Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I know this is really tough for you to understand, but Obama increased spending LESS THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 30 YEARS. Stop lying.

USA's total debt load has doubled in Obama's four years. That's double the debt the country accumulated from Lincoln to Bush and in only four years!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

There is considerable confusion surrounding President Obama’s record on spending, debt, and deficits. Some point to the slow growth rate of federal spending under the president and use it to argue that he “has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.” At the same time, some on the right argue that with respect to spending and debt the president is an aberration, an anomaly, a radical departure from the tradition of post-war American presidential stewardship. Both views are wrong. In reality, the president has been very bad on spending, debt, and deficits, but he has not been radically different than previous presidents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

The article starts with this gem from Carney

“I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, remarks to the press gaggle, May 23, 2012

Read the article with the explanation of the numbers.. I had a good laugh at this bit at the end..

Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know this is really tough for you to understand, but Obama increased spending LESS THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 30 YEARS. Stop lying.

Everybody on the planet knows this fudged number is because 1.6 trillion dollars was spent by Bush three months before Obama took office to save the global economy from collapse.

You are either financially illiterate or a liar, you decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody on the planet knows this fudged number is because 1.6 trillion dollars was spent by Bush three months before Obama took office to save the global economy from collapse.

You are either financially illiterate or a liar, you decide.

it's just not fair, is it Jerry? Bush saved the global economy from collapse... and the guy is persona not grata - shunned by his Republican Party... unwelcome at their convention - never, ever mentioned by Republicans throughout the campaign. It's just not fair, is it Jerry? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's just not fair, is it Jerry? Bush saved the global economy from collapse... and the guy is persona not grata - shunned by his Republican Party... unwelcome at their convention - never, ever mentioned by Republicans throughout the campaign. It's just not fair, is it Jerry? :lol:

If you disagree with the assertion that the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Bush used to purchase toxic debt from failing banks, saved the global financial system from collapse, then great, I'd be interested to hear you make the case.

I'm waiting...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you disagree with the assertion that the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Bush used to purchase toxic debt from failing banks, saved the global financial system from collapse, then great, I'd be interested to hear you make the case.

I'm waiting...

Bush also made promises for most of that Obama deficit to hate to although you don't seem to give credit there. Typical know nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you disagree with the assertion that the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Bush used to purchase toxic debt from failing banks, saved the global financial system from collapse, then great, I'd be interested to hear you make the case.

Jer, $787 Billion? I thought you just said the Bush ponied up $1.6 trillion... to "save the global economy from collapse"? Which number are you going with - and when do you presume to speak locally/nationally vs. globally? Why are you cutting into Bush's legacy - why are you short-changing the guy? Tarp?... Tarp?... is that the good or bad stimulus? :lol:

look, buddy... I'm agreeing with you - it's a bloody shame Bush gets no respect from his own party? Why do you think that's so, hey Jerry? Why do Republicans go out of their way to deny the very existence of Bush? Bush must have done something to warrant that, hey Jerry? Why so, Jerry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you disagree with the assertion that the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Bush used to purchase toxic debt from failing banks, saved the global financial system from collapse, then great, I'd be interested to hear you make the case.

I'm waiting...

I don't think he saved it as more of putting off the inevitable a little longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is ahead in the polls at the moment but there's still two months to go and many people are disillusioned with Obama as he faced so many totally unrealistic expectations four years ago. The economy is not in a good shape, which is always bad news for the incumbent president looking for re-election.

My bet is that Romney will eventually win and mainly because too many of those people who four years ago so enthusiastically voted for Obama don't bother to turn up at the polls this time around. Of course, there is the possibility that Romney's tax-records reveal something very bad, which will destroy his campaign.

Obama should try to make MediCare the centre theme of his campaign as the popular view is that Romney, and especially Ryan, are going to slash Medicare for being unaffordable. Most elderly Americans across party-allegiances like MediCare and any politician who ignores the views of elderly people is risking an election defeat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

USA's total debt load has doubled in Obama's four years. That's double the debt the country accumulated from Lincoln to Bush and in only four years!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

The article starts with this gem from Carney

Read the article with the explanation of the numbers.. I had a good laugh at this bit at the end..

And yet he increased spending less than any other president in the last 30 years. So why is that? You're smart. Figure it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jer, $787 Billion? I thought you just said the Bush ponied up $1.6 trillion... to "save the global economy from collapse"? Which number are you going with - and when do you presume to speak locally/nationally vs. globally? Why are you cutting into Bush's legacy - why are you short-changing the guy? Tarp?... Tarp?... is that the good or bad stimulus? :lol:

look, buddy... I'm agreeing with you - it's a bloody shame Bush gets no respect from his own party? Why do you think that's so, hey Jerry? Why do Republicans go out of their way to deny the very existence of Bush? Bush must have done something to warrant that, hey Jerry? Why so, Jerry?

DO you understand the difference between TARP and stimulus?

TARP purchased troubled assets so banks - and the global financial system - would not collapse that monday morning.

The other 800 billion was released by GW Bush at the request of President Elect Obama. SO there is some disagreement as to who to credit for that "spending". I would never argue GW Bush was a fiscal domestic conservative. Did I argue that? No - that's you putting words in my mouth.

For the record, TARP was absolutely necessary, while the $800 "stimulus" (read: Democrat filled pork bill) was absolutely not.

For those of us who actually understand the anatomy of what happen in that period, this is not a difficult distinction. I am sorry if it is difficult for you, however.

So the 1.6 trillion was about half TARP and half Obama requested stimulus which the President can conveniently claim was issued "before I took office". So he can mislead the public by saying "spending hasn't rises very fast since I took office". But look at the facts, whether or not you disagree with either TARP or Stimulus, one cannot argue against the objective fact that in the absence of these two emergency measures, Obama has massively increased spending and the debt.

As for GW Bush's popularity, it's too bad that he gets such a bad rap from people like you who are too ignorant to understand what actually happened in those harrowing few months, because as I have proven to you, his actions saved the financial world from collapse. But the fact is, millions of people also went to see "Waterworld" with Kevin Costner; people are dumb, and, like you, will buy the simpleton's narrative.

As a consequence, it's politically prudent not to associate with a guy everyone hates. Makes perfect sense to me :-)

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Romney wants lower business tax rates, similar to the ones we have in Canada. :)

Yes, we keep hearing that the US corporate tax rate-- 35% --is higher than in other countries. The part that people keep forgetting to mention is that the US tax code is so full of deductions and loopholes and ways to avoid taxes that the *effective* corporate tax rate in the US is actually lower than in most countries. It's so easy for large, profitable corporations to find deductions that some of America's richest corporations don't pay *any* tax.

If somebody said "we'll lower taxes to 25% but in exchange we're eliminating all the deductions and loopholes", do you think the corporations would take it?

This I would agree with you on. I'm not in favour of a big increase in military spending either.

Well, it's good to know there's still some hope for you.

Not really. No benefits are being "eliminated." But they will have to be reformed, similar to the way Harper has increased the age of OAS benefits. That will have to be done for both Medicare and Social Security, as well as means testing which Romney has also proposed, so that wealthy individuals don't recieve the same benefits as people in lower income brackets. I'm assuming you're in favour of that too. Nothing's being eliminated though. You've received some bad information.

Willard hasn't told us what he's going to cut, aside from getting rid of Planned Parenthood, of course.

Paul Ryan's budget would have cut Pell grants, child tax credits, Medicare, Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps... Romney keeps saying he's not running on the Paul Ryan budget, but the money for the rich-guy tax cuts and defense spending has to come from somewhere, and programs that serve poor are where it's going to be. But I will keep in mind that these programs aren't being "eliminated", but rather "reformed", I am sure the difference is highly substantive.

Once again kimmy, it was the lowering of lending standards pushed by people like Obama, all in the guise of "helping" regular Americans that destroyed the economy.

You got steamrollered last time you made that claim.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet he increased spending less than any other president in the last 30 years. So why is that? You're smart. Figure it out.

That's like saying Bush was fiscal with his military budgets without taking into account the countless appropriations and emergency war funding that amounted to trillions for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The numbers are fudged because the whole thing is fudged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet he increased spending less than any other president in the last 30 years. So why is that? You're smart. Figure it out.

ya, both MLW members, 'GostHacked'... and the Jerry... have been playing fast and loose with your reference. Nothing like Politifact's Truth-O-Meter to add in a dose of perspective/reality:

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

ya, both MLW members, 'GostHacked'... and the Jerry... have been playing fast and loose with your reference. Nothing like Politifact's Truth-O-Meter to add in a dose of perspective/reality:

Did you even read what is in your link? It clearly only assigns $140 billion out of $1.6 trillion to Obama.

My point remains very clear and easy to understand: the unique events in late 2009 cause a massive one time spike in spending. Using this as a baseline for Obama's spending is misleading for two reasons.

First, the baseline is unusually high due to TARP and Stimulus. A real fiscal hawk would have seen spending go down to previous levels again after such an unusually high one time event. Instead, Obamas spending continued at those levels and even continued to rise further.

Think of it as a family budget: your monthly spend is $6,000. Now your BBQ catches fire and burns the back door, some siding and part of the eavestrough. Total cost to remodel? $5,000. So this month, instead of the $6,000 nut, you have an $11,000 nut.

In Obama's world, you just keep on spending $11,000 every following month - that's your new baseline, but you're a fiscal hawk because you kept it at $11,000 for a few years. :lol:

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, that's taken directly from an Obama campaign speech, so save the Dem talking points. Second, I'd like to see the evidence of this.

"Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan"

-The Atlantic

In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.

Romney, of course, criticized this idea when Newt Gingrich proposed it back in January by pointing out that zeroing out taxes on savings and investment would mean zeroing out his own taxes.

Almost. Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax -- saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.

But what about corporate taxes? Aren't they a double tax on savings and investment, so Romney's "real" rate is higher than his headline rate? No. As Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, Romney has structured his investments as "pass-throughs" that avoid corporate tax. In other words, the 0.82 percent tax rate is really a 0.82 percent tax rate.

It might seem impossible to fund the government when the super-rich pay no taxes. That is accurate. Ryan would actually raise taxes on the bottom 30 percent of earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, but that hardly fills the revenue hole he would create. The solution? All but eliminate all government outside of Social Security and defense -- a point my colleague Derek Thompson has made in incredible chart form.

(and if you're wondering why Romney keeps having to say over and over that he's not running on the Ryan budget, that ought to start cluing you in.)

Third, so what?

So it puts the lie to this nonsense about how the rich and the corporations are going to pay their fair share once Ranger Ryan is on the case.

That's so what.

If he's going to eliminate the loopholes and deductions and accounting tricks that rich-guys and corporations use to pay no taxes, it's going to be by fixing the tax system so that rich-guys and corporations don't *need* any loopholes or deductions to pay no taxes.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan"

-The Atlantic

(and if you're wondering why Romney keeps having to say over and over that he's not running on the Ryan budget, that ought to start cluing you in.)

So it puts the lie to this nonsense about how the rich and the corporations are going to pay their fair share once Ranger Ryan is on the case.

That's so what.

If he's going to eliminate the loopholes and deductions and accounting tricks that rich-guys and corporations use to pay no taxes, it's going to be by fixing the tax system so that rich-guys and corporations don't *need* any loopholes or deductions to pay no taxes.

-k

Romney's plan reduces taxes for everybody, not just Mitt Romney. He is giving everyone across the board a permanent 20% cut. So if you paid $35,000 in tax last year, under Romney that you will have $7,000 more in your pocket.

Now what would you rather, yet another Obama stamped boring government bursary for liberal arts college, or a cool 7 GR in cash. I know my answer! Talk about direct economic stimulus!

This together with his corporate tax cut is almost certain to unleash the 2 trillion dollars in corporate cash just sitting on the sidelines worrying about what kind of regulation or tax Obama is going to shove down their throat next. Can you say boom time?

By contrast, Obama wants more of your money, to do what with, I guess we will have to "pass the bill to find out what's in it" to quote Nancy Pelosi. TO him, it doesn't really matter. He's been pretty clear with the electorate - surprisingly honest, in fact - about his belief that the middle class is a borg of public sector employees - teachers, police, and the like - not software salesmen or small business owners - you know, people who actually create wealth.

As for so what, my only point is this: this whole fairness/envy thing is a waste of time and a cynical way to run a campaign. Should Romney pay a little more? Sure. But look at facts: the top 10% income earners already pay 70% of the tax burden. Look it up.

Not enough? Not good enough?

With some exceptions (the ones you always hear Obama chirping about on TV), the upper class already pay way more than their fair share. Envy is an ugly thing. Let it go.

Even if you let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest Americans, studies show that only makes up about $40 billion in revenue - in other words, nothing. SO don't be fooled, Obama isn't paying for the countries lollipops on the backs of a few rich people. It's just his plan to demonize a few rich people so he can get back into the white house with no real plan at all.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney's plan reduces taxes for everybody, not just Mitt Romney. He is giving everyone across the board a permanent 20% cut.

Because the truth is that the United States Federal Government can afford to lose that revenue...while increasing military spending to infinity, and beyond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the truth is that the United States Federal Government can afford to lose that revenue...while increasing military spending to infinity, and beyond.

Need to shrink the government. Greece showed us all what happens when you create a dependent society that penalizes success and rewards infantile dependency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to shrink the government.

Okay, sure, I agree...but that doesn't happen over night, or willy nilly. There needs to be an actual plan...and you don't start counting savings until you actually realize them. Romney's plan is idiotic. Besides, Romney wants to increase spending in the largest government department!

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...