“The party that wrecked America”

This country doesn't deserve Obama

Let them elect Mcpain

That took a lot of confidence to agree to be on Billblows show.

john, here's the real problem with the democrat and framing the "tax debate";

republicans do NOT lower taxes, they redistribute taxes

reagan was the BIGGEST tax increaser in the history of peactime presidents, he did NOT "lower taxes", he redistributed the tax burden

first of all, democrats MUST make that clear, OVER ALL, REAGAN RAISED TAXES HE DID NOT LOWER THEM

that's the first thing, the next is obama will NOT be "raising taxes on the wealthy", that is NOT the way to frame the discussion;

he will be RE-AQUIRING the assets that were STOLEN from the middle class...get back middle class assets is NOT raising taxes.

now, the correct framing would be something along the lines;

"Contrary to republican spin, reagan raised taxes he did not lower them, the obama economic strategy will be to LOWER taxes BACK to the rates prevalent before reagan raised those taxes"

BING

the republicans will go nuts

We need Phil Donahue back on our side to even the playing field.Of course the difference would be that Phil wouldn't have to bully anyone with talking points.He'd simply have to present them with cold hard facts and watch them squirm.

To respond (without having watched yet), BillO is good at what he does. His job is to keep ratings high, not journalism. As an entertainer, he keeps people tuning in.

In America wealth is idolized, over everything else. It doesn't matter if the "work" is "dishonourable", once you have enough money, you are a superstar.

In countries where this is no aristocracy, wealth becomes the only measuring stick. Say what you want about the 'old order' and aristocrats, but they have honour. They have a code to adhere to, no matter what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVyE5mWPpkc Maverick?

Bill's pretty full of it when he said he cut off Obama just to move things along. He didn't let him go three words without trying to talk over him. I don't think Obama got to finish one sentence. He of all people should not call Obama "glib." The man gets paid to be glib for a living. Geez, O'Reilly is a jerk. Obama was respectful the whole time and never tried to talk over O'Reilly. I don't get how he was trying to put down Obama by calling him Robin Hood. Wasn't Robin Hood the hero? When did he become the bad guy? When did we go back to wanting so much wealth in the hands of so few?

Edwin Hussein @ 12:

To respond (without having watched yet), BillO is good at what he does. His job is to keep ratings high, not journalism. As an entertainer, he keeps people tuning in.

In America wealth is idolized, over everything else. It doesn't matter if the "work" is "dishonourable", once you have enough money, you are a superstar.

In countries where this is no aristocracy, wealth becomes the only measuring stick. Say what you want about the 'old order' and aristocrats, but they have honour. They have a code to adhere to, no matter what.

The Executive branch, the House, Senate, and even the Supremes are all working hand-in-hand to turn America into their Mcmerica with the U.S.Treasury as their personal "piggy-bank". They are "all" on a roll and don't want "we the people" to upset their collective ongoing scam.

Actually the most astounding thing is how tech has gotten people to work for free. And without complaining.

So, the past 8 years of Bush tax cuts for the corporations and wealthy, how again did that benefit the middle class Orally? Oh ya, it raised unemployment, gas prices have skyrocketed, millions of home-loans defaulted and most Americans are making less now in adj. income than 2000. Ya, lets keep pushing for those tax breaks Orally!

Gwen - I know! I don't get it either. I don't trust that sleaze will give ANY money to the stock market or charity or quite frankly anything other than his own savings account.

Why do Dems stand by idly like guys respectfully waiting for a fresh pour at a wine bar while they are mocked, maligned, denigrated and Swiftboated from contention by agents of the other side?

Who really cares what that FAT HEAD BillO says? I certainly don't let it bother me, anymore than I would allow the rantings of any other DRUNKEN BUM bother me... it certainly should not bother any of us. We know these folks. They are ZEROS who have been left behind. The more educated people become, the more audience they lose. These CRETINS are clinging to a dying sect of our society... the GOP. Just take a look at any McCain gathering on the media and you will see media directors working their butts off to make it appear that he has an audience at all... the close up shots, the dark lighting of the audience so as to not make clear the DISMAL ATTENDANCE... BillO... you sir are nothing but a loud mouthed ZERO... I know it, YOU know it, and the majority of the USA who have grown tired of you KNOW IT.

How can Bill O'really be so tall, and yet such a mental midget at the same time?

