The Hazards of Live TV: #25,106
Morning Joe, 7 second delay only works if you use it…
Update: MSNBC has suspended Halperin for the Hazard. Chris Jansing just read a statement from MSNBC apologizing for the incident. Here are print versions of MSNBC’s and Halperin’s statements…
Statement from MSNBC:
Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.
Statement from Mark Halperin:
I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.
Inside Cable News 
June 30, 2011 at 7:40 am
A good one; got to hear it, thanks.
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
Geez. And MSNBC is suspending Halperin, but what about Joe and Mika who encouraged him? Or the dumba$$ behind the scenes who didn’t bleep it out?
June 30, 2011 at 7:47 am
Exactly. Joe had to talk him into saying it, telling him don’t worry, the 7-second delay would take care of it.
June 30, 2011 at 7:52 am
Halperin was told – almost encouraged or egged on – that it would be bleeped out. And then it wasn’t bleeped out?
How is he solely to blame for that?
It was a juvenile comment and he should have remembered that you always assume the microphone is on.
But he’s not the only guilty part here.
June 30, 2011 at 8:02 am
Aside from the fact that Halperin was egged on I just don’t think calling the POTUS a ‘dick’ on air is that big a deal.
Considering some of the comments made about him over the last few years on FNC this seems pretty tame.
I don’t think the statement would have drawn much attention if it wasn’t for all the kerfuffle about the 7 second delay.
June 30, 2011 at 8:15 am
^Obligatory Fox News shot.
I understand Media Matters gives 50 cents for every one of these.
You’re bankrupting Soros, Fritz.
June 30, 2011 at 8:21 am
Which is worse, being called a “dick,” or being called a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick.”
I guess it depends on who we’re talking about.
(Personally, I think neither are acceptable.)
June 30, 2011 at 8:24 am
“We strive for a high level of discourse”
Funniest thing I’ve read all day!
June 30, 2011 at 8:32 am
It wasn’t meant as a dig at FNC; it’s just that FOX is where almost all disparaging comments about Obama are heard.
If we were discussing rude statements about GWB I would have referenced MSNBC as the offender.
June 30, 2011 at 8:34 am
Fritz:
Point taken.
June 30, 2011 at 8:57 am
I don’t think anyone at FNC, including the late-night crazies of Red Eye, have said anything remotely close to calling the president a “dick”.
Thing is, the word can represent varying degrees of insult and in the context it was used I have to agree with Fritz – it wasn’t that bad. Granted, there are many who will be offended by the term no matter what.
I would have said that the president was being a Weiner.
June 30, 2011 at 9:08 am
Agreed. No big deal. Not worthy of a suspension. Halperin doesn’t work for FNC so all will be forgiven & forgotten in the next 24 hours.
June 30, 2011 at 9:12 am
From MSNBC: “We strive for a high level of discourse”
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny!
June 30, 2011 at 9:37 am
Anyone watching that presser knows the Prez was purposely being “kind of a dick” to those dick “don’t touch the rich people” Republicans. No big deal.
June 30, 2011 at 9:58 am
Class warfare. The POTUS works harder than anybody I’ve seen to divide people. He’s attempting to win reelection by playing on people’s emotions.
June 30, 2011 at 10:01 am
When the hell are they gonna apologize for what they called Cheney?
June 30, 2011 at 10:06 am
Yep, ending those tax breaks for corporate jets (mentioned seven times!) will really get our budget problems fixed.
Thanks for the leadership, Mr. President. Just what we need.
It’s called demagoguery Joe.
Let’s see, Portugal, Spain, Greece, France, Germany, Britain, Japan, Ireland, Belgium….and on and on all have major debt problems. All face budget crises for years to come.
And guess what? It’s not because their “dick Republicans” won’t raise the taxes on their rich.
June 30, 2011 at 10:09 am
To the intended audience, ‘demagoguery’ is only the God’s Honest Truth.
June 30, 2011 at 10:12 am
I love how “raising taxes on the rich” is the be all end all for the left. Yeah, cuz the government has a history of spending tax dollars wisely. You could tax “the rich” at a 100% and the left would invent new entitlement programs that would still bankrupt this country.
There should be a flat tax and on when filling out your taxes there should be a box where you can choose to pay a higher tax rate. If the left really wants higher taxes on the rich, they should put their money where their mouth is.
The left knows their dependent on the votes of those who pay zero income tax. They essentially buy their votes by promising to give them handouts in return. Increasingly, they are playing on their emotions by telling them that the “rich” don’t pay their fair share and they should be envious and angry. It’s grotesque.
June 30, 2011 at 10:13 am
“they’re” dependent.
