|
A few things stood out for me.
1) O'Reilly kept saying how total revenue went up 20% under Bush. But revenue increases do not really measure how good the country is doing, Obama nailed him on it, yet O'Reilly just kept saying it as if it was true. He must have thought he was still talking to the kool-aid drinkers who believe everything he says.
Contrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than $300,000 a year. Because those households also earn the overwhelming share of taxable investment income and executive bonuses, both their incomes and their tax liabilities swing sharply in bull and bear markets.
"These people have incomes that fluctuate much more rapidly, so when the economy is doing well and the stock market is doing well, tax revenues will be up," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation."
Compared with the size of the economy, tax revenues are still below historical norms and far below what the Bush administration predicted as recently as 2003. And federal debt has ballooned to $9.6 trillion, up from $5.6 trillion when Bush took office in 2001.
Basically the rich and the Corporations made so much more money under Bush that they paid more taxes and that led to increased federal revenue. But that mostly benefited the wealthy, and the economy is worse now than it was under Clinton. O'Reilly put a right-wing spin on the numbers, he claimed that because revenue went up we all did better. When in fact, most of us did worse, and only the wealthy did better under Bush.
Obama should have pointed out that total revenue is meaningless, and that you measure how well people are doing by wage growth, inflation, energy prices, spending, etc. for the average American worker, not by how much more money the wealthy and the corporations made. The people at the top made out like bandits so the total tax revenue went up because they pay the most taxes, while the other 95% of us lost money and had a wage decrease, so we got screwed.
O'Reilly tried to claim that because total federal tax revenue went up, the Bush tax cuts were great for America. When it was really only great for the top 5 percent of Americans, everyone else suffered. And Obama tried to say that, but O'Reilly cut him off every time he tried to talk. Ask yourself this, is the average working man better off now under Bush, with $4.00 a gallon gas, higher food and energy prices, etc. or was he better off under Clinton, that answer is easy, he was better off under Clinton, even though total federal revenue went up under Bush.
2) O'Reilly would spew out a right-wing spin question then Obama would try to correct him and answer it, but he could never finish an answer. Every time he tried to answer a question O'Reilly would cut him off and spew out more right-wing spin and claim Obama was wrong. He would make some crazy claim about the Obama tax plan and Obama would say you're wrong, and O'Reilly would say no i'm not. So he would deny reality, and try to get you to believe his spin on it, when Obama was sitting right there telling him he did not have his facts right.
O'Reilly is so used to talking to right-wingers and putting his spin on everything liberal, that when he has to interview someone who says he is wrong, he can't comprehend that the person is saying he is wrong. He just keeps spewing the spin out as if it's true, when they guy who created the tax plan is sitting right there telling him he is wrong.
It was like watching a comedy skit on MadTV, or SNL. O'reilly says you want me to pay 50 percent in taxes, Obama says no I don't, then O'Reilly just keeps going as if Obama agreed with him. When he only pays 35 percent, and under the Obama plan it would go from 35 to 38 percent, not 50 percent. Then he said Obama wants to raise the payroll tax cap to infinity, then Obama said no I don't. But O'Reilly kept saying yes you do, when they guy was sitting right there telling him he don't.
He was basically calling Obama a liar, when he never does that with McCain. Billy had his right-wing talking points to spew out to make Obama look bad, and he was going to stick with them even when Obama said they were wrong. He would say a lie, Obama would say you're wrong, then try to explain how he's wrong, then O'Reilly would cut him off half way through his answer, and before Obama could show how he was wrong, then O'Reilly would make the false claim again and move on to a new question.
It was a joke, and very bad journalism, in fact, calling it journalism is an insult to all journalists.
3) O'Reilly still plans to do the one sided biased 25 part series on Obama, even after he said the reason he was not doing one on McCain is because he knows McCain and he has talked to McCain. So I thought he would cancel it after he talked to Obama, because now he knows him and he has talked to him, but he still plans to do it. If you have two candidates running for president, one Democrat and one Republican, and you interview both of them, then you do a 25 part investigation on one of them, but not the other, that's just flat out 100% bias. If that's not bias there is no such thing.
4) Compare his interview with Obama to his interview with McCain, the McCain interview had no screaming, no lying about his policies, no constantly cutting his answers short, none of that. O'Reilly is a joke and a fraud who should not even be allowed on tv, let alone have a tv news show.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
