Cross posted from The Left Anchor:

Beginning last Thursday, Bill O'Reilly began airing a five part
interview with Sen. Barack Obama.  Today, I'll look at the second
segment which aired last night and focused on the economy and taxes. 
I'll back track later -- either later tonight or sometime tomorrow --
and focus on the original interview which dealt with foreign policy. 
First, here's the video of last night's segment which will be followed
immediately by my impressions of the fair points and the dishonest
points made during the course of the eight minute exchange.

O'Reilly makes what I'm sure is a documented, but highly misleading claim that the economy grew 19% more under Bush than Clinton.  Given that he does not bother to mention which numbers he's quoting when throwing this out, I'm going to assume he's referring to the GDP.  The problem with this is that while the GDP can tell you how much the national economy grew, it has no baring on how the growth was distributed.  A Bush GDP which grows 19% more than was achieved by his predecessor does not mean anything when that growth is spread unevenly among the population, and that's leaving aside the fact that Bush's war in Iraq alone could account for a significant increase in the economy, but would not be considered by most Americans as being an appropriate way to stimulate an economy.

Obama wastes no time in responding:  "You know Bill, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

In a turnaround so quick that it makes your head spin, O'Reilly replies, "I know, I know, it's bull.  I know it is."  I watched this through a couple of times, and I can say without a doubt that there was not a touch of sarcasm in O'Relly's response.  So, Bill O'Reilly presents this data as some sort of defense of Bush's economic prowess, but thinks so little of it himself that it takes all of three seconds for him to call it "bullshit."

Then O'Reilly tries to beat back Obama's accurate portrayal of the gross inequitable gains made among the various income demographics (the majority of the gains O'Reilly cited went to the top 5% of Americans) by claiming that the difference in growth among working  Americans between the Bush and Clinton administrations was, "not that much.  They grew about $500 in real wages during Bush vs. $2,000 under Clinton."  For those keeping score at home, that would be a $1,500 a year difference.  Or to put it another way, real wages grew four times as much under Clinton than they did under Bush.  If O'Reilly genuinely believes that an extra $1,500 a year means nothing to the average American, then he is totally disconnected from the economic realities we face, which is not surprising given the millions he makes each year by peddling these glib distortions and paper thin defenses of obviously failing economic policies.

O'Reilly goes on to falsely claim that Obama wants 49% of his income in taxes, when in fact Obama is only proposing to raise the top tax rate three points, from 36% to 39% (the same rate as under Clinton, and significantly less than the rates historically paid by the top income bracket -- under Kennedy, the highest tax bracket paid 90% of their income in taxes).  Obama counters by noting that in return for this minor increase, he'll be able to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  Keep in mind here, that ever since the time of Aristotle, a broad and thriving middle-class has been considered essential for the existence of a stable and effective government.

In response, O'Reilly falls back to the red-meat conservative argument: "But that's class warfare."  To this, Obama responds that "95% of all Americans is not a 'class.'"

At this point, O'Reilly goes off the fucking rails, basically deriding Obama for thinking that the wealthiest Americans could probably live with a few dollars less if it would serve to save Social Security and ensure that every senior had a secure social safety net to fall back on once they're past the point of their prime earning years.

O'Reilly calls this "social redistribution" and a "socialist tenet."  Keep in mind at this point, O'Reilly is hammering what is probably the single most popular government program of all time as some sort of slippery slope into outright socialism.  I could sum up O'Reilly's thought process here rather quickly: "Fuck the poor, you can't take more from the rich in order to secure the middle class, because to do so makes you no better than Lenin or Stalin." 

But in point of fact, it is the middle class that needs the ability to consume if we really want to keep the economy going.  This includes senior citizens and working Americans, both whom indisputably benefit more under Obama's tax plan than they do under McCain's.  Television, middle class homes, new cars, etc.... these are the purchases that keep our economy thriving.  And it's no surprise that the stalled economic progress of working Americans during the Bush administration has resulted in a limp economy with one of the worst records of job creation in the history of this nation.  We've tried trickle down economics.  We did it under Reagan.  What happened?  The deficit sky-rocketed, and he left his successor with a recession on his hands.

Obama goes on to note that even Republican Teddy Roosevelt supported the progressive income tax.  Bill responds, "Not to the level you do."  Here's the wonderful thing about the internet.  These assertions are easily refuted.  Here are some of Roosevelt's own words regarding not only the income tax, but the ultimate Republican boogey man, the estate tax, as well:

I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.

Here he is speaking of the estate tax.

A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

Roosevelt was not merely a supporter, but a champion of progressive taxation, so much so that he was willing to pursue such legislation even over the objections of the Supreme Court.  I'm having difficulty tracking down the tax rates implemented under Roosevelt's presidency, so if anyone locates them, please leave a link to the source in the comments.

From this, Obama moves on to the fact that George W. Bush has increased our debt by $4 trillion dollars.  O'Reilly attempts to defend this by claiming the "War on Terror" (TM) was the driving factor in this, without bothering to note that Bush is the only president to cut taxes during a time of war and it is this recklessness on his part which has greatly added to our annual deficits.  And considering the largest expense in the "War on Terror" (TM) has been the conflict in Iraq, which O'Reilly previously admitted was a mistake during Thursday's interview totally undercuts this line of reasoning.  O'Reilly essentially depends on his viewers being unable to remember what he said mere minutes before he completely contradicts himself.  If Iraq was a mistake, then the deficits accrued by those efforts are equally a mistake and cannot be used to defend Bush's reckless economic policy.

I'll be back with the first part of this interview later and will continue to follow it through the rest of the week as it unfolds.