understand why we don't take them up on it. Let them put an option on everyone's payroll. 'check here to add 10% to your taxes'. Put up or shut up Mr.Stewart, or what ever your real name is. BTW, happy Rosh Hashonah, John.
Apr '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Please, I am just so tired of all these meaningless liberal arguments. One of the ones that really gets me is that before Reagan wealthy people owned 10% of the wealth of this country and now they own 40%. Who cares?! In 1980 the total wealth of the country was estimated to be around $9 trillion. In 2009 that number was appx $54 trillion. So what we have is the non-rich seeing their absolute cumulative wealth growing from $8.1 trillion in 1980 to $32.4 trillion in less than 30 years! Only a liberal could look at those numbers and think negatively simply because the folks who took advantage of the open economic policies and created the growth in wealth did disproportianately better. In their minds, it would be better if the 90/10 wealth split had remained constant and total wealth only went up a liitle.
In reality, Stewart's 1st line really tells you what's in his mind - referring to Americans, he asks Daniels if he's met many, and why he still trusts them. He says it as a joke, but it is at the heart of his belief system.
Aug '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
John Stewart is a 'fair partisan'. He clearly leans pretty far to the left, but he does try to give his opponents a fair shake. The problem is that his partisanship blinds him as to what is 'fair'. So sometimes he can be maddeningly obtuse and one-sided, and other times he can be the only person in the popular media willing to actually consider a Republican argument on its merits.
Also, he's fair in that he's willing to point out foolishness from his own side. He didn't hesitate to criticize the White House over Solyndra and Gunwalker while the rest of the mainstream media ignored it. And while other media figures like the clowns on MSNBC deal in attack sound bites and straw men, Stewart is willing to have serious debates (as he did with John Yoo - and lost).
Stewart is also very solid with the military. He does a lot of USO work and has been a staunch defender of military personnel, even when disagreeing with larger military policy.
If you accept that The Daily Show has a default bias that's definitely 'progressive', it's quite funny and enjoyable. And sometimes it surprises you.
May '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Like Mr. BeeGee above, I'm sad to say after watching all three videos, I too was underwhelmed with the governor's performance. That midwestern niceness wouldn't get him anywhere close to Obama.
I would love for someone to really take on Stewart and nail his behind to the wall even stronger than John Yoo. Surely, someone can do it.
Aug '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
The Bush tax cuts: We simply cannot say that they increased revenue overall. I'd have to say that the evidence is that they did not. Of course, increasing revenue isn't the only reason to cut taxes.
The fact is that in 2000, federal revenue was 20.5% of GDP. After the Bush tax cuts in 2001, revenue dropped to 16.5% of GDP. It recovered to just over 18.5% of GDP and then began to fall again due to the crash. It's currently at about 14.5% of GDP.
Of course, there was also a recession in 2001, and a housing boom in the mid-2000's when revenue recovered. So it's very difficult to extract the effect of tax changes from the economy overall. You can claim that the revenue growth was due to lower taxes, and that the revenue collapse was due to the recession, but that's speculation and not fact.
I wanted to believe that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue, but I have to be honest with myself, and the data suggests that they did not. They did not cost as much as liberals claim, however.
Jun '10
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Dan Hanson
"I wanted to believe that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue, but I have to be honest with myself, and the data suggests that they did not. They did not cost as much as liberals claim, however."
They did actually increase revenue, or something did, because revenue actually did increase...until the bubble burst. It would be sweet to have stability for a change, about 25 years of smooth, easy, soft growth. The only way that can happen is to have a broadbased flatter and consistent tax system, easy to figure and easy to collect. Get the government out of our economy as much as possible.
Apr '11
Re: Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show
Dan Hanson: The Bush tax cuts: We simply cannot say that they increased revenue overall. I'd have to say that the evidence is that they did not.
The fact is that in 2000, federal revenue was 20.5% of GDP. After the Bush tax cuts in 2001, revenue dropped to 16.5% of GDP. It recovered to just over 18.5% of GDP and then began to fall again due to the crash. It's currently at about 14.5% of GDP.
Dan, revenue was falling between 2000-2001. This was a byproduct of the tech bubble crash and of a super-heated economy that slowed down during this period. The fact is, this revenue decline reversed one year after the tax cuts were enacted - a typical timeframe for these types of policies to show results. Did they bring revenue to GDP % back to the late 90's? No, but you are assuming that had there been no tax-cuts, the revenue trajectory would have reversed anyway, and we can then count that "cost" as a liability. This is nonsense. We can only analyze what actually happened, and not assume that everything else would have been equal.