Cutting taxes for 95% of taxpayers is class warfare?

Of course B.O. is in favor of a regressive tax - he made $9 million in 2006. And that was just his salary - it does not include book deals, kickbacks, insider trading, bribes, etc.

Meileen Says:

Wow that was interesting to watch. It’s strange to think that a little over a century ago investing in public projects was a sign of high status. The ideal was that wealthy individuals would invest in their community with public art, libraries, parks, etc. A sign of wealth was that you gave some of it back.

Now the rich do things like fund creationist/Christianist think tanks and con people into voting for regressive ballot initiatives they paid to have put on the ballot.

Dear Bill,

You bore me. You're predictable, often (usually) wrong, and you're a blowhard.

I shall continue to mock you and your little falafel... and wonder how it is you ever got anywhere close to a real woman.

Politically, you are a partisan hack, not a journalist. You are no more "fair and honest" than McCain and Palin are qualified to be anything but dogcatcher.

However, I do salute you for carrying the Rethuglican Party's water over the years; it must comfort them to know that you're faithful to their cause, making news instead of reporting as a true journamalist would.

To our fellow Americans who want change, please consider doing the following: each time Blowhard Bill opens his mouth, please consider giving a donation to the Obama campaign. We can call it "Channeling Hot Air for a Good Cause."

I'm Dejah Thoris and I approve this taunt, because, as a regular, patriotic American who knows that the right wing is NOT anointed by gawd, this is probably the closest I'd ever want to come to you, anyway.

garcia @ 9:

I'd like to know what Obama is trying to prove by talking to that asshole.
That old dude is so irritating! Damn!

Because even tho Billo is an assclown he is going to challenge Obama and make him answer questions that someone like olberman would not ask him, and he will also question him if he senses an inconsistancy. I don't agree with the way he handles the interview interupting him and constantly making idiotic remarks.......BUT Obama is very intelligent and handles himself well....Obama is at his best when someone infuriates him (see the clinton debates)....I personally think these interviews are way more interesting than when he was on Countdown, because Olberman (as much as I respect the man and commend him for telling the truth) loves this guy and didn't ask him any tough questions and also didn't call him on evading at least one question (mostly about the idiot Palin, that he has been avoiding to keep ridiculous things like the lipstick on a pig crap from happening).

But him being on Billo is like McCain sitting down with Rachel Maddow....I would love to see that! The only difference would be McCain would crumble (and thats why he won't talk to any real reporters!) whereas Obama has held his own and done very well.

Billo also likes "lively intrusions" of his Bill-hole.

what i find interesting is there are people/demographics
that don't want to hear both sides. there are people afraid of the truth......they might have to question their culture about an issue......if they do that they be scorned(sp). can you imagine if the court of law was managed this way where you could interrupt at will and NOT be given a chance to discuss your side/view.
i watch charlie rose and listen to npr where people aren't asked to figure out the world in 30 seconds.
his show is a trap for sound bites and editing.

This Oreilly piece of excrement; just EXUDES arrogance; when he is, in fact, an absolute nitwit.

Don't flatter yourself. I never read this site.

BillO

This is OT, but I have to disagree with your post about Biden saying that Clinton would have been a better Veep pick. The dream narrative that it would have united the party would not have been written. The stories would have been about A) whether Clinton really wants Obama to win, or does she secretly want him to lose so she can run again in 4 years without blame, B) how McCain was able to pick the right woman to solidify his base while "Obama's woman" (Clinton) hasn't quite done as good a job as "we" (the media) all thought.

Don't forget, for the media - Clinton = Drama, Drama = Ratings. We know they would talk about Clinton without ceasing, and we know that since it would be about Clinton, more than half of the stories would have been negative. Meanwhile, there hasn't been one negative word about Biden yet. And while his statements on the campaign trail haven't been covered widely by the press, he has been hammering McCain while talking to voters directly (and without drama).

Lastly, picking Clinton would have definitely stepped on his change message. I'm a HUGE liberal who is not too fond of Clinton. Picking her would have suppressed a lot of my enthusiasm for Obama; and I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way. I was joking with a friend that (as someone who originally supported Edwards, and as someone who still likes his ideas) I would have rather have seen him pick Edwards over Clinton. That would have at least brought McCain's past infidelities back to the light, and stepped over whatever "values" cred he got for picking Palin... Of course no one saw the Palin pick coming when Obama made his choice.

40 Frybread Says: This country doesn’t deserve Obama

Let them elect Mcpain

I’m beginning to feel this way, too. I don’t think America is ready for a black man to be president.

I also don’t think America is ready to really solve its problems. Americans don’t want to face the fact that we are not an honest, informed society.

==========================

I tend to agree, but, for the rest of the planet, please fight to elect Obama.

I will still vote for Obama and campaign for him. But it just seems to me that many, many people still have not awakened despite how bad the Republicans have governed this country from 1994-2006.

Obama did great and Bill O looks like the blowhard idiot that he is. Perfect.

My co-worker who tries his best to stay out of political conversations watched this segment and approached me about it. He was upset at Billo. He felt that Billo usually fights for the ordinary folk, but in this segment he was complaining to Obama about raising "his taxes" and taking "my money" and totally ignoring the fact that 95% his viewers are the people who would benefit from Obama's tax plan. It puts O'Riley in a bad light and makes him look greedy.

I tried to watch, I really did, but Bill lost me at the point he uttered "Fair and Balanced". I cannot believe they are still pushing that lie. In his own words: "What a pinhead!" The man is pure shite, pure shite.

Oh, yeah, she also steals from charities.

Uppity Blue Lensman @52:

Howard Zinn: American Empire Is 'Crumbling'
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/98336/howard_zinn%3A_american_empire_i...

Did the Palinoids see that?

It was masterful.

I saw Bill Clinton give a speech, where he said, "I just got a tax rebate cheque of $87,000, but I DON'T NEED THE MONEY." It's true. BillO , at $10,000,000 a year, can afford to pay a fair share of taxes.

Obama did not sound good at all, but how could he have being interrupted repeatedly by Bill O.

Why any liberal candidate chooses to go on that loser’s show is beyond me. I watched Hillary on there and she sounded sooooooooooooo much better than Obama.

I’m seeing buyer’s remorse here. Obama should have picked Hillary, or Hillary should have been the candidate.

I have to resort to praying now, that McCain doesn’t win.

I have nothing against Obama. In fact, I think he is a great candidate for president. My negativity comes from the American people. I don't think we are an informed-enough society to vote for the candidate who has our best interests in mind, which in this case is Obama, IMO.

The phrase "Redistribution of wealth" that has become a staple in the Republican lexicon in its use against Obama and more broadly the Democratic Party is nonsense just on the face of it.

Guys like OReilly and Hannity whose egos are only matched by their bloated incomes want everyone to believe they're going to be suddenly poor if Obama is elected. Now while the thoughout of that is appealing, i say...hogwash! These clowns will still be raking in mid 6 figure incomes with all the niceties one could only wish to have.

I watched the whole thing up on youtube. Seriously impressive on Obama's part, I thought. Totally takes the hot air out of that moron...it's like a case study in verbal jiu-jitsu.

It is funny how all these guys talk about is what they are going to do with the money they steal from everyone. The fact is that the income tax is unconstitutional and it should be GONE, not changed.

Also I don't understand why liberals get caught up arguing about income taxes, instead of pointing out that the federal reserve pumps tons of money into the market causing inflation. That is why the dollar is worthless and the economy is terrible.

Obama is either not smart enough to know and point this out OR he is THE SAME as the other politicians. Either way, he is NOT worthy to be president.

CMINCA @ 66:

paranoia @ 54:

Unfortunately, this is how most of the Republicans I know think. They view higher taxes as a creeping socialism. They say "coutnry first", but it is really me first. We do pay a lot in taxes here in CA, (high state taxes, high sales taxes, high property taxes because of high real estate prices, high CA excise taxes on gasoline), but for the people I know, the increase in taxes might (and I stress might) mean the difference in buying a Lexus instead of a Jaguar, or buying a 500 series BMW instead of a 700 series. I don't believe in trickle-down (Reagan-Era Voodoo) economics. I care about the future of my children and this country.

Go look up Joe Biden's incredible charitable donations and then come back and let's talk about how much he cares about the future of anyone's welfare but his own.

freeman @ 71:

It is funny how all these guys talk about is what they are going to do with the money they steal from everyone. The fact is that the income tax is unconstitutional and it should be GONE, not changed.

Wrong. The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution specifically legalizes the collection of income tax by Congress. By virtue of the fact that it is an amendment to the constitution, it is in fact constitutional.

For all those who think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama, just compare this interview with her Charlie Gibson interview. It wasn't just a matter of smoothness or practice. It was a matter of comprehension of the issues and ability to communicate them intelligently. The difference was Obama could offer substance, not just barely remembered talking points. For anyone who dismisses him as "an empty suit," you've got a poor handle on the evidence.

me to me @ 8:

john, here's the real problem with the democrat and framing the "tax debate";

republicans do NOT lower taxes, they redistribute taxes

reagan was the BIGGEST tax increaser in the history of peactime presidents, he did NOT "lower taxes", he redistributed the tax burden

first of all, democrats MUST make that clear, OVER ALL, REAGAN RAISED TAXES HE DID NOT LOWER THEM

that's the first thing, the next is obama will NOT be "raising taxes on the wealthy", that is NOT the way to frame the discussion;

he will be RE-AQUIRING the assets that were STOLEN from the middle class...get back middle class assets is NOT raising taxes.

now, the correct framing would be something along the lines;

"Contrary to republican spin, reagan raised taxes he did not lower them, the obama economic strategy will be to LOWER taxes BACK to the rates prevalent before reagan raised those taxes"

BING

the republicans will go nuts

I second that motion fellow Hartmann listener and observer of sane ideas......
The only problem is...most americans respond to "lip-stick on a pig" or who the newest kidnapped white girl is........

JK

You don't know what you are talking about. The 16th amendment, first was NEVER properly ratified, second was deemed by the Supreme Court in several cases to NOT CHANGE ANY TAXING ABILITY of the government, and even if it was valid it is NOT a law.

There still needs to be a positive law on the books to create an income tax (THERE IS NONE). And the IR Code is careful to NOT say normal Americans are LIABLE to pay this tax.

Read this site for the truth http://www.losthorizons.com/index.html.

Hey, John.

Didn't know that BillO paid attention to C&L. That makes me very proud! I have watched BillO the Clown quite often the past number of years so I can send him emails very often....I'll rattle off 3 or 4 sometimes in a single program. The Clown has read some of mine on air.

He just got to me, though, during the first night of the DNC, and I haven't watched him too much since then. I've been out of town the past week, anyway, at my sister's in Chicago, and she's taken FNC out of her cable box!

I'll have to catch up with the Obama interview next week, and perhaps start watching him again when I get home so he can feel my wrath!

When I saw the first segment I was upset, like many viewers, that Obama went on the show. All downside and if BillO doesn't behave himself everyone looks stupid. However, this part went well I though. Obama can handle himself quite well and it is a pleasure to watch someone who actually does know the facts. One point he made several times was that he was going to cut taxes for many of "the people watching this show", which is a point that needs to be stressed over and over again. The Republicans are faux populism that sits with many common folk, but the democratic party is about real change that will help the common person. The other thing he said is the tax cuts will hurt him and it was nice to here someone be honest for a change.

Now for the after party with PHD/Republican hack/pollster Frank Luntz"

O'ReallY: "Was Obama smart to do the interview?"

PHDickhead: " If he won't sit down with you, how will he handle Putin?"

He can say that with a straight face while Ms Amerikan won't talk with anyone -much les be able to pronounce "nuculer".

Is this one of bimbo moment come to life where our VP doesn't need to know how to spell Volkswagon, because she drives a Porche?

We did it - we've managed to go from DUMB to DUMBER. Good job A'merkans! :O

freeman @ 81:

JK

You don't know what you are talking about. The 16th amendment, first was NEVER properly ratified, second was deemed by the Supreme Court in several cases to NOT CHANGE ANY TAXING ABILITY of the government, and even if it was valid it is NOT a law.

There still needs to be a positive law on the books to create an income tax (THERE IS NONE). And the IR Code is careful to NOT say normal Americans are LIABLE to pay this tax.

Read this site for the truth http://www.losthorizons.com/index.html.

You say "even if it was valid it is NOT a law." Amendments to the Constitution are law, although the applicability of those laws is decided ultimately by the Supreme Court. Court decisions are also law in a common law system such as ours. But if you want to tell the government to shove it in terms of your paying taxes, you're welcome to take your chances and argue your position in court. You can also argue all you want that the earth is flat and 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

I like this quote from the 5th Circuit Court in Crain v. Commissioner (1984):

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system—including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established... [Petitioner's argument] is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish."

I think these segments didn't get much coverage because they're so unnerving. Obama seems uncomfortably eager to please and lets O'Reilly push him around to a disturbing extent, imo. I mean, for the most part he tries to stick to his guns, but he hems and haws, is unsuccessful at getting his nuances across, and is generally deferent to the schmuck "interviewing" him, who instead seems to think it's a test to meet his approval. It's not a total embarrassment, but I don't think any Obama supporter wants to see this.

When will this capital gains nonsense end? Any increase in tax revenue created is a product of timing. If the capital gains tax is going to be eliminated starting on 1/1/09, what would a stock investor do? He obviously would wait until after 1/1/09 to sell his stocks so that he wouldn’t have to pay the tax. Lets assume that the capital gains tax is going to be raised to 30% on 1/1/09. In this case, the investor would sell his stocks before 1/1/09 so that he wouldn’t have to pay as much in terms of taxes. Do the rates have anything to do with the creation of the gains? Absolutely not! Claiming that tax revenues are increased by decreasing taxes is wingnut propaganda.

If O’Leilly is correct, then why haven’t the markets responded favorably?

The Dow on 1/20/93 = 3,241.95
The Dow on 1/18/01 = 10,678.28
The Dow on 9/12/08 = 11,421.99

The S&P 500 on 1/20/93 = 433.37
The S&P 500 on 1/18/01 = 1.347.97
The S&P 500 on 9/12/08 = 1,251.70

The Nasdaq on 1/20/93 = 697.44
The Nasdaq on 1/18/01 = 2,768.49
The Nasdaq on 9/12/08 = 2,261.27

As the facts clearly show, the Dow and S&P 500 both tripled under Clinton, and the Nasdaq nearly quadrupled. Under Bush in nearly 8 years, the Dow is up 7%, the S&P 500 is down 7.1% and the Nasdaq is down 18.3%. Did the tax decrease really create more gains that led to increased tax revenue, or were the gains created long before the tax rate was lowered and is simply a result of timing?

O’Leilly claims that he won’t invest if the capital gains tax is increased to 30%. I guess that wingnuts would rather pay no taxes on no gains. Here are two scenarios for the giant head.

Option A
You invest $20,000 in the Nasdaq on 1/20/93, and sell on 1/18/01. Your balance is now $79,390 for a gain of $59,390. After a 30% tax, you now have $61,573.

Option B
You invest $20,000 in the Nasdaq on 1/18/01, and sell on 9/12/08. Your balance is now $16,336 for a loss of $3,664. After a zero percent tax rate, you now have 16,336.

O’Leilly claims that he would prefer option B. I’ll take option A! I actually agree with low long term capital gains taxes, but short term gains should be taxed through the nose.

TJ Newton @ 92:

Jared Hyder @ 82:

freeman @ 71:

Ummm...Jared,

You are aware that the 16th Amendment crept into the Constitution on February 3, 1913. If my facts of history are correct there weren't just paved roads, there were railways, and cars, and even electricity. There was a standing military, there were garbage collectors and policemen, firefighters, and wow, a postal service! Public buildings were built like libraries and and can you imagine, schools?

I know that you might think that there was no such things as infrastructure and public life before the income tax swindle -- but believe it or not there was! Amazing isn't it?

The only thing a growing America lacked at that time was a Federal government that would decide how best to spend/control the people's money. Heaven forbid that the laborers would squirrel
away enough money to retire early -- what would the robber barons do?

Crimey, dude, life didn't start in 1913. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at simple minded people like you - on the one hand it's ridiculously funny read people like you try to argue against people like freeman who know what they're talking about, but on the other hand, it's just plain sad.

I apologize for my grammatical errors in the above comment.

Weirdly, and kind of profoundly, I was distracted by a call from my elderly mother who asked if I could help her with the co-pays on her medication this month. Instead of stopping my blurb, I continued as I tried to assure her that she would get my help and everything would be fine.

I guess when it comes to multitasking between Mum, politics and history, Mum will always win. Heh!

I don't believe Oreilly was overly rude to Obama sure not as much as Hannity was to his guest. Oreilly has a point that he has to keep control of the time during his interview and at all times he lets Obama finish his point which I think shows sincerity from Oreilly's point. The point that interesting about Oreilly is that he's supposedly for the working class (his viewers) but when it comes down to it there's no question they'll be better off with Obama's tax policy than Mccains so really Oreilly is just trying to take the other side of the argument or the one that favors his employers agenda instead of advocating what's best for his viewers.

moniker @ 24:

If O'Reilly he had the demeanor of Bill Moyers, no one would watch.

If this country educated its masses, no one would watch either.

I'm not sure which is easier to accomplish...

Yeah Bill, the f*cking point is when there isn't enough revenue to pay for roads, sewers, infrastructure, ect because all the economic growth, all the money made off our hard work, has gone to 1/10th of 1 f*cking percent. Trickle-down is a joke. I know how hard it is going to be for you to have to relearn your entire reality, but your not rich because your the only person you can be a walking-f*cking-hard-on on television.

Did I miss it or did they not talk about inflation? Talking about how to fix the economy without dealing with inflation is a complete waste of time. When the dollar buys less and less every year it will require an ever increasing amount of tax revenue just to fund the existing level of services.

Why will no one explain to BillO that the wealthy should pay a higher tax rate because they use a disproportionate amount of government services?

First, it is the GOVERNMENT that protects their wealth from others taking it through laws, courts and law enforcement. Steal something from a wealthy person and you get twenty years. Steal from a poor person and you won't even get a misdemeanor. In fact, police will take a report and let it go. If the government were not in place, people who believed that the modern lords of industry were taking too large a share of the pie would revolt, overthrow their oppressor and redistribute the wealth in that manner. It is the government that prevents that redistribution.

Second, the delivery of goods and services and the use of our infrastructure is disproportionately utilized by the wealthy. As we are sleeping, products are being delivered throughout our country to the benefit of the wealthy. If not for the government funded modes of transportation the wealthy would not be able to sell their products and those things would have to provided by local companies. I do not have any products moving around the country. Why should I have to pay for something I don't use?

There are other examples of so many government agencies whose business is to protect the wealth of the rich I don't even want to start on it. I'd be here all night.

So BillO, the rich should pay more because the rich TAKE more. It's called economic JUSTICE.

The Rude Bellman @ 105:

Why will no one explain to BillO that the wealthy should pay a higher tax rate because they use a disproportionate amount of government services?

First, it is the GOVERNMENT that protects their wealth from others taking it through laws, courts and law enforcement. Steal something from a wealthy person and you get twenty years. Steal from a poor person and you won't even get a misdemeanor. In fact, police will take a report and let it go. If the government were not in place, people who believed that the modern lords of industry were taking too large a share of the pie would revolt, overthrow their oppressor and redistribute the wealth in that manner. It is the government that prevents that redistribution.

Second, the delivery of goods and services and the use of our infrastructure is disproportionately utilized by the wealthy. As we are sleeping, products are being delivered throughout our country to the benefit of the wealthy. If not for the government funded modes of transportation the wealthy would not be able to sell their products and those things would have to provided by local companies. I do not have any products moving around the country. Why should I have to pay for something I don't use?

There are other examples of so many government agencies whose business is to protect the wealth of the rich I don't even want to start on it. I'd be here all night.

So BillO, the rich should pay more because the rich TAKE more. It's called economic JUSTICE.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Taxes are, should be, a matter of justice and the way that community gives itself the power and means to renew itself and ensure it's continuity.

Noah @ 31:

Cutting taxes for 95% of taxpayers is class warfare?

Of course B.O. is in favor of a regressive tax - he made $9 million in 2006. And that was just his salary - it does not include book deals, kickbacks, insider trading, bribes, etc.

Uhh... wrong.... try again... mostly book sales.

A lot of good comments on this thread.

Here's the rub Bill! All the other excellent comments posted here in favor of a progressive tax notwithstanding, it takes say a million people to support the lifestyle of your boss Rupert Murdock. He doesn't make his billions in a vacuum; it takes multitudes of drones through the Murdock food chain, if you will, to generate his annual income. A janitor, on the other hand, requires only his own effort to sustain his $25k annual lifestyle.

The lifestyles of the rich require huge infrastructures to generate the necessary wealth. And if you think deeply about it you understand that people, roads, ports, distributors, healthy wage earners, stable governments, education and judicial institutions. All these things play a part in facilitating the generation of wealth for a Rupert Murdock.

THAT IS WHY PROGRESSIVE TAXATION IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE! I think your question of how much is fair should be answered by actuaries who can determine the following. How much of the wealth that a Rupert Murdock makes is solely attributed to his singular ability to generate it versus how much of his wealth is generated by the millions of drones doing his bidding. YOU SEE?

That small extra percentage that greedy billions hate to pay is a FREAKIN bargain to the silver spoon crowd. No billionaire should complain about paying 5% more in tax because he didn't generate his wealth without the help from millions and the entire infrastructure of this country!

Bill just vomiting out more lies. is bill oreilly able to tell the truth?

I could only watch about 15 seconds of that clip before I had had enough. He spews a constant stream of lies, and he says everything with such venom and contempt for his audience. He makes me want to puke.

If you are explaining - and not the media - to the masses, then you have already lost. And that is our situation in America today.

Because the media, (the corporately controlled MSM,) has proven itself to be openly complicit with this corporatist administration, there is little chance that the masses will absorb the truth, or comprehend the political realities of their vote. It is the only explanation for ‘the myth matters more than the truth’ in America today, which is “our” reality now.

As long as you allow them to controls who votes, and you allow their machines to count the vote, you have already lost. And that is also our situation in America today.
If you allow them their open sneering crimes without stopping them, without punishing them, without sustained revolt - You have already lost. And that is our situation in America today.

To paraphrase... It’s the unfathomable and ongoing “Allowing,” stupid.

“Can't Say We Weren’t Warned”

DHavok @ 114:

I wonder how deep up his ass Bill had to reach to grab that information out. I mean, what the hell? The government doesn't track the wages made by illegal aliens do they? If his staff tracked them down, why didn't the "anti-illegals" guy turn them in and get it stopped?

How can we win debates in ideas when the people on the other side can just go "well your information is wrong" and when we say theirs is wrong, we have to prove it's wrong? It's an impossible situation anymore. I can't think of any time in history where stupidity and ignorance had a bigger stage than intelligence and well-informed.

This is my lament also. It's a sad society that lets salesmanship prevail over science.

Keraunion brings a much welcome correction.

When I heard O'reilly pull that number, I knew he was being misleading (the odds were heavily in my favor). And Obama just sat there and acknowledged the claim. This is typical O'reilly, and Obama was utterly unprepared for the interview. Let's face it, Obama may be a good orator, but he cannot counter false-claims to save his life.
This is making me very nervous: Obama allowed O'reilly to impose his agenda and his statistics. What do you think the average viewer is going to get from this? "Hey, lowering taxes brings more revenue! Let's lower taxes!" Obama had to score big on the economy, and he lost.
This does not augur well.

i wish obama had said: "you know, i don't think you guys do REAL news, i just think mr. murdoch pays you well because he doesn't like to touch and smell all the excrement you guys have to haul for him everyday."

What Americans have against these::

Miss Russia - http://tinyurl.com/MissRussia

Secrets from Russia - http://tinyurl.com/Russian-Secret

Hot Russian Lady Army - http://tinyurl.com/Russain-hot-lady-army

Russian Secret Weapons - http://tinyurl.com/Russian-Secret-Weapons

wow! billo sticking up for the "poor" rich people. yeah, those ceo's that make $100million+ while their companies lag behind and outsource jobs to foreign countries are really hurting. socialist wealth redistribution--give me a break! illegal immigrants--give me a break!

at least billo and i agree on one thing, and i am glad he was able to have obama clarify, we want to give incentive for people to invest long term in the stock market, not play day trade.

15% is the current, i do not want to see more than an increase to 20% and definitely not more than 25%, after 25%--what is the point? might as well momo trade.

i also want to see a heavy hand come down on the sec and get control on the hedge funds, reinstate the uptick rule for shorting, and place a vice around naked shorts. it is not just the uber-rich that buy stocks, it is your suburban households, families planning for their childrens' futures.

that is long-term planning, and long-term planning needs to be rewarded. maybe decrease the cap gains if a stock is held for 5 years, give a gradient--25% for 1 year, 20% for 2, and 15% for 3 or more.

i also want to see a heavy hand come down and trust bust monopolies, especially in telecommunications.

speak softly and carry a big stick obama.

or is it luxumborg, i forget, and i am hung-over and hungry. my cupboard is bare. i have 10 kids. brother can you spare a dime????