LOL

Sorry libs- this is 2011 not the ’80′s. Get a clue. Try to live in the present.

“Maddow continued to make the point that income inequality peaked during the Reagan years, and, in order to complete her point over Moore’s voice, stood up and wagged her fingers angrily and concluded

Rachel HAD to raise her voice and stand up BECAUSE Moore kept interrupting and wouldn’t let her talk.
He was so noticeably rude that even Stockman noticed it and he jokingly wouldn’t let her speak himself at one point, in which they all laughed.

Maybe next time Moore can stop acting like he’s on Fox news and being a total douche.

In before idiots start pointlessly arguing the Reagan economy for the one zillionth time on the intraweb.

notsofat it looks like you need to get a clue:

Reagan’s tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn’t call these taxes. They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, “user fees” and “revenue-enhancers.”

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

Maddow is a typical brainwashed lib. Maher is just plain stupid.

gordonbloyershow said:
Maddow is a typical brainwashed lib. Maher is just plain stupid.

And what were you smoking in the 80′s? Oh thats right, you were drinking the Reagan Kool-Aid!!

Ok Reaganomics was good when it came to the lowering of the taxes and making the tax policy more simpler, it failed when it came to the actual budget due to the fact that if you are going to earn less money you also have to spend less money so that was not a good thing.

However, as Maddow pointed out, the debt increased 187% under Reagan, the debt when in 1980 was 900B and it increased to 3T in 1990. That may seem a lot but if you look at the debt today from 2008-2010 the debt increased $4T. $4T in two years compared to about $2T in 10 years. Are any of these numbers good? No, but if Maddow is trying to make the argument that it was worse then than now it doesn’t hold up.

And I really do not understand how any kind of productive political dialogue can occur on this show. I don’t know if it’s the audience or the arrogance of Maher but it is very offputting.

Man, does Rachel Madcow look exactly like Isaac Chroner from “Children of the Corn” in that top picture where she’s standing up, or what?
I sure hope she isn’t imploring the far-left loon audience to rise up and kill the adults (Republicans).

gordonbloyershow said:
Maddow is a typical brainwashed lib. Maher is just plain stupid.

You are a draft dodging coward. Oh, and a liar. Obviously.

I wonder if Madcow is an expert on “Carternomics”.

Ah those tolerant and civil liberals. LOL

An interesting edit by Mediaite. Because post-Maddow’s little jr. high school talent show routine about the evils of Reaganomics, she dodged Steven Moore’s point when he said that the cities/states with Most gun violence, already Have some of the strictest gun control laws in our country on their books. So why didn’t she (or more likely, Couldn’t she) counter his point with any kind of substantial answer, I wonder?

I mean, with nothing more substantive than just some tsk-tsk about extended clips and then the usual Proggie-speak about, Oh you silly Americans think that The Constitution is just SO Sacred.

gordonbloyershow said:
Maddow is a typical brainwashed lib. Maher is just plain stupid.

What would we ever do without that titanic intellect! You know when you are getting the host of the Gordon Blowjob show you are getting primo political ANALysis.

TrollJuice said:
notsofat it looks like you need to get a clue:

Reagan’s tax increases fell mainly on consumers, low- and middle-income people. Sales and excise levies. Reagan didn’t call these taxes. They were, in his euphemistic lexicon, “user fees” and “revenue-enhancers.”

rel=”nofollow”>http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/trickle_down.htm

hey, troll, this ain’t the 80′s- get current, clown!

How’s that trickling down effect working out?

notsofast said:
LOL

Sorry libs- this is 2011 not the ’80’s. Get a clue. Try to live in the present.

Yeah, Republicans never bring up Reagan nowadays. They can barely order lunch at McDonald’s without singing his high praise.

ProgLib said:
Yeah, Republicans never bring up Reagan nowadays.

Sorry, son- it’s the libs that bring his name up- just this week Ron Jr. and here Maher!

Do try again, though!

The anti-American Left always have to try to re-write history to camouflage the economic disaster brought to us by Jimmy Carter, and corrected by Reagan’s tax cuts. After all, Liberals cannot deal with the truth that “Reaganomics”
was responsible for new words being learned by Americans in the 80′s……………….words like “yuppie,” “BMW,” and “dot-com.” Leftist brain-washers look like such idiots trying to make a sensational success into something bad.

notsofast said:
Sorry, son- it’s the libs that bring his name up- just this week Ron Jr. and here Maher!

Do try again, though!

You, have all the brain power of Alpo. Consider it a compliment.

Davo said:
The anti-American Left always have to try to re-write history to camouflage the economic disaster brought to us by Jimmy Carter, and corrected by Reagan’s tax cuts. After all, Liberals cannot deal with the truth that “Reaganomics”
was responsible for new words being learned by Americans in the 80’s……………….words like “yuppie,” “BMW,” and “dot-com.” Leftist brain-washers look like such idiots trying to make a sensational success into something bad.

Exactly, The Left has no choice but to make Reagan look bad because their whole schtick is based on forcing everything to be “equal” – which means slowing down the ability for people to succeed.

I like josie. He a smart cookie. Puts you libs right in your place. Sort of like a gob of spit right in the eye!

That guy was just afraid to let Maddow get the facts out, because he knew they would debunk the foundations of his argument. First time I’ve seen discourse on Maher’s show get all Fox-newsy.

which ended with Maddow uncharacteristically standing up to shout over her adversary

Yeah, she’s usually such a sweet gal.

Here’s the problem… TAX CUTS are not an EXPENSE. It’s just less stealing. Stockton is right on one point though. Republicans have to be willing to CUT EXPENSES and they have not been. They are just as guilty for irresponsible SPENDINeG as are the Democrats. The only difference between Reps and Dems is how they redistribute the money they steal from those that earned it. Wake up people! Reps and Dems are just different sides of the same counterfeit coin.

notsofast said:
Sorry, son- it’s the libs that bring his name up- just this week Ron Jr. and here Maher!

Do try again, though!

Republicans bring up Reagan ever chance they get.

Color Me Badd said:
What would we ever do without that titanic intellect! You know when you are getting the host of the Gordon Blowjob show you are getting primo political ANALysis.

So I was right: you are nothing but a hateful little bitchcicle.

Per usual, Maddow got her “facts” completely wrong. But, what’s new.

Now I remember why I never watch that Idiot Bill Maher. What a waste of humanity.

Jackyboy said:
it failed when it came to the actual budget due to the fact that if you are going to earn less money you also have to spend less money so that was not a good thing.

.
But did federal revenue go up or down following the tax cuts?

What increased faster, spending or revenue?

notsofast said:
Sorry, son- it’s the libs that bring his name up- just this week Ron Jr. and here Maher!

Do try again, though!

Did you watch any of the RNC chairperson weigh ins? It was the best of times…

OxyCon said:
Man, does Rachel Madcow look exactly like Isaac Chroner from “Children of the Corn” in that top picture where she’s standing up, or what?
I sure hope she isn’t imploring the far-left loon audience to rise up and kill the adults (Republicans).

What a dumb, ignorant, sexist comment. Do you have mold for a brain?

TCinAZ said:
An interesting edit by Mediaite. Because post-Maddow’s little jr. high school talent show routine about the evils of Reaganomics, she dodged Steven Moore’s point when he said that the cities/states with Most gun violence, already Have some of the strictest gun control laws in our country on their books. So why didn’t she (or more likely, Couldn’t she) counter his point with any kind of substantial answer, I wonder?

I mean, with nothing more substantive than just some tsk-tsk about extended clips and then the usual Proggie-speak about, Oh you silly Americans think that The Constitution is just SO Sacred.

This is an easy response to this point that most people who actually read newspapers know. The answer is “the Saturday night special” brought to cities with gun control from states where there is no real gun control. This has been well reported for over thirty years.

Larry Downes said:
Here’s the problem… TAX CUTS are not an EXPENSE. It’s just less stealing. Stockton is right on one point though. Republicans have to be willing to CUT EXPENSES and they have not been. They are just as guilty for irresponsible SPENDINeG as are the Democrats. The only difference between Reps and Dems is how they redistribute the money they steal from those that earned it. Wake up people! Reps and Dems are just different sides of the same counterfeit coin.

Taxation is stealing. You actual by the Robert Nozick nonsense. You want services for free? You want police fire protection, the U.S. military to protect the seas and trade routes for commerce? Pay your taxes and stop asking for something for nothing. There is no thing as a free lunch.

Maddow was certainly acting like the spoiled child trying to speak over the adults. Loved how Steve Moore made Maher’s argument invalid when he tried to compare car insurance with health, showed how dumb Maher really is.

So they’re still blaming Reagan and Bush for today’s lousy economy. Obama is free of blame? I thought he was hired to be Mr. Fix-It.

Maddow looks like Mary Lou Retton on steroids.

The only reason for the yelling was the Moore was constantly interupting and not letting anyone make their point. He was being disrespectful and rude.

CLASSIC…Maddow finally gets a “heavily edited” video (tribute) for herself & “Private Pile” http://tinyurl.com/4qhvctp

@PoliticalPAW

armwood said:
This is an easy response to this point that most people who actually read newspapers know. The answer is “the Saturday night special” brought to cities with gun control from states where there is no real gun control. This has been well reported for over thirty years.

Great point. But can you please explain the violence in southern Mexico? Keep in mind that Mexico has a complete ban on firearms.

Ninja said:
Great point. But can you please explain the violence in southern Mexico? Keep in mind that Mexico has a complete ban on firearms.

Arming Mexicans will not scare the cartels down there. There’s another dynamic in play. Hence, I don’t think that’s a good example.

Larry Downes said:
Here’s the problem… TAX CUTS are not an EXPENSE. It’s just less stealing. Stockton is right on one point though. Republicans have to be willing to CUT EXPENSES and they have not been. They are just as guilty for irresponsible SPENDINeG as are the Democrats. The only difference between Reps and Dems is how they redistribute the money they steal from those that earned it. Wake up people! Reps and Dems are just different sides of the same counterfeit coin.

Like Maddow likes saying….Bullpucky! The CBO would also disagree. It’s good thing we don’t have YOU working at the GAO.

BFD said:
“Maddow continued to make the point that income inequality peaked during the Reagan years, and, in order to complete her point over Moore’s voice, stood up and wagged her fingers angrily and concluded Rachel HAD to raise her voice and stand up BECAUSE Moore kept interrupting and wouldn’t let her talk.He was so noticeably rude that even Stockman noticed it and he jokingly wouldn’t let her speak himself at one point, in which they all laughed. Maybe next time Moore can stop acting like he’s on Fox news and being a total douche.

