UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (23) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: JimmyDe Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 73134  
Subject: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/6/2012 5:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Hi,

I found this pretty interesting. I will be glad to see this election over and done with!!!
==============================================================
This should be on the front page of every newspaper.


Charley Reese's Final column!

A very interesting column COMPLETELY NEUTRAL

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so true. Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!

GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN!!!
==========================================================
L8R, Jim D.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: XMFBreakerTinker Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64045 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/6/2012 9:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
<<<Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.>>>

I am sorry, but no, he did not think this through. The House has passed over 16 budgets (Republican controlled), Harry Reid's Senate (Democrat controlled), has not allowed a vote on a SINGLE one of them. Much less a bill getting to the president that he can veto.

Equivocation is just another excuse for the Democrats to blame the other side. Not our fault, when in fact, the Democrats have not allowed a budget into the Senate in 3 years.

Sorry, I am just not gonna put up with this sort of simple thinking, when it is so imperative that we fix this problem now.

Don't like the Republican budget from the House, fine, let it be voted on, and vote it down, and then propose one of your own. Never been allowed to happen in the Senate because it just might pass.

On the other hand, the budgets proposed by Obama have been uanimously rejected.

So lets get real. The Democrats like the status quo, because the status quo uses baseline budgeting, which insures ever growing government spending as long as NOTHING is done. A vote on it would decrease government spending.

Tinker

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64049 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 9:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Hi JimmyDe, All!

According to Snopes, the real Charley Reese columns mentions no people by name....so the one you posted has been altered from a neutral one ( both parties are to blame ) to a subtle anti-Republican one ( Boehner's name ):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp


Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool
( who agrees with the original Reese article )

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rjf53 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64050 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 10:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
According to Snopes, the real Charley Reese columns mentions no people by name....so the one you posted has been altered from a neutral one ( both parties are to blame ) to a subtle anti-Republican one ( Boehner's name ):

Well given Charlie tended to lean Republican in the majority of the pieces he wrote, I doubt adding Boehner's name to this one will do much to diminish his legacy. :<)

B (Orlando resident, who read and enjoyed Charlie for a decade or more.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64051 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 10:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I have to correct myself a bit:

Charley's 1995 version mentions no one by name.

The 1985 version mentions Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, saying:

"No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits"


Charley's key message is that Congress ( 545 people ) is the problem...and that both the R's and D's are to blame over the past 40-50 years.

IMHO, he's right...and who elects Congress?

Look in the mirror.

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64052 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 10:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Well given Charlie tended to lean Republican in the majority of the pieces he wrote, I doubt adding Boehner's name to this one will do much to diminish his legacy.

Hi B!

Except that Charlie retired from the paper in 2001... before Boehner became Speaker....and Charley was smart enough to know that it takes approval of both the House & the Senate to pass a law....unlike the implications in the altered version posted ;-)

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ncfool2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64053 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Looks like Charlie paid attention in Civics class. (Too bad we don't teach that anymore.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64054 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Looks like Charlie paid attention in Civics class. (Too bad we don't teach that anymore.)


Hi John!

Man, are you right on target.

Ignorance about how our system works is amazing....and despite my best efforts as a father, it even creeps into my children's heads...when they blindly accept some sound bite from TV versus doing a bit of critical thinking/research to find out the facts...so they can make up their own minds ( instead of being told what they should think.

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64056 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I am thinking about stopping on this last line of trash....he can't add? I guess not.

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64057 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hi Dave!

Last time I looked 100 + 435 + 1 + 9 = 545.

However, since his contention is that Congress is the key culprit, perhaps the title should have been 535? ;-)

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64058 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.


the rich were happy 100 years ago......as for the poor....they were the rule.....and they had it tough......they were the majority......

they rich are even happier today.

you know the saying, 'the buck stops here', by Harry S. Truman? His tax rate was 92% for the top bracket.......and we the people paid less in taxes into the early 1980s.....when Ronald Reagan said lets go back to the old America......and cut taxes on the wealthy......globally thinking that led to us paying more in taxes on the local, state, and national levels.....

I guess if you pine for a time when you were not born....you get what you deserve from the politicos.....

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64059 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I am sorry, but no, he did not think this through. The House has passed over 16 budgets (Republican controlled), Harry Reid's Senate (Democrat controlled), has not allowed a vote on a SINGLE one of them. Much less a bill getting to the president that he can veto.


good for Harry Reid....those republicans are scumbuckets......

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dumaflotchie Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64061 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
However, since his contention is that Congress is the key culprit, perhaps the title should have been 535?

Nice math BTW :) Maybe this is why they can't balance a budget!

Since Congress approves SCOTUS appointments, they are fair game as well.

Look at Justice Roberts contorted Obamacare ruling! Weird from a pure legal perspective.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64062 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hi Dave!

Isn't it amazing that despite the top tax rates changing over time, the effective tax rate ( what people pay after all deductions, etc ) hasn't varied that much in the last 30+ years?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...


For me at least, what this says is that what counts is NOT what the top rate is, but rather, how much of one's income is actually paid in taxes, after deductions, AMT, ad nauseum. ;-)

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64064 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
For me at least, what this says is that what counts is NOT what the top rate is, but rather, how much of one's income is actually paid in taxes, after deductions, AMT, ad nauseum. ;-)

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

Hi Murph with your warm welcome I dont want to call you a slow learner. Unless you make over $1 million per year you would not be effected by a tax hike what what should be the top tax bracket. In fact taxes would come down over time for you if the top bracket was higher.

The effective rate on the wealthy, upper middle class and middle class from what I have seen is 20% on average for each class. When the deductions, loopholes and capital gains are all counted up and figured for each group that is what we get, a 20% average.

We need a much more progressive scheme to create demand in the economy. This would then create more consumers and savers for the wealthy. After all money floats up hill only.

The biggest point is that unless we up the rate on the wealthy now they will pay much more later......we need to get on with raising their taxes.....and lowering our's.....

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64065 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Look at Justice Roberts contorted Obamacare ruling! Weird from a pure legal perspective.

Duma,

Obamacare/Romneycare is the 1993 Republican response to Bill Clinton's plan.

It is only 'contorted' in your view because you dont agree.

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64068 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The biggest point is that unless we up the rate on the wealthy now they will pay much more later......we need to get on with raising their taxes.....and lowering our's.....

...The effective rate on the wealthy, upper middle class and middle class from what I have seen is 20% on average for each class. When the deductions, loopholes and capital gains are all counted up and figured for each group that is what we get, a 20% average....


Hi Dave!

My response had nothing to do with the merits or demerits of a potential tax hike on the "rich" or anyone else; rather it was in response to your citing a 92% top rate under Truman in a prior post.


My point was that the top rate doesn't really matter--what matters is the effective tax rate


Here are the top Federal tax rates by year:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-...

You will note that that from 1979 to 2007, the top rate ranged from a high of 70% in 1979 to a low of 28% in 1988.


Yet, the effective tax rates actually paid for the top 10% during that same period varied in a much narrower range: from 30.1% in 1996 to a low of 24.3% in 1986.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...


Hope that helps explain my point.

As to your statement about the rate being about 20% for the "wealthy, upper middle class and middle class"....well, I sure don't see it in the charts. Perhaps you mean total taxes, including Federal, state Social Security, Medicare, sales, excise, etc?

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rubberthinking Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64069 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As to your statement about the rate being about 20% for the "wealthy, upper middle class and middle class"....well, I sure don't see it in the charts. Perhaps you mean total taxes, including Federal, state Social Security, Medicare, sales, excise, etc?

Cheers!
Murph
Home Fool

yep that is what I mean.....

As for the merrits.....this board is ultra political.....so with that in minad what is actually good or bad for the USA should come into play here.....unfortunately the conservatives are anti American and just out to screw the pouch.....

Dave

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ncfool2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64070 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Oh crap, now I have to put another poster on ignore. One thing Murph is absolutely NOT is a slow learner! (Plus he hasn't changed his screen name 137 times.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dumaflotchie Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64071 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hey Murph!

The effective tax rate is the only way to look at the tax issue......it compares apples to apples.

But as to taxes going forward, the effective tax rate goes up regardless of what Congress does......Obamacare raises taxes on payroll and union health plans, etc.

So taxes on middle class are going up no matter.

Despite all this, this whole class warfare chanting to tax the rich, just makes little logical sense......pure emotional sense ........getting one's pound of flesh. But I have still not heard any cogent argument why generating additional $75 billion annually will substantively reduce a deficit that is $1.2 trillion annually.

Worse yet......how does nailing the rich with higher taxes get us more jobs???

As an aside, the totally arbitrary 40% tax rate for folks making $251,0000 per year doesn't seem very progressive compared to the same rate for someone making $2.5 million per year. "Rich" is more likely the latter than the former.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFMurph Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64073 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 12:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As to your statement about the rate being about 20% for the "wealthy, upper middle class and middle class"....well, I sure don't see it in the charts. Perhaps you mean total taxes, including Federal, state Social Security, Medicare, sales, excise, etc?


yep that is what I mean.....


Hi Dave!

I would love to see a source link for this so I can educate myself. Can you provide one?

Thanks!
Murph
Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rjf53 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64075 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 12:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Except that Charlie retired from the paper in 2001...

Yes I know that, it was a sad day even for someone like myself who didn't always agree with things he wrote.

before Boehner became Speaker...

Yes I know that as well.

My point was that even if what you described as the "subtle anti-Republican" portion of the altered piece was believed by someone, anyone familiar with the body of Charlie's work would be unlikely to have their memories altered.

B

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tamhas Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 64077 of 73134
Subject: Re: Charley Reeses Last Column Date: 10/7/2012 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
More inaccuracies...

The final Congressional Budget Office baseline deficit projection before Obama took office -- noted in table 5 in this January 2009 CBO report -- showed a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.19 trillion.

That figure doesn’t account for any of Obama’s own spending initiatives, such as the stimulus bill. But the deficit grew quickly under Obama: The fiscal 2009 deficit rose to $1.41 trillion and has remained above $1 trillion annually ever since.

But compared to what Obama inherited, the annual deficit has gone down slightly. CBO projects that for fiscal 2012, which has just ended, the fiscal 2012 deficit will be $1.09 trillion.

So, far from doubling the deficit, Obama (along with, it should be noted, some Republican help in Congress) has instead reduced the deficit by about 8 percent.

The only way to get to doubling is to use a different starting point, which is what the Romney campaign does. His campaign compares the current deficit to the final fiscal 2008 deficit of $458.6 billion.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/...

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (23) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement