Why the left talk shows never hit it big

[Fieldmouse]

Guy's

Last night I was driving north and got sick of the music stations so I flipped through the AM dial and picked up a left wing show out of NY. I had to listen as the chick went after Joe Lieberman. She was blaming him for all kinds of stuff as if he was the only one on the left who had issues with the bills. That part was actually quite entertaining to hear her foaming at the mouth. However, here is why they never make it big. She was completely either full of lies or doing outright making things up with speculations.

First big lie. She claimed Dr. Tiller, the third term abortion doctor who was killed, was the only Dr in America that would perform such a procedure. Then went on the rant about how the right celebrated his murder. I don't recall too many parades or a collection plate/ fundraiser for the guy who did it. Do you?Of course she did dive a little into the partial birth abortion ban law, with the bogus arguement about the health of the mother when a women's health is never an issue at this point. FYI, that's congressional testimony records not my words.

Then on the health insurance issue. She claimed to have some early form of skin cancer removed 2 years ago. Then went on to speculate, "Do you think I could ever get health insurance again if I switched providers?" The answer is a big fat yes. Besides the fact she was pure speculating and didn't know what she was talking about, the law for pre-exisiting conditions was passed many years go. Insurance companies were required to cover pre-exisiting conditions as long as you didn't let your insurance lapse. What the left wants is the ability to go uninsured until the point of serious ailment and then get coverage. Then she went on complaining that you just might have to pay higher premiums if you did have a serious ailment. So in her mind, you and I should shoulder her burden.

Can anyone explain to me how I go about and get insurance in 2014 when it will then be covered and paid for by the Government? (I know, the taxpayer)

After she said Grayson was her hero, I couldn't stand it anymore. She was completely talking out her butt. However, it's no wonder why the left is so far out there. They really have no clue as to what laws were passed in the past or the reality of the day. They sit there and just make it up. Just like Will's statement claiming Obama passed the largest tax cut in US history. Why couldn't he back that up with facts? Could it be that it never happened?

[ipscshooter]

Shorthand version: "They're all idiots."

One minor dispute though:

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse

What the left wants is the ability to go uninsured until the point of serious ailment and then get coverage.

I thought they were going to make it illegal and impose severe penalties if you go uninsured.

[WillPA]

Is Obama's Tax Cut the Biggest in History?
Thursday February 12, 2009
The Democrats have been so busy defending federal spending, and denigrating the stimulative power of tax cuts, that they apparently either forgot to -- or felt they couldn't -- point out something rather dramatic: the tax cuts in this stimulus plan appear to be the biggest in history.

The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others.

Now, perhaps some new analysis will show that the tax cuts end up not quite being the largest in history by this measure or that. But it's clear they're massive.

I'm ducking the debate on whether this is economically good or bad -- but surely it ought to be a big story.

It leads to two further points. The fight got boiled down to: Democrats want spending. Republican want tax cuts. This is partly the media's fault for following the script layed out by the Congressional leaders, but it also represents a lost opportunity by Obama. In his press conference, he mostly made the case for spending. He didn't make the case for the massive size of his tax cuts.

Second, Obama kept a campaign promise that few Republican thought he'd keep. If this weren't part of a larger package, that would be an enormous story. A liberal Democrat in the campaign promised the biggest tax cut in history. Republicans said it was a complete charade (and many liberals didn't much like it anyway). And the Democrat in his first few weeks delivers the tax cut.


http://alchemytoday.com/2009/02/10/h...ts-in-history/
I looked into this the other day. Bush's cut was the biggest (in dollars) in history in terms of its 10-year effect. It's 2-year effect wasn't quite as large because some provisions came online slowly -- a reason why it was criticized for being poor as countercyclical stimulus. Obama's cuts cost less in the long run than Bush's, but that have roughly the same effect on the bottom 80% of taxpayers in terms of change in after-tax income. Over the first two years, it's possible that the stimulus cuts are the largest in history if you don't correct for population growth.

Aside from all of that, the cuts in the stimulus are undoubtedly one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history and probably the largest cut for the bottom quintile in history. The GOP will have a hard time running away from this vote in 2010 ("but but but we wanted even more tax cuts" probably won't cut it).

[The Rev]

Originally Posted by WillPA

Is Obama's Tax Cut the Biggest in History?
Thursday February 12, 2009
The Democrats have been so busy defending federal spending, and denigrating the stimulative power of tax cuts, that they apparently either forgot to -- or felt they couldn't -- point out something rather dramatic: the tax cuts in this stimulus plan appear to be the biggest in history.

The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others.

Now, perhaps some new analysis will show that the tax cuts end up not quite being the largest in history by this measure or that. But it's clear they're massive.

I'm ducking the debate on whether this is economically good or bad -- but surely it ought to be a big story.

It leads to two further points. The fight got boiled down to: Democrats want spending. Republican want tax cuts. This is partly the media's fault for following the script layed out by the Congressional leaders, but it also represents a lost opportunity by Obama. In his press conference, he mostly made the case for spending. He didn't make the case for the massive size of his tax cuts.

Second, Obama kept a campaign promise that few Republican thought he'd keep. If this weren't part of a larger package, that would be an enormous story. A liberal Democrat in the campaign promised the biggest tax cut in history. Republicans said it was a complete charade (and many liberals didn't much like it anyway). And the Democrat in his first few weeks delivers the tax cut.


http://alchemytoday.com/2009/02/10/h...ts-in-history/
I looked into this the other day. Bush's cut was the biggest (in dollars) in history in terms of its 10-year effect. It's 2-year effect wasn't quite as large because some provisions came online slowly -- a reason why it was criticized for being poor as countercyclical stimulus. Obama's cuts cost less in the long run than Bush's, but that have roughly the same effect on the bottom 80% of taxpayers in terms of change in after-tax income. Over the first two years, it's possible that the stimulus cuts are the largest in history if you don't correct for population growth.

Aside from all of that, the cuts in the stimulus are undoubtedly one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history and probably the largest cut for the bottom quintile in history. The GOP will have a hard time running away from this vote in 2010 ("but but but we wanted even more tax cuts" probably won't cut it).

This is proof of what the left talk shows are producing!

[WillPA]

Yes Rev

The Rush, Hannity, Beck and Gingrich team all speak the truth and only have the goal of telling america the truth. They never twist the story in any way to support their political motivations.

[Lanse couche couche]

There is at least more entertainment value on the right wing shows. I tried listening to Air America a couple times and it was painful to hear. No humor just one rave after another. Even Al Franken seemed to lose all sense of humor and start to take himself way too seriously the minute he got in front of the Air America microphone.

[C. Davis]

I think there are at least two reasons.

1. advertisers.
2. Liberal controlled media can support lies, (and it takes all of them to do it), but lies cannot support a talk show
be it liberal or conservative.

C. Davis

[Fieldmouse]

Like I said Will, still having problem backing up your tax cut idea. Too funny.

[WillPA]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneym...cstimtaxes.htm

Without having you read through the whole bill. Here is link.

[ipscshooter]

Originally Posted by WillPA

Aside from all of that, the cuts in the stimulus are undoubtedly one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history and probably the largest cut for the bottom quintile in history. The GOP will have a hard time running away from this vote in 2010 ("but but but we wanted even more tax cuts" probably won't cut it).

Just curious here, Willie... Since the bottom 40% (that's the bottom two quintiles) pay less than zero (-4%) in income taxes, how can there be a "large cut for the bottom quintile"? They currently pay nothing. How do you "cut" nothing?

The depth of idiocy on the left is simply stunning. Makes the Grand Canyon look like a crack in the sidewalk...