Archive for December 6, 2010
Check out some of the headlines from this afternoon, after President Obama tried to convince us that he was looking out for the unemployed.
This would (obviously) be Fox:
Yep. Republican won that one.
The CBS Evening News: “Obama: Deal with GOP on Tax Cuts:“
Republicans won that headline too.
The ABC Evening News:
Yep. The GOP and the Bushies win there as well.
So, why did Obama expect anything different? Does he buy the propaganda (Stockholm Syndrome anyone?) that the media is “liberal?” I.e., that it will tell his side of the story?
It isn’t and it won’t and it didn’t.
Filed under: They Think We’re Idiots.
We’re awaiting Obama’s press conference during which he will talk about the “deal” he has reached with Republicans on the “tax plan.” Part of what he is going to say has been leaked: a 13-month extension of unemployment insurance (but he’ll say “benefits”) and a two-year extension of tax cuts for the rich.
Obama, I think you’re wrong to extend Bush’s tax cuts for the rich but putting that aside, do you mean to tell me you’re so weak you couldn’t get a two-year extension of benefits for the unemployeed to match what you’re giving to the rich?
UPDATE: Obama is confirming the info above, while repeatedly using the word “compromise,” “compromise,” “compromise,” and “I’m looking forward to working with members of both parties….” to see that this gets done.
So, did I miss something? Did Republicans elect Obama?
Reaction from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the leader of the House Progressive Caucus on MSNBC: “It’s horrible that Republicans would put this on the table.” Democrats are blaming their “compromise” on the Republicans. Now that’s the mature thing to do!
Excuse me while I take another blood pressure pill.
Gosh, just makes you so proud to be a Democrat:
As always, Matt Taibbi’s latest is a must read:
In some very vague way I suppose it could be argued that Barack Obama crawling into bed with John Boehner represents “post-partisanship,” but if you want to talk about building actual political bridges, the only meaningful way to achieve that is through the union of voters on the left who want to end the Bush tax cuts, and the voters on the right who want to end the Bush tax cuts. Unite the elderly Democrats who want to hold on to their Social Security Benefits and the elderly Republicans who want the same thing. That’s bipartisanship, but not in the way these Silk Road types like it.
Check this out:
It’s time, I think, to repost this chart showing how much taxpayers at different income levels would get from the Democratic plan, which was to simply extend the cuts for income under $250,000, and the Republican plan, which was to extend the cuts for everyone:
Gosh, golly, gee. Look who benefits the most from the Republican plan. What a shocker.