MSNBC Anchors Promote Democratic Ad Butchering Reagan's Debt Ceiling Address

By: Alex Fitzsimmons Wednesday, July 20, 2011 7:04 PM EDT

At least five MSNBC anchors since Tuesday have promoted a cherry-picked House Democratic Caucus video that distorts President Ronald Reagan's position on the debt ceiling, inaccurately asserting that President Barack Obama is more in line with Reagan than the Republicans.

If any of the anchors had played the entirety of Reagan's 1987 radio address, instead of giving free air time to the Democratic Party's deceptively edited spot, they would have heard Reagan articulate a position on the debt ceiling almost identical to House Republicans' and nearly opposite Obama's: "You don't need more taxes to balance the budget. Congress needs the discipline to stop spending more, and that can be done with the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget." Lo and behold, the House passed a plan last night, "cut, cap, and balance," that contained both spending cuts and a balanced budget amendment.

Read More with Videos

Media Research center, huh? Hve they ever researched Fox Boobs?

(07-21-2011 10:59 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Media Research center, huh? Hve they ever researched Fox Boobs?

The media bias is at NBC, CBS, Cnn, MSNBC and the left, not Fox. The debate is over on this left wing media bias thing. Did you just wake up from a coma? That would(HELP) explain your incessant comatose postings.

THanks for the laugh SOAF. I would say it made my day but to be honest, there is a phone call I am hoping to get today that might be the thing that makes my day(though, I am not counting on it) so your laugh might have to take a back seat.

Reagan raised a lot of taxes and raised a lot of spending. So there's the rhetoric of Reagan, and then there's the actions of Reagan. The actions are all that really matters.

(07-21-2011 08:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Reagan raised a lot of taxes and raised a lot of spending. So there's the rhetoric of Reagan, and then there's the actions of Reagan. The actions are all that really matters.

What taxes did he raise? As a "professor" in "economics" I do hope you'll be honest in your summation, like what taxation was before he was elected, etc. I doubt it, but I'm still holding out on you, for once, being honest.

....then again, I don't think you're a professor of ****, so, maybe that has something to do with it.

(07-21-2011 08:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Reagan raised a lot of taxes and raised a lot of spending. So there's the rhetoric of Reagan, and then there's the actions of Reagan. The actions are all that really matters.

What taxes did he raise? As a "professor" in "economics" I do hope you'll be honest in your summation, like what taxation was before he was elected, etc. I doubt it, but I'm still holding out on you, for once, being honest.

....then again, I don't think you're a professor of ****, so, maybe that has something to do with it.

Seriously, are you living under the delusion that Reagan never raised taxes? Of course you are, because you're an idiot.

(07-21-2011 08:42 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Reagan raised a lot of taxes and raised a lot of spending. So there's the rhetoric of Reagan, and then there's the actions of Reagan. The actions are all that really matters.

What taxes did he raise? As a "professor" in "economics" I do hope you'll be honest in your summation, like what taxation was before he was elected, etc. I doubt it, but I'm still holding out on you, for once, being honest.

....then again, I don't think you're a professor of ****, so, maybe that has something to do with it.

Seriously, are you living under the delusion that Reagan never raised taxes? Of course you are, because you're an idiot.

Never said he didn't raise taxes. I'm questioning your "raised a lot of taxes" bullsh*t. So, link it, "professor".

(07-21-2011 10:59 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Media Research center, huh? Hve they ever researched Fox Boobs?

Honestly, do you ever address the merits of the article? Ever?

(07-21-2011 08:44 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:42 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Reagan raised a lot of taxes and raised a lot of spending. So there's the rhetoric of Reagan, and then there's the actions of Reagan. The actions are all that really matters.

What taxes did he raise? As a "professor" in "economics" I do hope you'll be honest in your summation, like what taxation was before he was elected, etc. I doubt it, but I'm still holding out on you, for once, being honest.

....then again, I don't think you're a professor of ****, so, maybe that has something to do with it.

Seriously, are you living under the delusion that Reagan never raised taxes? Of course you are, because you're an idiot.

Never said he didn't raise taxes. I'm questioning your "raised a lot of taxes" bullsh*t. So, link it, "professor".

The backpedaling has begun. Earlier it was, "What taxes did he raise?". Now you've shifted to whether he "raised a lot of taxes". You righties are so easy because you don't know jackshit.

(07-21-2011 08:50 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:44 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:42 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 08:27 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Reagan raised a lot of taxes and raised a lot of spending. So there's the rhetoric of Reagan, and then there's the actions of Reagan. The actions are all that really matters.

What taxes did he raise? As a "professor" in "economics" I do hope you'll be honest in your summation, like what taxation was before he was elected, etc. I doubt it, but I'm still holding out on you, for once, being honest.

....then again, I don't think you're a professor of ****, so, maybe that has something to do with it.

Seriously, are you living under the delusion that Reagan never raised taxes? Of course you are, because you're an idiot.

Never said he didn't raise taxes. I'm questioning your "raised a lot of taxes" bullsh*t. So, link it, "professor".

The backpedaling has begun. Earlier it was, "What taxes did he raise?". Now you've shifted to whether he "raised a lot of taxes". You righties are so easy because you don't know jackshit.

IT'S IN THE POST YOU MADE THAT I QUOTED, you f'n moron!

BTW, for any viewers and full disclosure, it must be stated that UM "Grad" still supports Obama's economic policies and thinks he should have spent more.

(07-21-2011 08:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, for any viewers and full disclosure, it must be stated that UM "Grad" still supports Obama's economic policies and thinks he should have spent more.

Actually, I don't fully support the President's economic policies. They've always been too weak and too compromised to get the job done. The stimulus did exactly what I, and what many economists, said it would do - it stopped the bleeding. However, it wasn't large enough to propel us into strong growth. To close the output gap in the economy and make a meaningful impact on unemployment, we needed $1.2 to $1.4 trillion in spending. Instead we got a $750+ billion package that contained large proportions of non-stimulative tax cuts. Now the President is making a repeat of the 1937 mistakes by focusing on the budget deficit instead of unemployment, economic growth, and output.

We would have seen reasonable, but not strong enough, growth in 1Q and 2Q if it hadn't been for the Japanese disaster disrupting supply chains and the Greek crisis raising the specter of financial collapse and contagion. But such is life. The President didn't beat back GOPers who wanted to see the economy fail, and he continues to try to placate those same GOPers who aren't the slightest bit interested in helping main street Americans.

I'll still give money to his campaign next year, I'll still work for his campaign, and I'll still vote for him. That's only because there is no better option, and he has moved us forward on some other issues I care about. I'm deeply disappointed that he ended up following the Chicago School (in more ways than one) rather than other economic voices in his administration. We'd all be better off today if he had fought for a bigger stimulus.

What bleeding has stopped?

In other words, he should have blown more of our money. What comes after a trillion?

BTW, that Japanese disaster, no, not the one you're thinking of, happened due to the same bullsh*t you're pimping. It's now called "the lost decade".

(07-21-2011 09:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  What bleeding has stopped?

What were the job loss numbers in Bush's last month? What were they last month? What was GDP growth (loss) in Bush's last quarter? What was it last quarter? The bleeding has stopped, but a real recovery hasn't happened.

(07-21-2011 09:19 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 09:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  What bleeding has stopped?

What were the job loss numbers in Bush's last month? What were they last month? What was GDP growth (loss) in Bush's last quarter? What was it last quarter? The bleeding has stopped, but a real recovery hasn't happened.

His last month had a Democratic congress, who controls the financial aspects of our country, for 2 years. ....but the unemployment was WAY below what it is now.

...and your dumba** still supports him, but thinks he should have blown more.

Go sit in the corner with a dunce cap, you jacka**.

(07-21-2011 09:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 09:19 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(07-21-2011 09:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  What bleeding has stopped?

What were the job loss numbers in Bush's last month? What were they last month? What was GDP growth (loss) in Bush's last quarter? What was it last quarter? The bleeding has stopped, but a real recovery hasn't happened.

His last month had a Democratic congress, who controls the financial aspects of our country, for 2 years. ....but the unemployment was WAY below what it is now.

...and your dumba** still supports him, but thinks he should have blown more.

Go sit in the corner with a dunce cap, you jacka**.

Thanks for proving you're an idiot for 30,749th time. I really don't know whether you won't or can't answer the questions, but it really doesn't matter. Either case means I'm right.

It would do you well to bow out now, "grad".