Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The National Memo)   Mitt promises 12 million new jobs, eliminate the deficit, & lower taxes. Wall Street investor does the math: "At a 25 percent Federal tax rate on all the new income, the average new job would have to pay a mere $433,333 per year to fill the gap"   (nationalmemo.com) divider line 387
    More: Hero, Mitt Romney, deficits, tax rates  
•       •       •

4058 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 6:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-04 05:06:56 PM  
s18.postimage.org
 
2012-10-04 05:10:18 PM  
Works for me
 
2012-10-04 05:11:21 PM  
img15.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 05:12:27 PM  
When you don't think, it's easy to say Mitt Rmoney won.
 
2012-10-04 05:12:59 PM  
if that's the case, where can I get one of those 430K/year jobs?
 
2012-10-04 05:13:14 PM  
*click*

i798.photobucket.com

*closes tab*
 
2012-10-04 05:22:40 PM  
Romney's plans are the very definition of pie in the sky. There is no way they can work,even if he had 100% cooperations from Congress and was able to enact every plan he wants.

He knows this and is banking on the American people being stupid enough to believe his lies.

And Barack Obama helped him out quite a bit by not challenging him on any of his bullshiat.
 
2012-10-04 05:24:41 PM  

violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*


I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.
 
2012-10-04 05:26:58 PM  
I must be working for the wrong small business
 
2012-10-04 05:32:28 PM  
I thought it's "the American dream" - not "the American delusion"
 
2012-10-04 05:34:46 PM  

Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.


Use Noscript, dudes.
I think Chrome has a version of it as well.
 
2012-10-04 05:43:39 PM  
And of course, even if the math worked out, it's all predicated on things he cannot guarantee - like agreement from his own party and Congress as a whole.
 
2012-10-04 05:57:37 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: And Barack Obama helped him out quite a bit by not challenging him on any of his bullshiat.

 
2012-10-04 05:57:49 PM  

Diogenes: And of course, even if the math worked out, it's all predicated on things he cannot guarantee - like agreement from his own party and Congress as a whole.


Weren't you paying attention to Mitt last night? THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING FROM GASOLINE AND ELECTRICITY PRICES TO SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATING JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH!

/at least while someone besides him is in office
 
2012-10-04 06:02:53 PM  

violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*


Everyone's least favorite web feature -- popup ads -- are back, and more annoying than ever.
 
2012-10-04 06:06:06 PM  
Mitt offered more magical unicorn farts in one hour of the debate than Obama did in all of 2008 combined.
 
2012-10-04 06:06:15 PM  

Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.


What's worse, that crap's coming up on damn near every website nowadays.

No, I don't want to fill out your frickin' survey. Just let me get my frickin' cheat code, please, or let me take a closer look at the product I was going to buy from your website until you floated that crap all over the image.
 
2012-10-04 06:06:31 PM  
There you go. There's the math that Obama said didn't work last night. Right there in black and white.
 
2012-10-04 06:08:41 PM  
Mitt Romney: I never said that!
 
2012-10-04 06:08:55 PM  
Well duh, if you cut taxes on the rich then Job Creators™ start shiatting unicorns and rainbows.

Where have you guys been for the last 30 years?
 
2012-10-04 06:09:29 PM  

violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*


I just clicked no and read the article.

But if it bothers you. Get out a calculator and do the math yourself. He uses a deficit of $1.3x10^12. That and what is in the headline is all the info you need to replicate the calculation.

(He assumes that the taxpayers did not even as much take a standard deduction, did not take a exemption, and did not write off anything--and just forked over 25% of everything to the feds. If you don't like that assumption, it will mean the jobs paid even more.)
 
2012-10-04 06:09:39 PM  

MrEricSir: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

Everyone's least favorite web feature -- popup ads -- are back, and more annoying than ever.


Popup ads are my second to least favorite web feature.
My least favorite are popunder ads that have somebody moving on them. Turn my computer's performance to crap if I get enough of them.
 
2012-10-04 06:12:00 PM  
The derp squad will be in here in a sec to try to pretend this is wrong, but the thing that needs to be focused on is this:

Never mind that there's a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn't work.

If taking away the deduction from the rich doesn't pay for this rate cut WHO WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE?

The middle class, that's who!!!
 
2012-10-04 06:13:27 PM  
Don't bring math into this, we already know math has a liberal bias.

Show me an unbiased source.
 
2012-10-04 06:14:43 PM  
Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit. It's just too freakin' awesome to release to the filthy public.

Funny that all the teabaggers who complained about Obama promising "rainbows and unicorn farts" are now supporting Romney and his magic super-secret fix-all plan. The only thing they're consistent on is their hypocrisy.
 
2012-10-04 06:15:34 PM  
Mitt Romney is not stupid. He understands basic arithmetic. Here's the real problem: Mitt Romney is a cynical liar and the Republicans chose him.
 
2012-10-04 06:15:36 PM  
Of course someone getting a new job -- especially as well paying as Romney's numbers imply -- will be dropped from the welfare rolls, food stamps, unemployment, etc. So lets assume each new job meant the federal government spent fifty thousand dollars less. (This way overestimates how much the dole gives out even if you consider the overhead.) This means that the new jobs would only average $383,333 a piece.

But if we assume people deducted stuff from their taxes, the calculation will have to go up depending on how much they are allowed to deduct.
 
Xai
2012-10-04 06:15:44 PM  
Romney "I will lower taxes, make more jobs and reduce the deficit"

Obama "That's impossible"

Romney "I have a super secret plan, I won't tell you or you might steal it"

Voters "Yeah we'll vote for you, mitt - not like you might be lying or anything"
 
2012-10-04 06:16:31 PM  

Corvus: The middle class, that's who!!!


But I've been reassured by the Fark Independents and the Romney campaign is that it will be revenue neutral because the economy will magically grow fast enough to help offset the loss in revenue from these tax cuts.

/Yes, I know this is a stupid thing to think but this is honestly the right-wing talking point about Romney's tax plan
 
2012-10-04 06:16:32 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: And of course, even if the math worked out, it's all predicated on things he cannot guarantee - like agreement from his own party and Congress as a whole.

Weren't you paying attention to Mitt last night? THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING FROM GASOLINE AND ELECTRICITY PRICES TO SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATING JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH!

/at least while someone besides him is in office


I love that he called high gas prices and the slow recovery "Obama's economy tax", so that he could say that all of Obama's taxes are what's to blame for the problems America is feeling today. Republicans have redefined tax to mean "anything you don't like."

But remember, he's not saying he's going to cut taxes for the rich, he's just cutting tax rates but they won't pay less in taxes but it will stimulate the economy.
 
2012-10-04 06:16:33 PM  
Or, more realistically, let's say you could create 12 million jobs, Mr. Romney. And each job pays an average of $8,000 in federal income tax. You have now raised $96 billion per year, or about 7% of the federal deficit.

If you call yourself a budget hawk and you don't support cutting offense spending, you are sad joke.
 
2012-10-04 06:16:54 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.

Use Noscript, dudes.
I think Chrome has a version of it as well.


Woah. NotScript is the plugin. Had to set a password and then allow Fark for reply to comments to work. Interesting ....

Thanks!
 
2012-10-04 06:17:13 PM  
12 million new jobs paying $433,333 per year?

Sign me up!
 
2012-10-04 06:17:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Corvus: The middle class, that's who!!!

But I've been reassured by the Fark Independents and the Romney campaign is that it will be revenue neutral because the economy will magically grow fast enough to help offset the loss in revenue from these tax cuts.

/Yes, I know this is a stupid thing to think but this is honestly the right-wing talking point about Romney's tax plan


I think Romney is banking on the fact that the economy has been projected to grow over the next several years regardless of who is president. And that nobody will hold him to anything he says.
 
2012-10-04 06:17:50 PM  
I really want a $400K a year job. If I vote for Romney, I get one of those, right? And I'll be able to take advantage of those awesome tax loopholes that Mitt gets right? OH and I'll also be able to invest enough money in the next 30 years to have an IRA worth $100 mil when I retire, right?

/Yeah, I guess that's worth killing Big Bird.
//GO TEAM ROMNEY!
 
2012-10-04 06:17:57 PM  

Clutch2013: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.

What's worse, that crap's coming up on damn near every website nowadays.

No, I don't want to fill out your frickin' survey. Just let me get my frickin' cheat code, please, or let me take a closer look at the product I was going to buy from your website until you floated that crap all over the image.


What's even worse is browsing fark at work on IE 7 and having it crash every few minutes due to some of the ads on this site. I don't have a choice in what browser I use :(
 
2012-10-04 06:17:59 PM  
Comparing Wall Street math with politician math?
I say we call it a wash, since there's no actual math going on here.
 
2012-10-04 06:18:03 PM  
yup, romney willingly lied his ass off to win the debate.
gished. 
i am so shocked right now, this has shattered my reality.
 
2012-10-04 06:18:36 PM  

nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.


Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.
 
2012-10-04 06:18:54 PM  

Corvus: If taking away the deduction from the rich doesn't pay for this rate cut WHO WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE?


i.imgur.com

Uh...rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers and Methodists?
 
2012-10-04 06:19:55 PM  
In all fairness, from Mitt Romney's perspective, the difference between, say, 43K and 433K in annual income isn't a large amount of money.
 
2012-10-04 06:20:34 PM  

impaler: 12 million new jobs paying $433,333 per year? Sign me up!


The catch is that all these jobs consist of taking it in the ass from China.
 
2012-10-04 06:20:48 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Corvus: The middle class, that's who!!!

But I've been reassured by the Fark Independents and the Romney campaign is that it will be revenue neutral because the economy will magically grow fast enough to help offset the loss in revenue from these tax cuts.

/Yes, I know this is a stupid thing to think but this is honestly the right-wing talking point about Romney's tax plan


A budget that is revenue neutral compared to our previous year's budget will never reduce the deficit and will never balance the budget. We have been in a recession for a while now, remember? Romney is a cynical liar.
 
2012-10-04 06:21:25 PM  

way south: Comparing Wall Street math with politician math?
I say we call it a wash, since there's no actual math going on here.


Well Romney's math is Politician-Wall Street math.
 
2012-10-04 06:21:26 PM  

Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.


And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???
 
2012-10-04 06:22:00 PM  

meat0918: Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???


Yes, yes it is.
 
2012-10-04 06:22:56 PM  

Corvus: The derp squad will be in here in a sec to try to pretend this is wrong, but the thing that needs to be focused on is this:

Never mind that there's a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn't work.

If taking away the deduction from the rich doesn't pay for this rate cut WHO WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE?

The middle class, that's who!!!


No no no.

It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.
 
2012-10-04 06:23:04 PM  
The problem isn't that Romney lied in the debates; it's the voters that are too dumb to know when they're being lied to
 
2012-10-04 06:23:17 PM  

Erik_Emune: In all fairness, from Mitt Romney's perspective, the difference between, say, 43K and 433K in annual income isn't a large amount of money.


Well, I could understand that better if he would ever show his tax returns. And. until he shows those returns, I'll assume he is a liar.
 
2012-10-04 06:23:27 PM  

ParallelUniverseParking: I thought it's "the American dream" - not "the American delusion"


"You know why it's called the American dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it"

G. Carlin
 
2012-10-04 06:23:49 PM  
I've yet to hear how a President can actually create jobs, from either candidate. Unless you are talking about the WPA, the Prez has very little to do with it. You can't do the WPA today because you can't send a bunch of guys into the desert to live in tents and sling shovels with no Union rules and no OSHA, even if they might be happy to have those jobs.

The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart.

You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.
 
2012-10-04 06:23:54 PM  
You can tell how much an article totally destroyed Republicans based on the total lack of paid shills in the thread.
 
2012-10-04 06:23:59 PM  
hey were are all the usual suspects to defend Romney? Shift change?
 
2012-10-04 06:24:08 PM  

WhyteRaven74: meat0918: Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Yes, yes it is.


Didn;t Kennedy do it too?
 
2012-10-04 06:24:44 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Romney's plans are the very definition of pie in the sky. There is no way they can work,even if he had 100% cooperations from Congress and was able to enact every plan he wants.


My understanding is that the economy will add 12 million jobs in the next four years no matter who's president. That's only 250,000 jobs a month. Not really an ambitious number.
 
2012-10-04 06:24:48 PM  
Romney can't imagine living on less.
 
2012-10-04 06:25:29 PM  

Solid Muldoon: You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


b-b-but stockholders!
 
2012-10-04 06:26:37 PM  

meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???


Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.
 
2012-10-04 06:26:42 PM  

WhyteRaven74: hey were are all the usual suspects to defend Romney? Shift change?


They are off vomiting blood over the sudden realization that they have just spent the past 20 hours defending Romney.

They'll be back in a few.
 
2012-10-04 06:27:07 PM  

Solid Muldoon: The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products.


horse hockey

meat0918: Didn;t Kennedy do it too?


Sort of, but keep in mind Kennedy never got to do all he planned as far as taxes goes.
 
2012-10-04 06:27:46 PM  

Solid Muldoon: 've yet to hear how a President can actually create jobs, from either candidate. Unless you are talking about the WPA, the Prez has very little to do with it. You can't do the WPA today because you can't send a bunch of guys into the desert to live in tents and sling shovels with no Union rules and no OSHA, even if they might be happy to have those jobs.

The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart.

You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


Buy 2400 F-35s?
 
2012-10-04 06:28:23 PM  

gilgigamesh: WhyteRaven74: hey were are all the usual suspects to defend Romney? Shift change?

They are off vomiting blood over the sudden realization that they have just spent the past 20 hours defending Romney.

They'll be back in a few.


To be fair, it's not all blood.

/Yes, mixed together
 
2012-10-04 06:28:37 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Solid Muldoon: The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products.

horse hockey

meat0918: Didn;t Kennedy do it too?

Sort of, but keep in mind Kennedy never got to do all he planned as far as taxes goes.



FTFY
 
2012-10-04 06:28:43 PM  

WhyteRaven74: hey were are all the usual suspects to defend Romney? Shift change?


They saw the canary Big Bird in the coal mine.
 
2012-10-04 06:29:01 PM  
One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

3.bp.blogspot.com

I linked Snopes for clarification on who actually said it. I got this in response, a few replies after his friends were circle-jerking each other over the evils of "liberals":

"I hate it when people hide behind snopes/APfactcheck/etc. Does it make them feel better that they can provide a link to disprove/discredit something else? These are wise words regardless."

Translation: "I hate when people use facts to show that I'm wrong about what I believe in. Rather than educate myself and learn what my ideology stands for, I'd rather circle-jerk\echo chamber my friends on Facebook because nothing says intellectualism like reading and hearing what I already believed in."

I'm sure you guys knew this, though.
 
2012-10-04 06:29:46 PM  

ddam: Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


Are you farking high?

Reagan left office in '88 having doubled the deficit he inherited from Carter.

This cult of Reagan crap is out of control.
 
2012-10-04 06:29:59 PM  
ghall3:
Buy 2400 F-35s?

As a Canadian, I hate those farking things.
 
2012-10-04 06:30:15 PM  

Tommy Moo: , more realistically, let's say you could create 12 million jobs, Mr. Romney. And each job pays an average of $8,000 in federal income tax. You have now raised $96 billion per year, or about 7% of the federal deficit.


Lets have more fun.

I will be more generous. Let us say that each new job results in $10,000 in new taxes (unlikely). And lets assume that 150 million workers (bit of an overestimate) who already have jobs get raises as to pay an additional $2,000 in federal taxes (very unlikely). That is 420 billion per year. That is 32% of the deficit.
 
2012-10-04 06:33:01 PM  

ManateeGag: if that's the case, where can I get one of those 430K/year jobs?


That's just barely into the middle class according to Romney.
 
2012-10-04 06:33:11 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.


Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.
 
2012-10-04 06:34:34 PM  

aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:


I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom --Ronald Reagan
 
2012-10-04 06:36:23 PM  

gilgigamesh: ddam: Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.

Are you farking high?

Reagan left office in '88 having doubled the deficit he inherited from Carter.

This cult of Reagan crap is out of control.


I didn't think he was serious. Everyone knows Reagan used the deficit and government spending to spike the economy and ride the good times in his second term.
 
2012-10-04 06:36:40 PM  
let me guess, there would be no increase in corporate revenue when people start having jobs and salaries and stuff.
 
2012-10-04 06:37:04 PM  

Isitoveryet: Solid Muldoon: You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.

b-b-but stockholders!


They day America began to die was the first time anyone ever said the phrase, "We had an obligation to our shareholders."
 
2012-10-04 06:38:18 PM  

wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.


Heck, eliminate all spending besides the military, security, interest, social security, and medicare and you would not even remotely eliminate the deficit.

Clearly one of those sacred cows is going to have to be cut or taxes raises. Romney does not want to tell you that. To be truthful, Obama is almost as bad -- but at least he will at least acknowledge that we do have to up some taxes.
 
2012-10-04 06:38:50 PM  

aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x518]

I linked Snopes for clarification on who actually said it. I got this in response, a few replies after his friends were circle-jerking each other over the evils of "liberals":

"I hate it when people hide behind snopes/APfactcheck/etc. Does it make them feel better that they can provide a link to disprove/discredit something else? These are wise words regardless."

Translation: "I hate when people use facts to show that I'm wrong about what I believe in. Rather than educate myself and learn what my ideology stands for, I'd rather circle-jerk\echo chamber my friends on Facebook because nothing says intellectualism like reading and hearing what I already believed in."

I'm sure you guys knew this, though.

To be truly free, the free man must not only be entitled to his own opinion, he must also be entitled to his own facts.

~ The Litany of Dissonance, The Book of Derp
 
2012-10-04 06:39:16 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom --Ronald Reagan


"If you having girl problems I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a biatch ain't one".

- William "Tecumseh" Sherman
 
2012-10-04 06:39:49 PM  

fusillade762: AdolfOliverPanties: Romney's plans are the very definition of pie in the sky. There is no way they can work,even if he had 100% cooperations from Congress and was able to enact every plan he wants.