Id have no problem with her civility, if she wasnt so damn wrong.

MADDOW: (Stands up) “From 1980 to 1990, the top one percent saw their income go up by roughly 80 percent. The median wage in the country over ten years went up three percent. That means for the best people, the people that were best off in the country, it was the Matterhorn, and for everybody else in the country, it was like this (draws flat line). So, if you were rich, Reagan was awesome, and if you were anybody else, it sucked.”

This is based on no factual evidence, or in other words, she’s lying.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/P05AR_2009.xls

According to the Census Bureau, the median income for men in 1980 was $12,530 per year. This grew to $20,293 in 1990 – a 62 percent increase. For women, this figure went from $4,920 in 1980 to $10,070 in 1990 – a 105 percent jump.

This means that the median income for the entire population in that decade rose at roughly the same rate as Maddow claimed the income for the top one percent did.

So she either badly misinterpreted the numbers and is an idiot, or is just a flat out liar. Which is it?

Spin that one for her, douchebag.

BFD said:

Maybe next time Moore can stop acting like he’s on Fox news and being a total douche.

Moore, like a good neocon lapdog, has to keep spewing his talking points so that the TRUTH doesn’t come out. This is what it looks like when someone actually challenges the fake conservatives on their facts. And, not surprisingly, the fake conservatives here just can’t handle it.

notsofast said:
Sorry libs- this is 2011 not the ’80’s. Get a clue.

Exactly, there were conservatives in the 80′s, like David Stockton, who actually HAD A CLUE. Now you got neocon talking point spewing machines like Steve Moore who can’t shut the hell up when facts are entering the conversation. Facts are something fake conservatives like you are used to hearing and talking points are something you’re not accustomed to hearing challenged.

ARE NOT used to hearing

gordonbloyershow said:
Maddow is a typical brainwashed lib.

Yes with all her FACTS and sh!t. Maybe if you actually heard someone challenging your talking point gurus once in awhile, you’d realize that it is YOU who has been brainwashed.

OxyCon said:
I wonder if Madcow is an expert on “Carternomics”.

Yes she is, she realizes that he improved upon the even more piss poor economy of Gerald Ford. But leaders on the Right were too busy committing burglary and undermining democracy for you to remember. The least of the Right’s concerns during the mid 1970s was how bad the economy was. There was a Constitutional crisis committed by the GOP’s top crook that took priority.

Davo said:
words like “yuppie,” “BMW,” and “dot-com.”

You mean words that have never applied to you. Face it, tool. You were never a yuppie, never owned a BMW, and never invested in a DOT COM (that actually had it’s hey day in the 90′s but thanks for REWRITING history yourself tool). Stop fantasizing about a reality that you never partook in and a economic dreamland that never took place under Reagan. You weren’t rich then and you’re are not now, you’re just a clown that the wealthy like laugh at when they convince you to vote against your economic interest.

notsofast said:
hey, troll, this ain’t the 80’s- get current, clown!

Hey tool, I’d love to drop the whole Reagan thing, too bad the policy makers in the GOP can’t and continue to try to pawn off his failed policies on a willfully ignorant generation of tools who haven’t learned the lessons of the past.

If the GOP can come up with NEW IDEAS and stop beating the dead horse of failed trickle down economics and deregulations, we can all put the whole ugly Reagan era behind us. But since the GOP has their heads stuck in the 80′s, fake conservatives like you are stuck defending his indefensible policies.

JamesA1102 said:
The only reason for the yelling was the Moore was constantly interupting and not letting anyone make their point. He was being disrespectful and rude.

Just like a neocon, not used to having their talking points challenged. That’s why they usually stick to Fox. No challenging of well known lies there. They’re allowed to spew at will.

BarneyFranken said:
Spin that one for her, douchebag.

Thanks for the copypasta from Newsbusters but I could not care less about debating Reagonomics with a teablogger on the internet. Did you read my second post in this thread? I made that quite clear.
I am here to discuss the Media and the pundits and in this case it was Moore who was arrogant and rude and it was Maddow who handled herself quite well to finally get her point across.

I guess she always could have gone the pouty victimization route and threatened to stop talking like Ann Coulter does when she is interrupted on television.

slickerwick said:
Maddow looks like Mary Lou Retton on steroids.

Just because she’s more man than you’ll ever be and more woman than you’ll ever get, doesn’t mean you need to feel threatened. Your tiny penis is all you need for that.

Ninja said:
Great point. But can you please explain the violence in southern Mexico? Keep in mind that Mexico has a complete ban on firearms.

Actually, David Stockton went on to make a point about this in overtime. The vast majority of violence on our Southern border as well as in Mexico is drug related (the Southern border of Mexico is also an entry point for drugs from South America). The market for that drug and, thus, the profit motive lies within the US primarily. Even Moore and Stockton, two conservatives, agree that the drug laws in our country causes more problems then they solve. And those problems are prevelant all along the trail of drugs from South America through Central America into North America.

If Leftist, Keynesian thought really was legitimate, MadCow wouldn’t have to scream and stand up…the merits of it would be obvious without her ‘Theatrics.’ But Liberal, Keynesian thought IS a Lie, which is why Lib media hacks are utterly rabid now; they know their little lie has been exposed and they are ‘incensed.’

MadCow and all the screaming Leftists love to bang their pots about ‘income inequality.’ But I don’t see her (or Olbermann, for that matter) agreeing to cap their earnings so that they stay ‘equal’ to the rest of us. Isn’t it funny how Lonny leftists who whine about ‘income inequality’ are some of the richest around and they scream for even more money. Hypocrites. MadCow makes MILLIONS, yet what is she doing about the ‘inequality’ between her earnings and the average person? She doesn’t give a SHIT about the ‘average person.’ She doesn’t give a SHIT about ‘income inequality’ when it is HER income that is coming under scrutiny.

She also claimed that a missile cant shoot down another missile, even though its been done many times since Desert Storm.

And, Ladies and Gentlemen, the pointless SPITTLE award for this page goes to………………………………………………………….
Kim Barker (applause, applause, applause).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/22/rachel-maddow-sdi-cant-work-because-missiles-cant-shoot-missiles-out-

Dronetek said:
She also claimed that a missile cant shoot down another missile, even though its been done many times since Desert Storm.

MadCow simply pays attention to her own templates; her own narratives. Anything that doesn’t fit either one is summarily dismissed. It is SO Mint seeing ‘her’ enraged.

ChrisNH said:
If Leftist, Keynesian thought really was legitimate, MadCow wouldn’t have to scream and stand up…the merits of it would be obvious without her ‘Theatrics.’ But Liberal, Keynesian thought IS a Lie, which is why Lib media hacks are utterly rabid now; they know their little lie has been exposed and they are ‘incensed.’

The only thing that is fully expoused is that the Bush tax cuts for the rich did not generate so much of an increase in U.S. investment, production and jobs, as it did in the foreign countries where the owners of industry moved its production. China is doing great, thank you very much, while the owners of industry have become unbelievably wealthy, with like 2% of the population owning 90% of the wealth and the lower 40% of the population getting by on less than .1%. After 10 years of tax cuts we have higher unemployment.

Ninja said:
Great point. But can you please explain the violence in southern Mexico? Keep in mind that Mexico has a complete ban on firearms.

Another easy explanation. Gun flow from America South over the border. Drugs flow north over the border. This has been heavily covered in the media.

Larry Downes said:
Here’s the problem… TAX CUTS are not an EXPENSE. It’s just less stealing. Stockton is right on one point though. Republicans have to be willing to CUT EXPENSES and they have not been. They are just as guilty for irresponsible SPENDINeG as are the Democrats. The only difference between Reps and Dems is how they redistribute the money they steal from those that earned it. Wake up people! Reps and Dems are just different sides of the same counterfeit coin.

This is why the Tea Party has picked up. It probably started when Perot ran, but it has picked up a lot of steam in the past few years precisely because of the massive irresponsibility from both parties.

Comcast will need to get rid of Maddow, Matthews, and Schultz, in order to be competitive against Fox News. All 3 are a ball and chain on any serious news outfit.

Bill O’Reilly has much influence within Comcast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/media/04suit.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1295791429-qJnqZCg31fTzLOCpd/1cKQ

valkyrie101 said:
The only thing that is fully expoused is that the Bush tax cuts for the rich did not generate so much of an increase in U.S. investment, production and jobs, …………….

America’s low unemployment rate and rising stock market after the tax cuts following Clinton’s recession and 9/11 prove your history re-write as such.

No unemployment rate has ever had lasting improvement by increasing taxation. Never. Artificial stimulus only provides small and temporary relief, as was proven when FDR extended what should have been approximately a 12-15 month depression to over a decade. It took the REAL stimulus of WWII, with REAL needs ands REAL producers in the private sector to fill those needs to reverse the damage done by FDR.

The unemployment we now “enjoy” is easily traced to the housing bubble burst when it became obvious (even to DIMS) that bad loans Democrats blackmailed banks to make to unqualified buyers had to eventually bring ugly results (duhhhh). Add to that the “tax and spend” Democrats taking over Congress in 06 while promising to punish the producers in our economy, and we had the perfect storm in place for the best economy in American history to suddenly reverse course.

Why do you need to skip over pertinent facts in order to cast blame for unemployment on tax rate reduction when that’s never been the case before? Don’t you even suspect something, Val?

Its the roaring 20′s and big al capone is fighting it out on the south side with his competitors over territory, and a bigger piece of the illegal booze, I mean illegal pot trade, which is a tens of billion dollar industry in the U.S. There is a turf war underway, with the bad guys killing each other, along with a few unlucky bystanders, and a war is on against the brave police and city officials trying to close it down… Fortunately, there are lot’s of guns coming down from the north side so all sides are well armed.

Dronetek said:
She also claimed that a missile cant shoot down another missile, even though its been done many times since Desert Storm.

This statement is substantially true. In the first Gulf War the military paraded statistics initially claiming the success of anti-missile systems. These turned out to be false. In the ensuing years there have been tests demonstrating that anti-missile, missile systems are not practicable in the short term.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/missile-defense-intercept-test-failure-requires-bi-annual-testing-to-succeed-83262712.html

http://www.defencetalk.com/cause-of-missile-defense-test-failure-unclear-us-30686/

As usual Rachel Maddow was right. You have not actually do a little research, 2 minutes worth to find out.

Davo said:
America’s low unemployment rate and rising stock market after the tax cuts following Clinton’s recession and 9/11 prove your history re-write as such.

