Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you read the author's subsequent article, link at the bottom of the page, you will see this little tidbit:
"However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO..."
I cannot imagine why you would pick up one small detail in the article, and not the full picture.
Why? Because the right-wing wants to portray a particular partisan narrative, even if that narrative is untrue.
If you read the author's subsequent article, link at the bottom of the page, you will see this little tidbit:
"However, the CBO also expects the federal government to collect more revenue from penalties on individuals and employers, as well as other taxes. These revenue increases will more than offset the spending increases, according to the CBO..."
I cannot imagine why you would pick up one small detail in the article, and not the full picture.
Yeah..$95 fine will offset spending. And the only way they can collect that is to deduct from any IRS refunds.
I'm annoyed I can't give buzzards27 another rep point for dismembering that 3,000% talking point.
Thanks, no problem. Busting wingnut lies is all the reward I need.
I imagine if you boss was planning to give out a $3000 raise got up at the Xmas party and said he was giving everyone 3000% raises he'd be obligated to give put that 3000% raise because he said it. Are we dealing with idiots?
Thanks, no problem. Busting wingnut lies is all the reward I need.
I imagine if you boss was planning to give out a $3000 raise got up at the Xmas party and said he was giving everyone 3000% raises he'd be obligated to give put that 3000% raise because he said it. Are we dealing with idiots?
Videos don't lie. Obama said it and I didn't make it up.
And the crowds that heard him say it lapped it up..totally lapped it up.
Yes there is a vast amount of idiots out there that have NO CLUE .
Thanks, no problem. Busting wingnut lies is all the reward I need.
I imagine if you boss was planning to give out a $3000 raise got up at the Xmas party and said he was giving everyone 3000% raises he'd be obligated to give put that 3000% raise because he said it. Are we dealing with idiots?
In a word, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Videos don't lie. Obama said it and I didn't make it up.
You either really don't get it or are being intellectually dishonest. Nobody said Obama didn't actually say those words at that particular time. The point is that he said p% instead of $$$ -- like he said properly a number of times before. It was a mistake that you take literally. As stated, one can't reduce something by 3,000%. It makes no mathematical sense.
Videos don't lie. Obama said it and I didn't make it up.
And the crowds that heard him say it lapped it up..totally lapped it up.
Yes there is a vast amount of idiots out there that have NO CLUE .
You either really don't get it or are being intellectually dishonest. Nobody said Obama didn't actually say those words at that particular time. The point is that he said p% instead of $$$ -- like he said properly a number of times before. It was a mistake that you take literally. As stated, one can't reduce something by 3,000%. It makes no mathematical sense.
Well the left didn't say that in March 2010. The left actually defended it saying it COULD go down 3000% while the right said it was mathematically impossible. What happened in that 2 year span ?
You either really don't get it or are being intellectually dishonest. Nobody said Obama didn't actually say those words at that particular time. The point is that he said p% instead of $$$ -- like he said properly a number of times before. It was a mistake that you take literally. As stated, one can't reduce something by 3,000%. It makes no mathematical sense.
YOU don't get it. Your friend absolutely was taking issue with whether or not Obama actually said it. When he was proved wrong, he now tries to deflect and turn this into something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
wow, Obama promised a 3000% decrease in premiums????? Let's see, a 100% decrease would be down to zero, so how much lower is 3000%?
Exaggerate much? Or maybe you have a cite? For the record, first time ever my premium did NOT go up this year...
Don't think Obama promised to make health care costs go down, you got a cite for that????
I'm thinking I just should trust anything you say, it will usually be wrong.
Nobody denies it was a gaff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
