Howard Stern Makes Fun of Obama Supporters

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

****** Warning! Howard Stern! May not be safe for work! ******

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I'm at work and can't watch - what does he say?

He also absolutely hates Mitt Romney with a passion.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm at work and can't watch - what does he say?

He also absolutely hates Mitt Romney with a passion.

It's the man/woman on the street interviews. I think the dialogue is okay, but I might have missed an inappropriate word or two.

[Danno 1,228]

It makes you laugh and cry.

We need to spend even more Public education. at'L fix it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It makes you laugh and cry.

We need to spend even more Public education. at'L fix it.

Word!

[Póg mo 1,749]

It makes you laugh and cry.

We need to spend even more Public education. at'L fix it.

No, no. We need to privatize it and let the private sector work its magic

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's pretty bad. Makes you wonder why these people get to vote. And then you realize that there are the tea baggers that will vote for Romney so that the government keeps it's hands off their Medicare. And those that will support Romney because cutting the government and cutting taxes will magically create growth and wealth and jobs and prosperity and reduce the deficit and debt although every informed person knows that it doesn't work that way. There are idiots in America. Some vote left, some vote right and some don't vote at all. At the end, it all balances out. What else is new?

Edited September 24, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's pretty bad. Makes you wonder why these people get to vote. And then you realize that there are the tea baggers that will vote for Romney so that the government keeps it's hands off their Medicare. And those that will support Romney because cutting the government and cutting taxes will magically create growth and wealth and jobs and prosperity and reduce the deficit and debt although every informed person knows that it doesn't work that way. There are idiots in America. Some vote left, some vote right and some don't vote at all. At the end, it all balances out. What else is new?

Sad. Pretty sad. There is a difference between believing the actual rhetoric of a candidate you think is incorrect, or unfeasible, and voters that don't even know who the candidates are, or even what race or religion they are, or haven't heard that Osama sleeps at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sad. Pretty sad. There is a difference between believing the actual rhetoric of a candidate you think is incorrect, or unfeasible, and voters that don't even know who the candidates are, or even what race or religion they are, or haven't heard that Osama sleeps at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

True.

[Neonred 3,648]

And those that will support Romney because cutting the government and cutting taxes will magically create growth and wealth and jobs and prosperity and reduce the deficit and debt although every informed person knows that it doesn't work that way.

Funny, but that was exactly what JFK did in 1963. Guess he had no clue also.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Funny, but that was exactly what JFK did in 1963. Guess he had no clue also.

Actually, Kennedy pursued Keneysian demand-side economics, presided over the first post-war deficit, the first federal budget to top $100 billion and over the end of tight monetary policies. Yes, he did support to cut tax rates but that proposal was made against the backdrop of the still existing war time top marginal tax rate of 91% which he favored to lower to 65%. I think everyone recognizes that higher marginal tax rates do not necessarily result in higher tax revenues just as lower marginal tax rates do not necessarily lead to lower tax revenues. Which is to say that there is validity in the Laffer curve. The issue is that on the way of lower tax rates, we have arguably moved beyond the equilibrium. That means that further lowering the rates will indeed lower revenues while raising would raise revenues.

Interesting, too, that the right likes to invoke JFK on tax cuts but refuses to invoke the Republicans of the time who argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." Today's supply side Republicans are happy to support fiscal policies that offer no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future such as the Ryan budget which achieves no balanced budgets for at least 3 decades. And those are the projections under the rosiest of assumptions.

[Neonred 3,648]

Today's supply side Republicans are happy to support fiscal policies that offer no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future such as the Ryan budget which achieves no balanced budgets for at least 3 decades. And those are the projections under the rosiest of assumptions.

Where's Obama's budget?

[Danno 1,228]

Actually, Kennedy pursued Keneysian demand-side economics, presided over the first post-war deficit, the first federal budget to top $100 billion and over the end of tight monetary policies. Yes, he did support to cut tax rates but that proposal was made against the backdrop of the still existing war time top marginal tax rate of 91% which he favored to lower to 65%. I think everyone recognizes that higher marginal tax rates do not necessarily result in higher tax revenues just as lower marginal tax rates do not necessarily lead to lower tax revenues. Which is to say that there is validity in the Laffer curve. The issue is that on the way of lower tax rates, we have arguably moved beyond the equilibrium. That means that further lowering the rates will indeed lower revenues while raising would raise revenues.

Interesting, too, that the right likes to invoke JFK on tax cuts but refuses to invoke the Republicans of the time who argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." Today's supply side Republicans are happy to support fiscal policies that offer no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future such as the Ryan budget which achieves no balanced budgets for at least 3 decades. And those are the projections under the rosiest of assumptions.

I am inclined to think, an incrase of revenue simply justifies more and bigger Gov.

WHich is why I am against tax rates increase by any groups. If we could reduce govt and many of these dependency programs (as well as much of foreign aid, subsidies etc) I would then ....... be will ing to talk about proper taxing rates.

But why do anything which empowers the Shopaholic to ... spend money?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where's Obama's budget?

It's here.

I am inclined to think, an incrase of revenue simply justifies more and bigger Gov.

Are you also inclined to think that a decrease of revenue will result in smaller government? If you do, you're mistaken. It merely results in bigger deficits and more debt.

[Danno 1,228]

It's here.

Are you also inclined to think that a decrease of revenue will result in smaller government? If you do, you're mistaken. It merely results in bigger deficits and more debt.

It's kinda like loosing weight, the longer you put off doing something about it , the more painful it is when you do.