My understanding is that the economy will add 12 million jobs in the next four years no matter who's president. That's only 250,000 jobs a month. Not really an ambitious number.


I used to hear that Romney pledged to drop the unemployment rate to 6% after his first 4 years. That would be about a 2% drop in unemployment in four years. Which is about the same amount the unemployment rate has dropped under Obama, 10% at it's highest rate in October '09 to 8.1% today. I haven't heard this talking point in a while.
 
2012-10-04 06:40:11 PM  

Nadie_AZ: gilgigamesh: ddam: Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.

Are you farking high?

Reagan left office in '88 having doubled the deficit he inherited from Carter.

This cult of Reagan crap is out of control.

I didn't think he was serious. Everyone knows Reagan used the deficit and government spending to spike the economy and ride the good times in his second term.


I read it as likely snark, but Poe's Law suggests their is the possibility...
 
2012-10-04 06:40:29 PM  
This is just payback from Wall St. for Obama's sweetheart Dodd-Frank deal.
 
2012-10-04 06:40:33 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: let me guess, there would be no increase in corporate revenue when people start having jobs and salaries and stuff.


so the government can help itself to corporate revenues now?
 
2012-10-04 06:41:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: let me guess, there would be no increase in corporate revenue when people start having jobs and salaries and stuff.


There won't be any net jobs created by cutting the top marginal tax rate.
 
2012-10-04 06:41:30 PM  
So, in essence, Romney understands what QE3 is about.


/print the money until we all float on it.
 
2012-10-04 06:41:41 PM  

wippit: As a Canadian, I hate those farking things.


At least you arn't buying 2400 of them.

Also being a single engine fighter and patrolling the great white north will probably mean you will be rid of them about a decade after they go in service....

Anyway....Romeny: "And then a miracle occurs..."
 
2012-10-04 06:43:43 PM  

violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*


yeah! cause its so hard to click the no button. oh wait.. you had to click close tab.. which kind of identical.. and then you opened it back up, took a screen shot and posted it to the thread.. you certainly dont have too much time on your hands.. get a job fascist!
 
2012-10-04 06:43:48 PM  

ddam: Clutch2013: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.

What's worse, that crap's coming up on damn near every website nowadays.

No, I don't want to fill out your frickin' survey. Just let me get my frickin' cheat code, please, or let me take a closer look at the product I was going to buy from your website until you floated that crap all over the image.

What's even worse is browsing fark at work on IE 7 and having it crash every few minutes due to some of the ads on this site. I don't have a choice in what browser I use :(


Can't use a portable browser?
 
2012-10-04 06:44:04 PM  
Did Romney say he was "going to reduce the deficit"? Or, did he say he was "going to reduce the deficit to zero"?

If the first is true, the statement under scrutiny may be true as well.
 
2012-10-04 06:45:37 PM  

Somacandra: impaler: 12 million new jobs paying $433,333 per year? Sign me up!

The catch is that all these jobs consist of taking it in the ass from China.


static.tvguide.com

"Oh, is that what all the fuss was about? Ok, no problem."

/straight to hell.
 
2012-10-04 06:46:07 PM  

ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.



umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-04 06:46:20 PM  

aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x518]

I linked Snopes for clarification on who actually said it. I got this in response, a few replies after his friends were circle-jerking each other over the evils of "liberals":

"I hate it when people hide behind snopes/APfactcheck/etc. Does it make them feel better that they can provide a link to disprove/discredit something else? These are wise words regardless."

Translation: "I hate when people use facts to show that I'm wrong about what I believe in. Rather than educate myself and learn what my ideology stands for, I'd rather circle-jerk\echo chamber my friends on Facebook because nothing says intellectualism like reading and hearing what I already believed in."

I'm sure you guys knew this, though.


Reminds me of a facebook conversation that was going around a few years back. The Boobieser said something about how the earth would freeze if it were one foot further, and burn if it were one foot closer to the sun. Then followed it with something about how God is so amazing that he can do that. A couple people started circle-jerking about how awesome God is to plan the earth's orbit like that. Then some guy broke stroke and told them about how the earth's path is an elliptical orbit, and how many tens of thousands of miles difference the major and minor axis are from each other, and how that's why we have colder winters in the northern hemisphere and warmer summers in the southern. The original poster started cursing about how nobody asked his opinion and how he better not say that he's wrong again. It was complete with f-bombs and exclamation points, solidifying that this person was indeed a Christian.
 
2012-10-04 06:46:45 PM  
"States should manage their own Medicaid. They know what's best for their poor"
 
2012-10-04 06:48:33 PM  

gilgigamesh: PC LOAD LETTER: aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom --Ronald Reagan

"If you having girl problems I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a biatch ain't one".

- William "Tecumseh" Sherman


"When another blames you or hates you, or people voice similar criticisms, go to their souls, penetrate inside and see what sort of people they are. You will realize that there is no need to be racked with anxiety that they should hold any particular opinion about you." --Dan Quayle
 
2012-10-04 06:49:28 PM  

Solid Muldoon: I've yet to hear how a President can actually create jobs, from either candidate. Unless you are talking about the WPA, the Prez has very little to do with it. You can't do the WPA today because you can't send a bunch of guys into the desert to live in tents and sling shovels with no Union rules and no OSHA, even if they might be happy to have those jobs.

The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart.

You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


How about trying to support businesses bringing jobs back from overseas and ending subsidies for those outsourcing?

Because one party wanted that, while the other's candidate claimed last night that those breaks don't exist.
 
2012-10-04 06:51:22 PM  
Until he's clear on what deductions and exemptions he'll remove he isn't really guaranteeing anything. Not in terms of how it'd affect anyone, middle class or any class. Anyone who walked away feeling reassured is a fool.
 
2012-10-04 06:51:27 PM  

ghall3: wippit: As a Canadian, I hate those farking things.

At least you arn't buying 2400 of them.


True.

On the flip side, apparently you're selling about 700 of them to other countries (we're buying 65). Personally, for Canada's needs, I think they're useless. I'd rather we bought something like V-22's. We don't need the fighter-aspects of a plane, just its versatility... better to go with a turboprop, IMO.
 
2012-10-04 06:51:32 PM  

Smackledorfer: How about trying to support businesses bringing jobs back from overseas and ending subsidies for those outsourcing?

Because one party wanted that, while the other's candidate claimed last night that those breaks don't exist.



Just one of many head-scratchers. He was quite emphatic about it, too.
 
2012-10-04 06:53:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: let me guess, there would be no increase in corporate revenue when people start having jobs and salaries and stuff.


Okay, propose some numbers and do the math.

I bet you can't.

The whole point is that the numbers are so outrageously wrong that no matter what you take into account that the number still we not add up.

And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways. If this is done that your numbers will have to be adjusted again.

There is no conceivable way that make Mitt's numbers work.

More fun. A 1.3 trillion dollar deficit is $4333 per every person in the U.S. assuming a population of 300 million. Of course children don't pay federal taxes and people with low incomes (poor people, retirees, etc.) pay very little. So really the $4333 is way too low. When you see the magnitude of the problem and then you see a promise of tax cuts, unwillingness to cut entitlements, the reality the interest must be paid, the idea the the military needs to be expanded, etc. Then you know to call B.S.
 
2012-10-04 06:57:03 PM  

RyogaM: Smackledorfer: How about trying to support businesses bringing jobs back from overseas and ending subsidies for those outsourcing?

Because one party wanted that, while the other's candidate claimed last night that those breaks don't exist.


Just one of many head-scratchers. He was quite emphatic about it, too.


It works. After a half hour of the rednecks i work with talking aboutte debate i managed to take them from "romney didnt lie" to "both sides stretch the truth. Its politics. Plus obama said the debt would be cut in half by now"

Idiots.
 
2012-10-04 06:58:58 PM  
Don't Troll Me Bro!
Reminds me of a facebook conversation that was going around a few years back. The Boobieser said something about how the earth would freeze if it were one foot further, and burn if it were one foot closer to the sun. Then followed it with something about how God is so amazing that he can do that. A couple people started circle-jerking about how awesome God is to plan the earth's orbit like that. Then some guy broke stroke and told them about how the earth's path is an elliptical orbit, and how many tens of thousands of miles difference the major and minor axis are from each other, and how that's why we have colder winters in the northern hemisphere and warmer summers in the southern. The original poster started cursing about how nobody asked his opinion and how he better not say that he's wrong again. It was complete with f-bombs and exclamation points, solidifying that this person was indeed a Christian.

I get that quite often. I grew up about 20 miles north of Orlando, which essentially turns into Jesusland/Redneckville pretty quickly. I didn't realize some of these people were so batshiat crazy until I decided to add them as friends in preparation for the 10 year reunion next weekend. For perspective, the Chick-Fil-A debacle prompted one of my FB friends to post this garbage, CSB incoming:

"I support Chick-fil-a because I've been Redeemed.

To Gov Alderman of Chicago: American commerce is a way of life here in the States no matter what your opinion is. However, if there is nothing else better to do I would hope you would put such efforts into decreasing the number of casinos and strip clubs, rather than denouncing community supporting, family restaurants in your great city.

To concerned parties:
1.) God doesn't hate. He cannot because He is love. In every perfect form and fashion. He loves all people and ALL people are sinners;
"This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." - Romans 3:22-24

our sins are just different. Yes. Sin.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

2.) That is why He came;
'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' - John 3:16

3.) God designed marriage for man & woman.
"Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
-Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV)

4.) He made you & therefore would never think you are "icky".
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."-Psalm 139:13
-BUT-

I can't grab one part of the scripture and say God wants you to be blessed and live an abundant life, and not grab the other part that says, you shouldn't live that way.

"Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?"- Matthew 9:5
We have to choose righteousness and 'Get up & walk' in it.

reason 1: "I just can't help but be this way"--
"To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable." (Ann Lamont , Creation Ministries International)
Yes, habits can be enslaving.

reason 2: "I was made this way"--
You were made with gender, race and impairments. This relates to what a person is.
Homosexuality relates to what a person does.

Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
-Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV)

reason 3: "It's nobody else's business"--
God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior. (Ann Lamont , CMI)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

"Liberal" churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of "love." They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, "because they can't help it." They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice. (Ann Lamont , CMI)

As a Christian, I care too much about people to not tell the truth. I have family that choose to be gay. But I serve a mighty God who gave me His word to give me life everlasting. I didn't write it. But I must strive to do my best just as everyone else. I am not perfect but saved by grace. We all can be Redeemed.

"We love because he first loved us." 1 John 4:19"


I replied with this:

I think most people don't care about the religious views of CFA's CEO - what they, and I, care about is having money donated to groups which think homosexuality should be outlawed.

I don't understand how people can say that they believe in the Lord while simultaneously persecuting homosexuals. The Lord is the ultimate arbiter of justice, and none of our words nor wisdom will change that. CFA would do right to donate to charities that will help the world instead of attempting to prevent homosexuals from having the same civil rights that the rest of us enjoy.

Whether or not anyone is gay has no relevance. All sin is "bad" according to the Lord. If you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior, you are saved. There is no perfection except that which is attained by the grace of the almighty, and since we all sin, that would mean that we all would be punished accordingly.

Even if that were the case, it still has no relevance to civil rights in America, which is a country that is founded on the principles of freedom - including freedom from persecution and the ideal that all men were created equal. CFA has no business donating to hate groups like the Family Research Council.


The derpy replies stopped after I posted that chain e-mail about eating shellfish, wearing two types of thread, etc...
 
2012-10-04 06:59:55 PM  
shiat, I posted entirely in bold. I don't post here anywhere near enough to pull my head out of my ass in regards to the commenting system
 
2012-10-04 07:00:43 PM  
Where do we file our forms for one of these McRomneyJobs?
 
2012-10-04 07:03:03 PM  

gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]


Even though I know what that is, please don't post charts with no units or titles, it's just bad form. Also, i'm pretty sure it's upside down.
 
2012-10-04 07:03:57 PM  
Well, to be fair Mitt Romney's plan is the Obama plan, minus Congressional Republicans who have openly stated their goal is to make Obama a one-term president obstructing legislation as if their lives depended upon it.
 
2012-10-04 07:09:21 PM  
TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.
 
2012-10-04 07:09:37 PM  
 
2012-10-04 07:11:45 PM  

aircraftkiller: I don't post here anywhere near enough to pull my head out of my ass in regards to the commenting system


We have to pull our head out of our asses before we post? Since when?
 
2012-10-04 07:11:57 PM  

meat0918: Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes...


Considering the fact that Romney himself exploited tax loopholes to pay a ridiculously low rate, you'd have to be a real sucker to believe that in the first place.
 
2012-10-04 07:14:00 PM  
Damn decimals...
 
2012-10-04 07:18:33 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: And of course, even if the math worked out, it's all predicated on things he cannot guarantee - like agreement from his own party and Congress as a whole.

Weren't you paying attention to Mitt last night? THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING FROM GASOLINE AND ELECTRICITY PRICES TO SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATING JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH!

/at least while someone besides him is in office


Thisitty this this this.
 
2012-10-04 07:19:41 PM  
108 comments in an no one seems to be able to propose any numbers that would make Romney's math make sense.

Come one folks, this is simple calculator stuff. Every person in my 7th grade pre-algebra class would be expected to handle such calculations.
 
2012-10-04 07:20:03 PM  
So the Righties make fun of President Obama for "promising unicorns and rainbows," which he never did, and now Romney actually starts doing that and...what, HE really means it??
 
2012-10-04 07:20:07 PM  

tortilla burger: The problem isn't that Romney lied in the debates; it's the voters that are too dumb to know when they're being lied to


This.

The only people anyone can convince at this point are "undecided" voters. Voters who are undecided at this point are idiots. It's a pretty solid strategy.
 
2012-10-04 07:21:12 PM  

coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.


I don't think corporations should pay any tax.

/Liberal
 
2012-10-04 07:21:40 PM  

Greil: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]

Even though I know what that is, please don't post charts with no units or titles, it's just bad form. Also, i'm pretty sure it's upside down.


sorry, it was a quick search and paste. And it is not upside down, it shows the amount of deficit. no a negative deficit under Clinton is correct.
 
2012-10-04 07:25:00 PM  
Since $433,333 / year is only slightly above middle class, this should be doable.
 
2012-10-04 07:30:29 PM  
Romney's performance was aimed squarely at the proud, low-information voter.
 
2012-10-04 07:30:43 PM  
I wonder how much the Internet is going to mess with the normal channels of information diepersal this time around. It seems to be more and more every cycle. Lying on TV doesn't seem to work as well as it used to, and I think it's because the fact-checkers are everywhere now, and they can't be shut out of discussions.
 
2012-10-04 07:31:10 PM  
Republican and Democrat representatives on PBS Newshour tonight
Talking about Romney numbers from the debate

Looks like the same game from last night:

1.) PBS news anchor was respectful and got owned by the Republican

2.) The Democrat tonight was shocked as the Republican lied and yell louder to make his lies more adamant

\grow a pair and call out the Republican bullshiat
 
2012-10-04 07:33:42 PM  

gilgigamesh: PC LOAD LETTER: aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom --Ronald Reagan

"If you having girl problems I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a biatch ain't one".

- William "Tecumseh" Sherman



"Now I ain't sayin' she a gold digger But she ain't messin' wit no broke ummm, no broke...now what won't she mess with? " ~William Wordsworth
 
2012-10-04 07:34:02 PM  
Isn't 433K about entry level at Staples and Sports Authority?
 
2012-10-04 07:34:21 PM  
Get 12 million off welfare should help
 
2012-10-04 07:34:37 PM  

Solid Muldoon: I've yet to hear how a President can actually create jobs, from either candidate. Unless you are talking about the WPA, the Prez has very little to do with it. You can't do the WPA today because you can't send a bunch of guys into the desert to live in tents and sling shovels with no Union rules and no OSHA, even if they might be happy to have those jobs.

The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart.

You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


The problem is that we ship overseas too. When we create a tariff on a country's product, they create one for a product we ship to them.
 
2012-10-04 07:34:46 PM  

gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.


What's the source for that chart?
 
2012-10-04 07:34:59 PM  

mrshowrules: coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.

I don't think corporations should pay any tax.

/Liberal


I too as sympathetic to that point of view though I really see no way of that happening in a responsible way. The way to do it would be increase taxes on persons. Admittedly people already pay corporate taxes indirectly, they don't ever see it presented to them as a bill. But if those taxes got shifted to them, they will rebel. Also without tax write offs, businesses will be less likely to do things society wants them to do. So instead of bribing the corporations with taxes, we will have have the government do it itself or let it drop. Again it will cause a backlash. So we are stuck with corporate taxes. (Assuming the GOP does not eliminate them, fail to increase taxes on anyone to make up for it, and fark up the government's finances far more then they are already.)
 
2012-10-04 07:35:15 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7364520/79813420#c79813420" target="_blank">TheMysteriousStranger</a>:</b> <i>108 comments in an no one seems to be able to propose any numbers that would make Romney's math make sense.

Come one folks, this is simple calculator stuff. Every person in my 7th grade pre-algebra class would be expected to handle such calculations.</i>

<img src="http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/2010/01/images/BoobsElectronicCal culator.jpg">
 
2012-10-04 07:35:57 PM  
www.investors.com

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
 
2012-10-04 07:36:01 PM  
farking fark filters!

*shakes tiny fist*
 
2012-10-04 07:37:25 PM  

Solid Muldoon: You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


Says the person who has no freaking clue just how many Americans are employed in the manufacture of "foreign" cars. Hint: Pretty much every major foreign car manufacturer has multiple factories in the US.
 
2012-10-04 07:37:37 PM  

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


Obviously it helps. But those eliminated welfare payment though they come up to an unimaginable shiatload of money are still a drop in the bucket compared the deficit.
 
2012-10-04 07:38:12 PM  

soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
 
2012-10-04 07:38:20 PM  

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


Not really. What you call "welfare" is chump change. Getting Agribusiness, Big Oil, and the Pentagon off welfare would save some REAL money - but certain people don't want to do that.
 
2012-10-04 07:38:20 PM  
I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?
 
2012-10-04 07:39:46 PM  

soy_bomb: /Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


That right there is an amazing amount of cherry-picked insanity. Like I'm not even mad, that's amazing

10/10

Except I bet you believe those charts aren't utterly useless....
 
2012-10-04 07:40:32 PM  

violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*


Mitt still isn't going to fark you.
 
2012-10-04 07:41:32 PM  

MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.


Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?
 
2012-10-04 07:43:04 PM  

meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.

I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.


Soy is one of the least honest posters here.
 
2012-10-04 07:43:26 PM  

MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?


So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.
 
2012-10-04 07:45:02 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: from pay increases


More like special dividends to our investors....
 
2012-10-04 07:45:18 PM  
All I heard Mitt say was that he was adding everyone on Sesame Street to the unemployment list. Everything else was blah blah blah
won't someone think of the puppets
 
2012-10-04 07:45:35 PM  
I wouldn't want to make that much money. Can you imagine the taxes you'd have to pay. I could never afford them.

\am I doing it right?
 
2012-10-04 07:45:54 PM  

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


So you're either advocating 'redistributing the wealth' to get 12 million people out of poverty, or you're advocating letting ~12 million people flood homeless shelters, or die in the streets, or filling our already-overcrowded prisons...
 
2012-10-04 07:46:01 PM  

soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


upper right corner shows the massive economic decline ending after Obama takes office.

and the deficits as % of GDP: those figures do not include expenses for the wars & reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, those were kept off of the official budget until Obama came into office ($120 billion a year). that graph also leaves out the $460 billion deficit (before war costs) in 2008.
 
2012-10-04 07:46:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?


Zero. Many analysts have shown what a piece of shiat the tax policy center analysis was. It assumed zero GDP growth, discounted all changes to corporate deductions, ignored bond interest writeoffs which can account for half of their deficit. The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth. Will link in a few a 3 step example. The tax report was garbage. The fact they rescinded their original numbers from 86 to 41 billion aafter the aei analysis shows that.
 
2012-10-04 07:47:50 PM  

ghall3: soy_bomb: /Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.

That right there is an amazing amount of cherry-picked insanity. Like I'm not even mad, that's amazing

10/10

Except I bet you believe those charts aren't utterly useless....


No. It's a very real effect - but it only lasts for so long, and only happens on the front side of the bell curve. Reagan used it up. It's been gone for a generation - now, lower taxes just mean lower revenues, and will until normal and equitable taxation is restored.
 
2012-10-04 07:48:20 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?

So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.


I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question, and you ask me to do the math. Hilarious. Do you or do you not believe Keynesian models?
 
2012-10-04 07:48:51 PM  

Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.


Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".
 
2012-10-04 07:50:09 PM  

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

Zero. Many analysts have shown what a piece of shiat the tax policy center analysis was.
It assumed zero GDP growth, discounted all changes to corporate deductions, ignored bond interest writeoffs which can account for half of their deficit. The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth. Will link in a few a 3 step example. The tax report was garbage. The fact they rescinded their original numbers from 86 to 41 billion aafter the aei analysis shows that.




/Do you honestly believe the economy will grow fast enough to make Romney's tax cuts, revenue neutral?
 
2012-10-04 07:50:47 PM  
Why are facts so mean to Romney?

Facts are unfair!!
 
2012-10-04 07:50:47 PM  

LordJiro: colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help

So you're either advocating 'redistributing the wealth' to get 12 million people out of poverty, or you're advocating letting ~12 million people flood homeless shelters, or die in the streets, or filling our already-overcrowded prisons...


What could possibly go wrong? They'll just roll over and die, right?

Why is it that every other known civilization managed to solve the problem of poverty and class stagnation but we can't?
 
2012-10-04 07:51:06 PM  

soy_bomb: Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.

Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".


I don't think Obama won either.

But Romney was all style and no substance. At least you can agree with me on that.
 
2012-10-04 07:51:30 PM  
Obama said it last night. Romney's tax plan is great if you ignore history, math, and common sense.
 
2012-10-04 07:51:30 PM  
Maybe he just meant annually If so, he needs to borrow some Excel templates from Bill Clinton and pray.
 
2012-10-04 07:52:31 PM  

MyRandomName: I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question


The analyst was pointing out the plan as stated is full of it.
 
2012-10-04 07:52:46 PM  

MyRandomName: The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth.


They had to make assumptions because Romney won't talk about the details of his own damn plan. If you don't give anyone details about your plan, don't get upset when people make assumptions because you didn't give them details.
 
2012-10-04 07:54:15 PM  

soy_bomb: Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.

Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".


No, it's not that. It's your misleading graphs right here in this quote chain, which are representative of your contributions to the site.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?


http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not- a -tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

Here you go, the numbers.

Step 1)
More base-broadeners are on the table. TPC originally claimed that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle class by $86 billion. After a critique by AEI colleague Matt Jensen, who pointed out additional opportunities for base-broadening, TPC downgraded its estimate considerably. Specifically, Jensen pointed out that the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside buildup on life-insurance products could yield more revenue. TPC then acknowledged that repeal of these provisions would raise approximately $45 billion from high-income taxpayers, reducing any need to tax the middle class by the same amount. The result: A purported $86 billion tax increase on the middle class shrinks to $41 billion.

This was the original analysis TPC farked up. They farked up badly. They walked back their report based on this AEI analysis.

Step 2)
The TPC revenue baseline assumption is inflated. TPC assumed that the baseline against which Romney is seeking revenue neutrality includes a 0.9 percent surcharge on "earned" income and an additional 3.8 percent surcharge on "unearned" income of high-income taxpayers that were adopted in the healthcare law. Romney has proposed repealing these taxes, but has not suggested that the cost of repeal would be paid for by tax reform. Instead, the budget effect of repealing these taxes should be analyzed in the context of the repeal of various other healthcare provisions.

Despite TPC's assertion that adjusting its baseline assumption "does not alter our primary conclusion," the revenue consequence of repealing this tax in 2015 is a full $29 billion, all of which falls on high-income earners. Correcting the baseline by removing this provision means that more of the revenue raised by broadening the tax base on high-income taxpayers can be used to finance tax reductions for the middle class. The result: A $41 billion tax increase shrinks to $12 billion.

TPC used an incorrect baseline. They assumed tax increases as a baseline that are in the ACA bill. Romney has already stated that he would remove the costs associated with the ACA bill, so assuming the ACA tax baseline but not allowing for reduction in costs is another dumb move from TPC.

3rd Step)
Even modest economic growth makes a difference. And finally, the important factor that I discussed above. Based on Table 3-1 of the "Analytical Perspectives" report by the president's Office of Management and Budget, I compute that if the economy were to grow just 0.1 percentage point faster per year as a result of the reform, the additional revenue in 2015 would be approximately $13 billion. The result: A $12 billion tax increase on the middle class actually becomes a tax cut.

TPC assumed a zero growth rate, which is just utterly silly. Even now we are getting a growth rate of 1.0+%. Even Keynesian models associate cuts to growth. Unless you want to argue against Keynesian models, leaving out those growth terms is just silly. This was even with just a modest growth factor tied in.

Step 4)
TPC also left out the majority of assumptions on Corporate taxation. They had as one of their primary assumptions that corporate taxation could not go up as a share of taxes, Romney never stated this. By separating out the revenue generation (Again from economic growth, funding of new business, reduction in corporate tax loopholes), TPC is removing a large part of the ability for the plan to balance.

Basically TPC used a ton of shiatty assumptions and was rightly blasted for it. AEI, Heritage, et al have blasted TPC for their assumptions which Romney nor Ryan have ever ever made.

SO yes, the TPC tax plan is not revenue neutral, that does not mean the Romney tax plan is.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:36 PM  

ManateeGag: if that's the case, where can I get one of those 430K/year jobs?


I believe you'll have to get it from Rmoney's rear end, because that's where he's pulling them from.
 
2012-10-04 07:55:45 PM  
Okay folks. Lets assume that government gets additional revenue equivalent to half of every nickel that the 12 million new job holders have. That would include income tax, payroll tax, additional gas taxes, increased corporate taxes, etc.

At this "50%" tax rate, the new job holders would be making $216,667 per year.

The federal government does NOT take half of what we make even indirectly. (Maybe if you add the what states, cities, etc. and remove poor people from the averaging, but state taxes don't lower federal deficits.)

Even if you increase wages too, it still does not come close.

And Romney wants to decrease taxes. The last few times we have done that it has resulted in decreased tax revenue so it is unrealistic to say that decreases tax rates will not decrease tax revenue (especially at first).
 
2012-10-04 07:55:55 PM  

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

Zero. Many analysts [weasel words] have shown what a piece of shiat[Contentious Labels] the tax policy center analysis was. It assumed zero GDP growth, discounted all changes to corporate deductions, ignored bond interest writeoffs which can account for half of their deficit. The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth. Will link in a few a 3 step example. The tax report was garbage.[Editorializing] The fact they rescinded their original numbers from 86 to 41 billion aafter the aei analysis shows that.


This post has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues in this thread.
This post needs additional citations for verification.
This post is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject.
This post may contain no research whatsoever.
 
2012-10-04 07:57:02 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I must be working for the wrong small business


Well, just borrow $20,000 from your parents and start a new one. That's how it's done according to Romney.
 
2012-10-04 07:57:49 PM  
The only plan Mitt has involves strapping a muppet to the roof of his car.

img59.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 07:57:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

What's the source for that chart?



GIS for US deficits then it took me to WIkipaedia

but I can give you another one
www.usgovernmentspending.com
 
2012-10-04 07:59:15 PM  

MyRandomName: Basically TPC used a ton of shiatty assumptions and was rightly blasted for it. AEI, Heritage, et al have blasted TPC for their assumptions which Romney nor Ryan have ever ever made.


So a bunch of right-wing think tanks are covering for Romney/Ryan because they won't offer any details and yet get upset when people make assumptions about their tax plan because of the lack of details. 

Quite the non-partisan source you used btw.
 
2012-10-04 08:00:38 PM  

soy_bomb: Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.

Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".


This is some farking performance art right here. If you don't see why, look again.
 
2012-10-04 08:00:50 PM  

gilgigamesh: It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.


Ancient Aliens taught me manna was just green algae.
 
2012-10-04 08:02:27 PM  
"It's all bullshiat, folks and it's bad for ya."

― George Carlin
 
2012-10-04 08:03:12 PM  

skilbride: gilgigamesh: It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.

Ancient Aliens taught me manna was just green algae.


Everyone knows it comes in little blue bottles, silly
 
2012-10-04 08:04:31 PM  

gilgigamesh: WhyteRaven74: hey were are all the usual suspects to defend Romney? Shift change?

They are off vomiting blood over the sudden realization that they have just spent the past 20 hours defending Romney.

They'll be back in a few.


No, no, no, no, no. They're out applying for those new jobs that are going to pay 433 large.
 
2012-10-04 08:05:39 PM  

jst3p: tortilla burger: The problem isn't that Romney lied in the debates; it's the voters that are too dumb to know when they're being lied to

This.

The only people anyone can convince at this point are "undecided" voters. Voters who are undecided at this point are idiots. It's a pretty solid strategy.


cdn.crooksandliars.com 

As true now as it was then.
 
2012-10-04 08:05:47 PM  

Mikey1969: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

Mitt still isn't going to fark you.


Barack isn't either.
 
2012-10-04 08:06:18 PM  

gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]


Typical liberal chart. You have to unskew it to see the conservative (truthful) viewpoint. You're probably too dumb and liberal to do it, so I did it for you:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-04 08:06:19 PM  

Lost Thought 00: skilbride: gilgigamesh: It will come from the magical revenue that will pour down on us like manna from heaven, once the job creators are unshackled from their onerous tax burden.

Ancient Aliens taught me manna was just green algae.

Everyone knows it comes in little blue bottles, silly


No, that MANA. Manna is green algae. :-P
 
2012-10-04 08:06:21 PM  
Wow... the conservative farkers return... They've been missing for the past few months. About time you guys show your faces.
 
2012-10-04 08:08:30 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]

Typical liberal chart. You have to unskew it to see the conservative (truthful) viewpoint. You're probably too dumb and liberal to do it, so I did it for you:

[i.imgur.com image 850x394]


kudos sir, you made me laught
 
2012-10-04 08:09:31 PM  

jso2897: No. It's a very real effect - but it only lasts for so long, and only happens on the front side of the bell curve. Reagan used it up. It's been gone for a generation - now, lower taxes just mean lower revenues, and will until normal and equitable taxation is restored.


I know the charts are real and 'true' while at the same time being amazingly disingenuous . That's what I was marveling at.
 
2012-10-04 08:10:36 PM  

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not- a -tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

Here you go, the numbers.

Step 1)
More base-broadeners are on the table. TPC originally claimed that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle class by $86 billion. After a critique by AEI colleague Matt Jensen, who pointed out additional opportunities for base-broadening, TPC downgraded its estimate considerably. Specifically, Jensen pointed out that the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside buildup on life-insurance products could yield more revenue. TPC then acknowledged that repeal of these provisions would raise approximately $45 billion from high-income taxpayers, reducing any need to tax the middle class by the same amount. The result: A purported $86 billion tax increase on the middle class shrinks to $41 billion.

This was the original analysis TPC farked up. They farked up badly. They walked back their report based on this AEI analysis.

Step 2)
The TPC revenue baseline assumption is inflated. TPC assumed that the baseline against which Romney is seeking revenue neutrality includes a 0.9 percent surcharge on "earned" income and an additional 3.8 percent surcharge on "unearned" income of high-income taxpayers that were adopted in the healthcare law. Romney has proposed repealing these taxes, but has not suggested that the cost of repeal would be paid for by tax reform. Instead, the budget effect of repealing these taxes should be analyzed in the context of the repeal of various other healthcare provisions.

Despite TPC's assertion that adjusting its baseline assumption "does not a ...


all that and you missed just one word right at the end.... "either"
 
2012-10-04 08:11:01 PM  
That salary is middle income as defined by Romney. If you make under that, you're losing your entitlements, leech.
 
2012-10-04 08:11:02 PM  
See, this is why Romney is better for the country, all Obama is going to create is a bunch of $10 an hour jobs.
 
2012-10-04 08:11:02 PM  
MyRandomName:

Still waiting to find out how fast the economy would have to grow to make Romney's tax plan revenue neutral.
 
2012-10-04 08:13:49 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x518]

I linked Snopes for clarification on who actually said it. I got this in response, a few replies after his friends were circle-jerking each other over the evils of "liberals":

"I hate it when people hide behind snopes/APfactcheck/etc. Does it make them feel better that they can provide a link to disprove/discredit something else? These are wise words regardless."

Translation: "I hate when people use facts to show that I'm wrong about what I believe in. Rather than educate myself and learn what my ideology stands for, I'd rather circle-jerk\echo chamber my friends on Facebook because nothing says intellectualism like reading and hearing what I already believed in."

I'm sure you guys knew this, though.

Reminds me of a facebook conversation that was going around a few years back. The Boobieser said something about how the earth would freeze if it were one foot further, and burn if it were one foot closer to the sun. Then followed it with something about how God is so amazing that he can do that. A couple people started circle-jerking about how awesome God is to plan the earth's orbit like that. Then some guy broke stroke and told them about how the earth's path is an elliptical orbit, and how many tens of thousands of miles difference the major and minor axis are from each other, and how that's why we have colder winters in the northern hemisphere and warmer summers in the southern. The original poster started cursing about how nobody asked his opinion and how he better not say that he's wrong again. It was complete with f-bombs and exclamation points, solidifying that this person was indeed a Christian.


And he wasn't even correct; although the earth's orbit is indeed elliptical, we have seasons because the earth wobbles on its axis like a spinning top, a phenomenon also known as axial tilt.
 
2012-10-04 08:13:56 PM  
Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?
 
US1
2012-10-04 08:17:56 PM  
img140.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 08:20:06 PM  
I'm glad Romney wants to fire Big Bird. He's another moocher who sucks the teet of government and don't get me started on that dude that spends my tax dollars on cookies.
 
2012-10-04 08:21:03 PM  

sno man: MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not- a -tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

Here you go, the numbers.

Step 1)
More base-broadeners are on the table. TPC originally claimed that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle class by $86 billion. After a critique by AEI colleague Matt Jensen, who pointed out additional opportunities for base-broadening, TPC downgraded its estimate considerably. Specifically, Jensen pointed out that the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside buildup on life-insurance products could yield more revenue. TPC then acknowledged that repeal of these provisions would raise approximately $45 billion from high-income taxpayers, reducing any need to tax the middle class by the same amount. The result: A purported $86 billion tax increase on the middle class shrinks to $41 billion.

This was the original analysis TPC farked up. They farked up badly. They walked back their report based on this AEI analysis.

Step 2)
The TPC revenue baseline assumption is inflated. TPC assumed that the baseline against which Romney is seeking revenue neutrality includes a 0.9 percent surcharge on "earned" income and an additional 3.8 percent surcharge on "unearned" income of high-income taxpayers that were adopted in the healthcare law. Romney has proposed repealing these taxes, but has not suggested that the cost of repeal would be paid for by tax reform. Instead, the budget effect of repealing these taxes should be analyzed in the context of the repeal of various other healthcare provisions.

Despite TPC's assertion that adjusting its baseline assumpti ...


The funny thing is that he was whining about the Tax Policy Center using assumptions in regards to Romney's tax plan.

And he responds to this by using assumptions from the American Enterprise Institute.
 
2012-10-04 08:21:07 PM  

MyRandomName: TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?

So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.

I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question, and you ask me to do the math. Hilarious. Do you or do you not believe Keynesian models?