June 30, 2011 at 10:17 am
How about this?
President Obama: “We cannot ask ordinary Americans of limited means who need government help to endure cuts while the wealthy don’t make similar sacrifices. We appreciate the contributions to America that wealthy Americans make not only in terms of income but their productivity and ingenuity. America is great because of the goodness of all Americans, poor and rich and all in between.
We will be careful to ensure that these increases will not harm the economy. And we appreciate, again, the sacrifices that those top wage earners will make. But it must be done.”
Nah, just say “corporate jets.”
Really, awful.
June 30, 2011 at 10:22 am
That would require him to be mature and Presidential, and God knows we can’t have that. Nooo, lets start campaigning 2.5 years after the inaugural.
June 30, 2011 at 10:30 am
So the rich and super rich have no role to play in reducing the debt? It falls only on the middle class and poor to solve the problem.
June 30, 2011 at 10:34 am
“It falls only on the middle class and poor to solve the problem.”
How? That’s a talking point. It’s not reality.
June 30, 2011 at 10:48 am
Turns out the White House complained about Halperin’s crack to MSNBC.
June 30, 2011 at 10:55 am
“That’s a talking point. It’s not reality.”
It’s reality as I see it.
What role do the rich and super rich play in the process? There effective tax rate with loopholes etc. is in the mid teens. It doesn’t matter what the Democrats propose as long as it’s backed by Obama the Republicans will find a way to oppose it – see the recent Democrat payroll tax CUT proposal; first proposed by Republicans then as soon as the Democrats agreed dropped like a hot potato as not all that helpful.
June 30, 2011 at 11:06 am
Then, cut out the loopholes. That’s substantive. Raising taxes on “the rich” is just a political tactic designed to divide people and play on emotions.
Bush cut taxes for everybody with larger tax cuts going to those not deemed “rich”. But, the lefty media always calls them “Bush tax cuts for the rich”. It’s a flat out lie, designed to make the “have nots” jealous and angry at the “haves”.
June 30, 2011 at 11:32 am
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0611/line_to_msnbc_1ae75691-f7c1-4475-ae0d-cef07181e495.html
Ridiculous.
June 30, 2011 at 11:36 am
I hope the President sticks it to those Norquist-groveling corporate kissasses every day for the next year. Boehner and his crew are useless.
June 30, 2011 at 11:36 am
“I hope the President sticks it to those Norquist-groveling corporate kissasses every day for the next year. Boehner and his crew are useless.”
That stupid comment is useless.
June 30, 2011 at 11:42 am
“That stupid comment is useless.”
+1
June 30, 2011 at 11:54 am
Yeah, but all your defenses of a bunch of greedy hucksters are perfectly useful. Got it.
Both sides should be listening to Alan Simpson, not Oliver Norquist and millionaire radio blowhards.
June 30, 2011 at 11:58 am
I don’t think this President has been ‘listening to Alan Simpson’ either, so that would make him equally “useless”, as if there weren’t other and greater evidence.
June 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm
“Yeah, but all your defenses of a bunch of greedy hucksters are perfectly useful. Got it.”
I don’t defend “greedy hucksters”. I don’t even know who is and isn’t a greedy huckster in your world. I defend fairness. I don’t hate people because they’re successful. I don’t wake up everyday being envious of people who live in bigger houses & drive fancier cars than I do.
I think everyone should pay the same tax rate. If you decided to eff off in school and now you work at McD’s, tough shi!t. If you decided to work harder than I chose too and now you’re the CEO of Exxon, good for ya.
Democrats don’t care about “poor people”. They’re just interested in continuing to buy their votes. Liberal policies have done wonders for the inner cities over the last quarter century, let me tell ya. “You can’t make it without our help” is the mantra of the Democrats. It’s designed to keep people beholden to them.
June 30, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“The same tax rate” is obscene. Let’s say you make it 30%. 30% of $50,000 is $15,000. 30% of $250,000 is $75,000. Now who’s gonna feel that hit more, the guy who’s down to $175,000, or the one who’s struggling to pay rent on $35,000?
Absolutely ridiculous. The pogressive tax system is fair when it works. Right now, after deductions and loopholes, the average wealthy taxpayer pays 16%. And you people think thats “fair”, and b/tch about Medicare.
June 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“Nooo, lets start campaigning 2.5 years after the inaugural.”
That’s not fair. He started campaigning for 2012 WAY before that. Pretty much since 11/3/2008.
Now who’s gonna feel that hit more, the guy who’s down to $175,000, or the one who’s struggling to pay rent on $35,000?
