Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow

#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
*******
50,767 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
*****
12,049 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?
#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
*******
50,767 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
*******
50,767 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
******
35,568 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
#37REDACTED, 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
****
7,564 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
******
35,568 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 pissing 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
****
6,471 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
#43 Apr 14 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 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 pissing 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
****
7,564 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
****
4,901 posts
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
*****
12,049 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.
#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:
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 272 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (272)