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.

(Investors Business Daily)   Now they tell us: The media finally admit that Obama's tax claims were bogus   (news.investors.com) divider line 66
    More: Fail, President Obama  
•       •       •

1969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jan 2013 at 8:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 08:13:23 AM
Congress authorizes spending.
 
2013-01-24 08:15:51 AM
So, FTA

"Of course, we can avoid these "inevitable" tax hikes altogether if Washington would just exercise some spending restraint."

Cool, sounds like a plan. Lets cut $200B a year from the defense budget. That sounds like a good start.
Thats, what... 2 trillion in 10 years?

Also, was it me, or was that whole freaking article speculative and didn't actually cite anything that was going to happen?
 
2013-01-24 08:17:42 AM
Ah, IBD.

Soft, strong, and thoroughly absorbent.
 
2013-01-24 08:19:19 AM

killro: Also, was it me, or was that whole freaking article speculative and didn't actually cite anything that was going to happen?


Yeah it's an opinion piece.
 
2013-01-24 08:19:25 AM
Here's a tip subtard: quoting columnists who claim that broader tax cuts are needed does not equal the media "admitting" that Obama's tax claims (whatever they are) are bogus.
 
2013-01-24 08:20:21 AM
Is it Friday already? Feels like Freeper Friday.
 
2013-01-24 08:20:23 AM
I always wonder why most states in the US don't have a value added tax. But then, I also wonder how Japan is only increasing it's VAT to 10% with the debt they have. Meanwhile, ours are around 20%
 
2013-01-24 08:25:10 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Yeah it's an opinion piece.


It didn't rise to that level of effort. It was an opinion piece about other opinion pieces. 'Numbers' require effort.
 
2013-01-24 08:27:21 AM

killro: So, FTA

"Of course, we can avoid these "inevitable" tax hikes altogether if Washington would just exercise some spending restraint."

Cool, sounds like a plan. Lets cut $200B a year from the defense budget. That sounds like a good start.
Thats, what... 2 trillion in 10 years?

Also, was it me, or was that whole freaking article speculative and didn't actually cite anything that was going to happen?


To answer your question: Pure speculation. Also I've been looking for a place to drop this little gem to show just how crazy we've been with our lack of spending restraint:

research.stlouisfed.org

Source (caution, getting hooked on making graphs with actual real numbers can lead to wasted time. Also: image is hot)
 
2013-01-24 08:27:29 AM
Investors Butthurt Daily
 
2013-01-24 08:33:59 AM
What's so unattainably impossible about just spending less? No, instead let's raise taxes, let's raise debt ceiling, let's do everything except cut back one single dollar that we spend. Spending less is the one option we can never, never, never take. Anything but that.

/sick of it
 
2013-01-24 08:40:00 AM
Oh, so now you believe what the lamestream media has to say?
 
2013-01-24 08:40:43 AM

GilRuiz1: What's so unattainably impossible about just spending less? No, instead let's raise taxes, let's raise debt ceiling, let's do everything except cut back one single dollar that we spend. Spending less is the one option we can never, never, never take. Anything but that.

/sick of it


So what do you want to spend less on?
 
2013-01-24 08:43:55 AM
Dear author:

What you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the internet is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

www.lobshots.com
 
2013-01-24 08:44:49 AM

GilRuiz1: What's so unattainably impossible about just spending less? No, instead let's raise taxes, let's raise debt ceiling, let's do everything except cut back one single dollar that we spend. Spending less is the one option we can never, never, never take. Anything but that.

/sick of it


There are not many people that say we cannot cut any spending, the argument is what to cut spending on.One side wants to cut spending on new tanks and aircraft and the other apparently would rather cut spending on education and food stamps.
So is it better to have a strong military or a population of intelligent, healthy citizens?

I think history has already answered that question.

/And yes, I know I responded to a troll...
 
2013-01-24 08:47:01 AM

thenewmissus: Is it Friday already? Feels like Freeper Friday.


Dude for real.
 
2013-01-24 08:54:01 AM

Arkanaut: So what do you want to spend less on?


Slives: There are not many people that say we cannot cut any spending, the argument is what to cut spending on.One side wants to cut spending on new tanks and aircraft and the other apparently would rather cut spending on education and food stamps.
So is it better to have a strong military or a population of intelligent, healthy citizens?

I think history has already answered that question.



And this is part of the problem. The moment someone mentions spending less, we immediately hear that needy children will be thrown out on the streets and schools will be closed, or that the military will close its doors, or that Medicare will be cancelled, or that some other panic-button catastrophe will inevitably occur. But it's a false dichotomy; the options aren't to either go further into debt or to cut off our nose to spite our face. Why can't we spend less sensibly?

NBC news has been running its "Fleecing of America" for decades, highlighting pork and waste; why not start there?


Slives: /And yes, I know I responded to a troll...


Really?
 
2013-01-24 08:54:38 AM

mxstone: I've been looking for a place to drop this little gem to show just how crazy we've been with our lack of spending restraint:


Graph would be better if it were adjusted for inflation.
 
2013-01-24 09:01:44 AM

GilRuiz1: What's so unattainably impossible about just spending less? No, instead let's raise taxes, let's raise debt ceiling, let's do everything except cut back one single dollar that we spend. Spending less is the one option we can never, never, never take. Anything but that.

/sick of it

Just

spending less won't do it. Revenues have to be increased, as well. The debate, for quite some time, was whether or not the wealthy would fairly contribute to revenue increases or if the middle class would bear the full brunt of it. There was never any serious discussion about exempting middle class incomes from tax hikes, but rather how much of an increase they'd face.
The two most popular positions were a)tax wealthy and middle class so everyone pays their fair share and b)exclude the wealthy from tax increases so they can invest that saved money in creating new jobs and increase taxes on the middle class higher to make up for what the wealthy wouldn't be contributing.
I'm a middle class guy, as are most of my friends and family and we all understood we'd be facing a tax hike, and accepted that's what needed to happen to address the nation's budget issues, so it doesn't exactly shock me when I hear my taxes are going up. We also expect spending cuts to happen, and to programs we'd rather not see cut, but we're also prepared to accept that and for the same reasons we accept the tax hike.
 
2013-01-24 09:03:28 AM

GilRuiz1: And this is part of the problem. The moment someone mentions spending less, we immediately hear that needy children will be thrown out on the streets and schools will be closed, or that the military will close its doors, or that Medicare will be cancelled, or that some other panic-button catastrophe will inevitably occur. But it's a false dichotomy; the options aren't to either go further into debt or to cut off our nose to spite our face. Why can't we spend less sensibly?

NBC news has been running its "Fleecing of America" for decades, highlighting pork and waste; why not start there?


Answer the original question: what would you cut? "Waste and pork" won't be enough.
 
2013-01-24 09:08:55 AM

qorkfiend: Answer the original question: what would you cut? "Waste and pork" won't be enough.



More.

More from things Lefties love, and also from things Righties love so that no one can accuse me of unfair partisanship.

The issue is not "hey, only cut that guy's stuff, but not mine;" cut back on everybody's until we're not in deficit anymore.
 
2013-01-24 09:10:17 AM

GilRuiz1: qorkfiend: Answer the original question: what would you cut? "Waste and pork" won't be enough.


More.

More from things Lefties love, and also from things Righties love so that no one can accuse me of unfair partisanship.

The issue is not "hey, only cut that guy's stuff, but not mine;" cut back on everybody's until we're not in deficit anymore.


We've all heard the vague "cut spending" nonsense for years. Be specific.
 
2013-01-24 09:10:29 AM

qorkfiend: Ah, IBD.

Soft, strong, and thoroughly absorbent.


Absorbent?

I don't know.  It seems a little leaky to me.  It's dribbling all over the place.
 
2013-01-24 09:12:56 AM
Remember all those mainstream news reports before the election about how President Obama's expansive spending plans would require massive tax hikes on everyone, not just millionaires and billionaires? Neither do we.

Remember how every objective analysis showed his opponent's plan was even worse by lowering revenues and increasing spending?

New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter, for example, wrote this week that the $620 billion in tax hikes on the rich that Obama secured as part of the fiscal-cliff deal are "hardly enough to stabilize the nation's debt in the next 10 years, let alone deal with the long-term budget deficit."

Remember how ANYONE said the resolution to the immediate fiscal cliff crisis a few weeks ago was a final bargain to solve ALL the problems? Neither do we.
 
2013-01-24 09:13:41 AM

qorkfiend: We've all heard the vague "cut spending" nonsense for years. Be specific.



You're trying to draw me into a red-herring discussion to avoid the original point, but I won't play.

Spend less. Period.
 
2013-01-24 09:18:11 AM

GilRuiz1: qorkfiend: We've all heard the vague "cut spending" nonsense for years. Be specific.


You're trying to draw me into a red-herring discussion to avoid the original point, but I won't play.

Spend less. Period.


Your point has no meaning without specifics.
 
2013-01-24 09:18:23 AM
Spend more.
 
2013-01-24 09:21:15 AM

Dr. Whoof: mxstone: I've been looking for a place to drop this little gem to show just how crazy we've been with our lack of spending restraint:

Graph would be better if it were adjusted for inflation.


The FRED site doesn't offer that option, but here's expenditures seasonally adjusted and then chained to 2005 dollars which seems to accommodating your concern (more apples to apples and less Macintosh apples to Braeburns):

research.stlouisfed.org
No matter how you dice it, we've been spending less as a country under Obama. You can try to make the argument that we haven't cut spending enough, but to make the argument that spending is out of control is simple false.
 
2013-01-24 09:21:48 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Your point has no meaning without specifics.


Spend less on things that I don't use. Spending less on things that I do use would be terrible!
 
2013-01-24 09:23:03 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Spend more.


Now you're thinking like a Republican.  All you need now are tax cuts to pay for that increased spending.
 
2013-01-24 09:24:08 AM
You mean, YOUR media outlet tells us. In which case the [Obvious] tag would appl....no, still [FAIL]. Never mind. Carry on.
 
2013-01-24 09:27:16 AM
The important point here is that deficits are bad. Why? Just because they are. It's obvious. Borrowing money and having to pay it back with 2% interest is a horrible way to run a business, and our government is basically a business. It's better to cut spending and not increase taxes because raising taxes kills jobs but spending cuts increase confidence. Proof? I don't need proof, I have rhetoric on my side. Don't look at Europe, they're doing austerity all wrong, it works, I'm telling ya.
 
2013-01-24 09:33:45 AM
Billions could be saved without really reducing services to anyone,  if some waste was eliminated.

Google for "redundant government programs."

From one Wall Street Journal story:

"The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development..."

Also, " 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances."
 
2013-01-24 09:36:16 AM
There are 56 separate government programs dedicated to helping people understand finances. That's some real non-Alanis irony, right there.
 
2013-01-24 09:39:59 AM
GilRuiz1:
NBC news has been running its "Fleecing of America" for decades, highlighting pork and waste; why not start there?

A lot of problem with waste is how it is being defined. I have seen examples of 'there are 83 government programs on homelessness'. Sure, but it amounts to 1 program per city. So do you cut the program for an entire city? Or just combine programs?
How much does combining programs save? Maybe a little overhead in that you can have a few less managers, but the basic programs will still be there and costing the same.

There is some waste that can be trimmed, but the numbers are pretty minor overall.

Pork however is a bigger problem, but considering most of it seems focused at keeping special interest groups happy and thus supporting the politicians, I doubt anything is every really going to improve there.
 
2013-01-24 09:44:55 AM
Previously from this "news" website:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." [IBD, Atlanta J-C, Ezra Klein]
 
2013-01-24 09:50:18 AM

GilRuiz1: What's so unattainably impossible about just spending less? No, instead let's raise taxes, let's raise debt ceiling, let's do everything except cut back one single dollar that we spend. Spending less is the one option we can never, never, never take. Anything but that.

/sick of it


While Medicare and SS are large programs, the thing that sets us apart from the rest of the First World is our military. Unless we stop being the world's policeman, we will continue to spend ourselves silly. It's not just a cut to the Military, it's a fundamental shift in WHY we need the military. I really, honestly, truly don't care if some 3rd worlders kill each other. There will always be exceptions like Afghanistan, but for the most part, US military involvement for the last few decades has been largely intervention in other countries affairs. And oil. Never forget the oil.
 
2013-01-24 09:54:42 AM

the_rev: Billions could be saved without really reducing services to anyone,  if some waste was eliminated.

Google for "redundant government programs."

From one Wall Street Journal story:

"The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development..."

Also, " 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances."


Those will never get combined because each and every one of those programs brings pork to some congresscritter's district.
 
2013-01-24 10:04:47 AM
Investors.com is not "the media." It's a blog. And a really shiatty one at that.
 
2013-01-24 10:12:39 AM

killro: So, FTA

"Of course, we can avoid these "inevitable" tax hikes altogether if Washington would just exercise some spending restraint."

Cool, sounds like a plan. Lets cut $200B a year from the defense budget. That sounds like a good start.
Thats, what... 2 trillion in 10 years?

Also, was it me, or was that whole freaking article speculative and didn't actually cite anything that was going to happen?


I noticed that "inevitable" was in quotes.  Who are they quoting?  That would be nice to know.  It is complete bullshiat of course because this is not a real news site.
 
2013-01-24 10:13:37 AM

Dog Welder: Investors.com is not "the media." It's a blog. And a really shiatty one at that.


This.  Also they are dumb as fark.
 
2013-01-24 10:14:12 AM
Dumb as f*ck, not Fark because Fark is pretty clever.
 
2013-01-24 10:15:29 AM

killro: l, sounds like a plan. Lets cut $200B a year from the defense budg...


RAH! WHY DO YOU WANT TO WEAKEN AMERICA!?

Our enemies will be at the door! We need more powerful weapons to build to stop the rise of Josef bin Hitler and his terrorist Nazi-Communists!

/Conservative response to your proposal
 
2013-01-24 10:16:45 AM
I, like the vast majority of Americans, have been asking for higher taxes for the past two years as long as the damn rich get theirs increased and actually pay their fair share instead of being moochers with zero tax payments, tax shelters, corporate welfare and more.
 
2013-01-24 10:20:26 AM
Here is one of the absolute truths about human beings:

When things are going well, everyone assumes that things will continue to get well, instead, they will only get better and better and better. This brainless overconfidence leads inevitably to disaster and collapse, and then when things are going poorly, everyone assumes that things will continue to go poorly, and in fact will only get worse and worse and worse.

Yes, if the current economic conditions continue unchanged, we'll dig a hole we can't get out of. And if the economy rebounds, everyone will scream with joy about "morning in America," the right will say "at last we can eliminate capital gains tax entirely" and the left will say "at last we can expand Medicare".

Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
2013-01-24 10:21:29 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: GilRuiz1: What's so unattainably impossible about just spending less? No, instead let's raise taxes, let's raise debt ceiling, let's do everything except cut back one single dollar that we spend. Spending less is the one option we can never, never, never take. Anything but that.

/sick of it

While Medicare and SS are large programs, the thing that sets us apart from the rest of the First World is our military. Unless we stop being the world's policeman, we will continue to spend ourselves silly. It's not just a cut to the Military, it's a fundamental shift in WHY we need the military. I really, honestly, truly don't care if some 3rd worlders kill each other. There will always be exceptions like Afghanistan, but for the most part, US military involvement for the last few decades has been largely intervention in other countries affairs. And oil. Never forget the oil.


Agreed. This country hasn't seen a demobilization of the military of any real size since the end of WWII. Not to mention, do we really NEED all the freaking boondoggles that the MIC tries to push in the name of 'jobs and defense', when most of them never actually cost what they promise and usually end up excessively over budget and stripped down from what they said the item in question could do (be it a jet, bomb/missile, or ship).
 
2013-01-24 10:22:27 AM
Obama: If we can raise taxes on those making over $250K, we can fix our deficit problems.
Repubs: We will shut down the government.
Obama: In order to avoid the fiscal cliff, we'll limit it to those making more than $450K.
Repubs: OK.
News: Leaving the $250-$450K earners out of the tax increase does not fully address deficit problems.
Repubs:Obama's tax claims were bogus!
 
2013-01-24 10:43:15 AM

killro: Cool, sounds like a plan. Lets cut $200B a year from the defense budget. That sounds like a good start.
Thats, what... 2 trillion in 10 years?


Sounds like you missed the memo. Paying for redundant jet engines, bombing brown people in the middle east and maintaining enough nukes to blow the entire planet up is more important than paying for medical care and retirement for people who worked their entire lives but are now too old to work. Duh.
 
2013-01-24 10:47:08 AM

lennavan: killro: Cool, sounds like a plan. Lets cut $200B a year from the defense budget. That sounds like a good start.
Thats, what... 2 trillion in 10 years?

Sounds like you missed the memo. Paying for redundant jet engines, bombing brown people in the middle east and maintaining enough nukes to blow the entire planet up is more important than paying for medical care and retirement for people who worked their entire lives but are now too old to work. Duh.


Paying to defend a thing is more important than the thing.

Just like at your home.  If members of the family are dying of pneumonia the last thing you want to do is cut back on the security system to pay for antibiotics.
 
2013-01-24 11:23:43 AM

mrshowrules: lennavan: killro: Cool, sounds like a plan. Lets cut $200B a year from the defense budget. That sounds like a good start.
Thats, what... 2 trillion in 10 years?

Sounds like you missed the memo. Paying for redundant jet engines, bombing brown people in the middle east and maintaining enough nukes to blow the entire planet up is more important than paying for medical care and retirement for people who worked their entire lives but are now too old to work. Duh.

Paying to defend a thing is more important than the thing.

Just like at your home.  If members of the family are dying of pneumonia the last thing you want to do is cut back on the security system to pay for antibiotics.


If you have half the antibiotics produced every year, way more than anyone else, you can cut back a little.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report