Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Obama's Campaign Platform

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:34:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(Directly from the Desk of the President... no, really)

I said in 2009 that it was unacceptable for us to be spending $250 billion every year on interest on our debt, and I stand by that. I am proud to announce that, through extreme fiscal measures, we are on track to be spending over $600 billion every year on interest by the year 2022. If re-elected, and those pesky conservatives stop fighting over the debt ceiling, I am confident that we can push that figure to well over $1 trillion by 2022.

I said early in my term, that we could keep unemployment under 8% by approving the stimulus spending. We got the spending, but ran into a slight snag. However, due to millions and millions of Americans who are no longer looking for work, and millions and millions of Americans who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, we are near our goal of under 8% unemployment. If reelected, I am confident we can bump another 5 million Americans off of the unemployment payroll, and see a real change in the U3 unemployment figure.

I have repeatedly said that trickle-down economics simply don't work. My opponent wants to cut taxes for corporations, and he thinks that this will create jobs. Clearly, everyone knows by now that this strategy doesn't work. That is why I, along with the Democrats in Congress, am/are pushing for a radical new bill, which will give a 10%, 1-year tax credit to businesses for new hiring expenses. Reducing taxes this way will very clearly create nearly a million jobs, because lower taxes help corporations, if those bills are proposed by liberals.

I bravely took GM through a managed bankruptcy. We cut CEO salaries, closed down plants, laid off employees, consolidated operations, and gave GM approximately $55 billion in taxpayer dollars that it never has to pay back. The result is that GM is stronger than ever. Praise me. Remember, my opponent was foolish enough, and hates Americans enough, that he suggested in 2009 that GM actually go through the unbelievable process of cutting salaries, closing plants, laying off employees, and consolidating operations. Why would you want to trust a man that would have applied his experience at Bain to GM? It's much better for me to do to GM what my opponent has done his entire business career: help failing businesses turn things around.

My opponent is out of touch. He is rich, and has a lot of money. He is also greedy, because he doesn't pay more taxes than he needs to. I don't pay more taxes than I need to either, but he doesn't pay more taxes than he needs to than I don't. He's rich, and that's bad. I'm rich because I wrote(well, I paid someone to write) books about Hope and Change. Writing books is a better thing for America than saving failing companies. And my opponent is greedy, he only donates 15% of his income to charity. I donated 20% last year, just don't look at all the other years where I only donated 5%, or 1%, or less. It only matters how much someone donates to charity when they are President, and my opponent will buy-out charities with taxpayer dollars if elected, put the money in offshore accounts, and drive around neighborhoods setting fire to the houses of recently unemployed Americans. Well, maybe, I heard from an anonymous source that my opponent has those plans.

Let's press forward, because our nation is doing so well. I can lead us to prosperity, so don't trust the maybe-felon, maybe-murderer, job-slashing heartless rich person that is running against me.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 7:15:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would you actually like the fallacies pointed out in this? Or is it just political spin that you wish to keep shouting out?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 10:20:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 7:15:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Would you actually like the fallacies pointed out in this? Or is it just political spin that you wish to keep shouting out?

Lol, everything in there is based on actual events or statements. That's the message that anybody paying attention should be getting.

But, I've noticed that you will challenge my statements, demanding sources, and when I provide them, you never reply to it.

So go ahead, where did I go wrong? And don't point out any hyperbole, it was meant to be humorous.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:20:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:34:45 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
(Directly from the Desk of the President... no, really)

Where you went wrong was not the hyperbole, but the sophomoric generalizations (which you should know are logical fallacies).


I said in 2009 that it was unacceptable for us to be spending $250 billion every year on interest on our debt, and I stand by that. I am proud to announce that, through extreme fiscal measures, we are on track to be spending over $600 billion every year on interest by the year 2022. If re-elected, and those pesky conservatives stop fighting over the debt ceiling, I am confident that we can push that figure to well over $1 trillion by 2022.

Obama wants to cut the deficit [1], "That is why the President's Budget includes $517 billion in mandatory savings over the next 10 years and a plan for tax reform to raise more than $1.5 trillion." You can blame congress for the rest. And since the budget is brought up in the HoR, not the Senate, and who is in charge of the HoR (this is not rhetorical)?

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov...


I said early in my term, that we could keep unemployment under 8% by approving the stimulus spending. We got the spending, but ran into a slight snag. However, due to millions and millions of Americans who are no longer looking for work, and millions and millions of Americans who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, we are near our goal of under 8% unemployment. If reelected, I am confident we can bump another 5 million Americans off of the unemployment payroll, and see a real change in the U3 unemployment figure.

5.5 million private sector jobs created since the bottom of Bush's collapse [2] (wait, let me do some hyperbole, 1 billion jobs have been created!!!). Unemployment has been dropping, with a recent uptick. This "uptick" is expected as people re-enter the work force [3, may be long, but it is an educational read]

We can also see that ALL measures of unemployment are showing improvements [4].

[2] http://data.bls.gov...
[3] http://www.oecd.org...
[4] http://www.bls.gov...


I have repeatedly said that trickle-down economics simply don't work. My opponent wants to cut taxes for corporations, and he thinks that this will create jobs. Clearly, everyone knows by now that this strategy doesn't work. That is why I, along with the Democrats in Congress, am/are pushing for a radical new bill, which will give a 10%, 1-year tax credit to businesses for new hiring expenses. Reducing taxes this way will very clearly create nearly a million jobs, because lower taxes help corporations, if those bills are proposed by liberals.

Tax cuts for hiring =/= Tax rate cuts. Do you really need an explanation of this?


I bravely took GM through a managed bankruptcy. We cut CEO salaries, closed down plants, laid off employees, consolidated operations, and gave GM approximately $55 billion in taxpayer dollars that it never has to pay back. The result is that GM is stronger than ever. Praise me. Remember, my opponent was foolish enough, and hates Americans enough, that he suggested in 2009 that GM actually go through the unbelievable process of cutting salaries, closing plants, laying off employees, and consolidating operations. Why would you want to trust a man that would have applied his experience at Bain to GM? It's much better for me to do to GM what my opponent has done his entire business career: help failing businesses turn things around.

I've already stated in another thread that the Bankruptcy that GM went through is not the same that it would have gone through without government involvement. What Romney said was not "let them go through bankruptcy and come out stronger." He said "let them fail" (which he has a lot of experience taking failing companies and getting a lot of money from their closure, rather than their survival).

GM went through a 1 month bankruptcy and is now making a profit again. Of course GM doesn't have to pay back the rest of the assistance, it is in purchased stock that we own (it's called an "asset"), we can sell it to anyone at any time, if we so choose. But while they are making profit, there is no need to sell (it is fiscally stupid to buy into a company when it is struggling then sell as it gets its feet back under it).

GM cut 30,000 jobs in their bankruptcy (only a few months before, they were planning on cutting 50,000, so we can say that federal involvement saved at least 20,000 right off the bat).

http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://www.politifact.com...
http://www.barackobama.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


My opponent is out of touch. He is rich, and has a lot of money. He is also greedy, because he doesn't pay more taxes than he needs to. I don't pay more taxes than I need to either, but he doesn't pay more taxes than he needs to than I don't. He's rich, and that's bad. I'm rich because I wrote(well, I paid someone to write) books about Hope and Change. Writing books is a better thing for America than saving failing companies. And my opponent is greedy, he only donates 15% of his income to charity. I donated 20% last year, just don't look at all the other years where I only donated 5%, or 1%, or less. It only matters how much someone donates to charity when they are President, and my opponent will buy-out charities with taxpayer dollars if elected, put the money in offshore accounts, and drive around neighborhoods setting fire to the houses of recently unemployed Americans. Well, maybe, I heard from an anonymous source that my opponent has those plans.

It is possible to be rich and still in touch, or out of touch because of your wealth.


Let's press forward, because our nation is doing so well. I can lead us to prosperity, so don't trust the maybe-felon, maybe-murderer, job-slashing heartless rich person that is running against me.

Agreed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:33:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 11:20:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:45 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
(Directly from the Desk of the President... no, really)

Where you went wrong was not the hyperbole, but the sophomoric generalizations (which you should know are logical fallacies).

Obama wants to cut the deficit [1], "That is why the President's Budget includes $517 billion in mandatory savings over the next 10 years and a plan for tax reform to raise more than $1.5 trillion." You can blame congress for the rest. And since the budget is brought up in the HoR, not the Senate, and who is in charge of the HoR (this is not rhetorical)?

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Yeah, he wants to cut the deficit. He can say that all he wants, but actions speak louder than words.

Obama's budget that he requested for 2010: Would have resulted in an additional 4.6 trillion dollars of deficit, over the current baseline, from 2010-2019. Yeah, he wanted to decrease the deficit by adding 4.6 trillion to it.

http://www.cbo.gov...

In 2011, he asked for an extra 3.7 trillion in deficits on top of the new baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov...

In 2012, he asked for an extra 2.7 trillion in deficits on top of the new baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov...

In the end, he is now asking for 3.7 trillion in deficits on top of what the baseline was back in 2009, through the year 2019.

If it weren't for the crappy conservatives, and liberals, shooting down his budgets, and that pesky debt ceiling, Obama would have gotten his way. Luckily, he didn't.

5.5 million private sector jobs created since the bottom of Bush's collapse [2] (wait, let me do some hyperbole, 1 billion jobs have been created!!!). Unemployment has been dropping, with a recent uptick. This "uptick" is expected as people re-enter the work force [3, may be long, but it is an educational read]

Yeah, and you know how many jobs are needed just to keep up with the population growth over that time period? About 5.5 million.

Unemployment has been going down, even though the same percentage of the workforce has been employed. If you go look at U6, you'll see how bad our situation actually is. When someone stops getting unemployment benefits, they are no longer counted as unemployed, even if they don't have a job.

The uptick was expected because we were near the rounding line, and we hadn't been keeping up with population growth recently.

We can also see that ALL measures of unemployment are showing improvements [4].

Oh yeah, Obama is doing so great, we only have 15 percent of the population unemployed. Whoop-dee-doo.

[2] http://data.bls.gov...
[3] http://www.oecd.org...
[4] http://www.bls.gov...

Tax cuts for hiring =/= Tax rate cuts. Do you really need an explanation of this?

If 10% will create a million jobs, why would 20% be a bad thing?

Obama actually thinks that the only thing standing between the market and a million new jobs, is reducing the cost of those jobs to the employers by 10% for 1 year.

It's the same thing. If the market has the demand for a million jobs, those jobs will be filled as long as the companies have the money to do so. Tax cut or tax credit, either way you are assuming the demand is there for those jobs in the first place, and either way the money will be there for it.

You must think that businesses don't want to expand when it is expedient...

I've already stated in another thread that the Bankruptcy that GM went through is not the same that it would have gone through without government involvement. What Romney said was not "let them go through bankruptcy and come out stronger." He said "let them fail" (which he has a lot of experience taking failing companies and getting a lot of money from their closure, rather than their survival).

GM went through a 1 month bankruptcy and is now making a profit again. Of course GM doesn't have to pay back the rest of the assistance, it is in purchased stock that we own (it's called an "asset"), we can sell it to anyone at any time, if we so choose. But while they are making profit, there is no need to sell (it is fiscally stupid to buy into a company when it is struggling then sell as it gets its feet back under it).

We can sell the stock and make back some of it. Not much. 45 billion is in tax breaks that GM is getting. They aren't paying taxes, they are getting refunds.

Romney didn't say 'let them fail'. I want you to show me where he said that. He said they should go through a managed bankruptcy and restructure. Go ahead, show me where he said that, and don't point to the article title that wasn't written by Romney.

GM cut 30,000 jobs in their bankruptcy (only a few months before, they were planning on cutting 50,000, so we can say that federal involvement saved at least 20,000 right off the bat).

Too bad we kept just giving them money with no attachments, instead of restructuring earlier. Tack on another couple dozen billion in lost money.

http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://www.politifact.com...
http://www.barackobama.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

You need to learn to look beyond the news. Even the title for Romney's op ed got screwed up. Romney called for GM to go through exactly what it did, but he probably would have taken more from union wages than some other areas where people got screwed. And he would have done it sooner, instead of continuing to lose billions and billions of dollars into the industry by waiting.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:25:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:33:54 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/9/2012 11:20:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:34:45 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
(Directly from the Desk of the President... no, really)

Where you went wrong was not the hyperbole, but the sophomoric generalizations (which you should know are logical fallacies).

Obama wants to cut the deficit [1], "That is why the President's Budget includes $517 billion in mandatory savings over the next 10 years and a plan for tax reform to raise more than $1.5 trillion." You can blame congress for the rest. And since the budget is brought up in the HoR, not the Senate, and who is in charge of the HoR (this is not rhetorical)?

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Yeah, he wants to cut the deficit. He can say that all he wants, but actions speak louder than words.

Obama's budget that he requested for 2010: Would have resulted in an additional 4.6 trillion dollars of deficit, over the current baseline, from 2010-2019. Yeah, he wanted to decrease the deficit by adding 4.6 trillion to it.

http://www.cbo.gov...

