Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow

#52 Apr 14 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You guys can't possibly be this stupid.

That would sting more coming from practically any other person. Especially given your performance the past couple of weeks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53gbaji, Posted: Apr 14 2011 at 2:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that I believe a word of what Obama says when he proposes spending cut. So far, I've seen nothing to make me assume he isn't just lying the whole **** time.
#54 Apr 14 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You guys can't possibly be this stupid.

That would sting more coming from practically any other person. Especially given your performance the past couple of weeks.


Except that what I just wrote is more or less exactly what has been going on over the last few years, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Apr 14 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that I believe a word of what Obama says when he proposes spending cut. So far, I've seen nothing to make me assume he isn't just lying the whole **** time.


Finally, short, sweet, and to the point. See? That wasn't so hard - you didn't need a strawman to tell us how you really feel.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#56 Apr 14 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, but don't expect me to expend any effort in trying to show that your general ramblings are inaccurate. If you want to support them with anything worthwhile beyond Gbaji's Imaginary One Act Play, you always have that option.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Apr 14 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Except that what I just wrote is more or less exactly what has been going on over the last few years, isn't it?
Yeah, roughly three hundred years.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Apr 14 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A brief breakdown of the Obama plan via the Christian Science Monitor:
CSM wrote:
Obama laid out a four-part plan for deficit reduction:

* Cuts in nonsecurity discretionary spending, while still investing in energy innovation, education, and infrastructure. The level of his cuts would be consistent with the recommendations of his bipartisan fiscal commission, saving $770 billion from 2012 to 2023.
* Cuts in security spending deeper than those in his 2012 budget. Projected savings by 2023 are $400 billion.
* Cuts in spending on Medicare and Medicaid by making delivery of health services more efficient and cost-effective. Obama says he would slow the growth of Medicare by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts, and consumers, which recommends ways of reducing unnecessary spending. He also proposes to make Medicaid more “more flexible, efficient, and accountable.” Savings from both programs would add up to $500 billion by 2023, he says.
* Reforming the tax code in a way that closes loopholes, limits deductions, and allows tax rates to go down. Limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years, Obama says. All told, his plan projects revenue from changes to the tax code at $1 trillion.

Obama also called for changes in some mandatory spending programs, such as agricultural subsidies and the federal pension insurance system. In that category, his plan projects savings of $360 billion by 2023.

I'm the first to roll my eyes at the "waste & fraud" handwave both parties love to use. But then this isn't a firm plan yet but rather a framework. The notion that there's no spending cuts in it and only tax increases is absurd.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Apr 14 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A brief breakdown of the Obama plan via the Christian Science Monitor:


I don't doubt that he's said he's going to do these things Joph. My problem is that history shows us that when it comes down to actually sitting at a table and cutting spending, the Dems fail to do it. Call it a "false promise" rather than a lie, but I still have no faith that his party will actually do what they're saying. It's not like we didn't just go through a whole round of them promising that their spending would be deficit neutral. Clearly, that is not the case. Why should we believe them this time?

I'd love for it to be true, but I'm not going to be Charlie Brown to their Lucy anymore, and I don't think the country wants to be either. But let's look at what he's promising.

CSM wrote:
* Cuts in nonsecurity discretionary spending, while still investing in energy innovation, education, and infrastructure. The level of his cuts would be consistent with the recommendations of his bipartisan fiscal commission, saving $770 billion from 2012 to 2023.


That would be great. Still not even close to the amounts they've increased that spending by in recent years, but if they can actually reach that goal, it'll make a minor dent in spending. And that's something, I suppose.

Quote:
* Cuts in security spending deeper than those in his 2012 budget. Projected savings by 2023 are $400 billion.


We've already cut security spending. Heck. It's about the only thing we have cut. Mostly because the GOP is serious about cuts and the Dems are willing to cut this area. So far, the Dems have been unwilling to reciprocate by allowing even semi-equivalent cuts in things that they actually care about (which is pretty much the other 75% of the budget). We can't just keep cutting the military.

Quote:
* Cuts in spending on Medicare and Medicaid by making delivery of health services more efficient and cost-effective. Obama says he would slow the growth of Medicare by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts, and consumers, which recommends ways of reducing unnecessary spending. He also proposes to make Medicaid more “more flexible, efficient, and accountable.” Savings from both programs would add up to $500 billion by 2023, he says.


Yeah. This is vapor-savings and I think we all know it. I'd be shocked if there was ever a time when government promised to do things in a "more efficient" way so as to cut costs and actually managed to do it. I'm not holding out much hope for this at all. At the risk of being a broken record, weren't these the same promises made when they passed that big health care reform bill? How many times do they promise and not deliver before we just ignore their promises?


Quote:
* Reforming the tax code in a way that closes loopholes, limits deductions, and allows tax rates to go down. Limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years, Obama says. All told, his plan projects revenue from changes to the tax code at $1 trillion.


Interesting math there. So the expiring of the Bush tax rates on the wealthiest people will result in 320B in revenue, but the full effect of his tax changes would result in 1T. So where's the other 680B dollars going to come from? Remember when he promised no tax increases on anyone who made less than 200k a year? I'm thinking he's not going to make all that money just by taxing rich people and corporations more. And if he tries, he'll find that they take their money elsewhere and he wont get it anyway. I'd show you how much relative revenue comes from income taxes versus corporate and other sources, but I suspect you already know this.

The only way he's getting close to that number is to raise taxes on everyone.

I'll also point out that while tax cuts didn't cause this problem, tax increases are the single largest part of the Obama solution. So much for fair compromise, huh?

Quote:
Obama also called for changes in some mandatory spending programs, such as agricultural subsidies and the federal pension insurance system. In that category, his plan projects savings of $360 billion by 2023.


Yeah. More vapor-savings.

Here's an idea: Why not just eliminate all the new spending increases over the last 3 years? That, combined with the knowledge that their taxes wont go up will spur businesses and generate the economic recovery which will allow us to get back on track. But that would require Democrats to acknowledge that "trickle down" economics is a real factor and does have an effect on our economic reality, and they can't do that for purely political and ideological reasons.


Quote:
I'm the first to roll my eyes at the "waste & fraud" handwave both parties love to use. But then this isn't a firm plan yet but rather a framework. The notion that there's no spending cuts in it and only tax increases is absurd.


Most of the spending cuts are vapor though. The only thing solid in there is defense cuts. And yeah, I accept that this is just a framework, but as I said earlier, the Dems are great at tossing out frameworks which sound great in theory but never seem to pan out when put into practice. I just don't believe that they will be able to actually make any significant cuts to any area of the economy other than defense related stuff. Maybe some subsidies here and there, but not to medicare, and not to social security, and not to income assistance, and not to education.


They were unwilling to cut spending to NPR. Arguably a completely unnecessary expenditure. What makes anyone think they're going to cut funding to welfare, or for environmental causes, or alternative energy, or any of the hundreds of other things that they fund for their supporters? It's just not going to happen, but without some real sacrifices by the Left, we're not going to fix this economy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Apr 14 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think some of you are under the mistaken impression that I believe a word of what Obama says when he proposes spending cut. So far, I've seen nothing to make me assume he isn't just lying the whole **** time.
There we go, finally got a taste of what you actually think. So much less to read when you're being honest with yourself about your opinions.

So do you like the plan and just assume because he's Obama or because he's a Democrat he isn't going to do it?

gbaji wrote:
They were unwilling to cut spending to NPR. Arguably a completely unnecessary expenditure.
Arguably. Much less arguably an insigificant segment of the budget ($16 million), but somehow Republicans are so insistent upon it. Let's pretend there are only 50 million taxpayers in the US, that's still only 32 cents per person, per year. That's an awful lot of outrage over pennies of spending. Just admit that the only reason you're upset about NPR is because they provide free educational broadcasting and the false narrative that it's a liberal organization. At least then we can have an honest debate rather than spend all of our time putting up and knocking down strawmen.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 5:50pm 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.
#61 Apr 14 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
 
