The Hour Long Build Up Before, The 2 Min. Horror Intro & Even The Host Tried To Set Him Up. BUT....

[Turborama]

They FAILED! & he got a massive standing ovation!!

Obama Says It Would Be `Irresponsible' to Extend Tax Cuts for Wealthiest
By Kate Andersen Brower

President Barack Obama said it would be “irresponsible” for Congress to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

“I can’t give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of Americans” and “lower the deficit at the same time,” the president said during an hour-long town-hall discussion on jobs and the economy broadcast on CNBC television from the Newseum in Washington.

To give “tax relief primarily to millionaires and billionaires” would be “ an irresponsible thing for us to do,” Obama said. “Those folks are least likely to spend it.”

From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/obama-says-it-would-be-irresponsible-to-extend-tax-cuts-for-wealthiest.html

ETA THE FAIL CONTINUES! They just tried to get negative reactions from attendees afterwards and they all said they were VERY IMPRESSED.

[jaxx]

1. The President knows what he's talking about.

That puts the people who ask the snarky questions at an instant disadvantage. I laughed at the end when the guy running the show asked if he'd debate speaker boner.....and Obama said he didn't think boner would be the speaker. Instant wind out of the sails.

[Kdillard]

2. Obama did a great job and the audience was very receptive to him.

A debate between him and Boner would be no contest and he knows it. Hopefully he isright about him not being speaker.

[boomerbust]

3. Rick Santelli

On CNBC is really a douchebag.

[BlueIdaho]

6. Yes, Rick is an asshat.

He got his 15 minutes of fame, now its time for him to pay the piper.

[Zoeisright]

16. Yeah, Sick Rantelli (sic) is an asshole.

All he does is rant. And he's sick.

[impik]

4. He is decades ahead of the country. Decades.

[Parker CA]

7. He truly is. Long-term approaches are not easy to sell but ate often correct. nt

[SkyDaddy7]

14. That is exactly what my brother & I say almost daily!

[lillypaddle]

5. All I saw was a short clip

but, as we say in Georgia, "he done good."

[Turborama]

8. A reaction they really didn't expect from Larry Burton, Business Roundtable executive director.

Feedback on President Obama's town hall and the importance of growing small business, with Larry Burton, Business Roundtable executive director: http://classic.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1595676167&play=1

[Kdillard]

9. Watching that clip they were seriously looking for people to blast the President.

Also some of these people don't realize he can only answer the question he was asked. As for the guy saying I don't want a policy wonk that really made so sense to me because he would prefer we had someone who doesn't understand how a policy would affect business and people. I am just flabberghasted by hat some of these people expect.

[Turborama]

10. I noticed that angry idiot who was going on about the "policy wonk" thing. Probably misses Bush.

No, not probably. Definitely. :nopity:

[nxylas]

15. Lemme guess, he wants someone he can have a beer with

Because that's obviously the most important criterion when choosing a president.:banghead:

[ejpoeta]

21. but bush wasn't the guy you could have a beer with. he was the guy that would

buy the most expensive thing on the menu and then run out and leave you with the check. or at the very least steal your wallet while you aren't looking.

[nxylas]

22. Sure, if you believe the librul media

Real Murkins know that Bush is a genuine Texas cowboy, not one of those fancy-schmancy Harvard types who only got where they are because they had a rich daddy. He grew up on a ranch and shot lots of injuns and unshaven people with black hats, as did Ronald Reagan.

[ejpoeta]

26. lol. i'd like to get a look at those hands. i bet they look like the hands of

someone who never did a day of hard labor in his life.

[butterfly77]

31. And they thought he would be on the defensive..

he met with all types of groups throughout the campaign and everytime they thought there would be your gotcha moment or that he would be intimidated by their bullshit. He knocks down their bullshit everytime and they can't stand it.

I cracked up at some of their faces in the audience they were strategically placed throughout the audience. The first woman was a plant who says she isn't satisfied and was acting like she was catching hell. If she is maybe she should change her budget or take her kids out of private school,oh I forgot they hate anything public...

