Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets.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
*****
16,299 posts
You have the biggest man-crush on Obama that I've ever seen.
#3 Apr 14 2011 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,893 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
*****
12,049 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
*****
12,049 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
****
7,547 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
*****
12,049 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
******
49,893 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
****
7,547 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
******
35,010 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,
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (31)