Yet another example of Obama lies:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-math...Princeton Economist: The Math Behind Romney's Tax Plan Adds Up11:48 AM, OCT 4, 2012 • BY JOHN MCCORMACKLiberals can't just keep trying to lie and obfuscate and get away with it for long.Here the same economist Obama quotes as evidence, states that Romney is RIGHT!!Hope you have a nice day.
Man is that weak! Nothing like an assertion that it *does* add up which is missing any real addition ... or even figures to add! The closest they come is a "suppose" one gets more growth from this ... an idea notably lacking in any but anecdotal evidence, especially considering the idiosyncratic nature of most of economic history ... not totals, no counter totals, just a big "it works!" affirmation. Nice to have friends like that, I suppose, but one can hardly expect to convince anyone who is not already convinced.Why, I do believe there is a pattern here!I wonder, Duma, do you ever try to think how the other side thinks? I find this a very instructive exercise. For example, I am a long term foe of people who create "genetic clock" models and then pronounce their results True even though there is a large body of fossil evidence that points to something else. I understand the lure of the model and how interesting the idea is ... but, unlike them, I also recognize the need to deal with the totality of the evidence and to provide biological meaning before one has *anything*.There is something similar here. I get how your value system can mean that your think Obama stands for everything you don't ... although I also see how that view is supported by very selective and often contorted or even false data ... but data that purports to be real, as long as one is willing to believe the source. But, there are a couple of things that keep me from giving these positions more legitimacy. I say that because there are some discussions in which I have been involved where the difference is not quality of evidence as much as it is a difference in values. A simple, non political example being lumpers vs splitters in taxonomy ... same facts ... different interpretation.There are two things that keep me from extending the same courtesy of respect here. One is that we are *not* dealing with the same data. You present "data" and it is either highly selective or mpre opinion than data. I present data, often verifiable, often summarizing a larger body of data and you act like it has no meaning, typically in a way that suggests you have reacted to the site without even looking at the data.The other is what you consider "evidence". You will cite an isolated poll or some opinion piece as if it *proved* something, while dismissing anything you don't like as meaningless. To be believable, one needs to incorporate any new data into the model. I don't feel challenged on this front from you very often because there is so little actual data presented ... e.g., the current example where your citation had only some vague speculation, not any real numbers. Once in a long while, there is some new information' although, frankly, this mostly comes from someone else, e.g., the unbalanced and illogical Medicare reimbursement to hospitals.This is why I don't see much of a discussion here. It is a monologue and some counter arguments. With B there is somethings more of the semblance of exchange, but at bottom, the same things are happening there.
http://www.inquisitr.com/357016/obama-as-costanza-president-...Tamhas, why do you constantly, constantly, constantly respond, as if the world will end if something Obama states is seen a political or a lie or other such thing that demonstrates that Obama, HARK, is unpure or has done something that has not worked out real well (which of course, to this day you still refuse to ackowledge a single instance of).Better to just read the above article and watch the video. Puts it into perspective.Tinker
Tinker, it is disappointing to see you playing the Duma game. Obama does plenty of things "wrong" to my preference and his campaign certainly has said things which are wrong or dubious. Are you willing to admit the same about Romney? My contributions here are not reflective of the full range of my opinions simply because many of my posts here are reactive, i.e., countering some nonsense.Given that environment, why would I be listing The places I thought Obama wrong or lacking? All I would be doing was giving you material when you admit nothing wrong or dubious about Romney. If thks was a real discussion among friends ... which I wish it was ... then we could talk about both sides equally, but with this Romney is god and Obama is the devil approach, my only choice is to counter your arguments.
Man is that weak! Nothing like an assertion that it *does* add up which is missing any real addition ... or even figures to add!I am glad you said that because you seemed to miss the point that this economist was THE Economist that Obama was referencing regarding Romney's plan!!!Get it???The same economist says Obama misrepresented him........Obama lied.Romney's numbers do add up.....the link is there in the article.As to to the rest of your post........it is pure personal insult and attacks.You should report your post for perpetual abuse of the FOOL posting rules.ALl you seem to post is "blah blah blah"....
I am glad you said that because you seemed to miss the point that this economist was THE Economist that Obama was referencing regarding Romney's plan!!!Get it???Hi Mr Duma,I don't get it so maybe you could help me understand. I checked the transcript and only found this.When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper income individuals can — are currently taking advantage of — if you take those all away — you don’t come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending. And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families.The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more. Now, that’s not my analysis; that’s the analysis of economists who have looked at this.http://uptownmagazine.com/2012/10/transcript-of-obama-v-romn...Now frankly, I don't see where Obama cited a specific study, especially since he used the plural, but for discussion purpose let's assume he did.That lead me to the links you provided from the Princeton economist Harvey Rosen, unfortunately that didn't help much either because from what I can tell, although questioning the study he did't appear to be one of the authors of the study.So did I get that wrong? Was Mr. Rosen an author of the study or not? And if he wasn't; why are you claiming he was as you did in your first post of this thread? And if he was, how is it that his now questioning the methodology used that you equate this to Obama being a liar? This is really simple stuff Mr Duma, either Obama accurately quoted the study as it existed at the time of his statement or he didn't. Any later attempt at explaining why someone viewed the study as flawed, whether accurate or not, is simply not germane to the question of whether Obama lied or misrepresented the study. Of note Mr. Rosen in his piece refers to the TPC in the 3rd party which seems a bit odd if he was one of the authors.https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdfAs I said, I remain a bit confused by all of this and would love to have you clear this up if you can, but for now at least, I'm kind of leaning to perhaps you being the liar in this case not President Obama.Moving on to something a hell of a lot more important than the above is the broader question of if Mitt's plan will work. By Mr Rosen's own admission "much of the debate over it has focused on what provisions would be politically and administratively feasible.".Now IMO that's a pretty important question don't you think? Perhaps I'm being too skeptical, but this all reminds me of a game of 3 card monte where certain people are trying to get me focused on a debate about whether something is mathematically possible, while taking my eyes of the probabilities of it actually happening. In short I know exactly what the tax cuts Mr. Romney proposes to cut.I have not been given one concrete example of the deductions he would eliminate and as such can't begin to handicap if I believe these deductions have any realistic chance of being repealed. (As I recall you had some issues with the home mortgage deduction being eliminated for example)I am asked to accept on faith all of the glorious trickle down effects the change in tax policy would create, i.e. faster growing economy, despite ample evidence from the past that previous tax cuts didn't deliver these effects as promised. Yeah, I guess I'll concede that the math could add up, of course mathematically I have a chance of winning the Power Ball lottery as well but I'm not likely to mortgage my house and invest the proceeds it in the lottery."Feasible" Mr Duma matters.B
Let me help you yet again with B:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/harvey-rosen-obama-...The Obama campaign claims that a Princeton economist's findings support its assertions about Mitt Romney's tax plan, but the economist says that's not exactly true. "Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000," the Obama campaign wrote in a press release on Sunday.But Princeton economist Harvey Rosen's paper analyzing Romney's tax plan didn't exactly look at families making between $100,000 and $200,000. Instead, it analyzed families making more than $100,000 per year and families making more than $200,000 per year. The second group is part of the first group, and Rosen did not separate the two.Obama lied!!Face up to it.........Mitt's plan IS FEASIBLE!I am still waiting on your complete explanation for:1) How Bush policies brought us to the brink2) What is Obama's deficit reduction plan exactly3) How is Obama going to get people back to work an dhow is that different from that last 4 years.
Mitt's plan IS FEASIBLE!Romney's "plan" is some vague goals and a couple of trial balloons. Those who are analyzing it are taking the few concrete known parts, evaluating the cost of those, and then looking around for possible ways to make it revenue neutral as he promises. The conclusion so far is that either it won't be revenue neutral, which impacts the deficit you are so concerned about or that the supposed goal can't be met by the means described, i.e., someone actually has to pay more tax in order for some people to pay less.Feasible here is a wing and a prayer and a promise to reveal more once elected. It is not a plan that can be analyzed.
Feasible here is a wing and a prayer and a promise to reveal more once elected. It is not a plan that can be analyzed.How can it "not be a plan that can be analyzed"......yet you say that it has been analyzed????Blah blah blah blah.......is there anything that is not extremist liberal that you ever post???Let's see......shall we take an Ivy league economist's opinion or should we take tamahs's opinion on this matter????Give me a break.....this topic is way above your credentials and level of understanding.
