Barack: Don't raise taxes during a recession

In August of 2009, Barack was interviewed by Chuck Todd on the economy. When it came to the issue of raising taxes on the wealthy, Barack was asked by Scott Ferguson to:
Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.
Barack answered that it would be a mistake to raise taxes at that time. He said that it would cost jobs:

Well, first of all, he is right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have instead cut taxes. So I guess what I would say to Scott is his economics are right, you don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession. ...
...So he is absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up — take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.

Huh.
That was August of 2009.
What changed?

A light bulb moment, and how to save $30 million in the US budget

You heard, of course, about how the government is trying to get rid of standard incandescent light bulbs. You may have also heard that the Republicans in congress are trying to squash this part of the 2007 Energy Act. Bloomberg has an incredibly slanted view of this bill, and gives the Obama administration POV almost verbatim:

The legislation, which was debated on the House floor yesterday and is scheduled for a vote later today, would cost Americans $6 billion in energy savings in 2015, the White House said in a statement yesterday.

So let's start here, with what H.R. 2417 is. H.R. 2417 would, according to the bill, repeal:

Sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

According to the CBO, this will save $30 allocated to the Dept. Of Energy:

to conduct research and development efforts related to lighting technologies, perform market assessments related to energy-efficient lighting products, and educate consumers about such products.

Sounds like a good way for us to save some money. Particularly at a time when we are trying to cut down on government spending.

Defence Secretary Panetta: You're in Iraq because of 9/11

Hilarious.
The entire left just swallowed their collective tongues.

Remember how all during Bush's term, the left argued that Bush tried to connect 9/11 and Iraq through hidden speech? Or something like that?
Well, Panetta straight out said it:

The reason you guys are here is because of 9/11. The US got attacked and 3,000 human beings got killed because of Al-Qaeda

Now if he were a Republican, every single liberal in the US would be talking about how he was trying to distort 'the truth'. But since he's working for a guy in the WH with a D next to his name...

US government spending

I just wanted to keep a list of this, handy. Spending, of the US government, in trillions, per year:
2000----1.7
2001----1.8
2002----2.0
2003----2.1
2004----2.2
2005----2.4
2006----2.6
2007----2.7
2008----2.9
2009----3.5
2010----3.4
SOURCE

Santelli gets it right... again

Santelli was the guy who made the original call for a new Tea Party.
In the discussion about the debt, he gets it right yet again...


Yes, Santelli... stop spending!
A few very relevant points are made in this video. But the most important one is this, as stated:
In August, we will have $203 billion of revenue.
We will also have $362 worth of bills.

Now lets just think about that for a second. Suppose you had a company, and you were taking in $2.03 for every $3.62 spent. Wouldn't you take a serious look at your spending?
Of course you would.

Why is that so antithetical to the US government?

"Misinformed" viewers believe that Republicans were against TARP, and are correct

Earlier, I wrote about how Jon Stewart can't admit that he was wrong about Fox News viewers being the most "misinformed" viewers.
I did a bunch of research on one of Fox News' rivals, and applied the same standard that Jon Stewart did. Which I thought was kinda brilliant.

Shortly after that, a number of people all started using the same argument that Politifact used (a few of) the wrong studies. That there was a thin difference between being 'misinformed' and not knowing what the facts were.
If one person had come to this conclusion, I'd chalk it up to one person splitting hairs. But it wasn't one person. It was a herd of Dems.
So I googled, and came up with the FireDogLake post that seems to be the source of it all:

...The three Pew polls measure how informed viewers are. They don’t even belong in the discussion, because they don’t go to Stewart’s point.

Let's go back to Stewart's point:

Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? … Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.

If we constrain our definition of "misinformed media viewers" to the FireDogLake version of what Stewart meant, then we're not talking about 'every poll'. We're talking about one polling service: PIPA.
Moreover, we're talking about what PIPA asked people, and what PIPA felt was 'misinformation.'
I ran into this study before, which is why I wanted to focus on it. A lot of the questions are subjective, but no question was more wrong in my opinion then this one:

When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it

I already addressed this one a while back. So let's go over the votes for TARP:

The first vote on the bailout was September 29th, and the final tally is as follows:

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	140	95
Republican	65	133		1
Independent
TOTALS	205	228		1

The second vote on the bailout was October 3rd, and that tally is as follows:

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Democratic	172	63
Republican	91	108
Independent
TOTALS	263	171

NOTE: the second vote, while not initially appearing to be connected to TARP, does have TARP bootstrapped onto it. Read the text.

Now keep in mind, PIPA said that Fox viewers were 'misinformed' if they believed that most of the Republicans were against TARP.
How do they form that opinion?
Wait. Let's do this. Suppose you asked viewers who supported TARP more, dems or reps?
What do you suppose the vast majority of MSNBC viewers would say? I'm going to jump into the pool and suggest that their 'misinformation' rating would go way, way, way up, along with those who listen to NPR.

I wonder if PIPA would ask that question?

Presidential gaffe: "The Internets"

As Real Clear Politics points out:

When President Bush made the same mistake during his campaign for President in 2000, he was roundly criticized as unintelligent.

Yet, Barack can continue to make gaffe after gaffe, and its not a reflection on him.

To be fair, I don't consider "The Internets" to be that big of a gaffe. But then again, I wasn't the one making fun of Bush for doing the same damn thing.

$278,000 per Stimulus Job

The Weekly Standard did the math, and that's what it works out to be. At least using the numbers of the White House economic advisers:

...the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion

I think that $278,000 per job created or saved is a great bargain. Don't you? I mean, in US government terms...

Fact Checker gives Obama Two Pinocchios

The Washington Post recently fact checked one of Obama's speeches on the debt, and gave him "Two Pinocchios."
A sample of what they wrote:

The president’s claim of an “unprecedented” effort to trim federal regulations is laughable. And it would be nice to hear Obama acknowledge for once that, until a few months ago, his administration was eager to do business with Gaddafi.

They also take apart his efforts to blame corporate jet companies for robbing the public coffers of taxes. Read the piece. Its pretty good.

"Where Are The Jobs?" is a skewed question

At least, according to Obama. Boehner asked the question of the president in his Twitter Town Hall. But Obama, according to the CNN video on Real Clear Politics, said:

Eventually, I'm sure, the speaker will see the light

Uh huh.