FlashHarry: done in one and two.

Actually, it was done last summer, but someone insists on resubmitting this old "news" until they get a greenlight.

Once upon a time, people listened to economists before criticizing things like this.

Aw fark it, no they didn't. But they should.

WTF: More: Obvious, President Obama, moderation system, Saul Alinsky, horse meat

That's a rather broad spread of topics.

Wendy's Chili: FlashHarry: done in one and two.

Actually, it was done last summer, but someone insists on resubmitting this old "news" until they get a greenlight.

I didn't think you needed to put in much effort to get a greenlight today.

Um yeah, that sounds like a totally shady site. No clicks for you.

I seem to remember, after the first round of Bush tax cuts went through, the economy took a dive and there was a multi-trillion dollar projected deficit.

What did Bush and the GOP do? They cut taxes again while increasing spending.

This whole situation is obviously Obama's fault.

Once upon a time, we had a budget surplus. Then fiscal "conservatives" started ruling the roost.

If memory serves, the administration put together a commission to come up with ideas to reduce defecit. And that Commision had all sorts of good ideas. But then congress mistook the report for toilet paper and wiped their collective ass with it.

I wonder where we'd be today if Obama hadn't inherited Bush's tax cuts and war spending.

Government spending should be countercyclical.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I thought deficits didn't matter?

/oh, yeah.... that was before Jan. 20, 2009

Small deficits don't matter.

Speeding isn't a major crime but if I'm doing 90 in a 25, people are going to complain.

"Our #1 priority is to make sure Obama is a one-term president."

I guess they'd be the experts on unpatriotic.

farkityfarker: I wonder where we'd be today if Obama hadn't inherited Bush's tax cuts and war spending.

We would be on fire.

The new borrowing requested by the CURRENT president would raise the debt ceiling to $16.4 trillion. The debt stood at $10.6 trillion when Obama took office. That's an increase of $5.8 trillion, nearly $2 trillion more than the "unpatriotic" figure cited by Obama in the video.

Sure, a portion of the new debt is carryover from the Bush administration. But Obama can still be labeled utterly "irresponsible." I'm not serious about the "unpatriotic" charge. I don't call my president unpatriotic, though as you've noticed, some people will do that.



Truly, this blogger displays a dizzying intellect...I'm getting dizzy trying to follow the spin.

fenianfark: I seem to remember, after the first round of Bush tax cuts went through,

that. the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.


FTFY


This whole situation is obviously Obama's fault.

well, he was smart enough to extend those evil tax breaks.

Fark it, I'm voting for Kodos this year.

tenpoundsofcheese: fenianfark: I seem to remember, after the first round of Bush tax cuts went through,

that. the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.


FTFY


This whole situation is obviously Obama's fault.

well, he was smart enough to extend those evil tax breaks.

might have something to do with the fact that their incomes tripled, half the country is out of work and everyone else's salary didn't even keep up with inflation.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I thought deficits didn't matter?

/oh, yeah.... that was before Jan. 20, 2009

I thought raising the debt ceiling was irresponsible.

/oh, yeah.... that was before Jan. 20, 2009

farkityfarker: I wonder where we'd be today if Obama hadn't inherited Bush's tax cuts and war spending.

Still running a 1 trillion dollar deficit.

tenpoundsofcheese: fenianfark: I seem to remember, after the first round of Bush tax cuts went through,

that. the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.


FTFY


This whole situation is obviously Obama's fault.

well, he was smart enough to extend those evil tax breaks.

Fenianfark,
You realize that those words don't mean what you think they mean, right? The 1% had those increases because they actually account for that percentage of the taxable income in the country. Meaning there's less for everyone else to pay taxes on. You DO get that, right?

Okay, so we should slash defense spending, raise taxes and replace the expensive patchwork of Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA programs, other associated programs and public/private health partnerships with a single-payer health care system. Debt handled, wipe hands on pants.

Arkanaut: Government spending should be countercyclical.

This. It should dampen both the highs and the lows.

Brainsick: You realize that those words don't mean what you think they mean, right? The 1% had those increases because they actually account for that percentage of the taxable income in the country. Meaning there's less for everyone else to pay taxes on. You DO get that, right?

Actually, they account for a larger percentage of taxable income. At those levels, tax rates become regressive.

farkityfarker: I wonder where we'd be today if Obama hadn't inherited Bush's tax cuts and war spending.

He inherited something that he thought was good enough to extend, to they are the 0bama tax cuts now.

And if you want to argue that 0bama extended them because of the bad economy, you should argue the same for why they were created in the first place. Can't have it both ways.

Anyone else noticed that when you try and google this to find context, all you find is a horde of right wing sites all showing the exact same 39 second clip with the exact same transcript excerpt?

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Not one seems to feel the need to include any context that might explain WHAT "it" is that Bush has done.

Gosh, I wonder why.

Oh, that's right, because the "it" is the Bush tax cuts. The Obama quote isn't quite so useful when readers find out that unlike deficit spending to try and fix a crashed economy and finish two Bush wars, the Bush spending being called irresponsible sent the country into debt to give rich people more tax cuts.

Here's a FULL quote.

You know, there are all these Wall Street journal editorials and stuff: Obama wants to tax people.

I don't want to tax people. I would love if we could just say, "You know what? Nobody pays taxes. Tax holiday for everybody." I would love to do that.

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child.

That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

(APPLAUSE)

And so, yes, I am going to roll back those Bush tax cuts that give people like me, who don't need it, a huge break.

farkityfarker: I wonder where we'd be today if Obama hadn't inherited Bush's tax cuts and war spending.

To be honest Obama did not inherit Bush's tax cuts. They had a solid sunset date. Obama decided to extend them. But I will agree Obama inherited the war costs.

Brainsick: tenpoundsofcheese: fenianfark: I seem to remember, after the first round of Bush tax cuts went through,

that. the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.


FTFY


This whole situation is obviously Obama's fault.

well, he was smart enough to extend those evil tax breaks.

Fenianfark,
You realize that those words don't mean what you think they mean, right? The 1% had those increases because they actually account for that percentage of the taxable income in the country. Meaning there's less for everyone else to pay taxes on. You DO get that, right?

I think you meant to respond to tenpoundsoftroll.

Logic doesn't work with him.

/Please don't feed the troll

CPennypacker: tenpoundsofcheese: fenianfark: I seem to remember, after the first round of Bush tax cuts went through,

that. the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share.
....

might have something to do with the fact that their incomes tripled, half the country is out of work and everyone else's salary didn't even keep up with inflation.


No sir. Currently, the rich are too poor, the poor too rich.

FFS, poor people in this country have REFRIGERATORS!

Saiga410: farkityfarker: I wonder where we'd be today if Obama hadn't inherited Bush's tax cuts and war spending.

To be honest Obama did not inherit Bush's tax cuts. They had a solid sunset date. Obama decided to extend them. But I will agree Obama inherited the war costs.

Obama wanted to extend the cuts for lower and middle income people because we are in a recession. GOP wouldn't let him unless the rich got theirs too. They held the poor and middle class tax cuts hostage. Give me a break.

Patriotic now means you agree with me about everything, and you'll help me destroy the unbelievers, who are evildoers.

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: And if you want to argue that 0bama extended them because of the bad economy

Saiga410: Obama decided to extend them.

Not all tax cuts are equal. Tax cuts for the middle and lower brackets are good for the economy because those people generally spend that money. The GOP wouldn't allow the tax cuts for the wealthy to be decoupled from those. Also, he extended them in exchange for unemployment benefits being extended, which is also good for the economy, for the same reason mentioned earlier.

So you are saying Obama extended the tax cuts. Hey we agree.

Wow what a bunch idiots.

So it's okay because Bush did it? Christ take Obamas d1ck out of your mouths already.

fenianfark: I think you meant to respond to tenpoundsoftroll.

My bad, tis difficult to tell who wrote what sometimes

Saiga410: To be honest Obama did not inherit Bush's tax cuts. They had a solid sunset date. Obama decided to extend them.

Damn you, Dictatorbama! If only the GOP could have found a way to stop him doing this.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Darklemming: So it's okay because Bush did it? Christ take Obamas d1ck out of your mouths already.

Bush ran up the deficit (and debt) and handed that pile of sh*t over to Obama. OK has nothing to do with it.

And your point is.......what? So because Bush handed Obama a debt then it doesn't matter if he spends more?

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: And if you want to argue that 0bama extended them because of the bad economy

Saiga410: Obama decided to extend them.

Not all tax cuts are equal. Tax cuts for the middle and lower brackets are good for the economy because those people generally spend that money. The GOP wouldn't allow the tax cuts for the wealthy to be decoupled from those. Also, he extended them in exchange for unemployment benefits being extended, which is also good for the economy, for the same reason mentioned earlier.

Lol giving away money for free = economic stimulus.... HOW? The money has to come from somewhere, and someone earned it, or in the case of borrowing it, someone in the future is going to have to pay. If giving away money (welfare, UI, etc) for doing nothing = economic growth, why don't they just give everyone free money? See, this is where your whole argument falls apart.