Chris Mathews Turns On Obama!

It must be the end times. Apparently the "thrill up his leg" is gone. Welcome to the real world, Chris!

http://tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-go...d-not-believe/

Unlike the lock-step right, the left is willing to criticise as it sees it

for all of Obama's problems, from a left perspective, none of the absolute loonies running on the other side is even close to an acceptable alternative

if an actual conservative, who believed in SCIENCE for example, came along then maybe

COG, wow, just wow. Someone must have un-hypnotized Chris. Now the next part of the awakening is realizing he had no plan at all. It was all just a feel good speech. You are going to have to worry about your gas and rent.

rockbass, so the mantra has changed from "the science is settled" to "Republicans don't believe in science?" Just laughable. Climate change is a scam.

from your title: Chris Turns on Obama", i thought perhaps we had a love story with obama feeling a tingle in return. I wanted to see the pictures

It must be the end times. Apparently the "thrill up his leg" is gone. Welcome to the real world, Chris!

http://tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-go...d-not-believe/

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Fascinating!

I watch him all the time, and he has kinda been saying this same thing for awhile now, this is nothing new. And you know what he is right.. as much as I hate to say it he is absolutely right. But may I point at we kinda have the same thing going on with the republicans who seem hell bent on stalling everything and focused on making him fail at the expense of our economy and the people of this country. So as far as I am concerned both sides are to blame for all the crap that is going on right now.

if an actual conservative, who believed in SCIENCE for example, came along then maybe

Senators hit Obama admin for ‘collapse’ of federal scientific integrity

Posted on October 19, 2011 by Steve Milloy | 3 Comments
Sens. David Vitter and James Inhofe, and Rep. Darrell Issa write to Obama science chief John Holdren complaining about the administration’s failure to live up to its own scientific integrity standards.
Here’s the media release:

Vitter, Inhofe and Issa Want Proof of “Sound” Science from White House Regarding Multiple Agency Actions

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) along with U.S. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) today sent a letter demanding answers from the White House on the Obama administration’s methods of achieving sound science in determining major federal actions. The members of Congress are also seeking insight into the White House’s response to scientific misconduct at multiple federal agencies on policies that greatly affect the struggling economy.
“We’ve seen facts manipulated and science ignored across the administration while they’ve developed policies with huge negative effects on the economy,” Sen. Vitter said. “We want the public to be aware of the administration’s misconduct, but we also want agencies to be transparent and explain their methods.”
“Obama Science Advisor John Holdren has said that the Administration would make decisions based on the best possible science because, as the President has stated, ‘The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decision.’ Yet, it is clear that the Obama Administration cannot be trusted, as we continue to uncover more and more examples of faulty science being used as the justification for policies and increased regulations that will destroy jobs and harm our economy,” said Sen. Inhofe.
“It is imperative that federal government policy decisions reflect the accuracy of the underlying science,” said Rep. Issa. “By shining the light of transparency on processes that have failed, we can ensure that government agencies will refocus efforts on maintaining the highest standards of scientific testing and analysis.”
In the letter addressed to Dr. John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the White House, the members of Congress point out scientific misfeasance at the Departments of Interior and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Guilty, you're right, it took a team effort to get us in this mess, and the same team will not correct it. We need a whole new team.

I watch him all the time, and he has kinda been saying this same thing for awhile now, this is nothing new. And you know what he is right.. as much as I hate to say it he is absolutely right. But may I point at we kinda have the same thing going on with the republicans who seem hell bent on stalling everything and focused on making him fail at the expense of our economy and the people of this country. So as far as I am concerned both sides are to blame for all the crap that is going on right now.

UMMMMM, GRANNY PLEASURES, IN OUR REPUBLIC YOU ARE ALLOWED TO STALL SOCIALISM AND MAKE ODUMBO FAIL SO HE CAN'T IMPOSE MORE SOCIALISM....SOCIALISM HARMS OUR ECONOMY AS WELL AS OUR HUMANITY.....WHAT YOU WANT TO FORCE ON PEOPLE IS IMMORAL..........

THIS IS THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS......

Guilty, you're right, it took a team effort to get us in this mess, and the same team will not correct it. We need a whole new team. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I can't disagree with that..

Actually the entire country and maybe the entire world, seems to be in a bitchy mood these days, not just Christ Matthews.

In the interview, Chris asks where is the moon initiative, but just imagine the uproar if the White House was to propose such a mission at a time when the economy is in such dire straits.

That is the wrong question to be asking.

The previous Republican administration dug this country into a hole so deep that we had not seen since the Great Depression and it was totally avoidable.

As horrendous and expensive as the Iraq war was, the Bush tax cuts cost this country even more and both moves dragged this country further down.

Now President Obama has the Herculean task of digging the country out of the deep hole we find ourselves in, but the Republicans are hell-bent on obstructing his every move solely to weaken him in their insane drive to win back the election.

As if the herd of clowns the GOP has in the race have any chance of defeating the incumbent.

What we need is real cooperation from our leaders in order to fix the economy, but all we are getting is this incessant bickering from Washington.

. . . The insanity is enough to drive a man to drink!

The previous Republican administration dug this country into a hole so deep that we had not seen since the Great Depression and it was totally avoidable.

As horrendous and expensive as the Iraq war was, the Bush tax cuts cost this country even more and both moves dragged this country further down.

THE FAILED STIMULUS COST MORE THAN THE IRAQ WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts

By Andrew Foy and Brenton Stransky


The majority of the taxpayers in our country believe it a foregone conclusion that taxes will rise substantially in the near future and that the Bush tax cuts will soon be no more than a footnote of political history. You don't need to be a genius to see that the government will have to raise more revenue to pay for seemingly infinite spending, but before we resign ourselves to higher taxes, we should consider defending the Bush tax cuts against the left.

Two of the most oft-cited objections to the Bush tax cuts by the left are that it helped only the rich and it was largely responsible for the federal deficit at the end of the Bush presidency. Instead, it is true that if the current administration allows any or all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, economic growth will be slowed and tax revenue could actually decrease, perpetuating our deficit dilemma.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 broadly lowered income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes. Fanning the lie that only the rich benefited, liberal economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse-government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes." This criticism stuck so well that it is difficult to find a liberal today who doesn't believe that these tax relief measures were anything more than "tax cuts for the rich."

But the data does not support this conclusion. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2 and weights %3.

This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.

The second major misconception spread by the left about the Bush tax cuts is that the lower tax rates caused the federal deficit woes we face today. Keeping with the party line of blaming the previous administration for all of today's problems, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) quipped in a news conference on January 8 of this year: "Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end ... have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit." Of course, the Speaker would have us believe that overspending has nothing to do with our deficit.


In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue. According to economist Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation, The Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common sense observations that

• 1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate,
• 2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains, and
• 3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

The following figure is an illustration of the Laffer Curve. The curve postulates that two tax rates exist between the extremes of no tax and 100% tax that will collect the same amount of revenue: a high tax rate on a small tax base and a low tax rate on a large tax base. Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100% of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer curve. When tax rates are above the equilibrium point on the Laffer curve, reducing the tax rate increases revenue.



So what was the effect of the Bush tax cuts? The data reveals that tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts. Clearly, tax rates were beyond the point of equilibrium.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts shows that this is exactly what happened. The following table from Reidl's analysis depicts these effects.



The empirical data makes it impossible to validate the liberal claims that the Bush tax cuts were "for the rich," or that they "caused the budget deficit," or that they were in any way responsible for causing this latest economic crisis. In fact, a study by economist John W. Skorburg underscores the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. Skorburg's study found that the Bush tax cuts, which lowered the total federal tax burden from 20.9% in fiscal year 2000 to 17.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, were responsible for increasing the economic growth rate. Further, the author concluded that "f President Obama raises tax burdens, trend growth in real GDP will fall."

The bottom line is that tax policy has far-reaching effects, and for decades, liberals have refused to acknowledge them. The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937, causing a double-dip in GDP that prolonged the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, recovery from the current crisis will likely be prolonged, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not observing the lessons of history.

[i]Andrew Foy, M.D. and Brenton Stransky are authors of The Young Conservative's Field Guide and can be contacted through their website at www.aHardRight.com.

Jesus, Fast Gunn, after 3 years it is STILL Bush's fault? There's no point in even responding to you.

from your title: Chris Turns on Obama", i thought perhaps we had a love story with obama feeling a tingle in return. I wanted to see the pictures Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Agreed, though I don't think Crissy meets the "Rule of 100" to be a spinner. . . unless you add his age to his IQ.

Jesus, Fast Gunn, after 3 years it is STILL Bush's fault? There's no point in even responding to you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You know, it's interesting you bring that up. I don't know what our esteemed collegue from the collective was talking about since I have them all on ignore anymore (except Guilty Pleasures because I love her avatar!). But, just yesterday it occurred to me that "it" isn't Bush's fault, "it's" Nixon's fault!

Jobs to China? If the tricky Dick hadn't opened relations with them they wouldn't me screwing us so hard today. . . gotta watch those "relations".

War in Iraq? We went there first and foremost because the middle east is strategically important to us. It is strategically important to us because we get something like 25% of our oil from there. If Nixon had vetoed the creation of EPA we could be exporting oil today (which, coincidentally, would solve a great many of our economic problems, so that's his fault to).

The mortgage collapse? If Dick hadn't left in disgrace while a weakling like Ford held the fort we might have avoided Carter the first who sowed the seeds of the disaster by pushing home loans to those who don't qualify. We also wouldn't have Carter 1st legacy of dumbing down the population via a Department of Education.

Yup, IT's The Dick's Fault!