#Breitbart.com: Pissed Obama Dissed Romney Hood
And now, just in time to give us all a bit of respite from the depressing news of the past few days, an important author from Breitbart.com has agreed to provide some original humour and play the part of the village fool in a shakespeare-esque comedy sure to tickle our funny bones.
Here’s a bit of an Obama speech, as the historical set up for the play. It has the added bonus of being Obama’s real words from a real speech.
OBAMA: Last week an independent non-partisan organization crunched the numbers; they went through what it would mean to add a five trillion-dollar tax cut. Just to give you a sense of perspective here — our entire defense budget is a little over $500 billion per year, but it’s less than six hundred. So you’re talking about — each year — a tax cut that is the equivalence of our defense budget, for the next ten years.
What this policy center did, they just ran the numbers. If you actually wanted to pay for that, what would that mean? And they determined that Governor Romney’s plan would effectively raises taxes on middle class families with children by $2,000 — to pay for this tax cut. Not to reduce the deficit, not to invest in things that grow our economy — like education or roads or basic research. He’d ask the middle class to pay more in taxes so that he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year.
It’s like Robin Hood in reverse — it’s Romney-hood. …
They have tried to sell us this trickle-down, tax cut fairy dust before — and guess what? It doesn’t work.
It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. It’s not a plan to create jobs, it’s not a plan to reduce our deficit, and it’s not a plan to move our economy forward.
The role of the non-partisan narrator is played by, you guessed it, me.
Breitbart.com Stumbles To Market.
As the play starts, we find the fool* talking to himself in a ragged whisper, wishing it was he who was the court jester and his humble shack a castle.
FOOL:” 1. This so-called non-partisan study was co-authored by a former member of Obama’s economic team.”
NARRATOR: Look, just because people like the authors at Breitbart.com are willing to lie and twist facts in order to vilify others to make their candidate of choice look like the better of two horrible choices to any person who shares their ideology, does not mean others will do the same thing. In fact the co-authors of the report have been as up front about the methodolgy used, and the assumptions they started with as possible. If they intended to lie by hiding their agenda in the report, they did a piss poor job of it.
We all know the staff and fans of Breitbart.com are ideologues intent on destroying all information from and about their opponents, so this bitter well poisoning is to be expected, but there have been a number of reviews of the report and the reporting on the report before and the report is not what Breitbart.com wants us to believe it is.
FOOL: “The study also assumes Romney would raise taxes on the middle class and ignores how a growing economy can increase tax revenues.”
NARRATOR: It assumes that Romney wants the tax system to be resource neutral so the deficit is not increased. Is that so hard to understand?
FOOL: “2. Obama says tax cuts don’t create economic growth, spending on roads and education and research do.
Are you going to believe your lying eyes or our lying president? “
NARRATOR: This Breitbart.com author just claimed the readers of the blog can’t normally trust their own reading ability. Good for him.
FOOL: “According to Obama, the Reagan years [1981-1989] were a flop and his trillion-dollar spending binge was an epic success.”
NARRATOR: During the Reagan years, spending on the Military (”military Keynesianism”) went up, and the deficit spiked so those years are not a good example of how lowered taxes accomplish what Breitbart.com thinks it does. Just the opposite in fact.
“***The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 included steep increases in military spending, steep cuts in non-defense expenditures, and a large tax cut (legislated through ERTA 1981). Although the Reagan administration predicted that the combination of spending and tax cuts would reduce the federal deficit, the deficit exploded under Reagan.”
“This was partially a result of slow economic growth, which was in turn precipitated by the Federal Reserve’s moves to reduce the money supply so as to curb inflation. On the whole, however, the ballooning federal deficit was caused by declines in tax revenue. As a result of the tax cuts, revenues for the federal government dropped $200 billion by 1986 and contributed to consecutive budget deficits and a massive increase in the national during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies.”
National Dept by President
“During his presidential campaign Ronald Reagan proposed three fiscal policies: 1) increased defense spending; 2) cuts in non-defense appropriations; and 3) tax cuts.”
NARRATOR: Obama did not claim the TARP was an epic success, but the Breitbart.com fans view things in stark contrasts, so they only understand gross failure and epic success. However, that is a gross failure to understand the effects of TARP on their part, not a failure of TARP.
FOOL: “3. Robin Hood didn’t rob from wealthy private citizens to give to the poor. Robin Hood robbed from the Obama’s and Pelosi’s and the Harry Reid’s of his time — he robbed from overbearing, power-hungry big government bureaucrats who over-taxed private citizens and business owners to feather their own nests and pay off Solyndra and unions their cronies.
Robin Hood gave the people back money stolen from them by corrupt, greedy, selfish, statist government officials.”
NARRATOR: Actually, though there are several differernt stories about Robin and the ballads about the character have changed dramatically through the centuries the modern myths of Robin have him as a highwayman stopping and robbing anyone with money passing through Robin’s portion of the forest. His band of drunkards and thieves did not restrict their thievery to the nobility and their lackies, but quite egalitarianly stole from private businessmen as well.
It looks like the fool gets his information about Robin Hood from Disney cartoons.
FOOL: “Obama is no Robin Hood, he’s the Sheriff of Nottingham.
By the way, where are our media fact-checkers on all of this? Oh, yeah, too busy calling Romney a liar for saying a president who didn’t go to Israel didn’t go to Israel.
NARRATOR: What exactly are the fact checkers supposed to be checking, the use of Robin Hood as an analogy? Surely they have more important things to do than worry about something so incredibly trivial.
I hope you’ve enjoyed our little play about the back and forth of Breitbartian politics.