Depends on A LOT of factors. If the $35K guy lives in Tallahassee and the $175K guy lives in Manhattan…
If the $35K guy is single and the $175K guy has a family of 5… In order to compensate for all these variables, you wind up with a tax code which is unwieldingly large, slanted towards those who know enough/are connected enough to game the system and byzantine by nature … which is exactly what we’ve got now!
June 30, 2011 at 1:23 pm
“We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air.”
Martin Bashir (less than 6 hours later): “Is [Mitch] McConnell suffering [from] some kind of mild dementia?”
http://www.mrctv.org/video/103233
June 30, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Joe, I don’t know if you’ve realized this yet but a guy making $30K isn’t going to be able to buy as big of a house as a guy making $300K. No amount of redistribution is going to make up for that. The only thing that will is life choices and hard work.
June 30, 2011 at 3:11 pm
The guy making 300K can afford a reasonable tax rate, and still pay a mortgage. The difference between 50K and 35K is the difference between covering the bills and not.
June 30, 2011 at 3:27 pm
So the rich and super rich have no role to play in reducing the debt?
The wealthy are already paying the lion’s share of federal spending and then some, so the “fairness” argument is rubbish. Truth be told, the wealthy don’t really give a rat’s from a personal standpoint because they’ve already made their fortunes and will no doubt fair even better should the economy crash again from overtaxing.
Higher taxes on anyone means trouble for everyone, and if the spending isn’t gotten under control it will be, as usual, those who live on $35K bearing the brunt of the inevitable inflation. It is not possible to tax our way out of this mess. PERIOD.
Bunch of dolts spending way too much time complaining about what somebody else has. Had a rough life? That’s unfortunate. Your mother should have taught you that coveting others’ successes still leaves you waking up in the morning to face your same problems with even less energy left over to actually do something about them.
June 30, 2011 at 4:03 pm
-Their effective tax rate with loopholes etc. is in the mid teens.-
That is the political shell game at work. There is no good reason to raise taxes on the upper incomes other than to satisfy a lie made to political supporters and uninformed voters. It matters little whether there’s a Democratic or Republican controlled government, the loopholes have to be created to offset the higher taxation in order to keep the economy growing. Even with the lower effective tax rate, they (including both higher-earning individuals and businesses) still pay far more in actual dollars than do average taxpayers.
Are these loopholes as good as having lower tax rate? No. Tax incentives for oil companies are an excellent example: 1) It’s a given that they must net at a competitive tax rate if for no other reason than to keep our economy rolling. 2) By achieving that lower “net” through loopholes, however, innovative non-fossil fuel alternatives are discouraged. Keep in mind, they’re energy companies in business to earn profits; oil is merely the current commodity available for earning those profits.
Lower the base rates and get rid of the loopholes. In the process, be sure slash federal spending so that albatross will stop inflicting severe damage.
June 30, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“Coveting” is bullsh/t. It’s a cheap shot to denigrate those of us who expect a little fairness in this country. The tax rates at the top are embarrassing for a developed country. Raise them and stfu.
June 30, 2011 at 4:17 pm
And there’s your ‘intelligent discourse’ in a happy little nutshell.
June 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Intelligent discourse with people who turn a discussion about revenue into accusations of petty jealousy is futile.
June 30, 2011 at 5:57 pm
It’s not just petty jealousy. It is also a choice to remain ignorant of some fairly simple mathematical truths – you could tax “the top” at 99% and there would still be a massive annual deficit running.
Back when the rates went way up for upper income taxpayers was the same time when an abundance of loopholes and credits became the norm. This was no coincidence – without those things offsetting the high rates, the availability of capital to fuel expansion dries up and jobs fizzle away with it.
If a politician tells you that he or she will raise tax rates on the upper incomes so that they will be “paying their fair share” then that person is either economically ignorant or, more likely, lying.
June 30, 2011 at 6:22 pm
That’s horseshyte. Nobody’s proposing only tax hikes without program cuts. It’s a combination of the two, which Boehnor and his goons reject out of hand. Even THAT solution won’t SOLVE the problem, but it will HELP. Conservatives do. Not. Care.
June 30, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Liberals Do. Not. Think.
June 30, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Since the rate hikes on those who are already paying more – both in percentages of income and in terms of actual dollars – will have a negligible affect on the deficit and would certainly make matters worse in terms of jobs, what’s the point of even bringing that up? Must be that liberals don’t care and are just trying to weasel a way to not cut spending.
I don’t care? Hey – I’ll be fine either way so go ahead, raise taxes and depress the economy even farther than it already is. Just remember that there won’t be any more bailouts, so I’ll scoop up some property from those who default after that market takes another dive as a result.
“After borrowing and spending trillions and running up an unimaginable national debt our economy still isn’t recovering. Hmmmm… I know! Let’s spend more money! Oh, but we better call it ‘investments’… yeah, and blame the ‘rich’ so the subjects….er, the “people” won’t catch on. That’ll do it.” Idiots.
June 30, 2011 at 7:04 pm
THIS liberal doesn’t appreciate what he considers the correct moral stance about taxation being dismissed as JEALOUSY. That’s f***ing offensive.
June 30, 2011 at 7:07 pm
“Moral stance on taxation” is not based in ‘thought’ it’s based in ‘belief’, ie religion. That’s why it’s pointless to have a discussion with you. You don’t think, you ‘believe’.
June 30, 2011 at 7:23 pm
That’s why it’s pointless to have a discussion with you.
What, exactly, does that have to do with several people claiming my position is based on bitterness against the rich?
June 30, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Some other idiot said that, not me.
June 30, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Uh, yeah, you’re responding to my response to those idiots.
June 30, 2011 at 7:27 pm
We all look alike. Sorta.
June 30, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Your “religion” comment is ridiculous. The conservative view of taxation is just as much an article of “faith” as the liberal one. Some people “believe” the more you get from this country, the more you owe it, and some people “believe” in “I got it, I’m keeping it”.
June 30, 2011 at 7:41 pm
what. ever.
June 30, 2011 at 7:47 pm
The reasoning has been explained to you on multiple occasions, and yet you stick to the tediously childish ”I got it, I’m keeping it”. Go agree with someone else on that level.
June 30, 2011 at 7:56 pm
The “reasoning” is crap. You guys think the richies keeping all the money improves the job situation. Ok, where are the jobs? The upper rates are the lowest in my lifetime, the markets are free, the banks are unregulated…whaddyagot? Massive income disparity, massive unemployment. Happy now? Your reasoning is based on fantasy.
June 30, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Everything that you just said is bull. Go talk to a liberal who chooses to believe the same bull that you do. You’ll enjoy it more.
June 30, 2011 at 8:01 pm
You’re flimsy “reasoning” won’t change anyone’s mind. Let it go.
June 30, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Don’t worry about me, I like beating my head against the wall because it feels so good when it stops.
June 30, 2011 at 8:14 pm
If the task at hand is funding future social security benefits and your approach to solving the problem involves making wealthier Americans pay more either through means testing their benefits, eliminating the SSI tax cap, or both, that would help. It may or may not be the right way to go about it and the premise can certainly be argued, but the logic is rational.
The same can not be honestly claimed for trying to solve the national spending/debt crisis through increasing taxes on anybody. A problem that stems from overspending has to be solved by cuts in spending coupled with economic growth. An income tax on anybody is regressive and doing so on the investing class will oppress economic growth. That is not rational. It only serves as a short-term political benefit for liberal politicians by pitting one economic group of Americans against another which, sorry to say, plays to their base’s emotions of either jealousy or selfishness.
If that truth offends you, not my problem.
June 30, 2011 at 8:20 pm
It’s not true. The “investor class” has the money. There are no jobs. It’s a lie.
June 30, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Especially for the conservatives and libertarians following this, I’d caution against making the mistake of linking this “way to solve the debt crisis” argument to the eternal-running “more socialist” v. “more free-market” debate on how to run the economy. While we vehemently disagree their approach on that because of how it ultimately hurts those it’s supposed to help, it does have a rational basis to it.
June 30, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Here’s what’s going to happen in a country increasingly fed up with fat cats, especially the loathsome bastards who destroyed the housing sector: The Bush tax cuts are going to be allowed to expire, the above 400K tier will rise a minuscule amount, some loopholes will be closed, some programs will be cut, defense spending will stay ridiculous, and no one will be happy.
The only solace I’ll get is that those arseholes in Congress who don’t give a damn about the working man will have to choke on their egregious “No revenue! Cut programs!” absolutism. THAT..I’m going to enjoy.
June 30, 2011 at 8:39 pm
The “investor class” has the money. There are no jobs.
I need a profitable market in a growing economy so that my risk of losing my investment is manageable. It doesn’t help matters that our president and last term’s Democratic-controlled congress instilled tax incentives that encourage me to by expensive computerised machinery to increase production and, simultaneously, set up regulatory rules and an insurance law to discourage me from hiring.
I didn’t expect Obama to be on par with Bush, but I never thought he could be this clueless.
June 30, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Thanks for making the effort to actualy discuss the issue. The next person who insults me with “you’re just jealous of people with money” gets a rhetorical kick in the shins.
