Some critics are saying that Palin won't last on Fox because she's an over-emotional woman who gets the facts wrong. But I disagree. It's working great for Glenn Beck, so she'll be fine. Amirite?
About what? He constantly mentions how Obama is raising taxes. Big fail there. If people actually look at facts they would see that federal taxes for 95% of Americans went down. other 3%-stayed the same. And raised taxes for 2% of the population. Making over 250k a year.
Wonder what other lies he's spewing..
Well, I heard about it on CNN, when they had a Liberal(Paul Begala) and Conservative(Sam Dealey) political contributor talking about the "Tea Party" Movement, where Paul mentioned the [percentages] I mentioned above. Sam agreed.
It's hard to find a site with ALL the numbers, but they all agree, that under Obama, Federal Taxes went down for 95% of Americans. He reduced federal taxes by 100 billion in 2009 and 222 billion this year. The tax cuts per household WEREN'T A LOT(couple of hundred dollars), but they NEVER went up. http://coloradoindependent.com/...99-under-obama
Like I said. Taxes under him never went up. They went down, too little to notice, but NEVER UP.
If they're too little to notice, then why bother mentioning them? And how do you explain the "stimulus package" that the American people didn't want, and yet he still put it through, to a bunch of pointless organizations?
Why did I mention them? Because you asked, what if Glenn Beck was right? I don't know about other subjects but he was/is wrong on taxes. Which is a VERY touchy subject. It doesn't matter if the tax cuts were a penny; it still means they never went up. Like Beck seems to say.
That "stimulus package" was the federal tax cuts. Mainly, along with other things(tax credits etc...). And most economists deemed the package to be in the right direction. Don't know about the American opinion about the stimulus package, however. I doubt they have a degree in economics.
You don't need a degree in economics to know that the stimulus was a package of bullshit.
Taxes aren't always called taxes. There are these things called "fees."
Okay, so I asked. But you still didn't answer my question: What if Glenn Beck is right?
Bullshit? Well, I never said it was great or even "good", just in the right direction. Would you mind telling me why the GENERAL, WHOLE aspects of it was "bullshit"? Facts please, not "because I say it so" and "it was all a bunch of lies". Every time I say that no one can give me a good, in depth, informative answer. Maybe because you DO need a degree.
Fees? Many problems I have with that:
1) Those fees might've existed before Obama and stayed the same
2)If news fees did exist, those fees would've been paid for by the tax cuts(Remember, Household savings were up "all together")
4) Most if not all are implemented by the State itself. Obama had nothing to do with it. "State's right". He can't interfere...
CONTINUED
"What if Glenn Beck is right?"
Well, everybody has been wrong.. but people usually redeem themselves since they were tiny mistakes. Mistaking tax hikes aren't. If he can be wrong about that, then I won't take him seriously.
So no, on the whole, he is not right.
We've already established that you think he's wrong. You still did not answer my question.
How is raising the deficit "in the right direction"?
It's bullshit, for example, because $224,000,000,000 went to entitlements. No one should be entitled to someone else's hard-earned money.
Regardless of whether or not the fees were in place before obama took office, he hasn't removed them, and in essence hasn't cut taxes.
And as I mentioned earlier, his so-called tax cuts, weren't noticeable, and therefore didn't make a difference.
"he hasn't removed fees, and in essence hasn't cut taxes."
Well, he may not have removed fees, but he still lowered taxes. So costs went down. As long as He. Didn't. Raise. Anything.
Plus taxes has been historically low, since Obama took office.
And household savings went up. So whether you like to twist words and group taxes and fees together.... it doesn't matter, Fees may have stayed the same but taxes went down.
Let me give you an example just to ensure you understand what I just said:
Lets say.. For one family in one year> Fee's totaled $400 and taxes $2000 Before Obama took offce. Total cost: 24000
Then when he came : Fees were still $400 but taxes were $1800. Total cost? $2200
He may have not cut them, or by much.
All it matters in this debate is that he didn't raise them. Have you not been reading what I said? Even IF he didn't cut fees AND taxes: He.Didn't.Raise.Them.
