OK, so the lady who has vehemently opposed Bush’s tax cuts for the last eight years now supports most of those cuts as long as you don’t give any credit to Bush. Right? Or, does she truly think people will forget the tax cuts were implemented before Obama was President? Or, for that matter, the fact the tax cuts have been in place since before Obama was even a Senator? From the time he was elected to the Senate, and then to the Presidency, Obama ignored the fact that the tax cuts applied to pretty much everyone. The wealthy actually paid a heavier burden. So, what he’s been arguing for the last four years is simply a lie. Pelosi’s taking that lie to the next level. Obama’s never made a tax cut. Ever. He offered a one time bonus of $250, but that was an incentive, not a tax cut, and it’s a thing of the past. There is no “extension” here regarding Obama. None. “Middle-income tax cuts” is a beauty as well. By not INCREASING your taxes, she’s saying it’s a tax cut. They’re not cutting your taxes, not by a LONG SHOT.
If something’s the same as it ever was, it’s not a “cut”.
Second bottom line, here, Nancy sucks at Orwellian politics. She needs to get her facts straight. It’s going to confuse the hell out of historians who will now forever try to figure out how Obama passed tax cuts for everyone years before he was ever elected to anything and then spent the next eight years complaining about his tax cuts.
Someone should have yelled “Liar” at her. The BS coming from this administration is mind boggling at times.
Still waiting for her to drain the swamp.
Heh! Trick question of course. It was never meant for you if you weren’t a construction project:
Raise your hand out there, how many of you thought Joe Biden was promising jobs?
Maybe a little more looking is warranted:
“We’ve gone from hemorrhaging over 700,000 jobs a month the first several months . . . to adding several hundred thousand jobs a month in the last several months.” He cited 2.3 to 2.8 million jobs saved or created by last year’s stimulus bill, and projected that the U.S. was on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010, announcing, “The fact is, the recovery act is working.”……
“It means a lot more lunch breaks at the local diner . . . and a lot more trips to the barbershop, to the movies, to the department store — helping those businesses . . . maintain their employment base and increase their employment base.”……..
”The vast majority of those 2.2 million to 2.8 million jobs have not been Census jobs,” and reaffirmed his conviction that the private sector would make up the “vast bulk” of jobs stemming from the stimulus.
He accounted for the 9.7 percent unemployment rate — higher than the 7.5 percent the White House had previously predicted — asserting, “This recession was so much deeper, so much more profound than most people thought it [would be]. . . . We never thought that $787 billion was going to fill that hole. The purpose of it was to keep people from falling into the abyss . . . and begin to build a ladder to climb out of that hole.”…….
“make a distinction between . . . bailing out the banks, TARP [and] a funding program called the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The measurement is: Is it feeling better? Am I more confident?. . . They do not associate that with — nor would I expect to them to — ‘that was the Recovery Act [that] created those jobs.’ “
And Alex Wagner summed up her article by stating:
You know what, when it was expedient to take credit, Joe Biden was quick to jump on it. He jumped the gun tho. Now that it’s biting him the butt, Austan Goolsbee is the rube expected to cover Biden’s butt. Any effort whatsoever just makes Austan look like an amateur hack lying through his teeth. What exactly does Austan even mean? Sheez.
13
Sep
I’m still trying to figure this all out.
John Boehner said he might play nice with Obama and support whatever tax cuts Obama wants, since it’s better than nothing. Robert Gibbs immediately attacked Boehner pointing out it was the policies of the last eight years that got us in this mess now. That reflects what Obama said in Cleveland last week as well. So, now Boehner is being attacked for saying he will possibly support Obama. Which side is the “party of No”?
The bigger problem I see here is Obama is still playing a dangerous game in my opinion. He is reacting to Bush. He’s still putting Bush in control. He’s not being Presidential. He’s saying that in order to keep what was happening eight years ago from happening again, and to assure more of what is happening now keeps happening, we need to listen to Obama and not the people who are not in charge. Now, to illustrate my point here, take this poll real quick:
[polldaddy poll=3756484]
I’m gonna bet, before this is even voted on, that 2010′s not going to rate up there terribly highly. Now, what Obama’s banking on is people will look back on, say, 2005, and think how much worse it was than now. Two immediate problems, things weren’t so bad in 2005. And, people are concerned a lot more about right now than they are some point in the past. If they’re out of a job right now, and they had a job in 2005, the man in charge right now’s just not going to fare too well. And, the message Obama keeps delivering is not that he’s going to give that person a job, it’s that that person should be happy that it’s not 2005 all over again. I just don’t think that’s working too well:
Quite frankly, until Obama gets off this bizarre obessive compulsive blame game and starts acting like a leader, he’s going to dig himself even deeper into holes he won’t be able to get out of. I personally think he’s already there.
This email has been making the rounds according to snopes:
This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. They’re the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America . He’s your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels “guilty” for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what’s left of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day.Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network.It’s disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR .What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He’s banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it’s time we expose this clown.Boycott Progressive Insurance
Snopes goes on to assert that the email is telling the truth. That didn’t surprise me. Peter Lewis’s socialist leanings have been well documented for a long time. What did surprise me, actually disappoint is a better word, is snopes went on to point out:
Peter Lewis has donated a good deal a money to various philanthropic efforts, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum.
Who cares? What does that have to do with whether or not Lewis contributed to the organizations the email said he did? The day before Snopes went to great lengths to point out Michelle Obama’s butt wasn’t in a picture that was attributed to her. It was her butt, it was the actual butts of the other women, but the picture itself wasn’t accurate.
Bottom line is Snopes has gone out of its way to become political. Peter Lewis did what the email said. The conclusion they come to is irrelevant. It’s an opinion. That’s not normally a concern of Snopes. For some reason of late, they have been on the defense for Obama and anything that criticizes the guy. That’s a shame. If I can’t trust them to be totally neutral on all issues, I just can’t trust them. And, that’s the only thing Snopes actually sells. They’re on thin ice right now as far as I’m concerned.
James Lee was influenced by Al Gore. He believed An Inconvenient Truth was gospel. What else do I have to say?
Just a suggestion, only a suggestion, maybe Obama needs to direct his Homeland Security people to look in a different direction? The last two attacks certainly can’t be described as “right wing extremism”. Ya think Janet Napolitano’s making that argument to Obama right now? Do you really?
