http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044435880457801...The article points to the gross inaccuracies of the Obama campaign rhetoric.Reasonable people should be able to see this quite clearly.
And, yet again, we have an opinion piece posted as if it was data. Look at the contributers to the current deficit. Exclude those that were passed by a prior administration. Exclude those which were emergency one time spending because of the economic crisis. What are you left with? The factual answer is a substantially reduced government.As much as neither party wants the Bush tax cuts to revert completely right now, there is also no question the are a sizable contributor to the current deficit. If they stimulated anything, it was, at best a lessening of a terrible recession ... and I see no evidence for that even.So, you are trying to blame Obama for programs created in a prior administration. Under Obama, government has reduced and unfunded wars have been wound down. You can lay stimulus at his feet, although even that was well under way when he took office, but even that is a tiny percentage of the total, even if you think it was worthless.
<<<there is also no question the are a sizable contributor to the current deficit>>>What sort of insane mathematics are you utilizing. No amount of taxation, even 100% of everything, is enough to cover these deficits. IT IS BEEPING TOO MUCH SPENDING. ENOUGH.This spending spree ain't free, unless you Liberals think you can just make money mean nothing. I fully remember the 1970s, stagflation, we are there and going down if this course of action does not change.No amount of taxation will change this, only make it worse as it slows down economic activity, and reduces investment in this country relative to the rest of the world. And that is a fact, otherwise Obama would not have "agreed" to not raise taxes during a recession. Tinker
Tinker, I haven't said the problem is easy or that the problem is solved by reversing the Bush tax cuts or any other taxation. All I have said is that a significant part of the current budget shortfall is the Bush tax cuts. I.e. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy so much that the reduced rate of taxation would still produce more money and, instead, the economy tanked and those cuts are a major contributor to the current shortfall. This is simple fact ... unlike a Duma fact.And, what exactly, is this great spending spree? Let's set aside stimulus spending, which we obviously disagree about, where is the spending spree?
tamhas: The Bush tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy so much that the reduced rate of taxation would still produce more money and, instead, the economy tanked and those cuts are a major contributor to the current shortfall. This is simple fact ... unlike a Duma fact.The Bush tax cuts were expected to stimulate the economy -- AND THEY DID for multiple years. This is a simple fact. Economic downturn in 2008 was NOT a consequence of the Bush tax cuts as you imply, a simple fact. Had higher tax rates been in effect at onset of the economic downturn, the revenue shortfall would have been larger than it is. There is no foundation whatsoever for you to claim the Bush tax cuts are a major contributor to "the current shortfall."
I fully remember the 1970s, stagflation, we are there That's odd, I remember interest rates at around 15% as I was attempting to buy my first house and although I'm not in the market currently, I don't believe we are there at the moment. I also recall inflation so bad the Republicans came up with the idea of price controls ( not to mention the nifty W.I.N. buttons) and I don't believe we are there either.Perhaps our different recollections can be explained by age and the type of consumer we were back in the 1970s.Can anyone shed any light on the baseball card, comic book and bubblegum markets currently and how they compare to the 70s?B
those cuts are a major contributor to the current shortfall. This is simple fact ... unlike a Duma fact.First of all, that sounds like a personal attack that needs to be reported to the FOOl!Second, you seem to be yet again playing way way loose with the facts. Bush tax cuts are $75 Billion to the pseudo rich and the deficit annually is $1.2 TRILLION!!!It was NOT Bush tax cuts that got us the housing bubble......guess what was???
Oh why bother,Remember when Tamhas challenged my conclusion that there was a significant change in the polls, and that it was the many leaners had finally committed to Romney, but said leaners had not committed to Obama.Tamhas cited statistical experts, regression analysis, etc. And I said it was phooey, because I had worked through all that, with the smartest people in the country (so it seemed) and getting to the chafe of things was a bit over their heads.Turns out, yes, Tamhas, I was correct (again). Like in 2010, like with Scott Brown, like with the inevitable results of Obama policies, both domestic and foreign.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obam...Romney leaners are now down to 3%, Obama's are 6%...Yes, one poll...sorry, been a long series of polls.Whatever excuse and spin you want. No, don't know who is going to win. Obama is probably in the lead still, but dang close. But there is a reason that incumbents under 50% don't usually win, and never have under 50% in Gallup at this time in the game, and that is because if you are still undecided about a incumbent at this point in the game, you pretty much have already decided to either not vote, or not vote for the incumbent.This all said, Obama is sill in this, even under that historical (and so far without contrary precedent) scenario, but he is sitting nowhere near as good as you and the media have spun.Anymore than Scott Brown down by 20, what was it, 2 weeks prior to the election. Now how did a 29 point error come about just 2 week prior to a major and nationalized election, in a media and academic state of excellence like Massachusetts?Underestimating resistance, even in the model for it State of Massachusetts, to Obamacare. The pollsters used a 2008 like model back then as well.Tinker
Reasonable people should be able to see this quite clearly. rubbishDave
Economic downturn in 2008 was NOT a consequence of the Bush tax cuts as you implyDidn't say anything at all about them causing the downturn. Comparing revenue over the last couple of years under these temporary cuts with what the revenue would be without the cuts shows something like half of the shortfall directly attributable to the cuts. Would things have happened differently without the cuts? Sure, but it is speculation what that would be.
