How you are special?

Hahaha, you took that the wrong way.

As for the rest of your post, well I'll just give you the reciprocal amount of thought to mine:

{0}

Just read this article:

Beck, Fox & Friends take a trip down health care misinformation lane

From the article:

In fact, Berwick was explaining that we are currently rationing care. In the interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick acknowledges that the current health care system already rations care and that the question for the future is how best to do it.

Indeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that it currently uses cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."

It is called supply side economics. Read a book.

"Trickle-down" economics is only effective when the nation faces a lack of supply. Only the most ideologically closed-minded person would look at a recession and neglect to see a lack of demand. But yeah, I saw the Laffer curve on Glenn Beck, too. Too bad it's only really applicable to third-world countries.

By the way, I am not conservative. I am libertarian

Libertarians are the most economically conservative bunch in American politics, so your distinction in this debate is pretty irrelevant. But I know you urge people to call you libertarian rather than conservative. I went through my own Libertarian phase in high school... read Ayn Rand, actually paid attention in my Macroeconomics class, frequently took the limited government position in my AP Government class. It was actually a pretty popular position, because you could act like you knew how free-market economies worked and argue in favor of prostitution and marijuana at the same time. Good times...

Yes, there is always a trade-off and both sides of the argument agree that the more money you put into the hands of the consumer, the more the economy is stimulated. That is why Democrats recently pushed so hard for unemployment Insurance, why the recovery act had the largest tax cuts for middle income workers, and why the Senate Democrats do not want to end the Bush tax cuts for people making under 250,00 dollars a year, 98% of those effected by the tax cuts. But the trade-off teeters to the other side when considering the affluent 2%, whose spending isn't really affected but whose contributions to the state will be greatly appreciated by a mere 4% increase in taxes.

Liberals, however, do dispute with (...more like baffle at) the seemingly hypocritical position on the conservative side of the aisle. The position that we can't even spend the 33 billion (ibtimes) to help those most in need and stimulate the economy because we have such a huge deficit, but we also can't raise taxes on the rich, a party whose spending is hardly influenced by a change in taxes, a mere 4%, from 36% to 40% (Buchanan on Morning Joe yesterday) to increase revenue by 40 billion a year (dailyfinance).

To me it seems that only the most far-right conservatives (i.e. John "Restaurants have a right to discriminate" Stossel Libertarians) really accept the "trickle-down" economics as a policy for a Recession. To the rest, they will probably only propound it in order to push their ideological small government agenda. But I'm not that cynical.

The main reason why giving more money to the rich is the very thing we shouldn't do is that a recession isn't caused by a lack of supply. It's caused by a lack of demand. I do agree with the economic theory that suppliers with more money can supply more. 5 years olds can see the logic in this. But that flagrantly isn't our problem, and only the most ideological minds would refuse to see this.

I guess you didn't catch on to my sarcasm. You are essentially discounting Clinton's balancing of the budget because he did it through taxes, and exculpating Bush's toppling of the budget because the wars he started were "necessary".

You've evaded the issue of simply balancing a budget into an ideologically tinged scale of values in which the measure of a president's success is the degree to which he cuts spending (beside on "necessary" wars, of course).

Yeah, the wars may have been necessary, but Bush still got us locked into them.

Why do you assume that people are spending more when the deficit increases? There are two sides of the table. One expenses, the other revenue. Do you not expect that a GREAT recession would cause a GREAT reduction in revenue for the government?

Going on a diet when you're starving is not a good idea.

So the highly disputed war in Afghanistan and the highly unpopular war in Iraq doesn't count.

And high taxes to balance the budget also doesn't count.

I see, this is a fair debate indeed.

There is no proof that he cheated in the election. If there was, the Supreme Court would not have put him in power.

Just wanted to quote this argument based on the claim that the SCOTUS is infallible, lol.

If Bush policies were disastrous, as Obama claims, then why is he continuing them?

Because Obama doesn't know about the special red button underneath his desk that erases the '00-'08 policies Bush forced down our throats, to use the popular neoconservative phrase.

/snark

The problem is, you aren't responding to the CPBB's graph. Here's the full article, in case you find HuffPost intolerable:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id;=3036

Alas, more than likely, you will criticize Obama for ending Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, even though it will drastically reduce the yearly deficit. But you must be one of those guys who think that tax cuts on the rich increase revenue for the government via expansion of the economy. If so, then there is simply no point in arguing with you. Just keep watching Fox Business.

You're still here? Ok, simply put, you are blaming Obama for a "record" 1.47T deficit, when the graph clearly shows that the great recession (which reduces revenue), widespread Bush-era tax-cuts (which we must wait to vote to end), and wars (which will be political suicide to end) are the main reason why the deficit is so high.

Also, I'm not quite fond of your opinion on the Recovery Act. Most conservatives overlook that within the "stimulus package" there is the largest tax cuts for middle-income households (sounds too conservative to believe in, right... right?) and instead complain about mythical pork-barrel commitments like the railway connecting Los Angeles to Vegas (claimed to be debunked even by your own Chris Wallace). Furthermore, economists widely argue for the necessity of an increase in government spending for a country in a recession. I don't think you advise your doctor on how to best treat a wound. You just know that he probably shouldn't use a sledgehammer (like tax cuts for the rich, ha!).

And It is only reasonable that the extent of the stimulus will be commensurate with the depth of the recession. So your point that the stimulus package is the large the country has ever seen isn't too effective when every one around you knows that this recession is the second worst this country has ever seen. Sure, it's no Great Depression, but our population was only 92 million then, too, was it not?

It seems like this is a tired and debunked conservative talking point. Highly effective, though, in inflaming the base.

In my opinion, you should blame Bush more so than Obama, since his policies contribute more to the deficit that Obama, even if you count only his non-repealable policies (the war and the tax cuts). But really, people, it's the economy. Blame that on whomever you wish...

Media matters is certainly not short on articles about Beck. He did, actually, not hesitate to air the edited clip early Tuesday morning...

"Despite claim that "context matters," Beck played heavily edited Sherrod clip on radio"

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210055

An honest political commentator would apologize or at least rescind his/her false statements. What does Beck do instead? Why, he denies ever calling Sherrod a racist:

"Despite accusing Sherrod of Marxism and "discriminating against white farmers," Beck proclaims that he took her side"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007220079

He did qualify by saying "on this show", so I'll give him that. But he is trying to position himself against the "rush to judgment" of the administration, when he clearly was one of the people in the media who rushed to judgment! Clearly, though, his radio show would still apologize...

"Beck co-host Gray falsely suggests Beck took Sherrod's side on the radio"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007220020

I guess not!

Only O'Reilly has actually apologized on Fox. Baier and Beck are denying it. Hannity, Fox and Friends and Megyn Kelly are just ignoring it.

Glenn Beck is simply being opportunistic on his show in order to predictably slam the administration. He would get away with this flagrant act of whitewashing/blame-shifting if it weren't for MMfA's extensive documentation. But MMfA gets smeared every time they are mentioned on Fox. Even Baier (a supposedly impartial mediator) says he doesn't "often quote Media Matters", so I don't expect Fox viewers to browse the site, even though their research articles are the most heavily cited articles I have ever read on the Internet.

"why do you watch even you're really drunk if it is so abhorrent."

Because when you don't have your moral inhibitions to guide you (journalistic standards, et al.), those hot "attorneys" and highly-critical pundits are extremely entertaining, even when you disagree with them.