[Turborama]

11. Full video, including the "Anti-Christ horror show" type introduction...

Here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1595764040&play=1

Transcript here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/20/remarks-president-cnbc-town-hall-discussion-jobs

[valerief]

18. That intro was totally satanic!!!!!

:rofl:

[Turborama]

35. It sure was, I'm trying to find a clip of just that intro but that's the only version I've found

so far.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Holy shit, that intro was like something you'd see on WWF. n/t

[Turborama]

36. I never thought I'd ever say this, but when I watched it I thought it made even Faux look tame. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

12. This is a no brainer, which is why all of the Republicans don't get it -- they have no brains!

They talk about balancing the checkbook for the federal government after ripping off the Federal Reserve!
They even steal the freaking pens chained to the desks at the bank, and then they wonder why no one trusts them!!

Jesus Christ, how many times do we have to live the Herbert Hoover experiment in order to know the Republicans failed at math!!!

[Hubert Flottz]

13. The people see through the GOPer's BUSHit!

Love their tax cuts = hate America

[SomeGuynTexas]

17. Amen Brother! "Those folks are least likely to spend it.”

Let's put that money into hands who know how to spend it.

Ant meet "grasshopper".

[txlibdem]

24. You're confused about exactly who is the "ant" in that parable

The grasshoppers went on a spending spree with all of us ants' money, got us into two unwinnable, unpaid for wars, gave away over a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the rich (who took it and used it to move factories and jobs out of the US at an alarming rate), and pandered to the elderly with a prescription drug benefit that was ultimately so flawed that it caused more economic hardship for those who "thought" he was helping them, and removed or ignored regulations so flagrantly and irresponsibly that our economy crashed and was until very recently in the worst shape since the great depression.

Trickle down destroys the economy.

Trickle up always works -- the rich always end up with all the money anyway. But it benefits the working people and the economy while it makes its journey back to the pockets of the wealthy.

[SomeGuynTexas]

28. Here here. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Absofuckinglutely.

Take it. Take it all. Let those miserable blood sucking rich bastards writhe in the gutter.

As you said:

"Trickle down destroys the economy.

Trickle up always works -- the rich always end up with all the money anyway. But it benefits the working people and the economy while it makes its journey back to the pockets of the wealthy."


How *dare* they spend *your* money.


Right on Brother. Right On. Power to the po' people.

[antigone382]

32. I doubt that repealing these failed tax cuts will exactly leave the wealthy writhing in the gutter..

If we don't start investing in our infrastructure and our education system soon, the society in which these people built their fortunes will decay even more than it already has. That money has to come from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure the dying middle class isn't the place.

It isn't about hating or wanting to punish the rich. It's about finding practical solutions, and asking the top beneficiaries of our system to help preserve it (and make the necessary changes to keep up with a changing world).

We could also cut some of the exorbitant amount of money we spend on the military (more than every other nation in the world combined)...but good luck with that.

[SomeGuynTexas]

37. Well, looks like we agree at least....

You said:

"...asking the top beneficiaries of our system to help preserve it (and make the necessary changes to keep up with a changing world)."

and the man said:

"Each according to his ability, each according to his needs."

Those two statements use different words but mean the same thing don't they?

The rich need to give more. Or have it taken from them. They have it, we need it, therefore we take it. "To help preserve (our system)"

[antigone382]

39. No, we didn't say the same thing at all.

The point is that the rich are rich because of what THIS society provides them: abundant natural resources, a stable society with a healthy and educated workforce, and the infrastructure (like roads and reliable access to electricity and water) which enable businesses to thrive. The public availability of these things is meant to allow anyone (with sufficient ingenuity and drive) to make it to the top. But they are not free; the paltry amount of money invested in keeping our system up to date is one of the main reasons we aren't competing internationally. If there's a reasonable way of restructuring government spending that will modernize our infrastructure and education system without putting children, the sick, and the elderly on the street, I would love to hear it.

We're not talking about the violent overthrow of the upper class; we're talking about allowing a failed tax cut, which has benefited nobody but the wealthy, to expire. Somehow I think you know that.

[SomeGuynTexas]

40. You can take comfort in word parsing, but you're still saying the same thing...

You said:

"the paltry amount of money invested in keeping our system up to date" The paltry amount you are referring to is the tax rate...correct? Taxes are not high enough. The government needs to tax more money from people to be able to create a system that is better than the one we have. Right?

You also said:

"If there's a reasonable way of restructuring government spending"

I guess you are trying to say "If taxes were higher...or If taxes brought in more money to the federal government...government could spend more (or spend more wisely...good luck with that by the way) and therefore the system would allow more people to make more money (to be taxed more) to bring in more taxes to allow government to spend more to let more people make more money"

Makes perfect sense to me.

[antigone382]

41. You are seeing what you want to see, not what's there.

By restructuring spending I meant changing the WAY the money is spent. That's the point. If you have viable ideas that can change the way the money is spent so that we have enough to invest in infrastructure, education, and social programs essential to maintaining a stable society, then you don't have to raise taxes.

I was asking you for specific ideas on how to do that (other than reducing military spending, which would be a great solution but is political suicide). I actually do have ideas related to restructuring government spending, particularly business and agricultural subsidies, that could reduce the revenue we need to keep going, and encourage greater community-level independence. But I don't think those ideas are enough, so I think somewhere along the line, we're going to have to raise taxes.

Once again, the argument is not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." It's "Those who get the most out of a modernized, stable society, give the most back to maintain that society for the future."

[SomeGuynTexas]

42. At last agreement....

"By restructuring spending I meant changing the WAY the money is spent."

Cool. I propose that I keep 100% of my money since I am the one who earned it and knows best how to spend it. I wil take what I earn, use it to secure a roof over my family (a modest roof), food on the table, and then what's left over I will give to a company in the form of an investment for the future. The company will take my money, hire people (creating more money in the supply) and pay taxes to the government for the opportunity to succeed in this economy.

Wouldn't that be cool? People who work, people who earn their money keep it and then decide how to spend it vs. working to get money, having some of it taken for taxes (the money is now "taxed") and then going out and spending it, and getting taxed again two or three or more times (sales taxes or consumin' taxes). Or worse, taking the money I earn, paying taxes on it, and then investing it, earning wealth, and then paying taxes again on that earned wealth that I purchased with money I already paid taxes on.

At least we agree the way our money is spent is the root of the problem. Maybe we should change how we spend our money...like keeping it.

You work...you get money. You don't work, you don't get no money.

Seems fair, no?

[antigone382]

43. OK, show me some real world examples of this political philosophy.

Can you show me any industrialized society that allows people to keep 100% of "their" money (never mind that they earn that money in the context of a society that has systems in place to protect individuals and their surroundings from permanent destruction, that provides education and other institutions that ensure a healthy and intellectually competent citizenry, that ensures that you can earn that money in way that is not unecessarily dangerous or likely to have long term negative health effects)?

No society, not even the earliest or simplest, allows its individuals to keep all of what they acquire, or to acquire whatever they want, whenever they want. All societies have rules for sharing food and other important resources, and the vast majority have restrictions on what resources their members have access to. Welcome to the human race.

In addition, if you make an investment using earned money that you've paid taxes on, and you "earn" more money on that investment, you haven't paid taxes on the newly earned portion. Any patriotic person should be OK with that.

What you're proposing is basically a totally unregulated free market capitalism where everything gets taken care of by the invisible hand and everyone is able to fend for themselves, and it all works out beautifully with bootstraps and yada-yada. It's a pretty little theory that looks good on paper (just like Communism), but in the real world that system is invariably exploited and perverted by a few powerful individuals, and results in the suffering of millions (just like, umm, Communism).

The real world requires a slightly more complex understanding of sociological, ecological, and economic fact, as opposed to grand, radical theories, whether Randian or Marxist.

[stuart68]

33. ...you can't be serious...

[Overseas]

19. K&R! //nt

[molly77]

20. Obama is one president that I love

just like JFK.

[pasto76]

23. I wish the President would be on TV more often

I think speaking to crowds and the press is best strength, sometimes even better when he goes off script. Maybe Im the dummy, but he just makes so much goddamn sense.

sgt pasto

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cha]

27. President Obama has backed up everything he says..he's done an

awesome job in Office this short time for what he was handed and all the lies and hate swirling around him.

[kentuck]

29. Do you hear that giant sucking sound...

That is the Republican Party exhaling the hot air they have been breathing for the last few months.

[truebrit71]

30. It went 100% opposite the way that CNBC had hoped...They were hoping for an Obama-bash..

..instead they got many applause breaks, smart, salient honest talk, not talking points, and rousing cheers at the end...Every single host and commentator looked like they'd been served a great big shit-sandwich afterwards..it was AWESOME!!!

I was very impressed with his performance, and am motivated to back him up more than I was before..I got some of that Obama Mo-Jo back..

[Arkana]

38. He's standing his ground despite fierce opposition--even from the Blue Dog

cowards in his own party.