Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow

#1 Apr 14 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Sub-Default
***
2,971 posts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Quote:
Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.


Quote:
Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window


Quote:
Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.


and I really liked this;

Quote:
Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.


#2 Apr 14 2011 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
You have the biggest man-crush on Obama that I've ever seen.
#3 Apr 14 2011 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
How many decades are we talking? I mean, I'm sure if we go four or five back we can find much more dishonest speeches.

Then again, expecting honesty from politicians is silly to begin with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Apr 14 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Yay opinion articles!

Could this not have gone in gbaji's pointless post on pretty much the same thing?

Edit: Also, not seeing anywhere in that article the quote "Most dishonest in decades." Are you, what's the wording, "not intending to be factual" again?

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 11:41am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#5 Apr 14 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I don't know about the speech, but this article was the most honest article written in decades.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#6varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 9:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#7varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 9:45 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
#8 Apr 14 2011 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

What a surprise you don't have any commment on any of the statements in the actual article. I know it's only the Wall Street Journal not your favorite which is obviously the puffington host.


What are you going on about? I had a subscription to the WSJ for years in college - my comment wasn't on the publication, it was on the fact it was an editorial.

My main comment would be your post's title, because it's not in the article itself and doesn't describe the content of it. There's no review of the amount of dishonesty, no way presented to verify such a claim. The article's content was basically an "I don't believe a thing he says" reaction. There are certainly valid points - but a bias toward Ryan's plan, which is easily picked apart.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#9 Apr 14 2011 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
Wow an opinion article used as basis of Factual information. I am of the opinion you are a moron, see I wrote it, it must be true.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#10varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 9:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#11 Apr 14 2011 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Nice opinion article, but, [citation needed].
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#12 Apr 14 2011 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year

I'm still waiting for any of you liberals to respond to this.

Respond to what? Was someone saying we should tax everyone making over 100k at 100% and wipe out the deficit in a year? I haven't seen anyone offer a one year plan to wipe out the deficit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Apr 14 2011 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
varusword75 wrote:

Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year


I'm still waiting for any of you liberals to respond to this.



You know that Ryan's plan doesn't cover the deficit this year either, right? That's what I mean by picked apart. Such a statement also ignores the actual spending cuts Obama's plan entails.

As for what valid points there are, I think I've mentioned it before, but I disagree with the lack of social security reform in both plans. I disagree with the lack of military budget reduction in Paul Ryan's plan. Neither plan goes far enough - Ryan refuses to raise taxes or cut the military - Obama refuses to cut programs that (while they would be nice) are not necessary or immediately useful. Compromise would be best - cuts across the board, let the Bush tax cuts expire (I'd prefer across the board), simplify the tax code to cut out many common exemptions, reduce subsidies, and raise the age for Medicare and social security (also, make social security still be taken out for people making more than the limit).

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 12:11pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#14 Apr 14 2011 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
I'm all for reduced military funding.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Apr 14 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
WSJ wrote:
Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that's three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.
Obama wrote:
I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

The Commission's plan was to reform the tax code by eliminating a bunch of expenditures and loopholes so they could lower the base rate AND increase tax revenue to lower the deficit. Which is exactly what Obama said he wanted to do. And yet, because the WSJ editorial board was apparently reading the instructions on the microwave popcorn bag or something at that point, they seem to think the Commission's "lower base rates and increase tax revenue" plan is radically different from Obama's "lower base rates and increase tax revenue" plan without giving any actual reason for why this is.

The Commission didn't directly address the Bush tax cuts (since they wanted to revamp the entire system) although the heads were opposed to its extension without a corresponding cut in spending as it has added to the deficit. Their plan did include tax increases including an additional 15 cent/gal gasoline tax.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 11:38am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Apr 14 2011 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year


I'm still waiting for any of you liberals to respond to this.
Why would anyone attempt to fix a deficit in a single year? How forcefully stupid are you?

Besides, basic economic theory is that it's ok to run a deficit in a down/recovering economy. When the economy is strong you decrease government spending and raise taxes, running a surplus and paying off the national debt.

Why am I not remotely surprised that you wouldn't know that?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#17 Apr 14 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The bipartisan co-chairs of the Debt Commission support Obama's plan. I guess they didn't see the giant radical differences that the WSJ editorial board claims to have seen.
The Hill wrote:
Erskine Bowles, one of the chairmen of President Obama’s bipartisan debt commission, said Thursday that Obama's plan for cutting the deficit is a “solid, responsible plan.”

“The era of deficit denial has to end,” Bowles said after a White House meeting with Obama. “It's over. This is the moment of truth.”

Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.), the co-chairman of the commission who also attended the meeting, offered support for Obama's plan to cut $4 trillion over 12 years, but they said they are waiting to see what the so-called Gang of Six in the Senate offers.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 12:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#19 Apr 14 2011 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Whatever makes you feel better. Regardless, the WSJ board's perception of Obama's plan vis-à-vis the Commission's plan differs wildly from that of the Commission chairs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 12:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#21 Apr 14 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Is that the same commission that's telling you the economy is in a recovery?

Well it is better than it was in 2008-2009....so yes usually when something is getting better, it is recovering.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#22 Apr 14 2011 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Is that the same commission that's telling you the economy is in a recovery?

You usually don't give up this quickly. Allow me to pay myself on the back :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 1:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) r2d2,
#24 Apr 14 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
bsphil wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year


I'm still waiting for any of you liberals to respond to this.
Why would anyone attempt to fix a deficit in a single year? How forcefully stupid are you?


Irony abounds! Um... because the deficit is a yearly calculation. You're confusing "deficit" with "debt". What the WSJ is saying is that even if we taxed everyone earning 100k or more at 100% this year, we would not generate enough taxes to pay the deficit for this year.

Get it?

This is why the solution must involve significant spending cuts. Tax increases, or "reduced tax expenditures" if you prefer, will *never* fix our budget problems. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever. Not unless we dramatically reduce spending.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Apr 14 2011 at 1:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What the WSJ is saying is that even if we taxed everyone earning 100k or more at 100% this year, we would not generate enough taxes to pay the deficit for this year.

What everyone else is saying is that no one is expecting or offering to reduce the annual deficit to zero in a year's time.

Get it?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) gbaji,
#27 Apr 14 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
I think Joph and a couple others know this to but because of partisan politics can't admit it.

Luckily, Joph isn't saying "Just increase taxes" as the sole solution so he doesn't have to worry about admitting to it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Apr 14 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
Its easy to argue when you ignore all but a single point in a counterargument.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Apr 14 2011 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
gbaji wrote:


This is why the solution must involve significant spending cuts. Tax increases, or "reduced tax expenditures" if you prefer, will *never* fix our budget problems. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever. Not unless we dramatically reduce spending.


What I'm reading in this is that you don't believe the Obama plan has any spending cuts. Is that correct? Or are you simply ignoring the rest of it in an attempt to set up a strawman?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#30 Apr 14 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
r2d2,

Quote:
Well it is better than it was in 2008-2009


LMAO!!! Good one. Now take a look at the facts.
Ok. From September 12th 2008 til October 10th 2008 the DJI decreased by a whopping 25%. It hit the low point March 6th 2009 at 6626.94. Since then the DJI has jumped to its current value at this moment of 12,299.60, an increase of about 86%.

The employment situation has changed as well. We've gone from losing 800,000 jobs per month to gaining a bit over 200,000 per month. That's a net change of 1 million jobs per month saved/added/restored/whatever you want to call it.

So how does that not qualify as a recovery?

LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is why the solution must involve significant spending cuts. Tax increases, or "reduced tax expenditures" if you prefer, will *never* fix our budget problems. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever. Not unless we dramatically reduce spending.
What I'm reading in this is that you don't believe the Obama plan has any spending cuts. Is that correct? Or are you simply ignoring the rest of it in an attempt to set up a strawman?
Inventing an alternate reality is so much easier to attack.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 2:35pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#31 Apr 14 2011 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji doesn't get his news from anywhere. He merely knows that it must be right because it's obvious to him.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Apr 14 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
bsphil wrote:
So how does that not qualify as a recovery?
Shit, how stupid are you? It doesn't count because he doesn't agree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Apr 14 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
bsphil wrote:
So how does that not qualify as a recovery?
Shit, how stupid are you? It doesn't count because he doesn't agree.
How could I have been so careless?

EDIT: Wait a second here. I disagree with his lack of agreement. Does that in turn mean that my statement becomes true by the same axiom of "truth by opinion"?



Edited, Apr 14th 2011 2:38pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#34 Apr 14 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
bsphil wrote:
EDIT: Wait a second here. I disagree with his lack of agreement. Does that in turn mean that my statement becomes true by the same axiom of "truth by opinion"?
Yes. Yes it does.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Apr 14 2011 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
bsphil wrote:
EDIT: Wait a second here. I disagree with his lack of agreement. Does that in turn mean that my statement becomes true by the same axiom of "truth by opinion"?
Yes. Yes it does.
I fear the universe may spontaneously collapse upon itself after hearing this revelation.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#36 Apr 14 2011 at 1:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What the WSJ is saying is that even if we taxed everyone earning 100k or more at 100% this year, we would not generate enough taxes to pay the deficit for this year.

What everyone else is saying is that no one is expecting or offering to reduce the annual deficit to zero in a year's time.


That statement doesn't make any sense at all. If we continued taxing all those people at 100% next year, that wouldn't be sufficient to eliminate the deficit either. Or the next. Or the next. It's pretty basic math. Spending minus revenue equals deficit. If all the taxes you can raise can't increase revenue to equal spending you will continue to run a deficit every single year from that point on. The *only* way to change that is to cut spending levels.

You can gradually decrease deficits over time, but only by passing legislation which reduces spending (or raises taxes) over time. What the WSJ is saying is that no amount of tax increases will ever create enough revenue to balance the budget. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever. So phasing taxes in over time wont do it. Doing it all at once wont do it. Only spending cuts will do it.

Quote:
Get it?


Yes. I get that you either absolutely don't understand how deficits work, or you are pretending not to because you don't want your "side" to be wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37varusword75, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 1:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#38 Apr 14 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You can gradually decrease deficits over time, but only by passing legislation which reduces spending (or raises taxes) over time.

Yeah, hi. Welcome to the point.

Quote:
What the WSJ is saying is that no amount of tax increases will ever create enough revenue to balance the budget. Not this year.

Which is a pointless thing to say since no one is advocating that. Yay to the WSJ editorial board for creating a strawman and yay to you for running over to hump it wildly until it falls over?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Apr 14 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
varusword75 wrote:
r2d2,

Quote:
Well it is better than it was in 2008-2009


LMAO!!! Good one. Now take a look at the facts.


Quote:
Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983


http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2011-04-13-more-americans-leave-labor-force.htm?loc=interstitialskip

And that's after Obama spent nearly a trillion on the recovery.


Except it doesn't say what the reasons were for them leaving, or not working. It says nothing about unemployment, just out of employment. Are they retired? are the Students? Are the laid off, are they actively looking but can't find work. The simple fact is the key indicators of the economic strength in the US is recovering are all positive, unemmployment is dropping (for those who actually care to work) job forecasts, are positive, the stock market is rising, and people are spending money again. All signs of positive economic trends.

The linked article discusses nothing to do with the economy it is an article that is discussing the workforce as a whole. The major beef of the article is that men are leaving the wrokforce while women are joining it. With one of the largest factors being the Baby Boomers are becoming of age to retire, either early retirement or of age retirement. Over the next several years more and more of them will leave, and the numbers frankly are not there to replace them. On top of that lots of these boomers were protected by unions, and upon retirement their jobs are not mandatory to fill, robots, computers, other technologies have replaced the need for many jobs.

Of course you would have to be able to read and comprehend basic english to gather that from the article, you saw a flashy intro, and didn't finish reading. It is ok I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#40 Apr 14 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:


This is why the solution must involve significant spending cuts. Tax increases, or "reduced tax expenditures" if you prefer, will *never* fix our budget problems. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever. Not unless we dramatically reduce spending.


What I'm reading in this is that you don't believe the Obama plan has any spending cuts.


Does it? What specifically has he said he would cut? He uses the phrase "cut spending", but is incredibly non-specific (and I'm not just talking about this latest speech) about where those cuts would be or how much they would be. Instead, he plays word games talking about eliminating waste and leveraging cost savings. But mostly in this speech, he tries to label tax increases as spending cuts in the hope that no one would notice.


The Dems have shown an utter unwillingness to give ground on any kind of significant spending. They talk about the need to do so, but can't do it for political reasons. I fear we're going to have to suffer through a couple more years at least of nothing getting done because of this. They are so afraid of ******* off their various special interests that it effectively paralyzes them in this regard.

Quote:
Is that correct? Or are you simply ignoring the rest of it in an attempt to set up a strawman?


I'll ask again: What proposals has he given for cutting spending?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Apr 14 2011 at 1:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
You're acting as though you and your buddies don't fabricate information.

So you're saying this editorial wasn't intended to be factual?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Apr 14 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
You're acting as though you and your buddies don't fabricate information.

So you're saying this editorial wasn't intended to be factual?


It was just "poorly worded", Joph. Duh.

You have to retreat from the page and reload it a few times to understand.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 3:56pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#43 Apr 14 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:


This is why the solution must involve significant spending cuts. Tax increases, or "reduced tax expenditures" if you prefer, will *never* fix our budget problems. Not this year. Not next year. Not ever. Not unless we dramatically reduce spending.


What I'm reading in this is that you don't believe the Obama plan has any spending cuts.


Does it? What specifically has he said he would cut? He uses the phrase "cut spending", but is incredibly non-specific (and I'm not just talking about this latest speech) about where those cuts would be or how much they would be. Instead, he plays word games talking about eliminating waste and leveraging cost savings. But mostly in this speech, he tries to label tax increases as spending cuts in the hope that no one would notice.


The Dems have shown an utter unwillingness to give ground on any kind of significant spending. They talk about the need to do so, but can't do it for political reasons. I fear we're going to have to suffer through a couple more years at least of nothing getting done because of this. They are so afraid of ******* off their various special interests that it effectively paralyzes them in this regard.

Quote:
Is that correct? Or are you simply ignoring the rest of it in an attempt to set up a strawman?


I'll ask again: What proposals has he given for cutting spending?



400B from Defense. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53159.html)
480B from Medicare/Medicade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703551304576261144184511676.html)

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#44gbaji, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 1:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I wish it were a strawman. I really do. But I have yet to see the Dems take spending cuts seriously at all. They say they will. They agree it's necessary. But just as with this last round of budget CRs, when push time comes and they have to make a decision between cutting spending and continuing to fund a pet group, they weasel their way out.
#45 Apr 14 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
Quote:
And if someone shows you that no amount of tax increases will ever reduce the deficit enough, one might conclude that it's a fools errand to start gradually increasing tax rates and hoping it'll fix the deficit down the line, right?


And Cutting taxes doesn't stabilize budgets either. Or am I mistaken that Bush came into the WH with a balanced budget (actually a surplus) and then posted 8 consecutive years of deficits (none of which also included the cost of the Iraq nor Afghanistan Wars.) Tax and spend = Cut and Cut, Tax and Cut is the only way to fix things, but neither party wants to discuss that (although Obamas plan of raising Taxes while Cutting 4 trillion is the closest so far)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#46 Apr 14 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
varusword75 wrote:

and I really liked this;

Quote:
Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.



That's most likely because they're only considering taxable income and not capital gains and dividends, which is where most of the money is being made.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#47gbaji, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 2:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This is at least one of those programs we do need to reign in. But his methodology is what? Vague statements about reducing overspending? How? That's like saying you'll run faster by running faster. It's meaningless.
#48 Apr 14 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And if someone shows you that no amount of tax increases will ever reduce the deficit enough, one might conclude that it's a fools errand to start gradually increasing tax rates and hoping it'll fix the deficit down the line, right?

All by itself? Sure. Good thing no one is advocating that.
Quote:
That's what the WSJ is talking about.

So are you saying the WSJ editorial board is stupid or that it's disingenuous?

Quote:
Um. Your party more or less is Joph. You just don't want to admit it.

Wow, got me there. Aside from the continued negotiations in the Senate, Obama's plan which is supported by the debt commission, the fact that most of the cuts in the 2011 budget were things Obama already had asked for, etc. But you just say "It's true and you know it but you won't admit it!" and that's almost sort of like having a real big boy argument.

Quote:
I wish it were a strawman. I really do.

*Ping!* Wish fulfilled! Toss a tip into the well on your way out, thanks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Apr 14 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'll ask again: What proposals has he given for cutting spending?


... holy crap, you seriously didn't even look into it before crying buckets of tears? Smiley: oyvey

Man, Joph was right about your willful ignorance. Even when rdm linked those stats, your answer was "Yeah, ok, but, uh... but still!" You really did just hump a strawman instead of actually looking into the matter!

For the record I think Obama's proposal is a good start, and at least a fair bit more realistic than Ryan's. I want to see more spending cuts, however, and especially someone with the balls to take on social security.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#50 Apr 14 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
This is at least one of those programs we do need to reign in. But his methodology is what? Vague statements about reducing overspending? How? That's like saying you'll run faster by running faster. It's meaningless.

So your complaint is that he didn't throw down a bunch of hard numbers? I mean, that's fair but I didn't see you complain about the vagueness throughout Ryan's plan or its ridiculous assumptions about unemployment, home construction and tax revenue growth.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51gbaji, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 2:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sigh. But we didn't get into this mess because we lowered taxes. That's the point you all keep missing. Shouldn't we undo what we did that got us here instead of paying for our mistakes by raising taxes on the people who opposed those stupid things in the first place? Let me run this down for you:
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CST