I guess you can't propose such a model.

The $433,333 average is parody. I don't take it seriously, other than to point out just how absurd what Gov. Romney is saying. As I have pointed above it does use some dubious assumptions.

As even McDonald's hiring will be included in the "12 million new jobs" as will part time work, etc. $40K is probably more realistic especially since new hires don't generally start of the top rates. That would be 480 billion in new wages. I don't think there is any possibility that those increased wages will generate even remotely enough money to close the gap even if you take the reality that their employers will pay more taxes too. Add it a few thousand extra dollars to existing wage earner too. If Mitt did that he would be almost guaranteed reelection. It still would not come up to the money to eliminate the deficit.

And then Mitt wants to lower taxes. From the past few times this has been done, we know it will lower tax revenue.

Yeah there are some multiplier effects that can be expected. But the extent that they are needed to make Mitt's numbers add up is believing in magic.

So give us some numbers, make some assumptions, and do the calculations. This is math you almost certainly can do. Lets see if you can eliminate the deficit.
 
2012-10-04 08:21:13 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]

Typical liberal chart. You have to unskew it to see the conservative (truthful) viewpoint. You're probably too dumb and liberal to do it, so I did it for you:

[i.imgur.com image 850x394]


Awesome.
 
2012-10-04 08:23:11 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?

So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.

I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question, and you ask me to do the math. Hilarious. Do you or do you not believe Keynesian models?

I guess you can't propose such a model.

The $433,333 average is parody. I don't take it seriously, other than to point out just how absurd what Gov. Romney is saying. As I have pointed above it does use some dubious assumptions.

As even McDonald's hiring will be included in the "12 million new jobs" as will part time work, etc. $40K is probably more realistic especially since new hires don't generally start of the top rates. That would be 480 billion in new wages. I don't think there is any possibility that those increased wages will generate even remotely enough money to close the gap even if you take the reality that their employers will pay more taxes too. Add it a few thousand extra dollars to existing wage earner too. If Mitt did that he would be almost guaranteed reelection. It still would not come up to the money to eliminate the deficit.

And then Mitt wants to lower taxes. From the past few times this has been done, we know it will lower tax revenue.

Yeah there are some multiplier effects that can be expected. But the extent that they are needed to make Mitt's numbers add up is believing in magic.

So give us some numbers, make some assumptions, and do the calculations. This is math you almost certainly can do. Lets see if you can eliminate the ...


He's too busy deriding the assumptions done by the Tax Policy Center while simultaneously praising the assumptions done by the American Enterprise Institute.
 
2012-10-04 08:26:45 PM  
Obama got schooled!

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-04 08:29:12 PM  

cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]


Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?
 
2012-10-04 08:29:29 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Yeah there are some multiplier effects that can be expected. But the extent that they are needed to make Mitt's numbers add up is believing in magic.


Hyperinflation.

That's the Republican's goal. Make our currency and debt worthless.

Then create a Randian paradise.
 
2012-10-04 08:30:38 PM  

soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


way to cherry pick some stats there. you notice anything odd about the stopping and starting dates of those charts?
 
2012-10-04 08:31:22 PM  
More like he got bullied and lied about, but yes, it did hurt.
 
2012-10-04 08:32:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?


He did offer something new. He stole Presidebt Barry Marshall Davis's policy stances and proscribed them to himself. He was like a used car salesman combined with that guy at Best Buy who says "Can I help you?" while you're browsing computers and points you to a particular computer then says "It's got a lot of RAMs and gigs inside, and it's only $5500." It was awesome and very much adherent to Republican morality and behavior. It makes me proud to be a Merican.
 
2012-10-04 08:33:00 PM  
You guys and your facts and stuff. Everyone in the MSM said Mitt won the debate and that's all that counts.
 
2012-10-04 08:33:26 PM  
Nobody cares about the lies. All that matters is that Romney looks good.

Jesus Christ, what the fark? The narcissists have taken over the henhouse.
 
2012-10-04 08:33:27 PM  
A President is the Chief Executive. The point of the Executive is to set a strategic plan. They don't have to worry about the operational or tactical plans. That is why Obama failed - diving too much into specifics doesn't work when your track record has shown you to be distant and aloof when it comes to the legislation your party is struggling to put through congress. No one believes his shiat any more.

When Romney says his goals are lower taxes, a balanced budget, and more jobs, you have to understand that it's impossible to have all three at once. The great managers are capable of managing the paradox and finding the proper balance of their main objectives to come out with a workable outcome.
 
2012-10-04 08:34:06 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Romney won, but he was all style and no substance.


If we were picking analogies, would you say that, perhaps, Romney was an "empty suit"?
 
2012-10-04 08:34:10 PM  

Xai: Romney "I will lower taxes, make more jobs and reduce the deficit"

Obama "That's impossible"

Romney "I have a super secret plan, I won't tell you or you might steal it"

Voters "Yeah we'll vote for you, mitt - not like you might be lying or anything are black"


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2012-10-04 08:34:56 PM  

Shaggy_C: When Romney says his goals are lower taxes, a balanced budget, and more jobs, you have to understand that it's impossible to have all three at once. The great managers are capable of managing the paradox and finding the proper balance of their main objectives to come out with a workable outcome.


What has Romney offered to have a workable outcome for all 3?
 
2012-10-04 08:35:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?


But...but...but..Romney WON! Why are you arguing??
 
2012-10-04 08:36:12 PM  

t3knomanser: Mrtraveler01: Romney won, but he was all style and no substance.

If we were picking analogies, would you say that, perhaps, Romney was an "empty suit"?


Why yes...yes I would.
 
2012-10-04 08:38:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?


Nothing new? He introduced America to the real MItt Romney, not the one that the left has been babbling about in the papers. He showed his leadership meddle which was a stark contrast to Obama's coy fumbling. America saw that there was an alternative to the status quo. Two more debates like this and Romney has a puncher's chance!
 
2012-10-04 08:38:23 PM  

ddam: ...
Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.




i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-04 08:40:01 PM  
Mitt probably believes that's what jobs pay, what with the middle class around $250K.
 
2012-10-04 08:41:34 PM  

sno man: Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?


Not sure, how many professional welfare recipients are there?
 
2012-10-04 08:43:51 PM  

cabbyman: He introduced America to the real MItt Romney, not the one that the left has been babbling about in the papers.


The one that was proud of Romneycare instead of the one that was ashamed of it during the primaries?

He showed his leadership meddle which was a stark contrast to Obama's coy fumbling.

Oh yes, he worked with Democrats back when he was Governor of Massachusetts, back when he was a New England Republican. Which is just slightly to the left of a Southern Democrat. Can't forget that massive accomplishment.
 
2012-10-04 08:44:31 PM  

sugardave: sno man: Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?

Not sure, how many professional welfare recipients are there?


Does Boeing and Lockheed Martin count?
 
2012-10-04 08:45:41 PM  

Shaggy_C: A President is the Chief Executive. The point of the Executive is to set a strategic plan. They don't have to worry about the operational or tactical plans. That is why Obama failed - diving too much into specifics doesn't work when your track record has shown you to be distant and aloof when it comes to the legislation your party is struggling to put through congress. No one believes his shiat any more.


No, Obama is failing because Republicans are refusing to tax multi-millionaires at the same tax rate as the rest of us. Do us all a favor and pull your head out of your ass.
 
2012-10-04 08:46:39 PM  

smimmy: Shaggy_C: A President is the Chief Executive. The point of the Executive is to set a strategic plan. They don't have to worry about the operational or tactical plans. That is why Obama failed - diving too much into specifics doesn't work when your track record has shown you to be distant and aloof when it comes to the legislation your party is struggling to put through congress. No one believes his shiat any more.


No, Obama is failing because Republicans are refusing to tax multi-millionaires at the same tax rate as the rest of us. Do us all a favor and pull your head out of your ass.


And Romney wants to fix that by getting rid of the deductions that allow for that to happen.

Romney wants America to win!
 
2012-10-04 08:47:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: What has Romney offered to have a workable outcome for all 3?


The point was that he is a flip-flopping compromiser - he's going to nominally cut taxes while actually raising revenues by taking away a ton of deductions, he'll end up slashing budgets even at the beloved pentagon, and, since presidents do nothing to create jobs, he'll do nothing.
 
2012-10-04 08:48:02 PM  

sno man: Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?


I know, bad form, but I went and looked it up and you all were taking too long...

Best guess is this is 1% territory, your census catagories top out at $250k so no actual hard numbers. So 1% of 320M(ish) is about 3.2M Americans
So this plan needs the salaries of the 1% to expand to about 5% to work... Did I drop a zero somewhere? Or did someone else?
 
2012-10-04 08:48:57 PM  

cabbyman: And Romney wants to fix that by getting rid of the deductions that allow for that to happen.

Romney wants America to win!


It's sad you actually believe that crap. (BTW: Which deductions does he want to get rid of?)

You can close all the deduction you want and you would still run into a deficit with the tax cuts Romney wants to propose.
 
2012-10-04 08:49:03 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: He introduced America to the real MItt Romney, not the one that the left has been babbling about in the papers.

The one that was proud of Romneycare instead of the one that was ashamed of it during the primaries?

He showed his leadership meddle which was a stark contrast to Obama's coy fumbling.

Oh yes, he worked with Democrats back when he was Governor of Massachusetts, back when he was a New England Republican. Which is just slightly to the left of a Southern Democrat. Can't forget that massive accomplishment.


If he wins, what does is say about Americans that his campaign admitted their etchasketch strategy and a month ago with the RNC talked openly about the new romney, and were serious.

If he wins with "everything that guy did that worked i will keep, and it'll cost less" after all he has said in the last year... Well I'll be annoyed.
 
2012-10-04 08:49:07 PM  
Hello, I'm Mitt Romney.

I know some of you are saying that I lack charisma. Even so, I'd ask that you remember that I'm not blah, if you know what I mean.

Some others say that I'm out of touch, far away from the common man. But really, that just shows that I'm not near, if you follow me.

And perhaps my claims and figures are unrealistic. But I vow that when I'm president, I won't monkey around. I'm no monkey, is all I'm trying to say.

So, anyway, may the best man win. I know you'll make the right choice next month. See you at the racists!

Er, races, I mean. Races.
 
2012-10-04 08:49:32 PM  

smimmy: No, Obama is failing because Republicans are refusing to tax multi-millionaires at the same tax rate as the rest of us.


Obama signed a bill giving billions of dollars in tax cuts to multi-millionaires not two years ago. It was the great Obama-McConnell Debt Increase of 2010. Don't you remember that December? Lame duck Democrats in the congress passed Republican legislation before the tea party even showed up to take their seats? Good times, good times.
 
2012-10-04 08:49:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: sugardave: sno man: Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?

Not sure, how many professional welfare recipients are there?

Does Boeing and Lockheed Martin count?


no no no, see they're Job Creators (hallejulah) and we must give them money, so it's not really welfare. It's in the bible
 
2012-10-04 08:49:49 PM  

soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitchell McConnell, John Boehner and Paul Ryan and their Wall Street Pals Bankrupted America and Mitt Romney Promises Even More of the Same

*The "Great" recession
*SEC fiasco (Madoff, et al)
*costly blunder known as Medicare part D
*massive tax cuts for the ultra rich without spending cuts
*numerous unfunded mandates imposed on the states
*effort to privatize Social Security by Bush then Ryan
*not one veto of a spending bill by Bush in 6 years (and Ryan voted for all of it)
*massive Wall Street bailout (Ryan voted for it)
*LIBOR scandal
*allowed HSBC to evade sanctions against Iran and to launder Mexican drug cartel money
*outright corruption and criminality

Paul Ryan voted FOR Bush's TARP (Wall Street bailout). He voted for everything Bush the budget buster wanted and added $5 trillion to the deficit. He became a budget hawk only in 2009.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?cur r entPage=all

Paul Ryan created plan to privatize Social Security in 2005: "The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005" which even George W. Bush thought was "irresponsible"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/paul-rya n -isnt-a-deficit-hawk-hes-a-conservative-reformer/
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01776

Romeny hired Bush's economic advisors
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/the_romney_bush_mind_meld/
http://current.com/community/93772940_large-number-of-bush-advisers-f l ocking-to-romneys-campaign-team.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/romneys-team-starts-t o -look-like-bushs/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020477860457724158315245 0 486.html

Romney on the budget: increase defense budget, cut taxes for the ultra rich and no plan to pay for it
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167416/romneys-bad-math
http://news.yahoo.com/romney%E2%80%99s-budget-plan-shouldn%E2%80%99t- b e-a-secret-saved-for-wealthy-donors.html
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_20457404/romney-plans-big-cu t s-u-s-budget-but
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/24/experts-skeptical-of-r o mneys-defense-budget-plans

Bush Administration worst fiscal disaster in US history
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66778/roger-c-altman-and-richa r d-n-haass/american-profligacy-and-american-power
Economic Damage Caused by Bush and the GOP
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book- o n-the-bush-legacy/26402

8 Years of Failure
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1872229_18 7 2230_1872231,00.html

Bush/Boehner/McConnell/Ryan $700 billion bank bailout
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/bush.bailout/index.html

Bush/Boehner/McConnell/Ryan bank bailout rewards the cheaters
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_7655582

On September 18, 2008, Congressman Boehner attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and was urged to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. That same day (trade effective the next day), Congressman Boehner cashed out of an equity mutual fund.[31]
Ryan also profited on inside information during the banking crisis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/13/paul-ryan-sold-shares-ban k ing-crisis?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355

What Bush Learned From Enron: How to hide an $87 billion debt by pretending it's off the books.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2088318/

Is Bush a socialist? He's spending like one
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece

Bush pleads with China and Japan to save him from his economic failures.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-19-bush-china-japan_x . htm

Bush White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&em=&page w anted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR200 8 021302783.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/2004 0 809-9.html

Bush's Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie (2006)
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020624_bushplan.htm
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-heads / 5944494-1.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Community Reinvestment Act not to blame for Bush's crisis
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_su b prime_crisis
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/pagenum/all/%23page_start
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/ c ommunity_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/12/03/feds-kroszner-defends-commu n ity-reinvestment-act/

The $10 trillion hangover: paying the price for 8 years of Bush
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/01/0082337
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/cheney-bush-left-gm-bankruptcy-for - the-next-guy/

Bush Administration waste and fraud
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152ap_wartime_spending_oversi g ht.html?source=mypi

In June 1995, Boehner distributed campaign contributions from tobacco industry lobbyists on the House floor as House members were weighing how to vote on tobacco subsidies.[19] In a 1996 documentary by PBS called The People and the Power Game, Boehner said "They asked me to give out a half dozen checks quickly before we got to the end of the month and I complied. And I did it on the House floor."
 
2012-10-04 08:50:01 PM  

cabbyman: Romney wants America to win!


Too bad he's still going to lose.

supportyourlocalgunfighter.com
 
2012-10-04 08:50:31 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: And Romney wants to fix that by getting rid of the deductions that allow for that to happen.

Romney wants America to win!

It's sad you actually believe that crap. (BTW: Which deductions does he want to get rid of?)

You can close all the deduction you want and you would still run into a deficit with the tax cuts Romney wants to propose.


You can take everything that rich people earn and still not cover the deficit that Obama is running now.

Stuff gotta change yo!
 
2012-10-04 08:52:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: He introduced America to the real MItt Romney, not the one that the left has been babbling about in the papers.

The one that was proud of Romneycare instead of the one that was ashamed of it during the primaries?

He showed his leadership meddle which was a stark contrast to Obama's coy fumbling.

Oh yes, he worked with Democrats back when he was Governor of Massachusetts, back when he was a New England Republican. Which is just slightly to the left of a Southern Democrat. Can't forget that massive accomplishment.


especially on a bill the Dems wanted to pass.
 
2012-10-04 08:52:41 PM  

cabbyman: You can take everything that rich people earn and still not cover the deficit that Obama is running now.

Stuff gotta change yo!


So you don't know which deductions. But Romney wants America to win.

Too bad we're not part of Rmoney's Amercia. And neither are you.
 
2012-10-04 08:52:46 PM  
Clinton added 22 Million jobs as president from 1993 to 2000.

Under Clintonian tax rates, federal tax receipts from all sources (Corporate and individual) went from $1.5 Trillion in 1993 to $2.3 T. in 2000, in constant (2005) dollars.

So, 22 million jobs = about $800 Million in additional revenue, if you have Clinton's tax rates/tax structure.

So, 11 million new jobs will get you about half that, or $400 million, under Clinton's taxes.

Romney's tax structure and rates, I assume, will be less than Clinton's, so adding 11 million will not even get you $400 million. Again, that's from all tax sources, Corporate and individual.

He is trying to fill a $1.3 Trillion hole, including an additional $300 billion in new military spending.

That extra million jobs he wants to add won't barely make a difference.

The numbers do not add up. At all.
 
US1
2012-10-04 08:52:53 PM  

cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]


schooled? that empty suit was just empty; all romney did was lie; sadly since most white inbreds are stooopid (ie the honey boo boo crowd) mittens might win. since the thing is basically a american idol contest an empty suit could win.
 
2012-10-04 08:52:54 PM  

cabbyman: You can take everything that rich people earn and still not cover the deficit that Obama is running now.


I think this is my most favorite idiotic point ever.

You could tax everything and still not fix the deficit, so don't do it at all!

That and the related "you could cut all defense spending and still not fix the deficit" are always good for a laugh
 
2012-10-04 08:53:01 PM  

cabbyman: You can take everything that rich people earn and still not cover the deficit that Obama is running now.


You're right.

Hey, I got this crazy and radical idea that just might work.

How about we cut spending AND raise taxes at the same time? Maybe we'll finally get somewhere with paying off that debt without having to privatize everything huh?

Because without bringing more revenue in, the cuts in spending will be nothing but a feel good gesture (which in all honesty is the only thing I think the GOP really cares about)
 
2012-10-04 08:53:33 PM  

Shaggy_C: smimmy: No, Obama is failing because Republicans are refusing to tax multi-millionaires at the same tax rate as the rest of us.