June 30, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Get out of Libya and stop funding the UN. Stop handing out cash to Mideast countries that are kicking their leaders out of power. Don’t know how much will be saved but these cuts won’t hurt Americans and they’re at least something. Clearly, no one is serious about the American debt crisis.
June 30, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Sadly, the American debt crisis has direct implications to Canada as well… especially Ontario.
June 30, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan…all of it. Three wars nobody understands, billions handed out to countries for no discernable reason..SCREW ’em.
June 30, 2011 at 9:55 pm
the loathsome bastards who destroyed the housing sector
Those would be members of congress who wrote into law incentives and requirements for writing mortgages to people who really couldn’t afford what they were buying. This, in turn, created a market bubble which exacerbated the problem. Presidents Clinton and Bush warned the congress of potential disaster if the system was not fixed. Instead, cronyism and statutory impediments to proper regulation became the norm.
The housing market collapse begot the mortgage market collapse which begot the larger banking market solvency crises which begot the insurance underwriting collapse which begot the bailout.
While it burns my bum (it truly does) that the mega-wealthy who profited from this were among those “made whole” by federal bailouts, I have to concede that they were following not only the letter but also the intent of the law. Once again, average Americans of limited means who could not possibly have known what they were getting into were irreparably harmed by the unintended consequences of a federal bureaucracy and the political motivations of congressional hacks.
June 30, 2011 at 10:16 pm
I hope you don’t think I’m separating congressional hacks from business hacks. They’re all in it together, and ain’t a one of ’em gives a flip about the average stiff. The Republicans just happen to be a little purer about it.
June 30, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Some of the businessmen and bankers are indeed vultures, but that has always been the case. It is the proper role of government to create and maintain the field in which commerce can operate and to set clear rules and boundaries for that field so that predators can have no unfair advantage over the other participants. In the case of the housing market, the congressional hacks attempted social engineering through use of controls that were meant to be the safeguards of a free-market system. Essentially, they released helpless chicks onto the field and not only took away the protections, but even encouraged the vultures to play among them.
Banks that baulked at accept8ing high-risk mortgages were threatened. Insurance underwriters who baulked at covering extraordinarily high potential losses were given the full faith and credit of the US treasury in exchange for their policies. The relatively few predatory investors who were placed in the position of having nothing to lose said, “COOL. Game ON!” Then it became common practice to tell people that they qualified for mortgages far beyond their means and enticed them into signing with almost affordable monthly payments made possible by “variable rates”, usually with a balloon somewhere down the pike. And the clincher… “Worse case, sell the house and take your profits if you can’t refinance. Houses always appreciate so you have nothing to lose!”
Certainly sounded great to anyone who couldn’t possibly know that political pressure and federal government interference in what is supposed to be a free-market was working its will in the background to screw over pretty much everybody.
June 30, 2011 at 11:20 pm
ain’t a one of ‘em gives a flip about
In a free-market system that works the way it is supposed to, with government regulation setting clear and proper procedural boundaries but without government interference in the actual commerce itself, what the business people do or don’t care about is irrelevant.
If you’re a paper products manufacturer you don’t sell people toilet paper because your care how well their lives are going. No, you want to sell them something to wipe their butts with so that they will give you money. Same is true for bankers and auto dealers… and that guy with the truck that sucks the crap out of your septic tank.
June 30, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Certainly sounded great to anyone who couldn’t possibly know that political pressure and federal government interference in what is supposed to be a free-market was working its will in the background to screw over pretty much everybody.
Yeah, that would’ve been nice to know. I bought a house in ’04 with a straight 30-year mortgage, and turned it over for a $100,000 profit the next year. So in ’06 I bought another one, this time with a 10-year ARM, figuring I would either sell or refinance before the balloon kicked in. All this with good credit and income. I had no idea every Tom, Dick and Harry was being given a loan. Oops. My $300,000 house is now worth maybe 75K.
Yeah, I’m an idiot. I thought I was in a normal business cycle, and understood the normal ebb and flow of one. Nope. I bought a house at an artificially high price in a gamed market. Awesome.
June 30, 2011 at 11:54 pm
You are in idiot, but that has nothing to do with your choice to buy that house. What happened to you was NOT fair and I can’t tell you how much it p!sses me off that it was our own frickin’ government at the helm of that.
I know some pretty damn smart people who probably should have known better that have much the same story. I was lucky – when the guy told me how much of a mortgage I’d qualify for I actually responded out loud, “Are you (sofa king) nuts?!”
July 1, 2011 at 12:14 am
I had the same reaction. I probably should have known something was up when my choice was half of what I “qualified” for..