So why is Beck saying he did? ERGO HE'S WRONG
Continued
"How is raising the deficit in the right direction?" The bill was vital. And if something is vital.. it doesn't matter the cost or the "putting into debt". It should be done. Many people used that SAME argument for the WAR which cost TRILLIONS of taxpayers money; Doesn't matter the cost does it? If it's vital, it's needed.
As for your Glenn Beck Question. . It's like asking you: What if you are a boy? Chances are slim. So I'm not going to waste time making out what would have been, had that happened.
P.S. I know the second amendment is for Self defense. My statements were directed towards people who Claim Obama is destroying the Constitution..and people who overuse the Amendment. I mean, there are a lot of Gun owners who want to be able to bring guns into BARS. Their reasoning? The second amendment.
Also,It was written under the circumstances that the U.S could be attacked by England at any moment. Now people are using it to extend their gun rights?
first of all, ive seen the whole show before. second, it somewhat safe to not like him if youve only seen tidbits (although not as much so as it would be to have seen the whole thing before.) my reasoning for this is that if he were any good, people would not talk bad about him and negative clips of him or much of anyone on fox news (which is not technically news.) would not be available. but they are.
i have watched it on multiple occasions. i have many friends that are supporters. due to it being biased on many occasions fox news is categorized as, essentially, a talk show. also, other people have taken things out of context, even on glen beck. however, he and the rest of fox news have a pretty bad track record of that, i dare to say one of the worst.
People talk bad about everyone, no matter what their political views might be. Explain to me how Fox News "is not technically news." And every news station will take people, politicians, etc. out of context, which is what people do to Glenn Beck. Plus people can't really just watch one episode to get a legitimate opinion. But I have respect for you for watching an episode, which is more than most do.
Nice.
I disagree, but that's still funny :D
Oh my gosh, some of the comments on here...
Ahh, OP. I think I love you.
Yeah I guarantee the guy who put this up has never watched a full show
Most people who hate Glenn Beck don't even watch him. So STFU.
well you kinda gotta watch him before you can have any opinion on him whatsoever.
Most people who hate the guy only watch tidbits and never the whole show. That's my assumption, anyway.
I watch Beck regularly. Not because I believe what he says, but because I find it hilarious that people believe him.
Well what if he's right?
We're all screwed... lol.
About what? He constantly mentions how Obama is raising taxes. Big fail there. If people actually look at facts they would see that federal taxes for 95% of Americans went down. other 3%-stayed the same. And raised taxes for 2% of the population. Making over 250k a year.
Wonder what other lies he's spewing..
Your source being...?
Well, I heard about it on CNN, when they had a Liberal(Paul Begala) and Conservative(Sam Dealey) political contributor talking about the "Tea Party" Movement, where Paul mentioned the [percentages] I mentioned above. Sam agreed.
It's hard to find a site with ALL the numbers, but they all agree, that under Obama, Federal Taxes went down for 95% of Americans. He reduced federal taxes by 100 billion in 2009 and 222 billion this year. The tax cuts per household WEREN'T A LOT(couple of hundred dollars), but they NEVER went up.
http://coloradoindependent.com/...99-under-obama
Like I said. Taxes under him never went up. They went down, too little to notice, but NEVER UP.
If they're too little to notice, then why bother mentioning them? And how do you explain the "stimulus package" that the American people didn't want, and yet he still put it through, to a bunch of pointless organizations?
Why did I mention them? Because you asked, what if Glenn Beck was right? I don't know about other subjects but he was/is wrong on taxes. Which is a VERY touchy subject. It doesn't matter if the tax cuts were a penny; it still means they never went up. Like Beck seems to say.
That "stimulus package" was the federal tax cuts. Mainly, along with other things(tax credits etc...). And most economists deemed the package to be in the right direction. Don't know about the American opinion about the stimulus package, however. I doubt they have a degree in economics.
You don't need a degree in economics to know that the stimulus was a package of bullshit.
Taxes aren't always called taxes. There are these things called "fees."
Okay, so I asked. But you still didn't answer my question: What if Glenn Beck is right?
Bullshit? Well, I never said it was great or even "good", just in the right direction. Would you mind telling me why the GENERAL, WHOLE aspects of it was "bullshit"? Facts please, not "because I say it so" and "it was all a bunch of lies". Every time I say that no one can give me a good, in depth, informative answer. Maybe because you DO need a degree.
Fees? Many problems I have with that:
1) Those fees might've existed before Obama and stayed the same
2)If news fees did exist, those fees would've been paid for by the tax cuts(Remember, Household savings were up "all together")
4) Most if not all are implemented by the State itself. Obama had nothing to do with it. "State's right". He can't interfere...
CONTINUED
"What if Glenn Beck is right?"
Well, everybody has been wrong.. but people usually redeem themselves since they were tiny mistakes. Mistaking tax hikes aren't. If he can be wrong about that, then I won't take him seriously.
So no, on the whole, he is not right.
We've already established that you think he's wrong. You still did not answer my question.
How is raising the deficit "in the right direction"?
It's bullshit, for example, because $224,000,000,000 went to entitlements. No one should be entitled to someone else's hard-earned money.
Regardless of whether or not the fees were in place before obama took office, he hasn't removed them, and in essence hasn't cut taxes.
And as I mentioned earlier, his so-called tax cuts, weren't noticeable, and therefore didn't make a difference.
"he hasn't removed fees, and in essence hasn't cut taxes."
Well, he may not have removed fees, but he still lowered taxes. So costs went down. As long as He. Didn't. Raise. Anything.
Plus taxes has been historically low, since Obama took office.
And household savings went up. So whether you like to twist words and group taxes and fees together.... it doesn't matter, Fees may have stayed the same but taxes went down.
Let me give you an example just to ensure you understand what I just said:
Lets say.. For one family in one year> Fee's totaled $400 and taxes $2000 Before Obama took offce. Total cost: 24000
Then when he came : Fees were still $400 but taxes were $1800. Total cost? $2200
He may have not cut them, or by much.
All it matters in this debate is that he didn't raise them. Have you not been reading what I said? Even IF he didn't cut fees AND taxes: He.Didn't.Raise.Them.
So why is Beck saying he did? ERGO HE'S WRONG
Continued
"How is raising the deficit in the right direction?" The bill was vital. And if something is vital.. it doesn't matter the cost or the "putting into debt". It should be done. Many people used that SAME argument for the WAR which cost TRILLIONS of taxpayers money; Doesn't matter the cost does it? If it's vital, it's needed.
As for your Glenn Beck Question. . It's like asking you: What if you are a boy? Chances are slim. So I'm not going to waste time making out what would have been, had that happened.
P.S. I know the second amendment is for Self defense. My statements were directed towards people who Claim Obama is destroying the Constitution..and people who overuse the Amendment. I mean, there are a lot of Gun owners who want to be able to bring guns into BARS. Their reasoning? The second amendment.
Also,It was written under the circumstances that the U.S could be attacked by England at any moment. Now people are using it to extend their gun rights?
Now that a dumbass like you got schooled in a debate, you'll finally realize how stupid you retards are.
Also voting up on your own comments won't get you anywhere, Andromeda.
This debate is so old, why are you bothering to even comment on it?
first of all, ive seen the whole show before. second, it somewhat safe to not like him if youve only seen tidbits (although not as much so as it would be to have seen the whole thing before.) my reasoning for this is that if he were any good, people would not talk bad about him and negative clips of him or much of anyone on fox news (which is not technically news.) would not be available. but they are.
i have watched it on multiple occasions. i have many friends that are supporters. due to it being biased on many occasions fox news is categorized as, essentially, a talk show. also, other people have taken things out of context, even on glen beck. however, he and the rest of fox news have a pretty bad track record of that, i dare to say one of the worst.
People talk bad about everyone, no matter what their political views might be. Explain to me how Fox News "is not technically news." And every news station will take people, politicians, etc. out of context, which is what people do to Glenn Beck. Plus people can't really just watch one episode to get a legitimate opinion. But I have respect for you for watching an episode, which is more than most do.