Anthony Weiner is great fun

[Iosif]

On NPR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJFivQYjC-Q&feature=feedu

On Hannity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPUdHTrMH3g

[bgwah]

I've never actually watched a video of Hannity or Bachmann.

Are Republicans really this stupid? Depressing.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

[Senator Napoleon]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

Have you ever heard of corporate welfare?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

Have you ever heard of corporate welfare?

He wasn't talking about grants or subsidies... he was talking about tax cuts.

[realisticidealist]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

The effect is the same from the perspective of the deficit.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

The effect is the same from the perspective of the deficit.

Yes, but Sean was making the point that Congress doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  So, for Weiner to be correct in his reply, he needs to at least emphasize that the way the GOP wants to do things does create a revenue problem.

[President Marokai]

That's a silly semantics argument. They have the same end result. If you actually start making that argument then you could just as easily say "tax cuts don't cost anything since they technically aren't spending!" which is absurd.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

That's a silly semantics argument. They have the same end result. If you actually start making that argument then you could just as easily say "tax cuts don't cost anything since they technically aren't spending!" which is absurd.

It has the same end, but it's vital to what style of government you have.  If you think the deficit problem is a revenue problem, you raise taxes / eliminate tax cuts.  If you think it's an expenditure problem, you cut spending.  If you think it's a mix of both, you do both.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Weiner was totally trolling it up in that second video lol. I know I'd do the same if I was on Fox.

[Grumps]

He's one of my absolute favorite Congressman. 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

He's one of my absolute favorite Congressman. 

This was my favorite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_GRkMZJn4

[Grumps]

He's one of my absolute favorite Congressman. 

This was my favorite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_GRkMZJn4

He probably went out for drinks with the guy he was screaming at later too.....I don't agree with him much but I like the passion.....a lot.  We need more characters in that sucky place.

[Vasall des Midas]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

The effect is the same from the perspective of the deficit.

Yes, but Sean was making the point that Congress doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  So, for Weiner to be correct in his reply, he needs to at least emphasize that the way the GOP wants to do things does create a revenue problem.

"Making the point"? Wtf? He was just putting that out as a soundbite, it wasn't supported by an argument in any way. It's a rather outlandish claim.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

The effect is the same from the perspective of the deficit.

Yes, but Sean was making the point that Congress doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  So, for Weiner to be correct in his reply, he needs to at least emphasize that the way the GOP wants to do things does create a revenue problem.

"Making the point"? Wtf? He was just putting that out as a soundbite, it wasn't supported by an argument in any way. It's a rather outlandish claim.

OK... "making the point" was the wrong phrase.  He's coming at it from the belief that Congress has a spending, not revenue problem.

[Vasall des Midas]

I like Weiner, but he's wrong when he says, "One of the ways we spend money is giving it to millionaires and billionaires."  That's not an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

The effect is the same from the perspective of the deficit.

Yes, but Sean was making the point that Congress doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  So, for Weiner to be correct in his reply, he needs to at least emphasize that the way the GOP wants to do things does create a revenue problem.

"Making the point"? Wtf? He was just putting that out as a soundbite, it wasn't supported by an argument in any way. It's a rather outlandish claim.

OK... "making the point" was the wrong phrase.  He's coming at it from the belief that Congress has a spending, not revenue problem.

That's more like it.