 
GB 
2001	19.5		18.2		-0.3		32.5  
2002	17.6		19.1		-3.0		33.6  
2003	16.2		19.7		-4.9		35.6  
2004	16.1		19.6		-4.9		36.8  
2005	17.3		19.9		-4.0		36.9  
2006	18.2		20.1		-3.3		36.5  
2007	18.5		19.6		-2.5		36.2  
2008	17.5		20.7		-4.5		40.3  
2009	14.9		25.0		-11.0		53.5 
 
BO 
2010	14.9		23.8		-9.4		62.1 


You mean this little table Gbaji that perfectly illustrates my point. As revenue Decrease (as a % of GDP) The deficit and Debt increased. Culminating in a total of 21% increase to Debt over Bush's 8 year Term. Obama has had 1 year of a 9% increase to Debt. Which is smaller than the year Bush left on. (the 2009 Budget which was a 13.2% increase to debt.)

Obama has decreased spending, and decreased the annual deficit. Yet until he is able to increase Revenue the debt will never drop back to normal levels. He can cut a further 6% to return to early bush era spending levels, but if revenue does not increase that is still a 3-4% rise in Debt a year.

In order to increase Revenue the Government must raise taxes, and must Invest money into the economy to promote Job Creation. The US government must reign in spending, and attract foreign investment again to reach the same ends. All of these things have to happen to heal the Debt Crisis. You can't just cut spending and call it a day, and you can jut cut spending and start 2 wars, and build the country on a phantom bubble.

Both parties need to adopt some realistic solutions. Bickering at one because they want to increase revenue, and bickering at the other because they want to decrease spending is stupid. At the moment Obama's plan of action supports both methods. While keeping investment in emerging job markets to promote job creation which furthers growth revenue, and deficit reduction.

It is the exact same sh*t that Clinton had to go through in the first term he had after Bush Sr. It is republican economics, built on the faulty premise of trickle down economics. Fat Cats don't give a sh*t about investing in America, the give a sh*t about investing in Money. Which right now, is leaving America in boat loads.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 6:24pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#62 Apr 14 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't doubt that he's said he's going to do these things Joph. My problem is that history shows us that when it comes down to actually sitting at a table and cutting spending, the Dems fail to do it.

Ok, fine. And I can jump up and down and scream "No you won't!! No you won't!!" about the GOP proposals as well (look at all those cuts they made from 2002-2006!) but I'd rather discuss meaningful things about them than throwing a tantrum and calling everyone liars.

Let me know when you want to discuss things like a big boy.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 5:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Apr 14 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Let me know when you want to discuss things like a big boy.
Now that Joph said he's quitting posting, maybe I can catch up.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Apr 14 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Let me know when you want to discuss things like a big boy.
Now that Joph said he's quitting posting, maybe I can catch up.


Zing!
#65 Apr 14 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
What I get from the OP is that there are so many pundits and journalists in the USA who can't follow an intelligent and reasonable speech that when they are collectively whooshed the only thing that occurs to them is a sense of being lied to. Since they found it obfuscating and obscure and all. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#66 Apr 14 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 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.


It's not Obama's deficit. It's a deficit that is 1/3 the result of 50 years of accumulating USA public and private debt, 1/3 the result of Lehman's brothers and Goldman Sach's et al, and one third the result of Icelandic banks.

Remember the whole GFC that was caused by private financial businesses stuffing around with the 3% of the mortgage market that was actually sub-prime?

Quote:
In an article in Portfolio Magazine, Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that "There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product." Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to enable large wagers to be made, far beyond the actual value of the underlying mortgage loans, using derivatives called credit default swaps, CDO and synthetic CDO. As long as derivative buyers could be matched with sellers, the theoretical amount that could be wagered was infinite. "They were creating [synthetic loans] out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans."


Edited, Apr 14th 2011 7:43pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#67 Apr 14 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
****
9,278 posts
You know, I'm really starting to get bored with this. It's always the same argument, and I never hear any of the philosophy behind anyone's views. But I'll still argue anyway because it's not like there's any intelligent discussion anywhere these days anyway.

varus wrote:
Actually I just like keeping the money I work for. I can understand you not getting this


Everyone does, the problem is that you don't know the difference between fair taxation and excessive taxation. To you, all taxes are bad. Meanwhile, if there was no tax, there would be absolutely no money(I hate this word used as though it's a thing and not a form a measurement, but I have no other word.) for the government to do anything.

varus 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.



Well, I'm not a liberal, so I'll accept your invitation not to respond. Good thing too, I'd just rant about your government being stupid and deficit spending for 10 years to pay for a war anyway.

Quote:
It's not bipartisan. That word has no meaning in todays politics.


It's a shame. If more people would be willing to compromise and openly discuss the issues in a professional atmosphere, maybe your politicians might be able to do some good for the country. There is nothing wrong with being bi-partisan, in fact, it sounds like a really good idea considering that a 2 party, 4 year term, system can't work if both parties refuse to compromise. Nothing gets done. It's as though your society would rather not move forward if the alternative is to try to agree on something. It's kind of sick.


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


It sort of is. It's not crashing. It's slowly being worked on, which, by any standard definition of the word "recovery" is indeed, the economy begining to RECOVER.


Another thing, it's like you have no ideas how anything works at all. Yes, big surprise, there are no instant results of anything that's been done. What kind of idiot would think there'd be huge significant instant results? Things take time. It took until the second world war to start really fixing things after the Depression, why would anyone think that it would go any faster today with a less logical economic system?


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./quote]

Varus wrote:
I'm not surprised you got this. I think Joph and a couple others know this to but because of partisan politics can't admit it.


Of course taxation alone wouldn't fix the budget problem. But you're making a mistake in basically saying, "well, this alone doesn't work, so it should be thrown out all together.". It's just one of many factors, it won't do it all on its own, but fair taxation on all citizens(example: if I make less than 10k/year, I shouldnt be taxed at all as 10k/year isn't enough to live on, let alone be taxed for, if I make 100k/year, I should be giving somewhere in the area of 20%, because who actually needs 100k/year?), is a necessity.


[quote]You're acting as though you and your buddies don't fabricate information. That's funny.


You're acting as though you and your buddies don't fabricate information. That's funny.



The biggest mistake I can see here is the idea that a couple of wars paid for the wrong way are less to blame than social programs. Are you really just that dumb? Do you even read anything that's not shoved down your throat by any media? Do yourselves a favour: open some books.

Well, I'm out of patience. If you guys ever want to have a discussion about issues, or even philosophy or something without it degenerating into the whole, "OMG! You're a liberal, you're wrong" and "OMG! You're a republican, you're inherently an idiot!" and "OMG! I'm defined by my political leanings and I don't see any need to look closely at anything and instead I'll just stick to the party line because I fear the idea of ever knowing enough to know that both sides have perfectly good ideas and really bad ones." arguments, let me know.

____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#68 Apr 14 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I find it hilarious that Gbaji keeps saying this was all some liberal plot to raise taxes. Mainly because the reverse conspiracy theory can be said as well: The massive (unpaid for) tax cuts, (unpaid for) war spending "emergency" bills that somehow never hit the budget, (unpaid for) Medicare Plan D program that cost as much as the HCR bill ($964B over ten years)... these were all plans to "starve the beast". I.e., drive America so close to the brink of economic collapse that the Republicans could only "save" us by gutting every social program they've always wanted to kill. Not once when these plans were sailing through the GOP Congress did anyone say "Wait! We can't enact this enormous prescription drug plan without offsetting a trillion dollars!" They just kicked it on down the road and let it all build up.

And, hey! Look! Now we're there and the GOP screams about how we can only be saved by defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. If we're not willing to do that, we're not really serious about saving America.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 7:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Apr 14 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I find it hilarious that Gbaji keeps saying this was all some liberal plot to raise taxes. Mainly because the reverse conspiracy theory can be said as well: The massive (unpaid for) tax cuts, (unpaid for) war spending "emergency" bills that somehow never hit the budget, (unpaid for) Medicare Plan D program that cost as much as the HCR bill ($964B over ten years)... these were all plans to "starve the beast". I.e., drive America so close to the brink of economic collapse that the Republicans could only "save" us by gutting every social program they've always wanted to kill. Not once when these plans were sailing through the GOP Congress did anyone say "Wait! We can't enact this enormous prescription drug plan without offsetting a trillion dollars!" They just kicked it on down the road and let it all build up.

And, hey! Look! Now we're there and the GOP screams about how we can only be saved by defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. If we're not willing to do that, we're not really serious about saving America.
Federal funding for Planned Parenthood = 363 million dollars
Federal funding for NPR = 16 million dollars
Pretending 379 million dollars is the crux of solving the deficit problem of 1,348,000 million dollars = Priceless.

There are some things money can't buy, for everything else, there's the tears of impotent rage. Drink up, GOP, they're all yours anyway.
____________________________
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.
#70 Apr 14 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
bsphil wrote:
So do you like the plan and just assume because he's Obama or because he's a Democrat he isn't going to do it?


It's a bit more complicated than that. The plan is written the way it is *because* those writing it don't have any intention of actually cutting anything significant. It's yet another example of clever language designed to appear to say one thing, but while actually not committing to anything. It's not so much a plan as something that they can wave in front of the public and pretend is their plan purely so they can then go attack the GOP plan without having to respond to counters that they don't have one.

Even if the GOP proposed that plan, I wouldn't think it was a good plan. But the point is that they wouldn't propose one worded quite like that anyway. Contrast this to the Ryan plan which makes specific mention of changes which would be made to social security and medicare in order to reduce costs over time. This plan isn't a serious plan. It's a "plan" for the sake of claiming that they have one.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
They were unwilling to cut spending to NPR. Arguably a completely unnecessary expenditure.
Arguably. Much less arguably an insigificant segment of the budget ($16 million), but somehow Republicans are so insistent upon it.


Because it's a litmus test of Democrat willingness to make real cuts. If they're unwilling to cut a $16 million program (and it's bigger than that when you add in the subsidies to the stations themselves btw), when it's something that is absolutely utterly unnecessary, how can we expect them to make any cuts when the big ticket items come along? It's like someone refusing to cut a $5/month premium channel they don't ever watch out of their monthly budget when their in debt. Sure, it's not much, but if they're unwilling to sacrifice that, will they sacrifice other things?


Can you tell me how many people/places in the US have no other radio coverage except for NPR and would thus lose their only information source without it? Is there anywhere? You do realize that was the whole reason it was created in the first place, right? And yet, where we find the largest concentration of NPR stations is not in remote areas with no other coverage available, but in large metropolitan centers (with dense populations of left leaning people coincidentally enough). Why are we funding this?

If we can't eliminate funding for something completely useless even if it doesn't cost us much, how can we cut funding for things that many more people do actually use (and in some cases are dependent on)? It's not hard to see that many people will be negatively effected by cuts to medicare, or medicaid, or social security. How on earth can we move forward with any cost savings in those areas if both parties aren't on board with the need to do so?


Quote:
Just admit that the only reason you're upset about NPR is because they provide free educational broadcasting and the false narrative that it's a liberal organization.


It's not "free" though, is it? You know how to make it free? Stop funding it. Then it wont cost us anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Apr 14 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
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.


I did. Notwithstanding the fact that it's a contrived hypothetical, those numbers only consider taxable income which is a function of salary only. They do not take capital gains or dividends into consideration which are also taxed at a lesser rate as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#72 Apr 14 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because it's a litmus test of Democrat willingness to make real cuts. If they're unwilling to cut a $16 million program (and it's bigger than that when you add in the subsidies to the stations themselves btw), when it's something that is absolutely utterly unnecessary, how can we expect them to make any cuts when the big ticket items come along? It's like someone refusing to cut a $5/month premium channel they don't ever watch out of their monthly budget when their in debt. Sure, it's not much, but if they're unwilling to sacrifice that, will they sacrifice other things?
Have you considered that a dollar of funding in one program might be a better investment than a dollar in a different program?

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Just admit that the only reason you're upset about NPR is because they provide free educational broadcasting and the false narrative that it's a liberal organization.
It's not "free" though, is it? You know how to make it free? Stop funding it. Then it wont cost us anything.
Ahaha, you're telling me you solved the "free lunch" axiom with the answer "make someone else pay"?

Oh, you conservatives are funny.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 8:25pm 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.
#73 Apr 14 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
You mean this little table Gbaji that perfectly illustrates my point.


You mean the table I produced? This should be good!

Quote:
As revenue Decrease (as a % of GDP) The deficit and Debt increased.


Ok. Quick math lesson: Deficit = Spending - Revenue

Deficit (and its effect on debt) will increase identically whether revenue drops *or* spending increases. A dollar of extra spending has the exact same effect as a dollar less revenue. That's because it's a simple subtraction problem. You seem to think there is magic involved or something. Revenue is not the only determinant of deficit and it's amazing that you would make that statement.


Quote:
Culminating in a total of 21% increase to Debt over Bush's 8 year Term. Obama has had 1 year of a 9% increase to Debt. Which is smaller than the year Bush left on. (the 2009 Budget which was a 13.2% increase to debt.)


That's not how you calculate debt deltas btw. And even if it was, you're basically admitting that Obama generated 9% in one year, while Bush generated 21% in 8 years. So... Bush's average debt increase was 2.6% per year, while Obama's was 9% per year. So you just proved to me that Obama is increasing the debt at 3.5 times the rate as Bush!

Was that what you meant to say? I mean, you're wrong anyway, but even when you're wrong you're making my point for me, so that's just kinda sad... :(

Quote:
Obama has decreased spending, and decreased the annual deficit. Yet until he is able to increase Revenue the debt will never drop back to normal levels. He can cut a further 6% to return to early bush era spending levels, but if revenue does not increase that is still a 3-4% rise in Debt a year.


I already addressed this. These are historical budget data, not projected budget data. This is not how much the previous year's government wanted to spend, but what we actually spent. So all those emergency spending bills passed in 2009 by the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled congress are included in that 2009 spending level. You do understand that the projected budget deficit for 2009 back when Bush was finalizing that budget with Congress (and let me remind you that the Dems were in control of congress in 2008, so it's unfair to call the whole thing "Bush's budget") was about $450B.

How do you suppose we went from a projected budget deficit of $450B to an actual budget deficit of 1.5 Trillion dollars? Sure. Revenue dropped $400B, but that only accounts for less than half of the difference in projected deficit. Spending increases accounted for the remainder.

Try doing some actual math sometime. It might help.

Quote:
In order to increase Revenue the Government must raise taxes


No, it doesn't. I've explained this about 10 times across two different threads now. We did not lower taxes to cause that revenue to drop. So why do you assume we must raise taxes to make it increase? Please tell me that you understand that the reason revenue has dropped is because of the slower economy? Not as many people are employed. People aren't buying as much stuff. Businesses aren't investing as much. That's why revenue is down. We don't need to raise taxes. We need to recover the economy.

And while this is clearly my own economic ideology, I believe that the best way to do that is to stop constantly talking about raising taxes. You do get that when you tell big business and the rich that you're going to raise their taxes "any day now", they're not going to sink money into the economy as much as they might otherwise? Why would I invest in some new venture in the US if I suspect that my return on that investment will be hampered by higher tax rates? I'm going to wait and see what happens and invest in gold or something in the meantime.


Some of us argue that it's the talk about raising taxes (and the spending which makes those tax increases more likely in the first place) that has kept the economy from recovering in the first place. Had we not spent all that money on "recovery" and then said we'd pay for it by raising taxes on those greedy rich people, it's entirely possible we'd be recovered by now. At least that's the economic theory that I subscribe to. You're free to disagree, but at least try to have a reason for why you think your position is better. So far, I'm just seeing you spout rhetoric.

Quote:
...and must Invest money into the economy to promote Job Creation.


Which isn't going to happen if you're taxing the money that would be spent doing this. Sheesh!

Quote:
The US government must reign in spending, and attract foreign investment again to reach the same ends. All of these things have to happen to heal the Debt Crisis. You can't just cut spending and call it a day, and you can jut cut spending and start 2 wars, and build the country on a phantom bubble.


Lol! And yet, I have repeatedly shown how neither the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the Bush tax cuts had anything at all to do with our current economic situation. Zip. Zero. Nada. It's a bogus talking point the left uses to deflect the discussion away from the real problem.

Quote:
Both parties need to adopt some realistic solutions. Bickering at one because they want to increase revenue, and bickering at the other because they want to decrease spending is stupid. At the moment Obama's plan of action supports both methods. While keeping investment in emerging job markets to promote job creation which furthers growth revenue, and deficit reduction.


Except that the Dems keep saying this, then refuse to give any of their spending up. They'll push for tax increases. They'll promise spending cuts "after we raise taxes to deal with the immediate crisis". But when the time comes, they wont cut any of their precious programs. And they certainly wont allow them to be changed in any way which might actually make them more cost effective in the long run. Nope. Can't allow the other side to "win" anything at all.

The left talks about compromise, but they never ever do it. So forgive me for not taking Obama at his word here.

Quote:
It is the exact same sh*t that Clinton had to go through in the first term he had after Bush Sr. It is republican economics, built on the faulty premise of trickle down economics.


No. It's a dogmatic ideology which cannot acknowledge that trickle down effects do work which requires that Democrats ignore the correct solutions and instead promise BS that wont work. I've been saying for years that the problem with the Dems and economics is that once they find themselves in a negative economic situation, they can't use the best tools for climbing out of it because those tools are identified with the "supply side" economic theories. Since using those would undermine their social agenda, they usually just sit there and spin until eventually conservative economic ideas are adopted and we recover. We saw this in the 70s and we're seeing it again now.

Quote:
Fat Cats don't give a sh*t about investing in America, the give a sh*t about investing in Money. Which right now, is leaving America in boat loads.


Lol! But if there were money to be made investing in America, wouldn't they invest in America? Shouldn't the correct response be to make investing in domestic things profitable? At the very least, can't you see how by making it unprofitable (by say raising taxes), you're making those fat cats take their money elsewhere? It's like you know what's wrong, but just can't make that final mental connection to see the whole picture.

You can't stop rich people from moving their money. Raising taxes isn't the right idea.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 6:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Apr 14 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
bsphil wrote:
Have you considered that a dollar of funding in one program might be a better investment than a dollar in a different program?


And have you considered that the same dollar left in the hands of the person who originally earned it, might just be an even better investment than both of them?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not "free" though, is it? You know how to make it free? Stop funding it. Then it wont cost us anything.
Ahaha, you're telling me you solved the "free lunch" axiom with the answer "make someone else pay"?


Huh? That's how it is right now! When someone says that NPR is "free educational programming", what they really mean is "someone else paid for it".

I'm saying make no one pay for it except those who listen to it. If people want to donate to NPR, or advertise on NPR, let them do so like every other radio station in the country. Why should I have to pay a dime for NPR so that someone else can listen to it "for free"?

Quote:
Oh, you conservatives are funny.


Funny because we understand that subsidizing something with tax dollars doesn't make it "free"?

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 6:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Apr 14 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I have repeatedly shown how neither the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the Bush tax cuts had anything at all to do with our current economic situation.

lulz.

In your own mind, perhaps.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Apr 14 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I have repeatedly shown how neither the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the Bush tax cuts had anything at all to do with our current economic situation.

lulz.

In your own mind, perhaps.


And with numbers. And just for you... Hand Puppets!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Apr 14 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well... no. But at least you've convinced yourself even if you've convinced no one else.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Apr 14 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
0

I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Apr 14 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
0

I just proved with numbers your theory that two simultaneous wars not effecting the economy is incorrect. That was easy.


Affecting
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Apr 14 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
At least you're better at English than you are at Math or Religion. You should focus on that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Apr 14 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'm saying make no one pay for it except those who listen to it. If people want to donate to NPR, or advertise on NPR, let them do so like every other radio station in the country. Why should I have to pay a dime for NPR so that someone else can listen to it "for free"?


Didn't they cut NPRs funding? It's not like they needed it anyway. Of course I would rather my tax dollars go to NPR than the wars. Let the people fighting the wars pay for it.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 10:05pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#82 Apr 14 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.
Legitimate New Source wrote:
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.