Let me help you yet again with B:Thanks Mr Duma it certainly clears things up some about your sources, alas with regards to the rest of your assertions I fear it makes things worse.Rosen's paper did find that families making more than $100,000 per year would have to pay $81 billion more in taxes under Romney's tax plan, a 12 percent increase. But his paper did not explicitly say whether these families, whose incomes he assumes would be rising, would actually pay a higher tax rate.So the study did in fact demonstrate it was the middle class that would take it in the chin and any assertion otherwise is after the fact.I'd like to thank you as well for providing me with this.Rosen's conclusion that Romney's tax plan is mathematically possible rests on a questionable assumption: namely that Romney's tax cuts for the rich would lead to robust economic growth. In fact, economic growth sharply slowed during the Bush administration, when President George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich. Brad DeLong, economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, also notes that President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the rich did not lead to much stronger economic growth either.Dovetails rather nicely with the other points I brought up don't you think? And then there is this.A number of analysts, including those at the Tax Policy Center, have found that Romney's tax plan would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to be mathematically possible. But Rosen may not be in that category. His analysis first would need to separate middle-class families from rich families for us to know.So it appears if I understand it correctly, Mr. Rosens own statements are a bit of a misrepresentation as well. Unless that is claiming not raising taxes on the middle class is possible mathematically only if you choose to ignore through averaging the large segment of the middle class that will have their taxes raised. But Princeton economist Harvey Rosen's paper analyzing Romney's tax plan didn't exactly look at families making between $100,000 and $200,000. Instead, it analyzed families making more than $100,000 per year and families making more than $200,000 per year. The second group is part of the first group, and Rosen did not separate the twoI am still waiting on your complete explanation for:Unlike you Mr Duma I don't make a habit of taking complex subjects and reducing them to stupid sound bites that I can't support. In the spirit of cooperation however I' make a few comments.1) How Bush policies brought us to the brinkI have never claimed anything was entirely Bush's fault but he was the President driving the bus for the last 8 years and it seems rather odd that on the one hand you believe if Mitt were elected president he could make everything better, while on the other, you don't believe Bush and the Republicans should bear any responsibility for bringing us to the brink. At a minimum Bush owns the huge deficit he delivered to us during what should have been good times where we could afford to pay our bills. At a minimum Bush owns a good chunk of the deregulation mess that led to many of the problems that ended in disaster. What is Obama's deficit reduction plan exactlyRaising taxes, cutting spending, growing the economy. Now admittedly with cutting spending and growing the economy it is little more than a promise. Of course that is all we have received from Mitt as well. The difference is where they have given us the details. Obama's tax increase will lead to a reduction in the deficit however small of a down payment you may wish to argue that might be. Mitt's only detailed proposals both will raise the deficit i.e. cutting taxes (he hasn't listed any actual elimination of deductions yet so we can't count them) & an increase in defense spending. How is Obama going to get people back to work an dhow is that different from that last 4 years.Well getting rid of a few obstructionist Republicans would be a great start. :<) The simple truth is the private sector job growth hasn't been all that bad. Of course when you have to replace all of the jobs lost during, and the first month or two after, the Bush administration in addition to the public sector jobs lost during Obama's first term (which Republicans have been screaming is a good thing) then not "all that bad" isn't necessarily all that good given the circumstances.So IMO it comes down to who you are going to trust. The guy who inherited a mess and has worked diligently to get us back on track and is showing steady if not spectacular improvement or the guy who is advocating going back to the governing philosophy of the administration who was in charge went we went into the "brink" to begin with. That's an easy decision for me.B
Unlike you Mr Duma I don't make a habit of taking complex subjects and reducing them to stupid sound bites that I can't support. In the spirit of cooperation however I' make a few comments.All you did was apply your extremist liberal bent to try to obfuscate that Obama did in fact lie.At a minimum Bush owns a good chunk of the deregulation mess that led to many of the problems that ended in disaster.Be very specific now B......what legislation??I think you will find that the genesis of this disaster was Clinton 1999.Raising taxes, cutting spending, growing the economyHow you try to get away with saying Romney's plan has no details and you post this garbage is beyond reason.Obama has no plan and what he has published is fabrication of spending cuts already baked in courtesy of Repubs. Look it up B and stop being so dishonest.Well getting rid of a few obstructionist Republicans would be a great startThat is what Mitt will do.....get rid of Obama!
Raising taxes, cutting spending, growing the economyHow you try to get away with saying Romney's plan has no details and you post this garbage is beyond reason.Your reading comprehension really sucks Mr Duma.I suggest you go re-read what I wrote in it's entirety, several times if necessary. If that doesn't help perhaps you may want to give your second grade teacher a call and perhaps he/she can help you understand it.Keep trying, where there is will, there is a way. :<)B
How can it "not be a plan that can be analyzed"......yet you say that it has been analyzed????You really are not a careful reader, are you? I specifically described that there was no plan to analyze *fully* and so one was forced to analyze the impact of the few specific pieces and then examine the impact of how one might pay for that impact. The point is, nothing that has been discussed is enough. Since it isn't enough, that implies either worsening the deficit on some vague promise that the stimulus provided will offset the cost ... a popular theory which unfortunately hasn't proved to work reliably ... or someone's taxes have to go up. Moreover, even that analysis is probably not feasible since it involves things like eliminating the deduction for charitable contributions. Is that politically feasible?
You really are not a careful reader, are you? I specifically described that there was no plan to analyze *fully*Gosh tamahs......I would love to give you credit for the work "fully" but no where was it found in your post.This is exactly what you said:Romney's "plan" is some vague goals and a couple of trial balloons. Those who are analyzing it are taking the few concrete known parts, evaluating the cost of those, and then looking around for possible ways to make it revenue neutral as he promises. The conclusion so far is that either it won't be revenue neutral, which impacts the deficit you are so concerned about or that the supposed goal can't be met by the means described, i.e., someone actually has to pay more tax in order for some people to pay less.Feasible here is a wing and a prayer and a promise to reveal more once elected. It is not a plan that can be analyzed.Now it seems to me you are an extremist liberal of contradictions.Do all liberals lie??
Just a real quick question, Obama has us with over $1 trillion dollars in deficits as far as the eye can see, year to year, with Obamacare not even accounted for. The increase in taxes on those that make over 250K per year barely makes a dent in this, and these taxes will slow down econonic activity. Obama himself has already admitted this.So, like with Big Bird, Obama is again not addressing any problem.So how does Obama fix the problem that he has taken 4 years now to compound, and has not even submitted a budget that even a single Democrat has voted for.Just to get back on point as Obama and his talking points are great at changing the subject.Tinker
Duma, I love it when you make my point for me. Did I use the word "fully" in the first post? no. Did I claim to? no. Was the same sense clearly conveyed by both? yes.
You do realize, Tinker that the 1T$+ deficit which started the current run was actually a Bush budget which Obama inherited? And that the current deficit is marginally less?
Duma, I love it when you make my point for me. Did I use the word "fully" in the first post? no. Did I claim to? no. Was the same sense clearly conveyed by both? yes. You haven't made any point other than your disregard for the truth.There is no plan to "analyze" but everyone that "analyzes it" says this or that.......nonsense!Fact is that Obama misrepresented this Ivy League economist who has said he did and in fact stated that Romney's numbers do add up.Obama said the "math doesn't add up".........Obama lied and misrepresented this economist.Do we believe you or the Ivy League economist who stated Romney's plan does add up????Nuff said......you are just silly and repetitious!
<<<You do realize, Tinker that the 1T$+ deficit which started the current run was actually a Bush budget which Obama inherited? And that the current deficit is marginally less?>>.Yes, Bush's fault. Obama powerless to do anything about it. Might as well blame Roosevelt for SSI's future problems, or Johnson for Medicare's problems.Gee, is that what the Left is left with, the Bart Simpson excuse, "I didn't do it."Stick with it. Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it, and Romney lied, he lied, he lied, lied, lied. But you know, Obama, most articulate at all, had no ability to call Romeny on a "lie". Romney's fault. Too much altitude, did not take is seriously. You know, that is called a Borderline Personality Disorder (I see it all the time).Funny how Romney deftly and easily handled Obama's lies. Lies, in fact, are the easiest things to address in a debate, that is, if you actually have facts and substance and are not an empty chair.Tinker
"if you don't have a record to run on then you make a big election about small things."That is Barack Obama. Seems he knew his stuff. As presently, beyond Romney's dog on the car roof, he is now spending money on Sesame Street and Big Bird.Funny, how that is the great issue of the day, according to Obama. Is he even serious?Sorry, Tamhas, no matter what you spin, the real world facts speak for themselves.Big Bird. No mention of deficit, unemployment, Middle East, gun running, energy, et al.Have at it then.Tinker
And you drone on and on, with no real reply.
<<<And you drone on and on, with no real reply.>>>Are you using the tactic of imputing to me exactly what your client is doing?He says Romney will increase the deficit, when Obama himself has put on more debt than any leader in the history of the world and done it in 3.5 years.You say Obama is a leader, working for big things and worthy of re-election, and yet Obama himself stated if you don't have a record to run on you make a big election about little things...ie, BIG BIRD.Kind of speaks for itself Tamhas.So please take your "no reply" and stuff it. As Big Bird may be the most illustrous characterization of this election than anything before.Amabassador dead, deficits out of control, unemployment at Depression era levels, a president destroyed at a debate, on SUBSTANCE, that is almost unanimously considered to be the largest pounding in a presidentail election in modern history, and his response, ROMNEY LIED, ROMNEY WILL CUT BIG BIRD, ROMNEY BAD.Really, that is what you are proud to support?Good luck and all with that, and I am sure the word "poignant" may sneak its way back into your vocabularly at some point after you get off trying to carry this "Messiah's" water.Tinker
The point, Tinker, is not "blame Bush" for everything, but to put things in perspective. The point is, it is not Obama that doubled that doubled the deficit, ... he actually reduced it a little from what he inherited.
The point is, it is not Obama that doubled that doubled the deficit, ... he actually reduced it a little from what he inheritedI just tried to factcheck that and even my computer told me there was a virus........extremist liberal bias virus!But that was quite hilarious comedy........ridiculously hilarious really!
Tamhas,I will just let lay what has been said. That is about the weakest and least cogent defense to the issue that I could imagine. Bush did it, Obama maintained it.Got it.Bush did it, Obama maintained it. Is that it? Even though Bush did not do it, I'll stick with it, as that is exactly what you stated, to state again:"Bush did it, Obama maintained it."Wonderful line to run on. But from what you have said, as close to the truth as it will ever get from the Liberal perspective.Tinker
The point is, it is not Obama that doubled that doubled the deficit, ... he actually reduced it a little from what he inheritedI just tried to factcheck that and even my computer told me there was a virus........extremist liberal bias virus!The annual deficit as measured by on-budget or if you prefer to include off budget i.e net increase in Federal debt.Someone needs a new computer or the ability to tell the truth.http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.htmlhttp://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.ht...Google is your friend, unless you decide to lie that is. :<)B
B,What is your point, even in that simple graphical form Obama has the largest deficits in the history of the United States. And in fact the history of the world. And in only 3.5 years.He has not credible plan to reduce the deficit, and no desire to do so, anymore than did the social democrats in Europe, Greece, Spain, France, et al.Obama seems to think that money no longer means anything, that one can just continue to print money, year after year, to pay for it all with no consequences.That is the fact. You can see it in numbers, you can see it in rhetoric, and you can see it in results. As presently, with nothing else changes, as an example, the price of gasoline is MORE THAN DOUBLE what it was when Obama took office. Just one example.But I know, BIG BIRD, that is the big issue of the day, lets talk of BIG BIRD. Leadership!!! Vote for more of this.Tinker
What is your pointLOL, I thought I was on ignore?But since you asked, it was to show that the annual deficit is declining.as an example, the price of gasoline is MORE THAN DOUBLE what it was when Obama took officeYup, but only because you choose to compare to a point where oil prices had fallen from well over $100 during most of Bush's tenure to $40 as result of the word wide financial crisis.But I knowIt doesn't appear that way to me. :<)B
Someone needs a new computer or the ability to tell the truth.Tell us exactly how Obama reduced the deficit specifically.What did he actually do again?Tell us also what he did to the debt!$16 Trillion and rising......we will soon be Greece without a new direction.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/...But what about Romney’s second claim, that Obama "doubled" the deficit he inherited?Romney is way off.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.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |