Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was the right that was led to war with the emotional claims of imminent threat of WMD.
Now we are to believe that President Obama is going to "take our guns", turn us into a "socialist country", "raise everyone's taxes", etc.
It was the right that was led to war with the emotional claims of imminent threat of WMD.
Now we are to believe that President Obama is going to "take our guns", turn us into a "socialist country", "raise everyone's taxes", etc.
dude...obama was scaring the crap out people that if his budget did not get passed this country was going to fail
It was the right that was led to war with the emotional claims of imminent threat of WMD.
Now we are to believe that President Obama is going to "take our guns", turn us into a "socialist country", "raise everyone's taxes", etc.
dude...obama was scaring the crap out people that if his budget did not get passed this country was going to fail
But it wasn't just Obama saying this. It was Bush, Paulson and other members of the Bush administration, and members of the Fed too.
Sometimes there is good reason to have fear.
REPORT: Emerging Culture of Paranoia | Media Matters for America
In recent months, the violent, doomsday, and anti-intellectual rhetoric that has long been a staple of conservative media has taken a notable turn in at least three significant ways: previously confined to the right-wing media fringe, the rhetoric is now a constant across the full spectrum of conservative media; it is louder and meaner, with conservative media figures appealing overtly to feelings of anger and paranoia in their audience; and it is focused, tied to the specific political aim of undermining the Obama administration and the Congress.
None other than David Horowitz notes "an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern": "the over-top-hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president." Horowitz calls this "hysteria" "Obama Derangement Syndrome."
....
Follow the link for the entire article.
From everything I can find so far, David Horowitz wrote nothing of the sort.
dude...obama was scaring the crap out people that if his budget did not get passed this country was going to fail
But it wasn't just Obama saying this. It was Bush, Paulson and other members of the Bush administration, and members of the Fed too.
Sometimes there is good reason to have fear.
his claim was that ONLY republicans do it, so of course i am going to talk with him solely about democrats in order to show him the fallacy of his thinking...
ii'm wicked scared.
But it wasn't just Obama saying this. It was Bush, Paulson and other members of the Bush administration, and members of the Fed too.
Sometimes there is good reason to have fear.
his claim was that ONLY republicans do it, so of course i am going to talk with him solely about democrats in order to show him the fallacy of his thinking...
That's the point, IMO the financial crises was not a made up horror that use created to scare people into supporting a plan Obama wanted to implement ... it wasn't a "scare tactic" -- there was something really to be scared about, buttressed by the fact that the Bush admin and Fed and others were all saying the same thing. Plus, Obama I don't think really wanted to start off spending a bunch of money on wall street, he'd have spent it on health care or some other project he favors.
Not denying the left doesn't use scare tactics too -- the classic case being the fear tactic that if Reagan was elected he'd start a nuclear war. But the scare of the financial crisis was real.
Anti-intellectual rhetoric is a stape of the left, as this thread so amply proves.
The paranoia appears to be shown by themselves and manifests itself in childish swipes at anyone who dares to question them.
his claim was that ONLY republicans do it, so of course i am going to talk with him solely about democrats in order to show him the fallacy of his thinking...
That's the point, IMO the financial crises was not a made up horror that use created to scare people into supporting a plan Obama wanted to implement ... it wasn't a "scare tactic" -- there was something really to be scared about, buttressed by the fact that the Bush admin and Fed and others were all saying the same thing. Plus, Obama I don't think really wanted to start off spending a bunch of money on wall street, he'd have spent it on health care or some other project he favors.
Not denying the left doesn't use scare tactics too -- the classic case being the fear tactic that if Reagan was elected he'd start a nuclear war. But the scare of the financial crisis was real.
no, you're missing the point....he said IF HIS PLAN was not passed...there is absolutely no way to know that his plan will work 100%...just like there wasn't a 100% chance that saddam had the weapons and would not use them...even DEMS said he would use them and had them...
if you all you have is some silly tit for tat, don't bother, its getting boring
It was the right that was led to war with the emotional claims of imminent threat of WMD.
Now we are to believe that President Obama is going to "take our guns", turn us into a "socialist country", "raise everyone's taxes", etc.
for Christ's sake the Bush tax cuts didn't cause the fucking deficit. Outrageous government spending did.
Oh get off this foolish song. Ever since Reagan the Repubs have been the candy man, handing out tax cuts to their wealthy patrons but never doing the hard work of cutting spending to offset the tax cuts.
Every Repub tax cut has resulted in skyrocketing deficits, all the while we are suppossed to believe that cutting taxes will lead to increased tax revenue. Hey we have the Laffer curve and it shows that cutting taxes will increase tax revenue, yeah, that's the ticket! More faith based bull. You just got to believe!
Well spending was part of the equation too, both Reagan and Bush2 greatly expanded military spending which were major factors in the deficits.
My thought has always been if you want to spend extra money on stuff, be it military or wars or whatever, then you raise taxes to pay for it. Not cut taxes and borrow. If Bush wanted to double military spending as he did and start a war, he should have raised taxes. But he did the opposite, and we got $5 trillion more debt.
That's a beef I have alwasy had with Obama too. You want national health care? Great. Either cut spending in other areas or raise taxes to pay for it.
Oh get off this foolish song. Ever since Reagan the Repubs have been the candy man, handing out tax cuts to their wealthy patrons but never doing the hard work of cutting spending to offset the tax cuts.
Every Repub tax cut has resulted in skyrocketing deficits, all the while we are suppossed to believe that cutting taxes will lead to increased tax revenue. Hey we have the Laffer curve and it shows that cutting taxes will increase tax revenue, yeah, that's the ticket! More faith based bull. You just got to believe!
Well spending was part of the equation too, both Reagan and Bush2 greatly expanded military spending which were major factors in the deficits.
My thought has always been if you want to spend extra money on stuff, be it military or wars or whatever, then you raise taxes to pay for it. Not cut taxes and borrow. If Bush wanted to double military spending as he did and start a war, he should have raised taxes. But he did the opposite, and we got $5 trillion more debt.
That's a beef I have alwasy had with Obama too. You want national health care? Great. Either cut spending in other areas or raise taxes to pay for it.
You never increase spending and cut tax rates at the same time.
There is always a point at which with constant spending, the next tax rate increase will result in less revenue and the next decrease will do the same. There is a sweet spot, and we have largely been in it for most of the past 30 years. Ever since the last big Reagan era marginal rate adjustment we have seen overall rates fluctuate by only a very small amount. It's mostly for political show.
The key to significant revenue increases is increases in economic activity. Nothing else matters. During recessions we have large decreases, during booms, large increases. The deficit becomes a matter of spending, only.
That's the point, IMO the financial crises was not a made up horror that use created to scare people into supporting a plan Obama wanted to implement ... it wasn't a "scare tactic" -- there was something really to be scared about, buttressed by the fact that the Bush admin and Fed and others were all saying the same thing. Plus, Obama I don't think really wanted to start off spending a bunch of money on wall street, he'd have spent it on health care or some other project he favors.
Not denying the left doesn't use scare tactics too -- the classic case being the fear tactic that if Reagan was elected he'd start a nuclear war. But the scare of the financial crisis was real.
no, you're missing the point....he said IF HIS PLAN was not passed...there is absolutely no way to know that his plan will work 100%...just like there wasn't a 100% chance that saddam had the weapons and would not use them...even DEMS said he would use them and had them...
if you all you have is some silly tit for tat, don't bother, its getting boring
Tit for tat or not, IMO the fear of an economic collapse justifying fiscal intervention, as done by both the Republican and Democratic administrations, is not the same "scare tactic" as "we are to believe that President Obama is going to "take our guns", turn us into a "socialist country", "raise everyone's taxes", etc." to which your post responded.
Oh and I forgot this is a Media Matters op ed that means it is a lie. The only difference between David Brock now and David Brock when he did the hit job on Anita Hill is that he now lies and still gets invited to all the cool parties in Washington.
Well spending was part of the equation too, both Reagan and Bush2 greatly expanded military spending which were major factors in the deficits.
My thought has always been if you want to spend extra money on stuff, be it military or wars or whatever, then you raise taxes to pay for it. Not cut taxes and borrow. If Bush wanted to double military spending as he did and start a war, he should have raised taxes. But he did the opposite, and we got $5 trillion more debt.
That's a beef I have alwasy had with Obama too. You want national health care? Great. Either cut spending in other areas or raise taxes to pay for it.
You never increase spending and cut tax rates at the same time.
Don't understand?
There is always a point at which with constant spending, the next tax rate increase will result in less revenue and the next decrease will do the same. There is a sweet spot, and we have largely been in it for most of the past 30 years. Ever since the last big Reagan era marginal rate adjustment we have seen overall rates fluctuate by only a very small amount. It's mostly for political show.
What is the basis for your contention that we have been in the "sweet spot" for the past 30years, when real GDP growth was superior in the 50s and 60s than any time we've been in the "sweet spot"?
In 1993 Clinton increased taxes by 30% from a 31% top marging to almost 40%. That greatly increased revenues and was the major factor there was a surplus budget. That is not a very small amount, IMO.
The key to significant revenue increases is increases in economic activity. Nothing else matters. During recessions we have large decreases, during booms, large increases. The deficit becomes a matter of spending, only.
All other things being equal, if you increase the effective rate 30% you get 30% more revenues. It's simple math. The effective tax rates makes a big diffference. Cut the tax rates and your revenues fall and you run deficits (unless you slash spending).
That is exactly what happened in the 00s, when revenues fell by hundreds of billions despite an economy that was growing at at least 3% per annum.