Edited, Apr 14th 2011 9:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Apr 14 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#84 Apr 14 2011 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
***** ***** *****

****** ****** ******.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#85 Apr 14 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)


The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Apr 14 2011 at 8:47 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS. I mean, I like them, and I'd be sad to see them go, but that's not the most compelling argument. I think that commercial outlets would be able to fill the void that they'd leave.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 10:49pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#87 Apr 14 2011 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Have you considered that a dollar of funding in one program might be a better investment than a dollar in a different program?


And have you considered that the same dollar left in the hands of the person who originally earned it, might just be an even better investment than both of them?
Yes. For the most part, it gets saved rather than spent. (This is of course only considering those paying significant levels of taxes, those who are poor enough would immediately put that money back into the local economy, and they're already taxed at very low levels or not at all.)

gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)


The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.
lol, way to completely gloss over the entire purpose of NPR. Not even remotely close to "emergency news and information". Keep telling yourself that, wouldn't want to stress the card table your imaginary reality is based on.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 9:53pm 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.
#88 Apr 14 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS.
And viewers like you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Apr 14 2011 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

Republicans think that the only non-biased news sources are Fox, CNS News and LifeNews?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Apr 14 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
Apply the same logic to Fox News, but swap the political ideology.

You don't need to take opinion polls of fox to prove it's biased though, that can be done objectively by evaluating their content and by grading the amount of misinformation espoused by viewers of the network relative to those who do not. Spoiler alert: that was already done.
____________________________
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.
#91 Apr 14 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Truth be told, I don't see any pressing need for the government to fund NPR or PBS.
And viewers like you.


Smiley: grin
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#92 Apr 15 2011 at 1:07 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion.


That's interesting, because the GDP in 2008 was about 14 trillion. Considering about 20% of the population made over $100,000, there should have been about 1.8 trillion there even if that entire 20% made ONLY $100,000 a year. With a GDP of about 14 trillion, and considering the wealthiest 1% of Americans have as much money as the bottom 90% combined, well, the wealthy are making out like bandits if that's all the IRS can squeeze from them.

Sounds to me like "taxable income" means "what they were actually required to pay" and not "what they could have paid if it weren't for tax cuts and loopholes."
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#93 Apr 15 2011 at 4:47 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's the House. Never passed the Senate.


Well it was a stupid move anyway...NPR is the only non-biased US new source (I know the right wing would disagree, but they clearly never listen to it...)


The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.

And even if it wasn't/isn't? Why should we pay for this with tax dollars? What is the national necessity to fund radio programing? We already have regulations which require all broadcast media (and cable media as well!) to provide emergency news and information when the government requests it. There is no need for a separate national radio station.


There's no need for a lot of the things the government spends money on. I'm just saying that as a taxpayer, I would rather my tax dollars go to NPR than the current wars we are fighting (not saying all wars are bad, just the ones we are engaged in now).

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#94varusword75, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 7:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#95 Apr 15 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?
If people couldn't discuss things with people they felt were being dishonest, all politics would have ended three hundred years ago. And, you know, probably all forms of communication in general.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#96 Apr 15 2011 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?

By providing credible information supporting your claims and understanding that, even if the other participant isn't going to ever agree with you, you've gotten the information out there for everyone else to see.

Works for me when talking to you and Gbaji.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Apr 15 2011 at 8:33 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
How do you discuss things with people you feel are being dishonest?

By providing credible information supporting your claims and understanding that, even if the other participant isn't going to ever agree with you, you've gotten the information out there for everyone else to see.

Works for me when talking to you and Gbaji.


One of the major keys is to provide information which doesn't disprove your theory within the first two paragraphs. Which you do all the time Varus. But it is funny so please continue to do so.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#98 Apr 15 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ryan's budget bill hits the House for a vote this afternoon. Republicans get the choice of:
(A) Vote for a bill that will never become law and go on record as supporting the dismantling of Medicare/Medicaid.
-or-
(B) Vote against the bill and be portrayed as repudiating the grand GOP plan for government austerity.

Have fun, guys.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99varusword75, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 8:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#100 Apr 15 2011 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Credible.

As in "You don't seem very credible when you're obviously illiterate."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101varusword75, Posted: Apr 15 2011 at 9:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (37)