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.
Pubbies don't need facts. They just run with whatever they're told by Limbaugh and Beck.
Sort of like Beck's claim that there were 1.7 million people at the 912DC rally last Fall. Actual number = about 65,000. A decent number, but more people attended Marian Anderson's concert at the Lincoln Memorial, and that was in 1939...
Again, the BENEFITS dont kick in until 2014, the taxes however take place NOW..
When it happens:
Reduction in Flexible Spending max - 2013 (1 lie)
Increase in rich people payroll tax - 2013 (2 lies)
Tax on net investment income - 2013 (3 lies)
Limit on out-of-pocket medical expense deduction - 2013 (4 lies)
Penalty for not buying health insurance - 2014 (5 lies)
Tax on cadillac health plans - 2018 (6 lies)
etc.
etc.
etc.
Reduction in Flexible Spending max - 2013 (1 lie)
Increase in rich people payroll tax - 2013 (2 lies)
Tax on net investment income - 2013 (3 lies)
Limit on out-of-pocket medical expense deduction - 2013 (4 lies)
Penalty for not buying health insurance - 2014 (5 lies)
Tax on cadillac health plans - 2018 (6 lies)
etc.
etc.
etc.
1) You were doing so good.. why did you stop there?
2) So because the taxes dont kick in till next year, they arent really taxes?
3) Can we then claim next year that Obama is responsible for the biggest tax hike in american history? After all, it is $600+ BILLION in NEW increases. Many agree with this statement btw.. http://www.investorsinsight.com/blog...s-history.aspx
Wow, ONLY a $10T deficit then? That Obama, he's just so wonderful at balancing the checkbook..
Well, as we all know, the last President to balance a budget was Bill Clinton. In fact, he ran four unified budget SURPLUSES in a row. First time since LBJ that there had been even one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Why I dont know why he gets criticized for all of his spending. I mean ONLY $10T.. Whats the problem..
I know. The right-wing disinformation media pump out all sorts of garbage instead of actual analysis, and lazy people believe them. The two major causes of the deficits are the sharp decline in government revenues and large emergency stimulus spending, each directly associated with the Great Bush Recession. When you look at Obama's first two budgets and compare the growth in non-emergncy spending, the rate is half or less of what it was during Bush's normal years. Obama is basically a fiscal moderate when the times will actually allow him to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
p.s. arent you getting paid by the taxpayer, while you are posting here?
Yes, indeed, and at a very handsome rate as well. But then I'm on leave this week. Might take off next week too if the weather is nice. We'll see...
Well, as we all know, the last President to balance a budget was Bill Clinton. In fact, he ran four unified budget SURPLUSES in a row. First time since LBJ that there had been even one!
Dont you ever get tired of lying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I know. The right-wing disinformation media pump out all sorts of garbage instead of actual analysis, and lazy people believe them. The two major causes of the deficits are the sharp decline in government revenues and large emergency stimulus spending, each directly associated with the Great Bush Recession. When you look at Obama's first two budgets and compare the growth in non-emergncy spending, the rate is half or less of what it was during Bush's normal years. Obama is basically a fiscal moderate when the times will actually allow him to be.
ooh the humor..
Obamas $10T in deficits are fiscal moderate and no cause for concern, but Bushs deficits, now there we should be concerned..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Yes, indeed, and at a very handsome rate as well. But then I'm on leave this week. Might take off next week too if the weather is nice. We'll see...
Nice to see taxpayers money hard at work... Tell me, do you work for the "Department of mis-information", because you do lots of it..
The very same 14 months Democrats contolled Congress.. Wow, what a coincidence..
Well, you would have to have some sort of analysis establishing causation to say that it was anything else. And you don't. The seeds of the economic disaster were planted in 2002-06. There was one last chance to perhaps avoid disaster in 2007, but the adminstration couldn't pull that off, so they just sat back and hoped the Big Fall would come after they were out of town. No such luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
He had GDP growth as well.. Thanks for reminding me, I forgot to post those charts...
Anemic GDP growth. Here are the numbers for the years that didn't make it onto your chart....
2001 = 1.1
2002 = 1.8
2003 = 2.5
Nice chart, though. It sure shows the difference that Obama's entry onto the scene has made.
Last edited by saganista; 04-26-2010 at 03:31 PM..
Well, you would have to have some sort of analysis establishing causation to say that it was anything else. And you don't. The seeds of the economic disaster were planted in 2002-06. There was one last chance to perhaps avoid disaster in 2007, but the adminstration couldn't pull that off, so they just sat back and hoped the Big Fall would come after they wee out of town. No such luck.
Tell me what economic policies took place from 2002-2006 which was to blame for the economic disaster in 2007?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Anemic GDP growth. Here are the numbers for the years that didn't make it onto your chart....
2001 = 1.1
2002 = 1.8
2003 = 2.5
They seem to be positive numbers as well.. Was there a point?
1) You were doing so good.. why did you stop there?
The point was pretty well made, eh. Plus there's only so much damage I feel like I can do to you in a day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
2) So because the taxes dont kick in till next year, they arent really taxes?
Since when in next year 2013??? Plus even next year would be not at all the same as NOW, which was your erroneous claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
3) Can we then claim next year that Obama is responsible for the biggest tax hike in american history? After all, it is $600+ BILLION in NEW increases.
No, the $600 billion (if it were accurate) would be over ten years. Reagan's 1982 tax increase would have been larger on a per year basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Many agree with this statement btw..
Well, we'll see how many of Kevin Hassett turn out to be right. It just seems odd to me that Obama would put a place-holder into both the FY2010 and FY2011 budgets for allowing the Bushie tax cuts to continue for everyone below the top two brackets if he didn't intend to do it. Plus why wouldn't the tax increase be Bush's fault? He's the one who wrote the language that will make the tax cuts go away unless Obama acts to stop it. Really, if Obama let's the existing rates continue into 2011 for anyone, you've got to give him credit for more middle class tax cuts. Guess it won't help you much, though, what with already being one of the notorious 47% and all...
The point was pretty well made, eh. Plus there's only so much damage I feel like I can do to you in a day.
Or more likely that you just picked and chosen individual ones while ignoring others in order to LIE about when individual taxes kick in...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Since when in next year 2013??? Plus even next year would be not at all the same as NOW, which was your erroneous claim.
So they are imaginary tax increases? btw, the budgets go one year ahead of time, and you know this..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
No, the $600 billion (if it were accurate) would be over ten years. Reagan's 1982 tax increase would have been larger on a per year basis.
Wrong again. Reagan went from a 70% tax rate to 50% maximum tax rate.. Individuals earning $85,600 seen their rates drop from 59% to 50%... Only in lala land does tax cuts = tax increases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Well, we'll see how many of Kevin Hassett turn out to be right. It just seems odd to me that Obama would put a place-holder into both the FY2010 and FY2011 budgets for allowing the Bushie tax cuts to continue for everyone below the top two brackets if he didn't intend to do it. Plus why wouldn't the tax increase be Bush's fault? He's the one who wrote the language that will make the tax cuts go away unless Obama acts to stop it. Really, if Obama let's the existing rates continue into 2011 for anyone, you've got to give him credit for more middle class tax cuts. Guess it won't help you much, though, what with already being one of the notorious 47% and all...
Ahh, everything is Bushs fault!! Sorry but Obama is NOW in charge.. Its Obamas budgets.. Dont blame Bush for the lack of Obama to take action!!
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.