No unemployment rate has ever had lasting improvement by increasing taxation. Never. Artificial stimulus only provides small and temporary relief, as was proven when FDR extended what should have been approximately a 12-15 month depression to over a decade. It took the REAL stimulus of WWII, with REAL needs ands REAL producers in the private sector to fill those needs to reverse the damage done by FDR.

The unemployment we now “enjoy” is easily traced to the housing bubble burst when it became obvious (even to DIMS) that bad loans Democrats blackmailed banks to make to unqualified buyers had to eventually bring ugly results (duhhhh). Add to that the “tax and spend” Democrats taking over Congress in 06 while promising to punish the producers in our economy, and we had the perfect storm in place for the best economy in American history to suddenly reverse course.

Why do you need to skip over pertinent facts in order to cast blame for unemployment on tax rate reduction when that’s never been the case before? Don’t you even suspect something, Val?

Clinton’s recession? What are you talking about? What is your factual basis for that statement? When where there 2 consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage during the Clinton administration? Why are you just making things up?

There are easily available resources which define terms in the English language It would behove all of us to use them if we are going to engage in an intelligent discussion.

Recession

Definition

A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. A recession is typically accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market. A recession is generally considered less severe than a depression, and if a recession continues long enough it is often then classified as a depression. There is no one obvious cause of a recession, although overall blame generally falls on the federal leadership, often either the President himself, the head of the Federal Reserve, or the entire administration.
http://www.investorwords.com/4086/recession.html

Lack of education is a terrible thing. You really need to stop being lazy and do some research before you post false information.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871044.htm

Davo said:
Why do you need to skip over pertinent facts in order to cast blame for unemployment on tax rate reduction when that’s never been the case before? Don’t you even suspect something, Val?

Dude, they got you smokin’ plant food. Ten years of tax cuts were supposed to generate growth in the U.S. private sector, and especially jobs. That did not happen. What did happen is that the rich got richer by moving their stuff to third world countries. The money saved by all the tax cuts was not invested in the U.S. economy, rather, to save money, that is, even more money, they went after that 2 dollar an hour labor, in those dark skies, like U.S. based perverts go to Thailand for the little girls.

Davo said:
Democrats blackmailed banks to make to unqualified buyers had to eventually bring ugly results (

There is blame to go all around. The Dems who blocked regulations. The Republican senators in the 13 states that took bribe money from DCI to block the/and not vote for the regulations. The banks that were not part of CRA that lent/duped the people clearly not able to afford them. And the people that bought houses knowing that ultimately they probably couldn’t afford them.

valkyrie101 said:
Dude, they got you smokin’ plant food. Ten years of tax cuts were supposed to generate growth in the U.S. private sector, and especially jobs. That did not happen. What did happen is that the rich got richer by moving their stuff to third world countries. The money saved by all the tax cuts was not invested in the U.S. economy, rather, to save money, that is, even more money, they went after that 2 dollar an hour labor, in those dark skies, like U.S. based perverts go to Thailand for the little girls.

Doo-ood, you’re repeating yourself so I’ll do the same.

You are ignoring all effects of the housing crash as well as Democrat punishment of businesses sending them running for their financial lives. You’re also ignoring, Doo-ood, the nearly instant turn-around from the recession and the 9/11 attacks we experienced with the passing of the tax cuts. The economic numbers after the tax cuts are the best this nation has ever experienced, so I understand your Democrat need to pretend that to be a bad thing.

The only problem with the tax cuts as they weren’t big enough. But to ignore the effects of gargantuan spending increases and threats of punishing business the Democratss brought into the picture, is weak politics………….even for a Liberal.

BFD said:
Thanks for the copypasta from Newsbusters but I could not care less about debating Reagonomics with a teablogger on the internet. Did you read my second post in this thread? I made that quite clear.
I am here to discuss the Media and the pundits and in this case it was Moore who was arrogant and rude and it was Maddow who handled herself quite well to finally get her point across.

I guess she always could have gone the pouty victimization route and threatened to stop talking like Ann Coulter does when she is interrupted on television.

You don’t care that shes wrong, you care about how she was spoken to? HOW dare that guy speak to her like that with the facts?? LOL I find it refreshing that you are so honest in your embrace of dishonesty and hatred.

Its not ‘debating’ when the median income is based on facts. Facts Maddow got embarrassingly wrong. But I guess I wouldnt want to debate either with such a losing position.

Davo said:
Doo-ood, you’re repeating yourself so I’ll do the same. You are ignoring all effects of the housing crash as well as Democrat punishment of businesses sending them running for their financial lives. You’re also ignoring, Doo-ood, the nearly instant turn-around from the recession and the 9/11 attacks we experienced with the passing of the tax cuts. The economic numbers after the tax cuts are the best this nation has ever experienced, so I understand your Democrat need to pretend that to be a bad thing. The only problem with the tax cuts as they weren’t big enough. But to ignore the effects of gargantuan spending increases and threats of punishing business the Democratss brought into the picture, is weak politics………….even for a Liberal.

The tax cuts have been with us for ten years and we have massive unemployment. However, corporate profits are the highest ever, not to mention the average salaries of those who run the corporate show.

Rachel tried but couldn’t make on Broadway. She got stumped on the application question box after the word SEX
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain

STEVE MOORE, is a RIGHT WING hack from the Wall Street Journal and FOX NEWS. This clown was clearly out of his element here, he must of thought that he was still on Fox NEWS where FACTS just doesn’t seem to matter…..Rachael Maddow is something that don’t have on Fox news, she has FACTS on her side…Steve Moore is more use to to have FLUFFY ignorant Blondes lobing him questions…

PoliticalPAW said:
CLASSIC…Maddow finally gets a “heavily edited” video (tribute) for herself & “Private Pile” http://tinyurl.com/4qhvctp

@PoliticalPAW

.
That was great. Have you seen this from J$:

http://johnnydollar.us/files/101107fhwir.php

Look for the video at the end of the wrietup.

Liberal tactic: (1) Stack the deck by with 3 to 1 arguing the Liberal side, (2) ask a question, and then talk over the conservative giving the answer so no one can hear the answer, (3) disregard factual argument with non-sense banter if the conservative is destroying the Liberal argument.

“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
–John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”
–John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963

Just because the Democrat controlled Congress (under Reagan) FAILED to deliver the Spending Cuts that they PROMISED (to accompany the Tax Rate Reductions), is NOT a repudiation of “Reaganomic”, it’s a repudiation of Liberal Over-Spending!

Dave Templeton said:
Rachel tried but couldn’t make on Broadway. She got stumped on the application question box after the word SEX
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain

What an incredibly ignorant and bigoted statement. You should be ashamed of your self but that would require some self awareness.

Mark Ward said:
Just because the Democrat controlled Congress (under Reagan) FAILED to deliver the Spending Cuts that they PROMISED (to accompany the Tax Rate Reductions), is NOT a repudiation of “Reaganomic”, it’s a repudiation of Liberal Over-Spending!

.
AMEN!

A choir of heavenly angels singing out AMEN!!!!

I’m sure you noticed that the ennedy Clan were outraged when JFK’s words about tax cuts were used during the original debate.

She looked like she was doing a playful, Groucho Marx type bit. I really liked it.

Mark Ward said:
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now

You conveniently edited JFK’s quote and took it out of context. That is incredibly dishonest.

Here is the whole quote:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

He was making a point about the situation in 1962, not stating general principle of economic philosophy. Let;s have some integrity here.

armwood said:
This statement is substantially true. In the first Gulf War the military paraded statistics initially claiming the success of anti-missile systems. These turned out to be false. In the ensuing years there have been tests demonstrating that anti-missile, missile systems are not practicable in the short term.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/missile-defense-intercept-test-failure-requires-bi-annual-testing-to-succeed-83262712.html

http://www.defencetalk.com/cause-of-missile-defense-test-failure-unclear-us-30686/

As usual Rachel Maddow was right. You have not actually do a little research, 2 minutes worth to find out.

Wow, you Maddow fans are really stupid huh? I suppose the CIA manufactured this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5k105B2Zw

This is rich even for you Armwood.

armwood said:
You conveniently edited JFK’s quote and took it out of context. That is incredibly dishonest.

Here is the whole quote:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

Your quote is word for word the same except you have edited out three times as much from the original.

That’s a neat trick. You claim to add context by truncating a longer quote.

Grammie said:
This is rich even for you Armwood.

Your quote is word for word the same except you have edited out three times as much from the original.

That’s a neat trick. You claim to add context by truncating a longer quote.

I copied the quote as it was posted on like. Do not defame me by accusing me of editing when i did nothing of the sort. Post the original quote you are referring to plus the link. I do not modify posts. Here is my source.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517

You owe me an apology!

armwood said:
This is an easy response to this point that most people who actually read newspapers know. The answer is “the Saturday night special” brought to cities with gun control from states where there is no real gun control. This has been well reported for over thirty years.

But, that would be against the law, are you saying thugs are going elsewhere to purchase, perhaps steal(oops, they wouldn’t do that) weapons and then bringing them back into a city with gun control? Say it ain’t so, but thirty years of newspaper reporting…..rolls eyes.

We have homes in two states, one in the Chicago area and one home in an area “with no gun control!” Guess which area is crime free? Go ahead, give me a guess.

Rio said:
But, that would be against the law, are you saying thugs are going elsewhere to purchase, perhaps steal(oops, they wouldn’t do that) weapons and then bringing them back into a city with gun control? Say it ain’t so, but thirty years of newspaper reporting…..rolls eyes.

We have homes in two states, one in the Chicago area and one home in an area “with no gun control!” Guess which area is crime free? Go ahead, give me a guess.

Obviously Chicago being the third largest city in the country has more crime. How many people live in the town with your second home?

America has the highest percentage of gun ownership in the developed world as well as by far the highest level of gun violence in the world. These are realities you cannot ignore in spite of your sarcasm.

Well, two things.

You criticized Mark for selective editing and then you go C&P an even more heavily edited portion from a speech.

Compare your quote with Mark’s quote and even you should be able to recognize that glaring fact.

Now, if you want JFK’s words re that in his speech go to the speech, not someone else picks and chooses.:

“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

http://www.archive.org/details/JfkTheCaseForTaxCuts

Remember, You accused MARK of improper use of a quote by taking it out of context. To prove that you took the same quote from the same speech and edited it even MORE>

I am saying that your additional editing did not prove that Mark deliberately changed the context b/c YOU, and YOU alone, edited even more.

“Rachel Maddow Tells Bill Maher 100% Falsehood About Reaganomics” …

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/22/rachel-maddow-tells-bill-maher-100-falsehood-about-reaganomics#ixzz1Bnczxfbj

“According to the Census Bureau, the median income for men in 1980 was $12,530 per year. This grew to $20,293 in 1990 – a 62 percent increase. For women, this figure went from $4,920 in 1980 to $10,070 in 1990 – a 105 percent jump.

This means that the median income for the entire population in that decade rose at roughly the same rate as Maddow claimed the income for the top one percent did.

Makes you wonder just how often this MSNBC commentator so badly misrepresents economic data on her show.”

armwood said:
Obviously Chicago being the third largest city in the country has more crime. How many people live in the town with your second home? America has the highest percentage of gun ownership in the developed world as well as by far the highest level of gun violence in the world. These are realities you cannot ignore in spite of your sarcasm.

Crimes involving the use of guns statistics are usually, per capita, the other area is 0, 0 per capita. You can read through this study, it includes worldwide gun related crime statistics…..a Harvard study, btw:

“Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.”

COPYRIGHT 2007 Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Would+banning+firearms+reduce+murder+and+suicide%3f+A+review+of…-a0163470793

armwood said:
Obviously Chicago being the third largest city in the country has more crime. How many people live in the town with your second home?

America has the highest percentage of gun ownership in the developed world as well as by far the highest level of gun violence in the world. These are realities you cannot ignore in spite of your sarcasm.

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
 
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
 
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
 
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
 
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.”
 
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Dem4Ever said:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
 
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)
 
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.
 
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
 
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.”
 
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

We won’t even begin to discuss accidental deaths caused by automobiles.

Mark Ward said:
Just because the Democrat controlled Congress (under Reagan) FAILED to deliver the Spending Cuts that they PROMISED (to accompany the Tax Rate Reductions), is NOT a repudiation of “Reaganomic”, it’s a repudiation of Liberal Over-Spending!

No, but it’s a repudiation of lack of cuts made by the GOP for the next 20 years. Sorry by Stockman is right. If you have TAX CUTS alone without also following up with SPENDING CUTS then it’s actually worse than no cuts at all. It’s like saying that you’re willing to cut your salary, even when you’re already in debt, but aren’t willing to cut any of your costs.

If you’re going to maintain or expand your revenues, you can pay for your government expansions (the biggest of which came under the leadership of GW Bush and his GOP-controlled Congress. We keep waiting for those CUTS and even now the GOP are less than specific about what CUTS that will be. So far, they got 24 million from cuts to their own offices and maybe what we spend on NPR.

Face it, the GOP just doesn’t have the balls to tell the elderly (many of whom they have duped into voting for the GOP against their economic interests) that there’s NO SOUP FOR YOU anymore, grandma when it comes to health care, social security, or other entitlements. So either CUT TAXES, CHUCK GRANNY OUT INTO THE COLD and then try to re-elected for being the cold-hearted corporatist goons everyone with brain already knows they are or stop making excuses for huge government expansions under the GOP.

Or like my daddy says, sh!t or get off the pot. The GOP has been sitting on the pot spewing the same talking points for thirty years. Where’s the sh!t that they’re willing to report. Even Eric Cantor was tip-toeing around the subject today like the coward that he is.

*willing to recall

ChrisNH said:
If Leftist, Keynesian thought really was legitimate

If Keynesian thought is good enough for the GOP over the last 30 years, then why isn’t it good enough for anyone else. Sorry but the biggest practictioners of Keynesian theories in recent history have been the NEOCONS who STILL drive the policies of the GOP to this day because they have yet to come up with any good new ideas.

ChrisNH said:
MadCow simply pays attention to her own templates; her own narratives.

Unlike Steve Moore who is nothing but a talking point spewing tool. Just because he’s rarely been challenged on his facts doesn’t mean he knows what he’s talking about. He should be worrying more about why his paper, the Wall Street Journal, failed to make the call on the economic collapse of 2008 and he simply keeps supporting the policies that caused that collapse then he should worry about trying to rewrite history from 30 years ago.

BTW< by Steve Moore's own logic, Ronald Reagan (who had a much higher tax rate than Obama) should be considered a SOCIALIST anyway.

Davo said:
And, Ladies and Gentlemen, the pointless SPITTLE award for this page goes to………………………………………………………….

The TINY PENIS MANBOYS physically and intellectually threatened by Rachel Maddow and can’t bother to argue her on substance.

CAconservative said:
Liberal tactic: (1) Stack the deck by with 3 to 1 arguing the Liberal side, (2) ask a question, and then talk over the conservative giving the answer so no one can hear the answer, (3) disregard factual argument with non-sense banter if the conservative is destroying the Liberal argument.

Interesting observation, if what you described bore any relation to what actually occurred. In actual fact, WSJ shill Moore steadfastly refused to answer the question on the table — what happened to income equity during the Reagan years? — and attempted to drown out Maddow when she had the floor.

“Stacking the deck” is also horse-pucky. Except when he himself was violating the rules of civilized discussion, the segment showed a straightforward exchange of views between Moore and the other panelists without any piling on.

Feeling victimized much? It’s a common ailment among the overprivileged these days.

armwood said:
As usual Rachel Maddow was right. You have not actually do a little research, 2 minutes worth to find out.

But that’s antithetical to how fake conservatives operate. They hear something spewed from one of their talking point gurus (like Steve Moore here) and parade around those spewings as facts. Even when they are challenged, they just keep spewing away hoping to one day convince someone even more intellectually lazy than themselves that they’re right. Neither are they right or are they RIGHT, real conservatives admit failures and take responsibility for misguided rhetoric.

Dave Templeton said:
Rachel tried but couldn’t make on Broadway. She got stumped on the application question box after the word SEX

Especially when it came to SEX WITH DAVE TEMPLETON. She declined because his tiny tiny penis.

If YOU only had a PENIS….

Rio said:
Crimes involving the use of guns statistics are usually, per capita, the other area is 0, 0 per capita. You can read through this study, it includes worldwide gun related crime statistics…..a Harvard study, btw:“Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.” COPYRIGHT 2007 Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc.http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Would+banning+firearms+reduce+murder+and+suicide%3f+A+review+of…-a0163470793

Sure . . . a “highly credible” quote from a conservative/libertarian student organization. But I really want to know what Alan Keyes and Andrew Breitbart (oh, and Matt Drudge) have to say on the topic. Then you’ll have it nailed.

Dem4Ever said:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services) Guns(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.Yes, that is 80 million. (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.” FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Perhaps you should get your “facts” somewhere else than Internet humor:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/doctor-deaths.htm

Try this site for some actual facts — if you can handle ‘em. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

armwood said:
Pay your taxes and stop asking for something for nothing. There is no thing as a free lunch.

If only the majority of Americans would abide by this rule.

Rachel Maddow acting like a child? How shocking!

Oh wait… what I meant to say was “how expected”.

Ninja said:
Great point. But can you please explain the violence in southern Mexico? Keep in mind that Mexico has a complete ban on firearms.

Yeah and we have a ban on drugs, so what’s your point? The same people who smuggle drugs, smuggle guns back from the US. Seriously Mexico borders Texas, where it is practically illegal to not have guns.

CAconservative said:
Liberal tactic: (1) Stack the deck by with 3 to 1 arguing the Liberal side, (2) ask a question, and then talk over the conservative giving the answer so no one can hear the answer, (3) disregard factual argument with non-sense banter if the conservative is destroying the Liberal argument.

It was 2 on 2, the silent guy on the left of the screen was REAGAN’S BUDGET Director. Probably a Republican. Don’t be mad when a Fox News windbag cannot hold his own in a real debate.

Dem4Ever said:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services) Guns(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.Yes, that is 80 million. (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.Remember, “Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.” FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Also the lion’s share of gun deaths are suicide….NOT homocide. At least that’s what the CDC says.

joeshmoe says:
It was 2 on 2, the silent guy on the left of the screen was REAGAN’S BUDGET Director. Probably a Republican. Don’t be mad when a Fox News windbag cannot hold his own in a real debate.

It wasn’t about the conservative holding his own in a proper dialectic argument was it? No, it was about being shouted down by two Liberal puppets who were not going to allow the conservative to talk. Regan’s budget director looked to be a man of integrity and had probably decided to allow the two shouting buffoons two continue their rantings, knowing that they weren’t going to allow him to talk either. If you take the time to listen to the conservatives answer, through the shrill bantering, you’ll find he is making his point quite well. What is maddening is the level rudeness exhibited by the two liberal windbags.

Reagan committed TREASON by selling arms to the Iranians, an avowed enemy of ours, in direct violation of a Congressional and United Nations ban on such sales. He BROKE THE LAW! And this was just 7 years after the Iranians held 100 Americans hostage for 18 months. This would be like George Bush selling weapons to Al Quaida 7 years after 9/11. NUTS! George Bush Sr. had to PARDON the Reagan officals involved in this to prevent them from being convicted and sent to jail. What could be worse than a President selling weapons to our enemies? According to the NEOCONS, a BJ is alot worse!

AND HE SAID IT 52 TIMES!. Reagan committed perjury during his UNDER OATH court deposition during the investigation in the Iran/Contra crime. 52 times he replied to questions with “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall”, in an arrogant and defiant refusal to answer properly to avoid prosecution. He had no problem remembering what to say on TV, but once in court he suddenly couldn’t recall anything. He had a lot to LIE about.

This Conservative fantasy that Reagan was a great President is a joke! It’s already agreed he was “out of it” during his second term with Altzheimers. His tax cut policies of Supply Side “trickle down” economics have been disavowed for 20 years now by David Stockman, the Budget Director Reagan assigned to write them, stating they never worked and ruined the economy. George Bush Sr even called it “voodoo economics.” And the Savings And Loans Bank BILLION DOLLAR TAXPAYER BAILOUT was a direct result of his Administrations “hands off” approach to oversight and regulation of that industry. And history repeated itself with the Wall Street collapse in 2008 when George Bush did the exact same thing. And the deficit TRIPLED during his 8 years while all the time blasting wasteful spending.

The only thing Reagan excelled at, since he was an actor, was giving high hopes, inspiring, patriotic speeches just like in the movies. He was no intellectual giant either, admitting to an interviewer in the 1950′s that he got mostly “C’s” in school. And this myth that he brought down the Soviet Union because of increased Defense Spending is rediculous. Hey we out spent the Viet Cong too and they didn’t collapse. We’re outspending Al Quaida and The Taliban and after 10 years they haven’t collapsed either. Reagan was NO WHERE NEAR a great President.