Hannity to guest who noted that Obama inherited bad economy: "Blah, blah, blah. I don't want to hear this anymore"
June 19, 2009 7:51 am ET
From the June 18 edition of Fox News Channel's Hannity:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Surely you remember in 2007 when - regarding the 7 years of rhetoric about Bush inheriting the Clinton recession - Hannity said "Blah blah blah. I don't want to hear this anymore".
I mean, I don't exactly remember the exact occasion, but knowing Seans unwavering dedication to truth and consistency, I'm positive he must have said it.
It really is amazing how dishonest this man is.
With 'blah,blah,blah' sean may be speaking over the heads of his viewers, but he is trying to advance them to third grade.
The National Debt, as a percentage of GDP, is close to record levels. Couple that with the huge obligations that SS and Medicare represent over the next few decades and the window is nearly closed for some small measure of fiscal sanity without VASTLY greater progression in our taxation and draconian cuts in broad government service.
You want to nationalize health care or at least have some public payer option? Great. Just tell me that you're cutting the DOD budget 25%, eliminating 10% of the alphabet soup agencies, and removing the income cap on FICA to PAY FOR IT.
Our grandchildren will be putting bounties on our generation on our present course.
I think you might be coming around. Good to see your time here has resulted in progress. Us libs will make a better human being out of you yet...
By the way - the "public option" is a red herring, just a concession to the insurance companies to keep a single-payer plan off the table. In my opinion, it is the single best example of how our politicians make policy by balancing the value of lobby money against their ability to maintain votes by steering public opinion.
tbone was here first, and is a gentleman and a scholar.
Of course he has no problem or is he ever tired of defending Bush when he inherited a recession back in 2001.
Seannie, this is why I refer to you as a SissyBoy. You stammer and sob when you cannot win an arguement. You whine and stomp your feet and cover your ears when someone, whom you do not think is intelligent show they are smarter than you.
Mr. Hannity, you are not Rush. He is smart. You are not.
I know you want to question President Obama. But first, you must be interviewed by a Thom Hartmann or any real newsperson. You cannot hold your end up in a non-friendly surrounding.
And Seannie, remember this Hearing is Fundatmental
When compared to Hannity, I have a turtle who's pretty smart, too. Now, if you'll excuse me, he somehow got himself on his back and I need to go roll him over again...
I can see where small sticks in his back would help. Then they could just hang him up on a peg board between acts at his freedom concerts.
People might mistake him for a Fred Flintstone coat rack.
The thing is that the insurance companies could still remain in business by providing management and logistics of a national insurance policy, while government oversight curbs ridiculous overhead of billion dollar CEO compensation and protects the consumer against the fraud of arbitrary service denials and coverage cancellations.
As far as politicians benefitting from a national plan, they'll lose their insurance lobbying money. Period. That far outweighs the benefit of any lower employee compensation costs.
I would imagine that if someone had their heart set on assisted suicide, introducing lobbying control in the house would be a surefire solution.
I'm afraid this is the fly in the ointment. Essential healthcare is far more expensive than preventative health care and any plan that does not have provisions for preventative medicine is doomed to financial ruin... unless they adopt the practices of coverage denial that our current system does. Preventative healthcare has become the foundation for many European countries with Socialized medicine.
Yes, it would be.
Any plan that is not simply continuing the status quo will win very few Republican votes.
Funny, that's the same answer they give to everything.
Why, of course. It's part of that "journalism" that Steve Doocey says they practice at the Fox Comedy Channel . . .
Tired of hearing those horrible things like the facts?
Bush's white house approved the bail out with no restrictions, just gave them money.
Obama is the one that said, if you take this money we are going to hold your feet to the fire. Why do yo think all those Banks are in a hurry to give the money back. When do you think the banking industry would have given the money back to the Bush Administration?
Or to quote Elaine from Seinfeld... yadda yadda yadda.. Never
Go back and look at the Great Depression again. Hoover tried the traditional Republican remedy of cutting taxes, deregulation, and patiently waiting for the market to magically correct itself. All that happened was that the nation sunk deeper and deeper into the economic mire that THOSE POLICIES HAD ALREADY PRODUCED! It wasn't until FDR came to power in '33 and began stimulating the economy by injecting it with fresh capital through deficit government spending and relief for those who had lost their jobs that things finally began to turn around. Unemployment then dropped in an unbroken line and real economic progress was finally realized in this nation until FDR was convinced in '37 to reign in federal spending in order to balance the budget. That, naturally, resulted in a fresh surge of unemployment and renewed economic decline. Fortunately, he was wise enough to abandoned that policy the following year, and unemployment again fell. The Depression, of course, didn't completely end until our entry into WWII and the requisite adoption of deficit spending at a magnitude that had been unimaginable up to that point. Government spending then produced an economic dynamo such as this nation had never seen before... one that literally carried us through to the late Sixties.
There were also those who criticized the enormous government spending of Truman when he instituted the Marshall Plan, arguing that he would bankrupt the US with his recklessness. Instead, it staved off the starvation and the complete economic collapse that western Europe was imminently faced with, and instead laid the foundation for the recovery and resurgence that it experienced in the Fifties.
History clearly sides with Obama. Continuing to engage in the same tired and disastrously failed tax-cutting, deregulating, trickle-down, trust-in-the-innate-goodness-of-the-holy-market theology that has now delivered us to this current economic precipice would be a truly insane act on our part. We KNOW that that doesn't work. It NEVER HAS! The only real question is ARE WE CURRENTLY INVESTING ENOUGH IN OUR FUTURE!
In other words, you don't get stingy with the freakin' life preservers when the boat is taking on water!
Seriously, Fox. I know you don't check your facts. But you don't even have freaking SPELL-CHECK?!
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com