A Left Anchor Original:

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 points 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 process 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.