Obama signed a bill giving billions of dollars in tax cuts to multi-millionaires not two years ago. It was the great Obama-McConnell Debt Increase of 2010. Don't you remember that December? Lame duck Democrats in the congress passed Republican legislation before the tea party even showed up to take their seats? Good times, good times.


he had to in order to get the debt ceiling raised. it wasn't like the GOP willing to compromise.
 
2012-10-04 08:54:47 PM  
Are we sure this math is right? I didn't see where he carried the potato.
 
2012-10-04 08:54:58 PM  

Solid Muldoon: The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart. You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


I think the World Trade Organization, which we are a member of, would have a problem with this. Among other things. Protectionism on the part of the US will cause tariffs in US-sourced goods elsewhere too.
 
2012-10-04 08:55:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: You can take everything that rich people earn and still not cover the deficit that Obama is running now.

You're right.

Hey, I got this crazy and radical idea that just might work.

How about we cut spending AND raise taxes at the same time? Maybe we'll finally get somewhere with paying off that debt without having to privatize everything huh?

Because without bringing more revenue in, the cuts in spending will be nothing but a feel good gesture (which in all honesty is the only thing I think the GOP really cares about)


_______LOGIC DETECTED_______
_______INITIATE WHARGARRBL PROTOCOL________
 
2012-10-04 08:56:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: You can take everything that rich people earn and still not cover the deficit that Obama is running now.

You're right.

Hey, I got this crazy and radical idea that just might work.

How about we cut spending AND raise taxes at the same time? Maybe we'll finally get somewhere with paying off that debt without having to privatize everything huh?

Because without bringing more revenue in, the cuts in spending will be nothing but a feel good gesture (which in all honesty is the only thing I think the GOP really cares about)


The fiscal cliff cuts our spending.

Removing deductions raises revenue.

America wins!
 
2012-10-04 08:56:54 PM  

sugardave: sno man: Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?

Not sure, how many professional welfare recipients are there?


I don't know. How many farmers are receiving subsidies and how many corporations exist in the US?
 
2012-10-04 08:57:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Because without bringing more revenue in, the cuts in spending will be nothing but a feel good gesture (which in all honesty is the only thing I think the GOP really cares about)


What? You mean firing Big Bird and kicking Welfare Queens off the government teat isn't going to turn things around?

I think you misunderestimate the positive effects on morale that a good scapegoating can have.
 
2012-10-04 08:57:35 PM  

cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.


Your deductions. Bite the pillow, Mitt's coming in dry.
 
2012-10-04 08:58:26 PM  

cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.


I think this is where someone points out that there have never been enough deductions mentioned to resolve the deficit issue in any meaningful way.
 
kab
2012-10-04 08:58:31 PM  
To be fair, did he actually state that he aimed to completely eliminate the deficit in 4 years? I actually don't recall him saying that.
 
2012-10-04 08:58:43 PM  

US1: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

schooled? that empty suit was just empty; all romney did was lie; sadly since most white inbreds are stooopid (ie the honey boo boo crowd) mittens might win. since the thing is basically a american idol contest an empty suit could win.


Hey, racist, stop being so racist!

Also, Obama is proof that an empty suit can get elected. The question is have we learned enough not to make the same mistake again.
 
2012-10-04 08:59:54 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.

Your deductions. Bite the pillow, Mitt's coming in dry.


At least with Mitt we get a reach around.

Obama never even had the common courtesy to give us that!
 
2012-10-04 09:00:30 PM  

cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.


Except that you can't remove enough deductions to make Mitt's tax plan revenue neutral.
 
2012-10-04 09:00:54 PM  

cabbyman: The fiscal cliff cuts our spending.

Removing deductions raises revenue.

America wins!


And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!
 
2012-10-04 09:01:10 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Too bad he's still going to lose.


Like I said. Two more debates like this and he has a puncher's chance.

Otherwise, you're probably right...
 
2012-10-04 09:02:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.

Except that you can't remove enough deductions to make Mitt's tax plan revenue neutral.


That's where the "less spending" part comes in.
 
2012-10-04 09:02:39 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: sugardave: sno man: Are there even 12M Americans making $433k currently?

Not sure, how many professional welfare recipients are there?

I don't know. How many farmers are receiving subsidies and how many corporations exist in the US?


But do they own refrigerators, HD TVs, and drive Cadillacs? I don't think so.
 
2012-10-04 09:02:58 PM  

cabbyman: At least with Mitt we get a reach around.


No, he's not, but Those People are gonna get it worse - or so you've been led to believe - so its all good. Hook, line, and sucker.
 
2012-10-04 09:04:16 PM  

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.

Except that you can't remove enough deductions to make Mitt's tax plan revenue neutral.

That's where the "less spending" part comes in.


How much spending do you think we have to cut to make Romney's plan revenue neutral?

And don't forget, Romney wants to increase Medicare spending as well as Defense spending in the process.
 
2012-10-04 09:04:17 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: cabbyman: At least with Mitt we get a reach around.

No, he's not, but Those People are gonna get it worse - or so you've been led to believe - so its all good. Hook, line, and sucker.


So we should do the same thing and expect different results?

Gotcha!
 
2012-10-04 09:04:23 PM  
2012 PRESIDENTIAL BEAUTY CONTESTANTS:
img18.imageshack.us


I'm sorry folks, it's staged. I tried for years giving 'them' the benefit of the doubt but, Obama's just not that stupid, and Romney's not that lucky. They're Harvard chums after all, but don't you believe a word of it.

As one simple example among many; what exactly did Obama say to Medvedev over that hot-mike?
t3.gstatic.com
"After my election, I have more flexibility."
Not, "if I win" the election, no, "after my election."

Oh, but that could mean this, or that could mean that. Of course. But the strain of logic is pointing me in another, obvious direction. Obama will win reelection, and be more flexible, whatever the hell that means. And, at the highest levels, it's all been thoroughly planned, and scripted for maximum attention. Or perhaps I simply don't care to doubt any longer?

Could something wild and unexpected happen? Sure, I guess. But I hope not. We're in enough trouble as it is.

/enjoy the show
 
2012-10-04 09:05:02 PM  

cabbyman: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: cabbyman: At least with Mitt we get a reach around.

No, he's not, but Those People are gonna get it worse - or so you've been led to believe - so its all good. Hook, line, and sucker.

So we should do the same thing and expect different results?

Gotcha!


Excactly, which is why I'm not voting for a guy who embraces Bush-era economic policies on steroids.
 
US1
2012-10-04 09:06:54 PM  

cabbyman: US1: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

schooled? that empty suit was just empty; all romney did was lie; sadly since most white inbreds are stooopid (ie the honey boo boo crowd) mittens might win. since the thing is basically a american idol contest an empty suit could win.

Hey, racist, stop being so racist!

Also, Obama is proof that an empty suit can get elected. The question is have we learned enough not to make the same mistake again.


Just calling a spade a spade

3.bp.blogspot.com

www.obamaftw.com

thinkprogress.org
 
2012-10-04 09:09:17 PM  

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.

Except that you can't remove enough deductions to make Mitt's tax plan revenue neutral.

That's where the "less spending" part comes in.


Except ... where are these spending cuts? The Democrats proposed two significant areas to control spending; defense appropriations and medicare. The Republicans freaked out - at least about cutting subsidies to defense contractors; not so much to telling grandma to bid out her chemo treatments to Aetna and Blue Cross.

They were offered $4 in spending cuts for $1 in taxes. Nope. $5 for $1. Nope. Even $10 in spending cuts - solid, painful, clearly-identified and real cuts - for $1 in taxes to offset the Bush tax deficits - and they still turned it down, without exception.
 
2012-10-04 09:09:27 PM  
bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com



/don't start counting chickens yet, republicans
//30,000 crowd in Madison this evening.
 
2012-10-04 09:09:34 PM  

tinyarena: And, at the highest levels, it's all been thoroughly planned, and scripted for maximum attention.


At the highest levels?

Do you mean the lizard people? Or the Illuminati?

Because if you do I have to say you're a kook and I can't take you seriously.

Everyone knows it's the reverse vampires.
 
2012-10-04 09:12:14 PM  

cabbyman: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: cabbyman: Removing deductions raises revenue.

Your deductions. Bite the pillow, Mitt's coming in dry.

At least with Mitt we get a reach around.

Obama never even had the common courtesy to give us that!


He'll give you a reacharound so you'll pay him twice for the ass rape.
 
2012-10-04 09:13:24 PM  

US1: cabbyman: US1: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

schooled? that empty suit was just empty; all romney did was lie; sadly since most white inbreds are stooopid (ie the honey boo boo crowd) mittens might win. since the thing is basically a american idol contest an empty suit could win.

Hey, racist, stop being so racist!

Also, Obama is proof that an empty suit can get elected. The question is have we learned enough not to make the same mistake again.

Just calling a spade a spade

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x266]

[www.obamaftw.com image 494x371]

[thinkprogress.org image 485x450]


You shouldn't call anyone a spade.
 
2012-10-04 09:15:21 PM  

US1: cabbyman: US1: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

schooled? that empty suit was just empty; all romney did was lie; sadly since most white inbreds are stooopid (ie the honey boo boo crowd) mittens might win. since the thing is basically a american idol contest an empty suit could win.

Hey, racist, stop being so racist!

Also, Obama is proof that an empty suit can get elected. The question is have we learned enough not to make the same mistake again.

Just calling a spade a spade

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x266]

[www.obamaftw.com image 494x371]

[thinkprogress.org image 485x450]


Those people seem awfully proud of their racism and ignorance. Makes me glad I didn't get into medicine; I might have been forced to prolong the lives of shiatstains like that.
 
2012-10-04 09:15:41 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Are we sure this math is right? I didn't see where he carried the potatoe


FTFY
 
2012-10-04 09:17:50 PM  
An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-04 09:17:56 PM  
Reminder: Mitt Romney has one platform plank: he's going to do nothing but help himself and his buddies. That's why everything that he says is shiat. That's all he wants. He has to pretend he cares about other things.
 
US1
2012-10-04 09:19:25 PM  

born_yesterday: US1: cabbyman: US1: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

schooled? that empty suit was just empty; all romney did was lie; sadly since most white inbreds are stooopid (ie the honey boo boo crowd) mittens might win. since the thing is basically a american idol contest an empty suit could win.

Hey, racist, stop being so racist!

Also, Obama is proof that an empty suit can get elected. The question is have we learned enough not to make the same mistake again.

Just calling a spade a spade

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x266]

[www.obamaftw.com image 494x371]

[thinkprogress.org image 485x450]

Those people seem awfully proud of their racism and ignorance. Makes me glad I didn't get into medicine; I might have been forced to prolong the lives of shiatstains like that.


well if you take those people out of the gop, a republican couldnt even get on the city council
 
2012-10-04 09:19:36 PM  

shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.


Well, don't hold us in suspense. Drop some mathematical education on us fools.
 
2012-10-04 09:19:37 PM  

shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.


Will you use Romney Magic Math?
 
2012-10-04 09:19:52 PM  

violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*



Don't you ever let anyone say you aren't open minded
 
2012-10-04 09:22:46 PM  

Orange-Pippin: ddam: ...
Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


Granted, it was long after he left office but he still gets the wharrgarbl credits.
 
2012-10-04 09:22:46 PM  
It really is stunning how far the "post-truth presidential campaign" has reached. Romney "won" by just straight up lying, over and over. There is no doubt in my mind he knew he was lying. He didn't care. And by lying over an over, he put Obama on the defensive. Truly amazing to watch. Obama seemed reluctant to come right out and say "you are lying".

I realize politicians lie, they stretch the truth, etc. But Romney's ENTIRE DEBATE was about straight up lies.
 
2012-10-04 09:22:53 PM  

GhostFish: tinyarena: And, at the highest levels, it's all been thoroughly planned, and scripted for maximum attention.

At the highest levels?

Do you mean the lizard people? Or the Illuminati?

Because if you do I have to say you're a kook and I can't take you seriously.

Everyone knows it's the reverse vampires.


Works for me!
 
2012-10-04 09:23:10 PM  
Only a farkwit like Romney could win a debate in such a way as to ultimately make it to his detriment. Without his father's fortune this man would be the petty tyrant manager at your local fast food joint.
 
2012-10-04 09:24:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

What's the source for that chart?


LMAO.
 
2012-10-04 09:24:28 PM  

Hobodeluxe: he had to in order to get the debt ceiling raised. it wasn't like the GOP willing to compromise.


Epic fail. December 2010 was the tax cut. The debt deal was in Summer 2011. He wouldn't have needed to raise the debt ceiling that quickly had they had not cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars while simultaneously jacking up spending again. I didn't feel sorry for him when the bill came due - he brought it upon himself.
 
2012-10-04 09:24:41 PM  

shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.


okay, go... oh and show your work...
 
2012-10-04 09:27:14 PM  

aircraftkiller: shiat, I posted entirely in bold. I don't post here anywhere near enough to pull my head out of my ass in regards to the commenting system


Dude, we all do stupid things like that. You should see my epic html failure after five or six scotches. Probably my logic and manners as well.
 
2012-10-04 09:27:34 PM  

shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.


Sure ya can, sport. I bet you'll share your unskewed math with us won't you?

What was that? You're taking your ball and going home? Well, alright then. See you in November! :)
 
2012-10-04 09:28:42 PM  

shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.


Then do it. Here. Now.

Yeah the assumptions the article makes are iffy. But then again, it takes iffy assumptions to make Romney's math come out and even then it is still absurd. This was the point of the article.

Indeed, I would challenge anyone to come up with any way you can eliminate a deficit that is over $4000 a person and do it without raising taxes, cutting defense spending, without cutting entitlements, and not failing to pay interest on the debt.

Sadly eliminating the deficit will involve people having to contributing more or getting less then they would otherwise. Anyone Democrat or Republican who says otherwise is lying, does not know what they are talking about, or believe in magic.

I don't think that Obama has been frank enough on the problem. But Romney has been spreading outright delusions and magical thinking.
 
2012-10-04 09:32:57 PM  

Corvus: way south: Comparing Wall Street math with politician math?
I say we call it a wash, since there's no actual math going on here.

Well Romney's math is Politician-Wall Street math.


Its potato math and it comes from all sides.
As if a wall street guy is going to spend time crunching numbers with no slant of his own.

A real story would have been if they compared Obama and Romney's plans or past performance.
Rather, they bring in a meaningless third party to weigh in for one side.

I could have gone to someones blog for that kind of journalism.

/Oh wait, I think we just did...
 
2012-10-04 09:36:51 PM  

intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*


Don't you ever let anyone say you aren't open minded


Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.
 
2012-10-04 09:38:09 PM  
Vote for Duke RoboRomney and ye shall receive a Big Bird in every pot and an elevator for every car or he pledges to devour his magic undergarments.
 
2012-10-04 09:39:57 PM  

mediablitz: Romney's ENTIRE DEBATE was about straight up lies.


Too bad he wasn't debating someone who was willing to call him on those lies, eh? The debate was very much a microcosm of the entire United States political dialogue the last decade or so - loudmouthed, smarmy Red Stater who dominates the conversation by getting louder and louder until the reasonable Lib just sort of trails off and stops responding.
 
2012-10-04 09:43:31 PM  

violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.



So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting
 
2012-10-04 09:44:05 PM  

dickfreckle: aircraftkiller: shiat, I posted entirely in bold. I don't post here anywhere near enough to pull my head out of my ass in regards to the commenting system

Dude, we all do stupid things like that. You should see my epic html failure after five or six scotches. Probably my logic and manners as well.


Well, it's nice to know that I'm not a complete farkup then! ;-) Really, it's just odd getting used to posting in HTML. I'm spoiled by forums and their simplified tags
 
2012-10-04 09:44:31 PM  

Shaggy_C: mediablitz: Romney's ENTIRE DEBATE was about straight up lies.

Too bad he wasn't debating someone who was willing to call him on those lies, eh? The debate was very much a microcosm of the entire United States political dialogue the last decade or so - loudmouthed, smarmy Red Stater who dominates the conversation by getting louder and louder until the reasonable Lib just sort of trails off and stops responding.



0bama did call him on his lies, did you even watch?

Is this the best the trolls can do? They were gloating for HOURS after the debate ended, you'd think they would have been energized. Instead they see the world collapsing around them under the weight of Romney's lies, backtracking, and flip flopping embarrassments.
 
2012-10-04 09:44:39 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: And Barack Obama helped him out quite a bit by not challenging him on any of his bullshiat.


1.bp.blogspot.com

"What can men do in the face of such wreckless bullshiat?"
 
2012-10-04 09:46:05 PM  
Serious question here - why the fark does anyone give two rat turds about the deficit? Real bond yields are negative right now. The government is obligated to pay back something like 97 cents for each dollar it borrows. This situation won't last forever, but as long as it remains the case, we should be borrowing every penny we can without borking the credit market and make some overdue investments in our future.
 
2012-10-04 09:48:50 PM  

BMulligan: why the fark does anyone give two rat turds about the deficit?


Because they're told to. Right now it should be much further down the list of things Very Serious People talk about on the teevee.
 
2012-10-04 09:49:44 PM  

intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting


Go ahead and show me where I ever mentioned anything about the math. I'm not waiting, I have better things to do than argue with an idiot.
 
2012-10-04 09:49:53 PM  

Mad_Radhu: AdolfOliverPanties: And Barack Obama helped him out quite a bit by not challenging him on any of his bullshiat.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 373x248]

"What can men do in the face of such wreckless bullshiat?"


*snort*
 
2012-10-04 09:51:16 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 09:51:29 PM  

BorgiaGinz: And he wasn't even correct; although the earth's orbit is indeed elliptical, we have seasons because the earth wobbles on its axis like a spinning top, a phenomenon also known as axial tilt.


Between me not remembering exactly what he said, and typing in a hurry, I think you got the wrong impression. I also meant to say that the Southern hemisphere has warmer summers and colder winters.

In an elliptical orbit, the object being orbited is not at the center, but at one of the foci. In the degenerate case where the major and minor axis of the ellipse are equal (circle), the center is the only focal point, but this is not the case with earth. In fact, using measure theory one can prove it's impossible for a perfectly circular orbital path to occur in reality.

upload.wikimedia.org

So the illustration shows that the earth is 5 million kilometers closer to the sun in January than it is in July. This is when the earth crosses the major axis of it's elliptical orbit.

Axial tilt is independent from when a planet crosses the elliptical axes.
 
2012-10-04 09:52:13 PM  

Shaggy_C: Hobodeluxe: he had to in order to get the debt ceiling raised. it wasn't like the GOP willing to compromise.

Epic fail. December 2010 was the tax cut. The debt deal was in Summer 2011. He wouldn't have needed to raise the debt ceiling that quickly had they had not cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars while simultaneously jacking up spending again. I didn't feel sorry for him when the bill came due - he brought it upon himself.


oh yeah that was the one that they compromised and got the payroll tax cut and unemployment extensions.
 
2012-10-04 09:54:15 PM  

violentsalvation: intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting

Go ahead and show me where I ever mentioned anything about the math. I'm not waiting, I have better things to do than argue with an idiot.



So you have no idea the validity of the article you just cry biased. Typical weaseling out of tough questions .
 
2012-10-04 09:54:29 PM  

BMulligan: Serious question here - why the fark does anyone give two rat turds about the deficit? Real bond yields are negative right now. The government is obligated to pay back something like 97 cents for each dollar it borrows. This situation won't last forever, but as long as it remains the case, we should be borrowing every penny we can without borking the credit market and make some overdue investments in our future.


It doesn't matter. No matter how much of this country China and India purchases they can't take it back home. Remember when Japan was going to make us an economic backwater? They couldn't take Rockefeller back to Nippon. The Republican plan is to bankrupt the country. Why else would rational people spend and spend and spend and not back the spending up with taxes or anything? If anyone has a problem with that, we'll annihilate them.
 
2012-10-04 09:58:05 PM  
Okay Mitt fans, lets make it simple.

12 million new jobs. Give a guess to what the average wage of them will be. And make an estimate of how much tax revenue you think it will generate for the federal government. Include direct taxes and any indirect taxes such has corporate income taxes. It might be a drop in the bucket, but feel free to add on the fact that many of them will cease to be on welfare. Do likewise for a reasonable increase in the average wage for people with jobs.

Does it come close to eliminating the revenue shortfall of the federal government?


----------

You might also consider that the Bush tax cuts have never been repealed contrary to Obama's 2008 promise. Obama then added tax cuts of his own. Federal taxes have not yet increased under his watch. Any expiration of the Bush cuts is still in the future. That the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate a tax is still moot as it has yet to take effect. The temporary payroll tax cut is still in effect though it is likely to expire next year. Thus so far we had since 2001 tax cuts targeted at the well off. Under Obama we had cuts primarily targeted at the middle class and working poor.

So if tax cuts will automatically make things better, how come things are not yet booming. Heck Bush and the GOP promised his tax cuts would do the trick. Obama is guilty likewise. The GOP also promised disaster when Clinton raised taxes and that did not happen. Now clearly taxes can hurt, but the idea that merely getting rid of them will solve our problems is a fantasy.
 
2012-10-04 09:58:28 PM  

Solid Muldoon: Isitoveryet: Solid Muldoon: You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.

b-b-but stockholders!

They day America began to die was the first time anyone ever said the phrase, "We had an obligation to our shareholders."


Calvin Coolidge: The business of America is business.

/sigh
 
2012-10-04 10:06:26 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-04 10:07:25 PM  

Cuthbert Allgood: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com


Bascom Hill, I used to have English class up in Bascom Hall, the building in the back there
 
2012-10-04 10:07:40 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Okay Mitt fans, lets make it simple.

12 million new jobs. Give a guess to what the average wage of them will be. And make an estimate of how much tax revenue you think it will generate for the federal government. Include direct taxes and any indirect taxes such has corporate income taxes. It might be a drop in the bucket, but feel free to add on the fact that many of them will cease to be on welfare. Do likewise for a reasonable increase in the average wage for people with jobs.

Does it come close to eliminating the revenue shortfall of the federal government?


----------

You might also consider that the Bush tax cuts have never been repealed contrary to Obama's 2008 promise. Obama then added tax cuts of his own. Federal taxes have not yet increased under his watch. Any expiration of the Bush cuts is still in the future. That the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate a tax is still moot as it has yet to take effect. The temporary payroll tax cut is still in effect though it is likely to expire next year. Thus so far we had since 2001 tax cuts targeted at the well off. Under Obama we had cuts primarily targeted at the middle class and working poor.

So if tax cuts will automatically make things better, how come things are not yet booming. Heck Bush and the GOP promised his tax cuts would do the trick. Obama is guilty likewise. The GOP also promised disaster when Clinton raised taxes and that did not happen. Now clearly taxes can hurt, but the idea that merely getting rid of them will solve our problems is a fantasy.


Maximum part time hours, (to cut down on the whole benefits thing) minimum wage pay = $12k(ish)
 
2012-10-04 10:12:36 PM  
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.

The average new job would have to pay a mere $433,333 per year.

/ that's 12 million upper middle income jobs
// see, he's strengthening the middle class
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-04 10:20:13 PM  

born_yesterday: LordJiro: colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help

So you're either advocating 'redistributing the wealth' to get 12 million people out of poverty, or you're advocating letting ~12 million people flood homeless shelters, or die in the streets, or filling our already-overcrowded prisons...

What could possibly go wrong? They'll just roll over and die, right?

Why is it that every other known civilization managed to solve the problem of poverty and class stagnation but we can't?


Because the dirty little secret that people have increasingly figured out over the years is that we really aren't that far off from places like China. We pay lip service to liberty and justice, but in the end all we really want is to be the biggest badass on the block. So we pump the military and we pump corporations that keep financing our reelection campaigns, and if it means we don't have enough money for a few basics like ensuring a decent standard of living so that even our less fortunate have the capacity to function, well, they're just wilted leaves to be trimmed from our glorious American tree. Nevermind that with a philosophy like that, pretty soon you end up with nobody capable enough to create and run all that high-tech military hardware--and nobody wealthy enough to buy all the crap our corporations are peddling.

Meanwhile, the civilized world marches on--slowly, but steadily--as we burn out our massive potential in one great blaze of stupid.
 
2012-10-04 10:20:48 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

Zero. Many analysts have shown what a piece of shiat the tax policy center analysis was. It assumed zero GDP growth, discounted all changes to corporate deductions, ignored bond interest writeoffs which can account for half of their deficit. The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth. Will link in a few a 3 step example. The tax report was garbage. The fact they rescinded their original numbers from 86 to 41 billion aafter the aei analysis shows that.



/Do you honestly believe the economy will grow fast enough to make Romney's tax cuts, revenue neutral?


The rate of growth necessary to do that would bring massive inflation.
 
2012-10-04 10:25:59 PM  

unlikely: AdolfOliverPanties: And Barack Obama helped him out quite a bit by not challenging him on any of his bullshiat.



He definately was sleepwalking.
 
I have only seen Obama speak in person once, at a New Years Eve thingee in Iowa during the last campaign and he was inspiring but as people tend to be in campaign years he was indiscript as to what he would actually do.  We live in the age of platitudes.
 
I don't know, Jimmy Carter was my favorite President and the country was going through some seriously depressing shiate at the time. 
 
2012-10-04 10:27:34 PM  

BMulligan: Serious question here - why the fark does anyone give two rat turds about the deficit? Real bond yields are negative right now. The government is obligated to pay back something like 97 cents for each dollar it borrows. This situation won't last forever, but as long as it remains the case, we should be borrowing every penny we can without borking the credit market and make some overdue investments in our future.


Because deficits only matter with a Democrat in the whitehouse.
 
2012-10-04 10:29:31 PM  

Diagonal: Solid Muldoon: Isitoveryet: Solid Muldoon: You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.

b-b-but stockholders!

They day America began to die was the first time anyone ever said the phrase, "We had an obligation to our shareholders."

Calvin Coolidge: The business of America is business.

/sigh


It might surprise some people from what I wrote above, but I have no problem with having an obligation to the stockholders.

Corporate officials do have an obligation to the stockholders. Duh.

But that is why these things called "laws" and "regulations" were invented. And ignoring that things, they still need to keep customers and employees happy for a business to prosper and that might mean that long-term interest of the stockholders might means some of the short-term interest needs to be sacrificed.

It is also true that a person has an obligation to more than one interest.

A good CEO needs to provide the stockholder a profit, the customers a product at a reasonable cost, keep the employees happy, and obey the laws of the land. Yes these can come into conflict with each other. But that is the problem they get paid to solve.
 
2012-10-04 10:32:47 PM  

shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.


Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.
 
kab
2012-10-04 10:33:58 PM  

Solid Muldoon: They day America began to die was the first time anyone ever said the phrase, "We had an obligation to our shareholders."


And I thought I was the only person around who has arrived at this conclusion.
 
2012-10-04 10:36:53 PM  
Oh who am I kidding, you shiat the thread.

shootglasss:
imageshack.us
An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 10:38:09 PM  

Bucky Katt: You guys and your facts and stuff. Everyone in the MSM said Mitt won the debate and that's all that counts.


It was lehrer's fault. Yeah, obama got his ass kicked because the moderator let Romney talk all over him.

No, wait. Obama only lost because he was playing rope a dope. It was all a trap to get quotes for ads. Hehe, stupid Romney falling for obama's trap.

No, wait. actually Obama didn't lose. The lame stream media just said he lost but they have no idea what they're talking about.

/only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.
 
2012-10-04 10:39:50 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Bucky Katt: You guys and your facts and stuff. Everyone in the MSM said Mitt won the debate and that's all that counts.

It was lehrer's fault. Yeah, obama got his ass kicked because the moderator let Romney talk all over him.

No, wait. Obama only lost because he was playing rope a dope. It was all a trap to get quotes for ads. Hehe, stupid Romney falling for obama's trap.

No, wait. actually Obama didn't lose. The lame stream media just said he lost but they have no idea what they're talking about.

/only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.



You sound really tired
 
2012-10-04 10:40:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: /only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.


No, it's clear that Romney was the winner.

But he was all style and no substance. And definitely didn't offer anything new in terms of policy.
 
2012-10-04 10:40:34 PM  

Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.


That's funny...it's gone.
 
2012-10-04 10:41:56 PM  

BorgiaGinz: Don't Troll Me Bro!: aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x518]

I linked Snopes for clarification on who actually said it. I got this in response, a few replies after his friends were circle-jerking each other over the evils of "liberals":

"I hate it when people hide behind snopes/APfactcheck/etc. Does it make them feel better that they can provide a link to disprove/discredit something else? These are wise words regardless."

Translation: "I hate when people use facts to show that I'm wrong about what I believe in. Rather than educate myself and learn what my ideology stands for, I'd rather circle-jerk\echo chamber my friends on Facebook because nothing says intellectualism like reading and hearing what I already believed in."

I'm sure you guys knew this, though.

Reminds me of a facebook conversation that was going around a few years back. The Boobieser said something about how the earth would freeze if it were one foot further, and burn if it were one foot closer to the sun. Then followed it with something about how God is so amazing that he can do that. A couple people started circle-jerking about how awesome God is to plan the earth's orbit like that. Then some guy broke stroke and told them about how the earth's path is an elliptical orbit, and how many tens of thousands of miles difference the major and minor axis are from each other, and how that's why we have colder winters in the northern hemisphere and warmer summers in the southern. The original poster started cursing about how nobody asked his opinion and how he better not say that he's wrong again. It was complete with f-bombs and exclamation points, solidifying that this person was indeed a Christian.

And he wasn't even correct; although the earth's orbit is indeed elliptical, we have seasons because the earth wobbles on its axis like a spinning top, a phenomenon also known as axial tilt.


He was correct in the sense that our closer proximity to the sun in the winter of the Northern Hemisphere tempers the winter season, making it slightly warmer and makes the summer slightly cooler due to the Northern Hemisphere's greater distance.

The opposite is true for the same latitudes for the Southern Hemisphere, hotter summers and colder winters.
 
2012-10-04 10:43:29 PM  

Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.


Ever notice how the liberals start using profanity at conservatives?

First show me the budget that Romney is going to propose that has a $1,300,000,000,000 deficit. That's the starting point that this Obamabot website used. I have not seen Romney's budget where he overspends like Obama. Have you?
 
2012-10-04 10:44:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.


It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.
 
2012-10-04 10:46:04 PM  

shotglasss: Ever notice how the liberals start using profanity at conservatives?



CRY MOAR

shotglasss: First show me the budget that Romney is going to propose that has a $1,300,000,000,000 deficit. That's the starting point that this Obamabot website used. I have not seen Romney's budget where he overspends like Obama. Have you?



You said you can do the math a lot better, now you're just making sad excuses
 
2012-10-04 10:50:44 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: /only watched half hour of debate and it was pretty close IMO, but I'm amused watching the liberal butthurt excuse train chugging around today.


Yes, sure, 'impartial' poster amused but lieberal butthurt. That's a new one. 

/so vote Romney
 
2012-10-04 10:54:15 PM  

Solid Muldoon: I've yet to hear how a President can actually create jobs, from either candidate. Unless you are talking about the WPA, the Prez has very little to do with it. You can't do the WPA today because you can't send a bunch of guys into the desert to live in tents and sling shovels with no Union rules and no OSHA, even if they might be happy to have those jobs.

The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart.

You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


Many foreign cars are built here. My Scion was made in Maryland.

Incidentally, my previous car was a Ford, and was built in Mexico. So much for "buying American."
 
2012-10-04 10:54:51 PM  

cabbyman: Mrtraveler01: cabbyman: Obama got schooled!

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 799x444]

Romney won, but he was all style and no substance. Romney offered nothing new last night in terms of policy, he was just same ole, same ole.

Agreed?

Nothing new? He introduced America to the real MItt Romney, not the one that the left has been babbling about in the papers. He showed his leadership meddle which was a stark contrast to Obama's coy fumbling. America saw that there was an alternative to the status quo. Two more debates like this and Romney has a puncher's chance!


Meddle. Good word for Romney, especially considering he was an interrupting douchebag.
 
2012-10-04 10:56:39 PM  
Wow Mitt, I had no idea! You a pretty cool guy make rich people and not afraid

shotglasss: I have not seen Romney's budget.....Have you?

 
2012-10-04 10:57:32 PM  
ugh
 
2012-10-04 10:58:30 PM  

shotglasss: Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.

It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.


I and several others asked nicely, without profanity, and are still waiting to see some math, not some deflection... you brought it up, own it.
 
2012-10-04 11:07:01 PM  

shotglasss: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

Ever notice how the liberals start using profanity at conservatives?

First show me the budget that Romney is going to propose that has a $1,300,000,000,000 deficit. That's the starting point that this Obamabot website used. I have not seen Romney's budget where he overspends like Obama. Have you?


Can you address the question without making a false equivilency? No of course you can't, because you, like almost all Republicans have the critical thinking skills of a 1st grader.

Here's a tip. Romney himself said "NO NEW REVENUE." Well, when you lower taxes, increase military spending, and don't raise revenue via taxes, you AUTOMATICALLY are creating a deficit, by definition.

If you want to make the false assertion that the economy will grow and thus tax revenue will increase, you need to either prove it with numbers, or show how it worked in the past. The difficulty is that we did it in the past, from 2001-2009, and we can PROVE that it didn't work. So you really have no argument, and you know that, but you can't reconcile it with your party first mentality.

Grow the fark up.
 
2012-10-04 11:10:04 PM  

shotglasss: Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.

It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.


And just to pile on even more on you, because you really need to be thoroughly embarrased so you don't come back here again without thinking first, your ignorance on the subject of the deficit is not as good as other people's economic knowledge. There is no automatic equality in ideas. Some ideas, like lowering taxes while increasing spending, are stupid ideas, for stupid people. Especially since we just tried it in the last Presidency, and it failed miserably.

So just go slink away now and get some cream for the raping you just received.
 
2012-10-04 11:13:17 PM  
Nate Silver updated his forecast a few minutes ago and it's UP to 86.4% chance of Obama winning.
 
2012-10-04 11:21:37 PM  
Mitt Romney was so full of shiat last night he had mushrooms growing out of his ears.
 
2012-10-04 11:24:56 PM  
FTA: If you have a $1.3 trillion annual deficit...

Now, Howie here is assuming that Romney's budget is going to be 1.3 trllion dollars. The task for you liberal dummies is to show me where Romney's budget is going to be borrowing 1.3 trillion dollars from China, as Obammer has done every year.

There's also this problem that this is a static analysis, which does not take into account anything that will happen once Obammy is booted (economy will get better and deficits will go down by 80% or more), tax rates go down (economy will get better), (assuming the Dems lose the Senate, which it looks like they will) Senate passes a budget for the first time in four years (economy will get better). In fact, the one thing keeping the economy from getting better is....Obama. Not one single promise he made regarding the economy has been kept, yet you all are worried that Romney is lying? What a joke.

Howie, and the rest of you libs, are mad because of the way Romney spanked your savior, Jesus Hussein Obama. get over it. It's going to happen twice more before the election, and then Obama can start packing his stuff up.
 
2012-10-04 11:33:16 PM  

shotglasss: which does not take into account anything that will happen once Obammy is booted (economy will get better and deficits will go down by 80% or more)


I'm sure you have the citations to prove this will happen.
 
2012-10-04 11:33:53 PM  

12349876: Nate Silver updated his forecast a few minutes ago and it's UP to 86.4% chance of Obama winning.


It's because the Rams have killed Arizona's chances of an undefeated record.
 
2012-10-04 11:43:38 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I'm sure you have the citations to prove this will happen.


The U of Hannity or the O'Reilly Economic Council, it was one of those, though I thought the number was 180%.
 
2012-10-04 11:56:28 PM  

soy_bomb: www.investors.com

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


Notice how that first graph of 'total US jobs' only goes up to 2008, completely cutting off 2008 itself. If one showed 2008 -- up to 2009 when Obama actually became president (since Bush was still in office in 2008) -- and the fact that something like half that job growth had already vanished:

static8.businessinsider.com

Similarly, the graphic omits 2008 and 2009 for the deficit chart; 2008 had the 3rd largest Bush-still-in-office deficit at 3.19%, and 2009's deficit -- remember, 2009 was funded by budgets proposed in 2008 -- was over 10%GDP.

Also notice how none of the graphs compare Obama and Bush, merely showing really select bits from each.

Obama's deficits as %GDP?

2010 8.90
2011 8.61
2012 8.51
2013 5.52



/note: the author of this graph wrote '08' twice instead of '08' and '09'
 
2012-10-05 12:06:59 AM  

shotglasss: Gyrfalcon: Raharu: shotglasss: An Obamabot website...no thanks, I can do the math a lot better.

Well don't be a threadshiatting little shiat, you shiat.

Show us some farking math.

That's funny...it's gone.

It's back. And waiting for you to show me Romney's 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget.


I never promised to show you one. You, however, promised to show me that Romney was going to solve the deficit. I'd still like to see it. You said you could do the math better. Since I can't do math at all, I'd have to take your word for it. Show me some math...ANY math.
 
2012-10-05 12:14:06 AM  

Introitus: When you don't think, it's easy to say Mitt Rmoney won.


That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.
 
2012-10-05 12:18:46 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Notice how that first graph of 'total US jobs' only goes up to 2008, completely cutting off 2008 itself. If one showed 2008 -- up to 2009 when Obama actually became president (since Bush was still in office in 2008) -- and the fact that something like half that job growth had already vanished:


And the second graph is deficits as a percentage of GDP.
 
2012-10-05 12:19:55 AM  

cretinbob: That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.


He did win, but to do so he had to pivot hard to the center, repute everything he's said for the last 18 months, and lie his ass off. We'll see if last night was a Pyrrhic victory.
 
2012-10-05 12:21:16 AM  

Mentat: cretinbob: That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.

He did win, but to do so he had to pivot hard to the center, repute everything he's said for the last 18 months, and lie his ass off. We'll see if last night was a Pyrrhic victory.


It may be....he's already completely repudiated the 47% remark.
 
2012-10-05 12:21:51 AM  

cretinbob: That's why no one is saying he won today. The emotions are over, and the light has gone on.


Yeah, I likened Romney last night to that kid everyone knew in middle school that claimed he knew ninja fighting and demonstrated for everyone during recess. It looks impressive at first, then you realize he's just flailing around like a kid with cerebral palsy who'd dropped one too many tabs of acid, and accidentally kicked himself in the balls.
 
2012-10-05 12:22:57 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Romney's plans are the very definition of pie in the sky. There is no way they can work,even if he had 100% cooperations from Congress and was able to enact every plan he wants.


That's true of almost every government proposal and projection. But, guess what: nobody gets elected unless they make impossible promises, 'cuz nobody would vote for a realist.

Reality: the government is broke, and unless we cut local, state, and federal spending by at least 50%, we're going to bankrupt the country and bring on the greatest depression the world has ever seen. This will entail cutting the military and SS/Medicare by at least 50%. BTW, even if we do cut spending by 50%, we're going to bring on the greatest depression the world has ever seen, but it won't last as long or be as severe as it would if we continue all the spending. Do I have your vote?
 
kab
2012-10-05 12:51:23 AM  

shotglasss: Sorry guys, I actually can't do the math on my own. Brb, logging onto another alt.


Yep, we get it.
 
2012-10-05 01:01:09 AM  

Somacandra: impaler: 12 million new jobs paying $433,333 per year? Sign me up!

The catch is that all these jobs consist of taking it in the ass from China.


For $433,333 a year, I'd take it up the ass from Chyna.
 
2012-10-05 01:04:17 AM  

intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting


I vaguely recall he once said in a thread that he struggled to figure out algebra and still hates math.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Violentsalvation.
 
2012-10-05 01:09:02 AM  

aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x518]

I linked Snopes for clarification on who actually said it. I got this in response, a few replies after his friends were circle-jerking each other over the evils of "liberals":

"I hate it when people hide behind snopes/APfactcheck/etc. Does it make them feel better that they can provide a link to disprove/discredit something else? These are wise words regardless."

Translation: "I hate when people use facts to show that I'm wrong about what I believe in. Rather than educate myself and learn what my ideology stands for, I'd rather circle-jerk\echo chamber my friends on Facebook because nothing says intellectualism like reading and hearing what I already believed in."

I'm sure you guys knew this, though.


I've got a better one. Some total farking moron I know posted some shiat about "Barry Soetoro". This was apparently some birther bullshiat that this idiot firmly believes regardless of it having been debunked three years ago by snopes, and it was all based on a fake AP article released on April 1st, 2009...April Fool's day of all things.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

So of course in response he posts some article that in the first sentence says that snopes is ran by democrats. He never tries to refute that it had been debunked, just that the site was biased. But then it goes on to say in the next paragraph that several fact checking organizations have found snopes to be neutral and non partizan...wtf.
 
2012-10-05 01:09:30 AM  

FuryOfFirestorm: Somacandra: impaler: 12 million new jobs paying $433,333 per year? Sign me up!

The catch is that all these jobs consist of taking it in the ass from China.

For $433,333 a year, I'd take it up the ass from Chyna.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-05 01:15:16 AM  

Smackledorfer: intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting

I vaguely recall he once said in a thread that he struggled to figure out algebra and still hates math.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Violentsalvation.


I don't know if I've ever said that, or what relevance it has in this thread, I'm not arguing the math, I'm not really arguing anything. The link and the popup thing bothered me several hours ago. Now I'm home, wearing shorts, drinking beer, and using a browser that doesn't piss me off.

I had to retake some basic algebra when I went to a local community college, years ago, because it had been years since high school and it really is "use it or lose it".
 
2012-10-05 01:27:38 AM  

coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.


Exactly. How much more not than nothing do you want to pay!?
 
2012-10-05 01:58:06 AM  

BMulligan: Serious question here - why the fark does anyone give two rat turds about the deficit? Real bond yields are negative right now. The government is obligated to pay back something like 97 cents for each dollar it borrows. This situation won't last forever, but as long as it remains the case, we should be borrowing every penny we can without borking the credit market and make some overdue investments in our future.


No shiat. It's infuriating.
 
2012-10-05 01:58:27 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-05 01:59:05 AM  

grinnel: Did Romney say he was "going to reduce the deficit"? Or, did he say he was "going to reduce the deficit to zero"?

If the first is true, the statement under scrutiny may be true as well.


I know it's a short post in a sea of wall o' texts and funny line pictures, but it is what this thread is based upon...
 
2012-10-05 02:42:03 AM  

violentsalvation: Smackledorfer: intelligent comment below: violentsalvation: Yeah sorry, I try to get my political info, analysis, and news from websites that aren't openly shilling for one of the candidates and launching popups.


So go ahead and prove the math is wrong. We're waiting

I vaguely recall he once said in a thread that he struggled to figure out algebra and still hates math.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Violentsalvation.

I don't know if I've ever said that, or what relevance it has in this thread, I'm not arguing the math, I'm not really arguing anything. The link and the popup thing bothered me several hours ago. Now I'm home, wearing shorts, drinking beer, and using a browser that doesn't piss me off.

I had to retake some basic algebra when I went to a local community college, years ago, because it had been years since high school and it really is "use it or lose it".


I think the point is that if you can't handle basic algebra then how can you possibly run around the politics tab all the time with such strongly locked in beliefs about economics?

I don't intend this directed solely at you. This is a nationwide problem and the evidence is what our politicians (including Obama who stretches the numbers as well - though going by factcheck.org not anywhere near as much as Romney) are able to get away with. The nation just judged a discussion of our domestic econ policy based on attitudes, facial expressions, etc.

/cue farnsworth.
 
2012-10-05 02:54:51 AM  
So Romney really doesn't have much of a plan and is utterly full of shiat.

Oh, but Obama was DESTROYED in the debates last night.

Derp.
 
2012-10-05 03:02:15 AM  
No takers? Ok, that's fine; a simple google will not show quotes saying Romney will reduce the deficit to zero with these propositions. We will find words like 'trim', 'reduce', and 'cut'. The author of the article, upon which this thread is based, decided to add his own preposition to Romney's words in order to make an incredulous statement.

Truth is, y'all are all full of shiat. A little over four years ago, the elephants showed their dislike for Romney and the donkeys blindly supported a nobody that the media made the grand poobah. In my opinion, admittedly conservative, this is how I saw the last election:
You can be progressive, and open minded, and educated, and not be embarrassed by your decisions when talking to your neighbors at your bbq, and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee). Or, you can settle for mccain; some old white guy with funny jaw movemet, ho-hum. It was Tigger vs eeyore.

Deja vu. Nine months ago, Obama had one of the lowest approval ratings of all times. Now, here we are again. We have a candidate, the incumbent, that no one really likes and a puppet created from the media. A schism is created upon emotion and nothing else. With all of the "fact findings", it has been shown that each party's candidate's policies feeds off the other. But, we cannot overcome our extremists views that only fall in line with our partition boundaries.

This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another. Drop your political mascot. Nutritionist have shown that food with mascots is unhealthy, it is the same for our nation.
Don't vote out of hate or love or your neighbor. Take the power away from the media; a swinging pendulum keeps those lazy bastards in business. Vote with your own mind for the betterment of tomorrow regardless of stigma. The truth behind democracy is that if everybody was blindfolded, popular opinion is not
 
2012-10-05 03:03:18 AM  

Corvus: The derp squad will be in here in a sec to try to pretend this is wrong, but the thing that needs to be focused on is this:

Never mind that there's a problem lowering the top tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, which will cost $250 billion in revenues. Plugging that hole by taking away the $165 billion in deductions used by top earners simply doesn't work.

If taking away the deduction from the rich doesn't pay for this rate cut WHO WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE?

The middle class, that's who!!!


No, probably the poor. Conservatives hate the poor more than the middle class.
 
2012-10-05 03:05:32 AM  

grinnel: No takers? Ok, that's fine; a simple google will not show quotes saying Romney will reduce the deficit to zero with these propositions. We will find words like 'trim', 'reduce', and 'cut'. The author of the article, upon which this thread is based, decided to add his own preposition to Romney's words in order to make an incredulous statement.

Truth is, y'all are all full of shiat. A little over four years ago, the elephants showed their dislike for Romney and the donkeys blindly supported a nobody that the media made the grand poobah. In my opinion, admittedly conservative, this is how I saw the last election:
You can be progressive, and open minded, and educated, and not be embarrassed by your decisions when talking to your neighbors at your bbq, and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee). Or, you can settle for mccain; some old white guy with funny jaw movemet, ho-hum. It was Tigger vs eeyore.

Deja vu. Nine months ago, Obama had one of the lowest approval ratings of all times. Now, here we are again. We have a candidate, the incumbent, that no one really likes and a puppet created from the media. A schism is created upon emotion and nothing else. With all of the "fact findings", it has been shown that each party's candidate's policies feeds off the other. But, we cannot overcome our extremists views that only fall in line with our partition boundaries.

This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another. Drop your political mascot. Nutritionist have shown that food with mascots is unhealthy, it is the same for our nation.
Don't vote out of hate or love or your neighbor. Take the power away from the media; a swinging pendulum keeps those lazy bastards in business. Vote with your own mind for the betterment of tomorrow regardless of stigma. The truth behind democracy is that if everybody was blindfolded, popular opinion is not


Drugs are a helluva drug.
 
2012-10-05 03:08:54 AM  

Markoff_Cheney: yup, romney willingly lied his ass off to win the debate.
gished. 
i am so shocked right now, this has shattered my reality.


Yeah, but Obama let him get away with it. Romney may well have a chance to win the election if the next debate is like this.
 
2012-10-05 03:20:53 AM  

meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???


There was an economic resurgence in the Reagan years despite a recession in the middle. As well as the end of the horrible, seemingly never ending stagflation of the 1970s. Inflation dropped from double digits to 3%, unemployment fell from about 7% to 5%. From memory this all seemed to happen remarkably quickly as well.

But there was much criticism that the jobs created were low quality dead end jobs that didn't pay well. This is supported by data that showed the gap between rich and poor really took off during the Reagan years like never before. And of course there was a stunning blow out in the federal budget. But it matters not - the apparent resurgence made Reagan look good.

I think Romney is hoping to pull off a similar trick. He might be able to, but it's just a short term solution like putting saw dust in the gear box of a clapped out car you want to sell. It will still make him look good though, and too bad for his successor who will have to pay the price.
 
2012-10-05 03:32:07 AM  

gilgigamesh: ddam: Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.

Are you farking high?

Reagan left office in '88 having doubled the deficit he inherited from Carter.

This cult of Reagan crap is out of control.


Yes, and that is after he won the election by campaigning to balance the budget. Carter is a very good man, Reagan was a shameless liar. Reagan won. I get the feeling that Obama is also a very good man and Romney is a shameless liar. Deja Vu.

The Lord: Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth.

Someone in the Audience: Well let's face it, it won't be worth having once we've finished with it.

Life of Brian. I think.
 
2012-10-05 03:34:33 AM  

grinnel: This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another.


Actually, no, and you just might want to Google the significant list of accomplishments this administration and Congress of "no leaders" has achieved in the past 4 years next time. Your concern is showing. RON PAUL and all that.

the incumbent, that no one really like

Or not. Derpa derpa derpa doo.
 
2012-10-05 03:44:50 AM  

mrshowrules: coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.

I don't think corporations should pay any tax.

/Liberal


It depends on whether they are outsourcing jobs overseas or not.
 
2012-10-05 03:46:00 AM  

Nem Wan: Romney's performance was aimed squarely at the proud, low-information voter.


It needed to be aimed at undecided voters.
 
2012-10-05 03:47:22 AM  

whidbey: grinnel: This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another.

Actually, no, and you just might want to Google the significant list of accomplishments this administration and Congress of "no leaders" has achieved in the past 4 years next time. Your concern is showing. RON PAUL and all that.

the incumbent, that no one really like

Or not. Derpa derpa derpa doo.


I could also find a list of failed accomplishments as well. Did you google "lowest approval ratings"?

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently and promptly
 
2012-10-05 03:50:04 AM  

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


How do you do that? How do you create 12 million extra jobs - that's extra as in over and above what the economy produces due to population growth anyway. Bring them back from India and China? How?

Or do you propose the poor just be left to sink or swim as best they can? Some will survive and make it back into society, the others will die. And no more poor. That's great if you want to live like a wild animal.
 
2012-10-05 03:51:01 AM  
Displayed 347 of 347 comments

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in any of the 347 posts does anyone refute the math in the linked story? Because I didn't see it but I might have missed it.
 
2012-10-05 03:53:23 AM  

Mikey1969: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

Mitt still isn't going to fark you.


He's certainly going to give it a good try.
 
2012-10-05 03:57:19 AM  

NYCNative: Displayed 347 of 347 comments

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in any of the 347 posts does anyone refute the math in the linked story? Because I didn't see it but I might have missed it.


The math is incorrect because the author insinuates that Romney is going to reduce the deficit to zero through these means when Romney never stated that
 
2012-10-05 04:04:58 AM  

grinnel: I could also find a list of failed accomplishments as well


Not really. But feel free to ignore the lengthy list you clearly aren't willing to.

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently and promptly

You didn't make anything worth proving. The honorable thing to do is admit you're parroting nonsense talking points.
 
2012-10-05 04:18:58 AM  

grinnel:

The math is incorrect because the author insinuates that Romney is going to reduce the deficit to zero through these means when Romney never stated that


Are you asserting that the math the guy in the Blog is using will remove the entire debt? Because no, that's not what Romney said, but it's also not what the guy in the Blog asserted.

The budget is currently at $1.3 trillion annual deficit. Romney claims he can make it balanced. He never said he would get us out of debt, just that we would stop spending more than we take in, thereby not increasing our debt.

Say you owe $1000 om a credit card. You seem to think that the math in the article means paying off that $1000. But that's not what the math in the article claims. It says that if Romney is going to stop using the credit card, here is how he has to do it based on his own numbers.

Do you do see the difference?

The article is using the $1.3 trillion defcit; the national debt is over $16 trillion. Which number is the article trying to get to zero?
 
2012-10-05 04:19:35 AM  
I never denied any accomplishments accredited to BO. If you perceive me in "dissing" the almighty, it might be that you are supersensitive to any statement concerning the current president, seeing as how you brought in RP.

From my statement, you cannot discern who I support; it is merely a depiction of current and recent elections. I'm sure this pattern is true for the past 200 years, but I have only been alive for a sixth of that and cannot speak for the past.

The nonsense talking point remains that this entire thread is based on math based on an insinuation.

A chef promises to reduce cost by making stock. Cost will not be reduced to zero because you don't farking put bell farking peppers in farking stock, you fark
 
2012-10-05 04:23:43 AM  

grinnel: I never denied any accomplishments accredited to BO


Actually, that is what you're doing.

Hence the need to remind you that we do have leadership in Washington, maybe it isn't the kind you want, sorry about that.

The nonsense talking point remains that this entire thread is based on math based on an insinuation.

Pretty sure you were the one making insinuations about the "incumbent nobody likes" and that in terms of leadership, we have "none."

Again, you're welcome to study the list of accomplishments I have reprinted in my profile, and kindly STFU.
 
2012-10-05 04:23:56 AM  

ddam: Clutch2013: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*

I hate those floating things. I don't care if it was some hot chick asking me for a hot night on the beaches in Hawaii all expenses paid.

What's worse, that crap's coming up on damn near every website nowadays.

No, I don't want to fill out your frickin' survey. Just let me get my frickin' cheat code, please, or let me take a closer look at the product I was going to buy from your website until you floated that crap all over the image.

What's even worse is browsing fark at work on IE 7 and having it crash every few minutes due to some of the ads on this site. I don't have a choice in what browser I use :(


That's been happening to me on IE 8 at work this week.
 
2012-10-05 04:26:12 AM  

NYCNative: grinnel:

The math is incorrect because the author insinuates that Romney is going to reduce the deficit to zero through these means when Romney never stated that

Are you asserting that the math the guy in the Blog is using will remove the entire debt? Because no, that's not what Romney said, but it's also not what the guy in the Blog asserted.

The budget is currently at $1.3 trillion annual deficit. Romney claims he can make it balanced. He never said he would get us out of debt, just that we would stop spending more than we take in, thereby not increasing our debt.

Say you owe $1000 om a credit card. You seem to think that the math in the article means paying off that $1000. But that's not what the math in the article claims. It says that if Romney is going to stop using the credit card, here is how he has to do it based on his own numbers.

Do you do see the difference?

The article is using the $1.3 trillion defcit; the national debt is over $16 trillion. Which number is the article trying to get to zero?


I never used the word 'debt'. I have been using the same terminology (deficit) as the blogger (whose blog sucks). Romney's words that come up on google are trim, reduce, and cut.
 
2012-10-05 04:45:06 AM  
Romney asserted "What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit."

He also said "Look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher pay, paying more taxes. That's how we get growth and how we balance the budget."

How does he cut the deficit doing this? Show your numbers if you think you know better...
 
2012-10-05 04:53:30 AM  

grinnel: No takers? Ok, that's fine; a simple google will not show quotes saying Romney will reduce the deficit to zero with these propositions. We will find words like 'trim', 'reduce', and 'cut'. The author of the article, upon which this thread is based, decided to add his own preposition to Romney's words in order to make an incredulous statement.

Truth is, y'all are all full of shiat. A little over four years ago, the elephants showed their dislike for Romney and the donkeys blindly supported a nobody that the media made the grand poobah. In my opinion, admittedly conservative, this is how I saw the last election:
You can be progressive, and open minded, and educated, and not be embarrassed by your decisions when talking to your neighbors at your bbq, and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee). Or, you can settle for mccain; some old white guy with funny jaw movemet, ho-hum. It was Tigger vs eeyore.

Deja vu. Nine months ago, Obama had one of the lowest approval ratings of all times. Now, here we are again. We have a candidate, the incumbent, that no one really likes and a puppet created from the media. A schism is created upon emotion and nothing else. With all of the "fact findings", it has been shown that each party's candidate's policies feeds off the other. But, we cannot overcome our extremists views that only fall in line with our partition boundaries.

This country is being led not by our leaders, because we truly have none, but by only our disagreements being volleyed upon one another. Drop your political mascot. Nutritionist have shown that food with mascots is unhealthy, it is the same for our nation.
Don't vote out of hate or love or your neighbor. Take the power away from the media; a swinging pendulum keeps those lazy bastards in business. Vote with your own mind for the betterment of tomorrow regardless o ...



That's a hell of a lot of words that basically says nothing

We get it, both sides are bad so vote RON PAUL/GARY JOHNSON
 
2012-10-05 04:54:11 AM  

grinnel: I could also find a list of failed accomplishments as well. Did you google "lowest approval ratings"?



What does one have to do with the other?
 
2012-10-05 04:55:31 AM  

grinnel: I never used the word 'debt'. I have been using the same terminology (deficit) as the blogger (whose blog sucks). Romney's words that come up on google are trim, reduce, and cut.



You sound concerned

And tired
 
2012-10-05 04:58:54 AM  

grinnel: and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee)



And I don't think anyone gives a shiat if you knew who he was. Why is this important? What does this add? You keep making all these digs at 0bama and try and paint Romney in such a good light. We get it, he's black, from a corrupt city, and everyone only voted for him because he wasn't a weird looking old white guy. He also accomplished nothing and the proof is his low approval rating.

Which by the way isn't "record low" because "record low" was set by your hero George W Bush
 
2012-10-05 05:02:24 AM  
Mitt doesn't even imagine for one second that this stuff is true.. he is just going with 'made up bad words other guy, made up good words me' over and over. I mean what does 'I don't want to get rid of jobs, I like jobs, I'm going to create jobs' even farking mean in the context of a platform?

Lets hope he gets the hammering he deserves for this eventually.
 
2012-10-05 05:07:04 AM  

Shaggy_C: mediablitz: Romney's ENTIRE DEBATE was about straight up lies.

Too bad he wasn't debating someone who was willing to call him on those lies, eh? The debate was very much a microcosm of the entire United States political dialogue the last decade or so - loudmouthed, smarmy Red Stater who dominates the conversation by getting louder and louder until the reasonable Lib just sort of trails off and stops responding.


I half agree with you. Obama did call him on a couple of the lies. Romney's response was "I will continue lying, and you don't get to say I am lying" (basically). Several of the lies though, Obama said nothing. It was really frustrating. I get the whole "Obama has to avoid coming off as the angry black man" thing from the 2008 debates but jesus, MAN up.

It is my firm belief that had Romney been debating Bill Clinton, we would be talking about how bad Clinton wiped the floor with Romney...
 
2012-10-05 07:15:20 AM  

kab: shotglasss: Sorry guys, I actually can't do the math on my own. Brb, logging onto another alt.

Yep, we get it.


LOL, my other alt only posts liberal stuff, and you liberals slobber all over me when I do.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:57 AM  
$433k per job...assuming that the multiplier effect magically disappears and you can somehow add 12 million jobs without GDP growth. And that nothing other than the 12 million jobs will be used to completely balance the budget 100%.
 
2012-10-05 08:20:16 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Notice how that first graph of 'total US jobs' only goes up to 2008, completely cutting off 2008 itself. If one showed 2008 -- up to 2009 when Obama actually became president (since Bush was still in office in 2008)...


Have you clowns really fallen to this level? It's called the housing bubble, mouth breather. Look it up. Those homes didn't sprout from magic bush seeds.
 
2012-10-05 08:24:25 AM  

InmanRoshi: Mitt offered more magical unicorn farts in one hour of the debate than Obama did in all of 2008 combined.


Right now this is speculation.

However look at Obamas stimulas. Each new job cost $278,000. Thats a fact jack.
 
2012-10-05 08:40:12 AM  
Mitt promises 12 million new jobs, eliminate the deficit, & lower taxes.

You mean just like Obama did? Romney cant possibly fail at keeping that promise any worse than Obama did.
 
2012-10-05 08:54:36 AM  

tortilla burger: The problem isn't that Romney lied in the debates; it's the voters that are too dumb to know when they're being lied to


Then they are also too dumb to get the references to Dodd Frank, of which he made at least half a dozen mentions in his regulations segment. Then realized he was falling flat and just changed that to regulations good, but not bad ones, those are bad, especially when the president keeps adding more bad ones like he is always doing, even right know. This regulating president has decided that regulations are the solution to all of our ills, I want to unleash the free market but keep them responsibly regulated cause we can't have people lending money out of their garages so regulations are good but also not good vote for me.
 
2012-10-05 08:58:33 AM  

pdee: Romney cant possibly fail at keeping that promise any worse than Obama did.


Good point. The Democrats have a better history of putting country above party and would probably work with Romney, unlike the last 4 years of c*ckbl*cking Republicans. They had higher priorities.
 
2012-10-05 10:53:23 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.


I don't support Romney, but I'll run some numbers...

Let's look at *just* food stamps. 50 million people are on food stamps, presumably not working or working low enough paying jobs that they are essentially not paying federal income tax.

If we assume through what I like to call "magic" that we can get half of these people some training and then they will get a good paying job, let's say $50k/yr. A fair assumption of what their federal income tax rate would be is about 12%. So.. 25 million people * $50k * .12. That's new tax revenue of 150 Billion using the simplest of calculations.

According to this site: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226 the cost of SNAP for a family of 4 is $668/mo or $167 per person per month. So.. 25 million people x $167 per month * 12 months = $50.1 Billion

Cost per capita for Medicaid (2008 numbers) is about $15k. If we also assume that each of those people was previously on Medicaid and with their new job they will get insurance (thanks Obamacare) then 15k * 25 million = $375 Billion.

So that's already $575 Billion dollars in savings if *magic* occurs and these people get good jobs. After you account for the velocity of money it's actually going to create additional tax revenues due to the new income circulating in the economy.. I have no idea what that additional money looks like, an economist would have to say. But that's just getting half the people on food stamps a good job.

I'm not saying *magic* is likely to occur, but if it *did* occur and we made some additional cost saving measures like winding down some expensive wars and ritualistic sacrifice of Big Bird it's entirely possible we get that number up to $1 Trillion
 
2012-10-05 10:55:42 AM  

Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.


But even putting aside the question of how it could be done, simplifying the tax code would put thousands of accountants out of work. Mitt Romney's coming for your jobs!
 
2012-10-05 01:48:08 PM  

intelligent comment below: grinnel: and support a nobody senator from corrupt chi-town; a guy no media ever questioned after important senatorial decisions (hell, I never even heard his name before he was a nominee)


And I don't think anyone gives a shiat if you knew who he was. Why is this important? What does this add? You keep making all these digs at 0bama and try and paint Romney in such a good light. We get it, he's black, from a corrupt city, and everyone only voted for him because he wasn't a weird looking old white guy. He also accomplished nothing and the proof is his low approval rating.

Which by the way isn't "record low" because "record low" was set by your hero George W Bush


I love how you keep assuming you know my opinions and intentions. I haven't said anything good about Romney; in fact I stated that the republicans didn't want him then, why should they want him now. The only reason Obama's name keeps resurfacing is because you won't drop it. My point is either one of the two men that will win the election are not really liked by any of their constituents, but everybody vehemently defends them because of a self-inflicted label. Not saying there will ever be a "perfect candidate", but the line in the sand will ensure we don't come close
 
2012-10-05 04:07:09 PM  
Mitt Romney will slash government income (from taxes);
Mitt Romeny will vastly increase government expenditure to create 12,000,000 jobs that the private sector can't be arsed to create now despite record profits and massive piles of cash in hand despite low, low taxes (often sub-zero) and interest rates (sub-zero);
Mitt Romney will then magically balance the budget by adding a string of giant red minuses until they turn into black pluses.

Also, it will rain doughnuts and your sisters-in-law have a funeral today.

I assume that the world's top magicians will be hired as cabinet ministers for $1 a year.

It's not Reaganomics. It's not voodoo. It' Mittgick.

And when monkeys fly out of my arse smoking Fidel Castro's private stock of Cohiba cigars, I will believe in fairies and clap my hands to applaude the Republicans for all this.
 
2012-10-05 04:42:52 PM  
Did anybody notice and read the New Scientist article which cites scientific forecasts to show that Obama, baring some major upheaval, has already won for months now?

You see, there's a difference between predictions and forecasts. Predictions, for example, like those based on polling, are based on extrapolation. The polls tell you what the voters would do if the election were today. But it isn't. A forecast is slightly different: some things reliably indicate the way things are and the way they are going. They don't correlate with future events--they cause future events. They are predictions about the past (like weather reports) or preditions about the future (based on assumptions that the future will be more of the same, which it won't), they are active agents in creating the future.

Economic forecasts, for example, are more reliable predictors of the election than polls. The polls tell you about the state of the fickle mind of the masses today. The economic forecast tells you about where the enormous mass of the economy is headed, and gives you a good idea of momentum that won't be changing much over the next month or two, or even years.

In short, the forecasts say that Obama is almost certain to win, while the polls say that it is anybody's race and very tight.

Thing is, the majority of the forecasts (economic, silly or political) have been in Obama's camp for ages, while the media continues to play its little media game (which is to say, to continue to pretend that the outcome is exciting and unexpected and unknowable) when in reality the outcome is dull, strongly probable and easy to determine far enough in advance that the media would lose even more viewers to third rate reality shows if the public weren't deluded and proded by the media.

They can come out and say it, but the electoral process is dull and predictable most of the time, and only very rarely dramatic. In the real world, people can't shift the momentum of the system very much or very fast, so the election may be won or lost before it even starts.

Prior to the election of Brian Mulroney's Conservatives to a majority government (15 minutes after the first Bellweather poll closed in Newfoundland and a long, long night before the polls closed in BC), media computers had predicted a strong majority. This is despite lack-lustre evidence of who would win from polls, tallies of voting intentions, and even exit polls.

If you can't predict the outcome of an election from the exist polls, after the fact, how can you forecast them before the votes are counted. Ah, that is the rub. Forecasts and predictions are totally different kinds of knowledge. One is based on something, the other is based on nothing.

Forecasting can be based on some pretty silly indicators. Hem lines, lipstick sales, the First Lady's cookie recipe, and all manner of things correlate well with outcomes whether they are causes or not. Predictions on the other hand, are almost always based on the mistaken belief that reason is better than unreason and numbers are better than the laws of physics.

My expectation that the local economy is doing OK and will continue to do so is based on the observation that the dresses and handbags in a chic shop in the Mall are nicer looking now than they were last year. When women feel flush with money they're willing to pay high prices for skimpy dresses that haven't changed much if at all since the 1920s, and they will splurge also on leather accessories that look like a million bucks and probably don't cost much less.

These women are leading indicators of the economy, since people with too much money and only a modicum of sense are a leading indicator of where people with too little money and no sense are going to be in the future--whether it is flush or broke.

On the other hand, you can't make hide nor hair out of the business pages. Up, down, all around, they'll always have a dozen explanations of why the markets didn't do what they were supposed to do.

The ladies know how much they can spend and what they should be spending it on, the experts never do. There's just enough experts lucking out to make it look like some of them know what they're talking about some of the time.

If you really want to know where the election is likely to go on election day, I suggest looking at the forecasters, not the predictors. And also look at the forecasts of the electoral college, not the forecasts of voting intentions. That's the real game. The Electoral College was invented to prevent people like you from ever electing the President. It is rigged towards conservatism and thus Republicans, but it produces a regular alternation of Ins and Outs because the Democrats ALWAYS have numbers on their side. Numbers of people who don't necessarily vote like they say they will, if they vote at all.

Obama is leading in the cupcake poll, the Halloween Poll, the cookie poll, the lipstick poll, the hamburger and many others that have as much or more to do with causation as correlation, although nobody is quite sure if this is coincidence or fact, and not understanding how it works despite working for a generation or two at a time, at least.

The common element of most of these, as the article points out, is the Wisdom of Crowds--they are so random nobody can consult public opinion or even their friends, and they are so indirect that even cheaters can't really cheat because they don't know the rules of the game well enough to figure out what exactly constitutes cheating. Should they be wearing an Obama maske or a Romney mask or Ron Paul or Godzilla? Does Michelle Obama count? What about sexy Tinker Bell constumes and Furries? Nobody knows what the truth and what the lie is, so they have to vote alone, in a little booth in the costume store, just like they vote in a little booth in a school or church basement a little bit later. By the time they vote with their masks, they have already voted in their hearts, but won't tell anybody the results until after they see who wins.

Randomness is a higher form of order. It trumps reason and it trumps strategy and tactics.

This is why it doesn't much matter who you put up against stock brokers in picking stocks: they are going to win about half the time or better, and that's good enough to justify your stupid article. Chimpanzees do it, psychics do it, small children, and even octopi do it. Let's predict the future!
 
2012-10-05 04:52:15 PM  

wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.


Let's put that in perspective...
 
2012-10-05 05:12:08 PM  

brianbankerus: wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.

Let's put that in perspective...


I've always found the best way to put that in perspective for people is to tell them to get a calculator (or calc.exe or a calc app on their phone) and multiply their yearly salary by 0.00012. Then, when it comes back with an amount that wouldn't even buy them a value meal at McDonalds, they hopefully get the idea that cutting funding for PBS is an utterly pointless political gesture.
 
2012-10-05 05:40:46 PM  

Teufelaffe: brianbankerus: wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.

Let's put that in perspective...

I've always found the best way to put that in perspective for people is to tell them to get a calculator (or calc.exe or a calc app on their phone) and multiply their yearly salary by 0.00012. Then, when it comes back with an amount that wouldn't even buy them a value meal at McDonalds, they hopefully get the idea that cutting funding for PBS is an utterly pointless political gesture.


I could buy a Happy Meal... but just barely.

You know we each paid $7 for the Curiosity Rover... totally worth it.

Not quite as thrilled with my share of the Iraq war; $1022.,. as of 2008. (so higher than that.) That would buy a lot of Happy Meals.
 
2012-10-06 11:58:25 AM  

brianbankerus: Teufelaffe: brianbankerus: wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.

Let's put that in perspective...

I've always found the best way to put that in perspective for people is to tell them to get a calculator (or calc.exe or a calc app on their phone) and multiply their yearly salary by 0.00012. Then, when it comes back with an amount that wouldn't even buy them a value meal at McDonalds, they hopefully get the idea that cutting funding for PBS is an utterly pointless political gesture.

I could buy a Happy Meal... but just barely.

You know we each paid $7 for the Curiosity Rover... totally worth it.

Not quite as thrilled with my share of the Iraq war; $1022.,. as of 2008. (so higher than that.) That would buy a lot of Happy Meals.


wippit: TheMysteriousStranger: Lets have more fun.

Cut funding to PBS, and you save 0.012% on the budget.


It would be like a family spending $50,000 per year (and making somewhat less than that) that is in debt over their heads deciding that they can get out of debt by having one child not go to one matinee movie ($6 ticket) that s/he would normally see at one point during the year.
 
Displayed 387 of 387 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report