Now how did a 29 point error come about just 2 week prior to a major and nationalized election, in a media and academic state of excellence like Massachusetts?I'm sure that if I bothered to research it I would find that there was a major distortion here too, but the fact remains that the margin of error polling state level races is always much higher than it is for a presidential race. Among other things, there are a lot fewer polls and thus less to check one against the other.
The Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index rose to 70.3. That’s up from 61.3 in August, which was revised higher. And it’s the highest reading since February, when the economy added 259,000 jobs.
The Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index rose to 70.3. That’s up from 61.3 in August, which was revised higher. And it’s the highest reading since February, when the economy added 259,000 jobs.Gasp...thump...Gasp...thump...Gasp...thump.Stop children whats that sound?The sound of a few billionaires coming to the realization that they have likely just pissed hundreds of millions of dollars down the toilet? :<)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_TtstbgsB
Sadly, the only thing flushing is jobs. So far behind just population growth, it is just pitiful.Obama has failed us as a nation.....everyone included.Romney can still bring us back from the true brink. Give him the opportunity.....it is our last hope.Obama....Forward.....over the cliff!
Comparing revenue over the last couple of years under these temporary cuts with what the revenue would be without the cuts shows something like half of the shortfall directly attributable to the cuts. Would things have happened differently without the cuts? Sure, but it is speculation what that would be.Really? Show us that calculation so we can understand how the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are costing $1.2 TRILLION per year. Each year!Your personal attacks do not conform to the FOOL posting terms.
Obama....Forward.....over the cliff!Mr Duma,I urge you to seek professional help.Suicide is not the answer.Worst case, I am quite certain Mr. Tinker would welcome you on his boat.Sincerely,B
B:Thank you for your concern but I assure you it is neither warranted nor requested.Perhaps it would be best to worry more about oneself.I hope you will see the wisdom in posting on topic rather than continuing your relentless and unwarranted personal insults that neither the readers nor the FOOL should allow
Duma, you seem to have a consistent pattern in which someone says something and then you stretch it to absurd limits and act as if that disproves the contention or idea. I never said anything about the Bush tax cuts being responsible for *all* of the deficits. Moreover, I didn't say anything about restricting my comments to cuts for the wealthy. I did talk about *all* of the tax cuts being responsible for *part* of the shortfall.Your personal attacks do not conform to the FOOL posting terms.Yours do?No one from TMF has ever complained to me about any of my posts. Can you say the same?
Just post "on topic" and stops the personal attacks and insults. Read your post again and tell us by calculation how much as percent of annual deficit that Bush tax cuts are for the wealthy.Let's see again, that is $75 billion out of $1.2 TRILLION.... Or less than what 7% or so of the annual deficit.Did I get that right??If you feel the tax cuts for the middle class need to be repealed as well then you ought to come out and say it.Then we could save $200 Billion per year or 17% of the annual deficit.Would you like to increase those taxes on middle class back to Clinton years?Do I have those calculations correct and do they add up to your statement about Bush's tax cuts causing the Obama deficit fiasco?
Just post "on topic" and stops the personal attacks and insults.Following your example?Let's see again, that is $75 billion out of $1.2 TRILLION.... Or less than what 7% or so of the annual deficit.Did I get that right??No, you are once again not reading what I have just said with emphasis. $75B is, as I recall, the figure for reversing the Bush tax cuts *for the wealthy alone*. The figure for *all* of the Bush tax cuts is considerably higher. E.g., in this charthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_...Together the Bush tax cuts represent a sizable contribution to the deficit. Not *all*, never said that.While I agree that now is not the time to repeal those on lower earners I do think they are going to have to go away for them eventually.
No, you are once again not reading what I have just said with emphasisTamhas,duma has never let facts interfer with his form of reality......you are not even in the way.....Dave
All I have said is that a significant part of the current budget shortfall is the Bush tax cuts. I.e. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy so much that the reduced rate of taxation would still produce more money and, instead, the economy tanked and those cuts are a major contributor to the current shortfall. This is simple fact ... unlike duma factJust to remind you what you said and your personal attack and insult that is not keeping with FOOL standards.Does 7% rise to the classification of "major" by your definition?I am awaiting your supporting numbers and calculations on how the Bush tax cuts are a "major" piece of the actual Obama $1.2 TRiLLIon annual deficit spending.
Just to remind you what you said and your personal attack and insult that is not keeping with FOOL standards.Duma,you have been projecting your paranioa on to me and calling me lunatic for a while now......should you drop the fool membership voluntarily?Just asking....Dave
Tax cuts are estimated to have totaled $2.8 trillion, which we guess would count as “trillions,” as the president put it. Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion.From http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisi...Yes, I think that counts as a major contributor. And, go back and look at the chart I already referenced for its long term contribution vs short term factors like the stimulus. One can hardly find the stimulus in that chart.
Tamhas:Those are not annual numbers you are trying to pass off. Let's use annual deficit numbers shall we?Obama is annually down $1.2 trillion....each year.
I hope you will see the wisdom in posting on topic rather than continuing your relentless and unwarranted personal insults You mean you haven't noticed? Oh bother! :<(B
More Americans Trust Government's Handling of ProblemsTrust in government's handling of international problems rises to nine-year highhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/157673/americans-trust-government...
State Of The Race: How Previous Presidential Campaigns Looked Going Into Octoberhttp://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/presidential-race-...This is a comparison of Gallup to Gallup, your current fav ... unless you have switched back to Rasmussen this week.
I just ran into another Fox "News" item about the supposedly skewed polls and it occurs to me that this is another application for Occam's razor.The observation is that people in the poll are reporting a higher Democratic affiliation relative to Republican affiliation that one might expect.The first problem here is what do we actually expect? Are we going to base it on voter registration numbers? Party last voted for? What?The offered explanation is that the polls are somehow oversampling Democrats. Now, for a few polls to oversample Dems and a few to oversample Repubs is expected ... good old fashioned statistical noise. But, for just about every poll to suddenly be oversampling Dems staggers the imagination. What explanation for this is there?Note, that there seems to be some confusion here about what is actually being reported. In some discussions, the assumption seems to be that the pollsters are getting the reported number by weighting the actual responses to correspond to some historical distribution, e.g., the 2008 voting. While *some* pollsters do that sort of thing *some times*, especially when the sample seems off by expectations, the methods used vary widely and I believe that many do no adjusting at all. Certainly, there are some reported polls that have some very anomalous distributions and correspondingly odd results. One wouldn't see that if the pollster was correcting observations to meet expectations, instead, the distributions reported would match the expectations. That's what weighting does.So, the whole idea of correcting false weighting is questionable. Indeed, it is just applying weights based on a different expectation to produce a distribution which is different than the observations.So, instead, if we are seeing something here, it is that both reported (weighted or not) and sampled data has more people saying that they are Democrats than one would expect based on historical norms.But, between 2004 and 2008 there *was* a 7% shift in party identification, so it is clearly possible for historical norms not to be a good guideline for current identification. And, hey, the Republicans *have* done a lot in the last couple of years that might cause some people to no longer want to call themselves Republican. Plus, while I don't know how the percentage of people identifying as Independents shows up in these distributions, but it wouldn't surprise me if the current polarized political climate was causing some historical Independents to choose sides. It wouldn't take a lot of either factor to produce the kind of reporting shift which is causing some people to get so bent out of shape.
Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen told TPM in an email. “It makes sense that as support for Obama increases, more people also identify themselves as Democrats. I know conservatives want to think it’s more Democrats in the poll causing Obama to do better, but it’s actually Obama doing better causing more Democrats in the poll.”“The reality is that (Republicans are) losing, they can’t accept it, and they’re going to find some reason to dismiss every poll that makes them unhappy no matter what its composition is,” Jensen added. “This isn’t really about Party ID, it’s about hardcore denial.”
It doesn’t quite work that way, though. Scott Rasmussen told BuzzFeed this week: “you cannot compare partisan weighting from one polling firm to another.” Different firms ask about party identification differently, he explained. It’s not apples to apples. Rasmussen added: “Some ask how you are registered. Some ask what you consider yourselves. Some push for leaners, others do not. Some ask it at the beginning of a survey which provides a more stable response while others ask it at the end.”Missing from Chambers’ model is the fact that party identification is not a static metric. The current PollTracker average of party identification, which tracks the broader samples of American adults, shows 33.3 percent of citizens consider themselves Democrats, 22.1 percent Republicans and 34.3 percent independents. In 2010, when Republicans swept the House of Representatives and made gains in statehouses across the country, Republican party identification was much higher, around 31 percent.Even Rasmussen says it is crap!
It is considered impolite to not provide a link to what you are referencing. You seem to do this a lot.
Mostly your fault, of course! :)More seriously, I include links when there is something more to see there or where the context is important. I tend not to include them when I am just borrowing someone else's words' but being honest about them being borrowed, hence the italics. All things considered, this seems the least of the issues on this forum.
Maybe you should review the FOOL posting policies and copyright infringement laws regarding not properly referencing other people's work.How you manage to personally attack me for your impoliteness and potentially actionable posting habits, escapes me.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |