Well, this sounds promising on Drudge:
THE ACCENT... THE ANGER... THE ACCUSATIONS... THE SERMON...
THE SHOUT OUT TO REV. WRIGHT, WHO IS IN AUDIENCE...
'My pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He's a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country'..
FOXNEWS 9 PM ET...
'We don't need to build more highways out in the suburbs'...
TONIGHT: OBAMA'S OTHER RACE SPEECH
Yeah, I was going to drive the girls to dance in a little bit, but no – I think I’ll just delegate that job to my husband, tonight….
The “we don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs” line would seem to corroborate what Stanley Kurtz wrote about Obama in what PJ Media’s Ron Radosh called the book to Defeat Obama: Stanley Kurtz’s Spreading the Wealth.
What Stanley Kurtz has accomplished in his new book Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, to be published on August 2, is nothing less than the complete exposure of President Barack Obama’s secret plans for his second term in office — plans that in reality amount to an assault on the values, well-being ,and quality of life of the very middle-class voters he claims to represent.
The unfortunate title — not an attention-grabber in bookstores —does not covey the breadth of his research, the scholarly yet readable and comprehensive analysis of where the president is coming from, and the nature of the social policy Obama will put into practice if he wins a second term. They amount to an entire gamut of initiatives, some well underway, to redistribute wealth not from the fabled 1% — who really do not have enough to save us from fiscal Armageddon even if the government took 80% of their profits — but from the average, middle-class, hardworking citizens who sought better lives and realized the American dream by moving to the suburbs, where the air is cleaner, the schools are decent, and life is peaceful and integrated.
These citizens are the very swing voters Obama is now courting; his many TV commercials about helping the middle class target them. What Kurtz reveals in chilling detail is that the group of radicals surrounding the president — names most of us (including me) are not familiar with — are nevertheless as dangerous and extreme in their goals as Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. While those three are persona non grata in the White House, these unknown radicals are just as important, and they are planning social policy with Obama’s approval.
If someone was to say that these people want nothing less than to destroy suburbs in America, you might think that this sounds too crazy to be any kind of real possibility. Yet this is their goal and their hope, motivated by the belief that the growth of the suburbs was not a result of the desire to spread out and lead a good life by people who wanted to realize the American dream, but instead was fueled by racism, greed, and a desire to benefit from exploiting poor minorities. Those making such arguments occupy what is called a “regionalist” movement, and they hope to attain their goal through programs like regional tax base sharing in which money previously held by suburban communities for the benefit of those who live in them will be taken and redistributed to nearby cities and poorer suburbs.
Hat tip: AoSHQ who’s over there eating popcorn.
But you know – the sad fact of the matter is, if the MSM decides to embargo the story – and of course they will – it won’t go outside Fox News and the right wing blogosphere. They’re letting Obama get away with lying to the country for a week after the Benghazi attack that killed four of our citizens. They let Obama and Holder lie about Fast and Furious, another scandal with a body count….
Obama’s journolistas are probably coordinating with the White House as we speak on the best way to handle this story – which will be of course, they’re favorite tactic – ignoring it completely.
I know we all want to think that this will be the blockbuster story that finally wakes people up to who and what Obama is – but I’m getting a sick deja vu feeling from 2008.
UPDATE:
Now Drudge is saying a “nearly 40 minute” tape will be posted tonight at 9:00 Eastern at The Daily Caller.
For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America…
OBAMA DECLARES HOW POOR PEOPLE: ‘Need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office’… Developing…
UPDATE II:
Ace: Is This The Tape?
Eh – having listened to most of the 9:20 scrubbed version of this, I sure hope the full version has a lot more to offer than the usual left-wing clap-trap about Katrina, and the war in Iraq. Even Obama’s fakey black preacher affectation is mild and we’ve all heard it before.
Here’s a clip from Hannity’s program tonight.
One thing is for sure…the fake preacher voice was much more pronounced in the parts of the speech where he was feigning “righteous indignation” about the Stafford Act…
“What’s happenin’ down in N’awlins? ? Where’s yo Dollah? Where’s yo Stafford Act Moneh? Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in N’awlins – they don’t care about as much.”
Puh-leese.
SEE ALSO:
John Nolte, Big Journalism: Time’s Mark Halperin Melts Down over Drudge’s Obama-Video Tease
Ezra Dulis, Big Journalism:Media Freakout: Left, Right Spar over 2007 Obama Video
Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!
October, 2, 2012 at 6:49 pm
This ought to be interesting to say the least. This is most likely the “race speech” we all should’ve heard back in ’08, that really covers his true feelings, but I’m not sure it would’ve made a difference back then. The mileage we get out of it will be another thing, we’ll just hafta see on that. While there are some cracks now appearing from some of his media cohorts, I’m not that confident that the rats have starting jumping ship. There are plenty of unraveling threads available for them to grab onto and follow from this administration . . . . . . it’s all coming apart.
October, 2, 2012 at 9:35 pm
[...] Nice Deb wonders if the MSM will embargo this. [...]
October, 2, 2012 at 9:35 pm
For the indie voters, it might cause them to wonder why they voted this guy in. He was like the winner of American Idol, who portrayed himself differently on tv but was a nasty guy back-stage. They might be actually seeing the real-life Obama and not like him very much at all.
October, 3, 2012 at 3:11 am
It’s really telling that FOX and Conservatives are desperately pinning their hopes to a speech given in 2007 that was vetted before the 2008 election. I listened to it – he suggested transportation to connect downtown with suburbs so workers could commute. He also critiqued the response to Katrina – like many others. He spoke to a black audience, in their lingo.
I heard FOX suggest that this meant he was not able to address 100% of Americans – yet he has met that test. As President, Commander in Chief, in comforting wounded veterans, and the families of those who never made it home.
Let’s face it – if you have to go back to a speech from 2007 to try and create an issue, you’re admitting defeat. There are real issues one can pin on Obama. Not Obamacare, not the war on terror, and factually, not the economy. He didn’t close GITMO. He allowed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to continue because the Republicans refused to sign a nuclear treaty with Russia unless he did (first time since Reagan we would have been without a nuke treaty with Russia-so much for country before party). Not the credit downgrade – S&P squarely laid that on the GOP House. Not high unemployment – it would be in the low 7% range had the GOP not blocked numerous jobs bills and not put 1 of their own forward. They claim they did, but the CBO ranked the few that might create jobs and determined they would have no significant impact.
But, there are things one can find if one looks. But 2007? That’s just desperation. .
October, 3, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] attended the church of a prejudiced pastor. http://patterico.com/2012/10/02/excl…-and-more-fun/ http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/10…ht-on-hannity/ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh…-nervous-break •Another solar panel manufacturer [...]
October, 3, 2012 at 7:03 am
[...] October Surprise? Obama’s “Other Race Speech” To Be Aired Tonight on Hannity/Daily… (nicedeb.wordpress.com) Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintLinkedInDiggStumbleUponTumblrPinterestRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
October, 3, 2012 at 8:14 am
He also critiqued the response to Katrina – like many others.
“Many others” didn’t have to resort to the race card.
…if you have to go back to a speech from 2007 to try and create an issue, you’re admitting defeat.
Not really, unless going back to Romney’s Bain years means the Dems have admitted defeat.
Not Obamacare, not the war on terror, and factually, not the economy.
Obama pins Obamacare on Obama. We would never try to credit Obama with the war on terror. And the economy? Every policy and instinct has been wrong.
He allowed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to continue
Do you even know why tax cuts for the wealthy have a positive effect on the economy? Slightest clue?
October, 3, 2012 at 8:47 am
The anti fox needs to get a grip. Any info on Obama over the last 10 years is fair game. Heck apparently the last 50 years are fair game for Obamamaniacs to use against Romney, remember the bruhaha over a high school prank. Obama has admitted to pot smoking and cocaine use in high school. You just do not want any accurate info detrimental to Obama to be presented. Granted there is plenty of fodder for us to use from the last disasterous four years but that doesn’t mean that anything prior to that is off the table. Grow a pair and realize the Obama is going down for the last four years of incompetency but we can still point the fact that the media has not done its job vetting Obama. They were too occupied with Palin’s emails…
October, 3, 2012 at 8:51 am
I think I’d have to agree with Fox up above, there is absolutely no reason to resort to a ’07 video of cheobama to confirm that he is a racist and completely incompetent. I and many other people knew it back then and now we can give you dozens of reasons from the last four years as proof.
One only needs to review they events of the last three weeks for confirmation. However, if that is to far in the past for you, we can return to way back, yesterday . . . . . . . . .
“How they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried in the last four years,” Joe Biden
Who needs history, eh anti-fox?
October, 3, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Here is a video that has been around for a couple of days now, and unlike obama’s pastor this one has a real message for the Black Community.
Well worth the listen . . ..
Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Blacks
October, 3, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Let’s examine Biden’s comment. It’s clear you watch FOX and are repeating their talking point without thinking it through. They count on that
Although the Great Recession ran from 2007 – 2009 (pre-Obama, during Obama’s first year) the events of 08/2008 set the economy in free fall. We lost millions of jobs, GDP plummeted, etc. Hmmm….2012-2008 = 4 last I checked. His comment was factual, and not a referendum on the Obama administration..(per the majority of Americans) They remember how McCain flew back to Washington in a frenzy, cancelling his appearance on a late night show to address the serious issues – only they had acted, and he had nothing to do when he go there. And they also know that it took 10 years to recover from the Great Depression – and that’s with WW II. It could have easily taken 15. So why would anyone think the crater created by Bush would take less than half of that?
Since you’re a history, ort a math buff, let me remind you – Obama was not in office when this started, and the middle class has been hammered – by the Bush economic melt down. However, from the time Obama was in office, he ended the Great Recession, we have seen 4.6M jobs created,(actually more, due to an underestimate of 369K by the BLS), an auto industry back on top, the stock market back to pre-crash highs etc. For reference, that’s more private sector jobs than created under both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr, or the previous 12yrs of Republicans in office. Someone said why allow Obama any credit for UBL? It’s simple really,. Suggesting Obama doesn’t get credit is the equivalent of saying UBL doesn’t get credit because he wasn’t in one of the planes?! I suggest you could listen to Admiral McRaven’s personal account of Obama’s role. Then you’ll have to call a sitting Admiral a liar – oh, but you support the military…..or do you if he doesn’t fit your narrative? http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/26/admiral-mcraven-on-bin-laden-raid-one-of-historys-great-intelligence-operations/
But why admit any of this? You’d have to acknowledge Obama has done something positive. And reviewing the substance of your comments, it would appear your “issues” keep you focused on things that don’t matter, in an attempt to prove something you cannot. You can look for legitimate issues, but you didn’t. In the long run, it doesn’t matter. Your candidate has a 23% chance of winning – if that. Obama will again, per the will of the people, be re-elected. I’d prepare yourself for supporting the choice of America “this time” rather than looking for reasons not to.
But its a free country. You’re not required to pay attention to facts, real timelines, or support the choices your country makes – just adhere to the law and you’re free to exercise your rights. Obama will fight for your right to do so.
Now, before you run off about me being a liberal, I’m not. Odd’s are I was a Republican longer than most of you have been alive. I’ve been a card carrying, fund raising member of the GOP and done more to support the parties objectives than most. That changed when they started putting party before country, at which point I became an independent. My comments above are all based on facts I have researched – I do not rely on the media – except to alert me to issues. Then I read the actual Bill, the Congressional Record, or research the facts. Non-biased information is readily available if you look.
October, 3, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Actually, yes, I understand the concept of economic stimulation quite well Geoff. That is what reduced tax rates are supposed to do, make more money available in the economy to stimulate growth. Unfortunately, the data rarely supports that outcome. Bush did it twice with marginal impact. It didn’t prevent the Great Recession of 2007-2009 or the economic meltdown of 2008. It didn’t create jobs under Bush….it led to reduced job creation.
Do you realize the tax cuts are on “personal income” after business expenses? They have zero impact on hiring. The only impact they have is on the amount of take home pay 3% of small businesses have or, net income after taxes for a corporation. Hiring is done “within” the business, yet a lower personal rate encourages money being taken out of the company, without hiring.
Here is a list of the upper tax brackets for the past 100 yrs. It comes from the IRS so if you don’t like the group that put this together, you can go to the IRS website and re-learn the same thing. You will see that the upper tax rate has been over 50% more than half of the past century. Take a look at what happens right before 1929 and 2007. Then look at what happened in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s – when the middle class grew.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
October, 3, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Texas Mom – It’s true, one can go back and find new things from the past, and they can provide insight into a candidate. Recall Bush had a DUI – and to his credit, he stopped drinking. But, to all who know alcohol abuse, this meant he was an alcoholic who was managing his disease. Which I commend him for. Still, only 16% of alcoholics can manage to remain in control which means he had a 84% likelihood of falling back into it. Again, I commend him for not doing so. But with an 84% chance of re-occurrence, he was elected to lead our nation. it’s true, Obama wrote about things he said he did in college. I suspect if honesty prevailed, more than half of the posters here would admit to substance abuse, in some form, while in HS or College. Abuse they grew out of and never went back to. So, if we can elect an alcoholic, twice, and we’ve elected men who have experimented in their youth, what difference does it make what Obama did as a college kid 30 yrs ago?
Romney’s clip about bullying was new, and perhaps a bit more telling. His was focused on abusing others, not just himself. Bush’s DUI surfaced a month before election. The tape of Obama is not new. It was reviewed in 2007, vetted in 2008 by the voters, and he was elected President by the will of the people. He received more votes than any President in history. You can’t un-ring that bell, and no matter what you think or how much you dislike him, he is one of 44 men who have been the President of the United States. Odd’s are he will be again; per the will of the people.
My point still stands. Going back to a video that has been seen, vetted, and accepted by the American people is a sign of desperation by the Right. There is nothing new there – just an attempt to create an issue that has been reviewed and determined not to be significant. You can use it to stir up the right, but it won’t change the election.
There are things one can find about Obama’s record – he’s not perfect. And now that he has been President for nearly 4 yrs. his record is what should matter. Just sayin…
October, 3, 2012 at 2:45 pm
It didn’t prevent the Great Recession of 2007-2009 or the economic meltdown of 2008.
Largely because the two rounds of tax cuts had nothing to do with the Great Recession or the economic meltdown.
It didn’t create jobs under Bush….it led to reduced job creation.
Oh. So that’s how Bush ended up creating 2 million jobs per year between the end of 2003 and the end of 2006. Reducing job creation to increase the number of jobs. Simply diabolical.
Do you realize the tax cuts are on “personal income” after business expenses?
You do realize that all of the money taken as tax revenue is unavailable for investment in economic enterprise? Save for the government’s disastrously inefficient loan guarantee programs and tax incentives? I’ve run several small businesses – believe me, I understand how taxation works. And believe me as well, if my take-home goes down, I’m cutting business expenses or raising prices to make up the difference. In the former case, that means no hires.
Here is a list of the upper tax brackets for the past 100 yrs. It comes from the IRS so if you don’t like the group that put this together, you can go to the IRS website and re-learn the same thing.
Debunked long ago. As has been pointed out time and again, the upper tax bracket alone is meaningless, since those brackets don’t represent taxes paid (i.e., taken out of the private economy). A year ago I went through the exercise of plotting tax revenues vs. GDP growth. It was instructive.
October, 3, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Going back to a video that has been seen, vetted, and accepted by the American people is a sign of desperation by the Right.
Except for the part where we weren’t shown this portion of the video. Hard to vet what you can’t see.
You see, we’ve felt since 2004 that Barack Obama is completely two-faced on racial relations. He tells us that he’s a uniter and that he’s going to usher in a post-racial society, but when we look at what he actually does, we find that he never hesitates to use a race card and act in divisive fashion. Videos like this aren’t going to change anybody’s mind, but they certainly corroborate what we already knew – this president consistently says one thing and does the opposite.
October, 3, 2012 at 3:20 pm
What is with the spam filter today? Everything’s going to spam lately.
October, 3, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Anti-Flux:
I’ve got to admit that there is some of the funniest drivel I’ve heard in years. But this one really takes the cake:
. . . . . . . .Now, before you run off about me being a liberal, I’m not.
I never said that cheobama was in office when this recession started, but like the last great one when the other dopey lib was in office, he did everything exactly the opposite of what needed to be done. With the same results, zero.
Economies in a capitalist society have normal fluctuations of up and downs, unlike a socialists, marxists system which always stays flat and nobody but the “regime” prospers. [Refer to today's economy and the last four years]. What actually collapsed the current economy was 40 years of dopey liberulism. Giving away stuff that somebody has to pay for. There is no free ride and you’ll never succeed with your hands in someone else’s pockets. Like the cost of “free housing” from the CRA that started back with jimma karta. Which Bush tried to address and your buds like Bwaney Phlank said there was nothing wrong here…….just move along. Then the “Squirter in Chief” a.k.a. the “stain master”, doubled down on it. cheobama doesn’t not have a jobs creation of 4 million, as confirmed just this week it is somewhere around 100K, and when you figure in the number of people who have left the jobs market, he is net zero, with a “actual” unemployment number of about 16 percent. Nice try though.
As far as the video, it’s nothing I didn’t know back in ’07 or when he was serving in the Illinois Senate. He’s a empty suit, a sharpton or jackarse lite. He had no qualifications then and he’s proved it for the last four years. I didn’t need this video to enlighten me to the fact. It is just a diversion to the real problems your boys have created by electing this clown, the lawlessness of his administration, his total disregard for the U.S. Constitution, his directing others to break the law or his own legislative Executive fiat superseding actual law. We have a “Representative Government” with three “Co-Equal” Branches of Government. Not a Monarchy or a Dictatorship.
And no I am not a Republican, but there is no doubt your either dopey lib OR a certified card carrying PaulBot. You disappointed me I was waiting for the “ole Federal Reserve” line of BS. Either way doesn’t make a diff to me. Just remember to vote on Wednesday November 7th, your comrade is counting on it.
October, 3, 2012 at 4:17 pm
If you didn’t see it, you should watch the MSM
The entire transcript was published in the Chicago Times in 2007, and the tape was shown on MSNBC and others. I remember it. What do you think was missing? The video says nothing interesting, or new. Unless you’re looking for that, or, were told that it did.
You are right about one thing. It substantiates what you believe, not because of the actual content or meaning, but because of the alternate reality Drudge and FOX assigned to it – and you believed all along.
October, 3, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Yeah, Anti-Fox you’re not fooling anyone, here, okay?
We all know the entire transcript (that the Obama campaign provided news outlets) was published on many sites. What’s your point? Our point is the obvious one – HE WENT OFF SCRIPT. That’s why the edited tape which was made available everywhere is so much shorter than the one the Daily Caller just exposed, and further, where Obama went off script, the most outrageous racial demagoguery occurred. Those are the parts the MSM and the Obama camp didn’t want disseminated, and why even now they’re engaging in a disimformation campaign to delegitimize it.
Resemble that remark?
October, 3, 2012 at 5:00 pm
It didn’t prevent the Great Recession of 2007-2009 or the economic meltdown of 2008.
Largely because the two rounds of tax cuts had nothing to do with the Great Recession or the economic meltdown.
TAF p Perhaps you should read the CBO – here are 3 graphics, created by them, and used by another source. Don’t confuse the source presenting them with the author, The Congressional Budget Office: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/
It didn’t create jobs under Bush….it led to reduced job creation.
Oh. So that’s how Bush ended up creating 2 million jobs per year between the end of 2003 and the end of 2006. Reducing job creation to increase the number of jobs. Simply diabolical.
TAF – Cite the source of your data. It conflicts with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you use another source, explain why it is a more reliable source than the BLS. BLS shows Bush created negative 646,000 jobs – net total, which is what really matters.
Do you realize the tax cuts are on “personal income” after business expenses?
You do realize that all of the money taken as tax revenue is unavailable for investment in economic enterprise? Save for the government’s disastrously inefficient loan guarantee programs and tax incentives? I’ve run several small businesses – believe me, I understand how taxation works. And believe me as well, if my take-home goes down, I’m cutting business expenses or raising prices to make up the difference. In the former case, that means no hires.
TAF- Let me put this another way. Once the money is taken out of the business – and paid to the owner, or executive, it can increase economic stimulation “if” they spend it. People don’t hire from their personal accounts – except for the occasional nanny, or gardener. But they can buy more things – like yachts, homes, expensive cars, etc. The problem – the more you take out for the top earners, the less there is for the rest and the number of the wealthy is a small percentage of wage earners compared to the remainder. I have also run several businesses, as well as worked for an industry leader with multiple billion dollar product lines. If your take home goes below a certain amount, of course, you will cut back. But, you have latitude in what you need to support your standard of living, and more importantly, if you see growth in your businesses future. It sounds like you were “getting by” and did not see investments in your business leading to growth.
Here is a list of the upper tax brackets for the past 100 yrs. It comes from the IRS so if you don’t like the group that put this together, you can go to the IRS website and re-learn the same thing.
Debunked long ago. As has been pointed out time and again, the upper tax bracket alone is meaningless, since those brackets don’t represent taxes paid (i.e., taken out of the private economy). A year ago I went through the exercise of plotting tax revenues vs. GDP growth. It was instructive.
TAF – So, you’re saying the IRS has published the wrong information, and misinforms tax payers, year after year, on tax brackets? Interesting. Using their web site, prove it. Now you’re using a different metric; tax to GDP. SinceThen you know when upper tax brackets were higher, our GDP was significantly higher and when they were lower, GDP declined – starting in 1981. Your assumption requires there to be zero deficits, which all 3 Republican Presidents failed to deliver (Reagan, Bush and Bush). Clinton got us to a surplus. If you have deficit driven tax cuts, you decrease GDP. There is a great study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the God’s of economics – they are the ones that define when we are in Recession or Depression). http://www.nber.org/
In 1985 the US was the worlds larges creditor. In 2008 (pre-Obama) we were the worlds largest debtor. The math is not on your side, especially if you look at this at the macro level.
Perhaps you should remember this fact.”Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24,” Clinton said. “In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million).” – Clinton – fact checked and rechecked – held true per BLS statistics.
October, 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm
So, you’ve devolved from discussing issues to making stuff up. OK – you refer to Executive Orders. Obama has used fewer of them than any of the past 5 Presidents. Further, a number of the things you were told were done by EO were not. Immigration was per a 2003 policy created by the Bush administration and supported by the Supreme Court. There was no Executive Order. You’re welcome to look it up – here is the definitive list of EO’s – show us the one for Immigration for example: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html or other example of “circumventing the law”
Now, you talk a lot about economics – as if you know something. You cite no sources, and all reputable sources do not support you.
My definition of drivel is when you make claims, do not cite sources, and devolve into name calling when you can’t back up your positions. Hmm……if the shoe fits you.
Now, put on your grown up panties and use a fact you can back up. Cite a source (not a RW blog). If you can’t keep up, READ!
October, 3, 2012 at 5:16 pm
It is now being reported that when Malcolm 10th xxxx errrr X xxxx eeerrr cheobama was railing about the Stafford Act not being applied to New Orleans in his tirade, it was passed several days before his rage speech . . . . . . . [wait for it]. . . . . . . he voted against it.
More dopey lib hypocrisy and yet more dopey lib racism!
October, 3, 2012 at 6:51 pm
TAF p Perhaps you should read the CBO – here are 3 graphics, created by them, and used by another source. Don’t confuse the source presenting them with the author, The Congressional Budget Office:
Perhaps you should check your sourcing: Pew, E21, and CBPP. They’re filtering the CBO data for you, so you’re not getting your info straight from the source. And none of the three charts shows anything relating to jobs or the recession, they all say, gosh, if we’d taxed people more, and if that didn’t have an effect on the economy, then the deficit would be smaller. But that’s a silly statement – the whole reason the President wants to extend the tax cuts is that he knows that increasing taxes will hurt the economy.
So the presumption that GDP growth would remain stable when taxes are increased isn’t believed by the Obama administration. You can refer once more to the chart I referenced above.
BLS shows Bush created negative 646,000 jobs – net total, which is what really matters.
Nope. First of all, I always use BLS data. For numbers of jobs I always use the seasonally adjusted non-farm stats from the Establishment Survey, as recommended by BLS. If you’re not using that data, you should be. The numbers are exactly as I stated: prior to the collapse of the housing bubble and the recession, 6 million jobs were created in 3 years (and another 1.1 million were created in 2007).
As far as Bush’s job performance over his two terms, there were 132,466,000 jobs in January 2001, and 133,561,000 jobs in 2003. That’s an increase of 1.1 million jobs. While we should evaluate Bush’s performance over the entirety of his term, it doesn’t mean that the effect of the tax cuts should be evaluated over the same period. We should also avoid simplifying the problem by ignoring the changes in the composition of Congress
The problem – the more you take out for the top earners, the less there is for the rest and the number of the wealthy is a small percentage of wage earners compared to the remainder.
I don’t know what this has to do with tax rates, but it’s clear that you were never a conservative.
So, you’re saying the IRS has published the wrong information, and misinforms tax payers, year after year, on tax brackets?
No, and to interpret it that way is pitiful. You’re obviously not up to this discussion. You can have the last word.
October, 3, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Deb – I’ve read the change in comment that was missing from previous airings and transcripts. It doesn’t strike me as anything but factual and in context with his reason for being there. He was trying to motivate people to vote. Just like he did when he talked to other audiences, he addressed what resonated with this audience. Would you have the same issue if a Latino candidate spoke Spanish to the audience, and referenced their struggles? Are you asserting that his factual references to discrimination to an audience who has lived that, were wrong? I don’t see that.
Now, if he were suggesting that they form militias, and use violence to resolve their issues, I’d have a problem with that, just as I do when Tea Party members reference Second Amendment remedies if democracy doesn’t work out they way they want it to. But he did not do that. He referenced using government and personal accountability to solve problems that were relevant to that audience.
Just above the comment that concerns you, he made sure those in the audience who fit the demographic he referenced had some work to do – and we as a country had work to do to help them at a very basic level: “The solution, Obama says, is a series of new federal programs, including one to teach punctuality to the poor: “We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.”
If I were in that audience, and was poor, I’m not sure I would appreciate being told I needed a program to learn how to be punctual – regardless of whether it was true. The truth isn’t always flattering. Still, he said it, and presented an idea on how to solve it. Further, he has been in office now for nearly 4 years. Has he shown anything less than compassion for 100% of Americans? I don’t think so. He has promoted the concept of economic patriotism, as did Republican President Eisenhower who set the top tax brackets at the highest levels in our history. I’m not suggesting we do what Ike, the Republican did, but it is worth noting that he was the last Republican President to balance the budget, significantly grow the economy, invest significantly in America (interstate highways for one), pay down the national debt, and create a strong middle class. If Eisenhower were to run today, he would be considered far left of Obama. Amazing – a Republican, and Five Star General, elected to two terms, is more left than Obama using today’s line of acceptable position.
I don’t come here expecting to change those who dislike President Obama. There are no facts that can change personal preference. But ideally, we make the most important decision / role we have in our democracy not on feelings, or personal bias, but on facts. I provide a different opinion, typically backed up with data that can be cited.
Interestingly enough, I find the comment addressing the needs of the poor – in a very straightforward manner, more relevant to his character than his references to well documented facts about slavery.
October, 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Golf clap . . . . . Geoff!
The silence is not only deafening, it’s golden.
October, 3, 2012 at 8:12 pm
A few notes before I dig up the info you have misrepresented – aka – give you the handout you’ve indicated you need.
1. The graphic you said was distorted came “as is” from the CBO. I warned you not to confuse the source providing it with the authors, but, you still did. The chart came from the CBO report – as cited. I will give you the hand out you need, and provide you with a link to the study and page number the chart is on.
2. You have made a number of claims that favor your position, but are not factually relevant. For example – on job creation under a President, the number is “always” net job creation. Jobs created – jobs lost = net job creation. It is not what you see in the monthly Employment Situation Summary – aka jobs report. To use anything else is cherry picking. However, there are a number of CBO reports that address the Bush tax cuts and job creation. I will give you the hand out you require. It would be nicer if you would look them up yourself, but, even then, I sense you might distort their findings. I operate differently. I look to the data to direct my thinking. You appear to look for data that supports your opinion – only you never provide a link to the study that supports your opinion. I would assert there is a reason for that.
3. You personalize economic data. It’s just data Geoff. You imply you know things that only a mind reader could know (you’ve never been a Conservative). Are you really suggesting you’re a Carnival Act? I doubt you meant that. But, since you think you can read minds, and know all about someones history by reading a statement, explain the basis for your ability to extrapolate your belief based on what little you know. I double dog dare ya
If you’re right, you have a future an the Carnival 
Simply put, you should not make assumptions, much less, develop positions on them.
4. You don’t know what the IRS has to do with tax rates? Really? OK…..I’ll provide you a handout. The IRS publishes effective tax rates so that you, or your CPA/Accountant can do your taxes! Now, here is the info you said was debunked – from 1953 IRS Guidelines for Form 1040, pg 12, 1953 Tax Rate Schedule http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040–1953.pdf
Over the next few days I’ll give you the handouts you’ve implicitly asked for. Until then – no more rhetoric. If you can’t cite a source to back up your point, don’t bother to waste your time typing it. It’s time to get down to hard data. Specifics, the things many Conservatives fear the most.