In 2011, he asked for an extra 3.7 trillion in deficits on top of the new baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov...

In 2012, he asked for an extra 2.7 trillion in deficits on top of the new baseline.

http://www.cbo.gov...

In the end, he is now asking for 3.7 trillion in deficits on top of what the baseline was back in 2009, through the year 2019.

If it weren't for the crappy conservatives, and liberals, shooting down his budgets, and that pesky debt ceiling, Obama would have gotten his way. Luckily, he didn't.

Yeah, had he gotten his way, the National debt (according to your source) would be about $12.5 trillion at the end of this year. Thank god the republicans stopped all that spending. By the way, what is the current debt? And how much has it grown since Jan 2011?

Let me help.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:34:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:25:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yeah, had he gotten his way, the National debt (according to your source) would be about $12.5 trillion at the end of this year. Thank god the republicans stopped all that spending. By the way, what is the current debt? And how much has it grown since Jan 2011?

According to which source? I think you are seriously misreading something.

Every budget he asked for, asked for MORE spending on top of the current rate on which we were spending. EVERY YEAR he has asked for more debt than he is currently getting.

Let me help.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov...

You really aren't getting it...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:00:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 8:34:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:25:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yeah, had he gotten his way, the National debt (according to your source) would be about $12.5 trillion at the end of this year. Thank god the republicans stopped all that spending. By the way, what is the current debt? And how much has it grown since Jan 2011?

According to which source? I think you are seriously misreading something.

Your latest source. It says what the debt would be under his plan in year X. You can't cherry pick the numbers and say "these numbers in the report are what is real, and those other numbers are all wrong," since they are based on the same measurements.


Every budget he asked for, asked for MORE spending on top of the current rate on which we were spending. EVERY YEAR he has asked for more debt than he is currently getting.

Not exactly true. You'll notice that spending is noticeably similar and the largest difference between the Baseline and the president, is from lost revenue. If you read the CBO report, you'll see that most of that revenue is from not allowing temporary tax cuts expire. That means that the CBO is making calculations based on the tax rates going up, not based on maintaining the current rate.

We also know, from Obama's past behaviors, that he compromises from the get go (cutting out things that he knows he'll need to compromise on), as seen with the single-payer option that was never even put on the table because he knew congress wouldn't go for it.

Unless you believe that Obama genuinely wants to keep taxes low (which is the opposite of what all conservatives have been saying for years), then we must assume that many of these are compromises with congress.


Let me help.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov...

You really aren't getting it...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 9:25:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:00:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:34:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:25:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yeah, had he gotten his way, the National debt (according to your source) would be about $12.5 trillion at the end of this year. Thank god the republicans stopped all that spending. By the way, what is the current debt? And how much has it grown since Jan 2011?

According to which source? I think you are seriously misreading something.

Your latest source. It says what the debt would be under his plan in year X. You can't cherry pick the numbers and say "these numbers in the report are what is real, and those other numbers are all wrong," since they are based on the same measurements.

It would be much easier to just post the link and point to the figure you are talking about. You know, Page X, XX,XXX,XXX.

Are you talking about this source?

http://www.cbo.gov...

I still don't know where you are getting your "about 12.5 trillion" figure. Do you mean the 12.66 trillion in public debt for 2013, Table 1-2, page 4?

If so, what is the supposed issue with that? 12.5 trillion in publicly-held debt at the end of this year would be bad. We're only at 11.13 trillion right now.

Every budget he asked for, asked for MORE spending on top of the current rate on which we were spending. EVERY YEAR he has asked for more debt than he is currently getting.

Not exactly true. You'll notice that spending is noticeably similar and the largest difference between the Baseline and the president, is from lost revenue. If you read the CBO report, you'll see that most of that revenue is from not allowing temporary tax cuts expire. That means that the CBO is making calculations based on the tax rates going up, not based on maintaining the current rate.

And, we are talking about deficits. You know what a deficit is?

Obama spoke about how bad the deficit is, but he always proposed budgets that would increase it. His first budget, he asked for $2.7 trillion dollars in increased spending, with $1 trillion decreased revenue.

We also know, from Obama's past behaviors, that he compromises from the get go (cutting out things that he knows he'll need to compromise on), as seen with the single-payer option that was never even put on the table because he knew congress wouldn't go for it.

Ok, let's argue that we give you that, for the heck of it. It's not like his budgets got passed anyway.

Even if you argue the revenues side of it like that, Obama's first budget still asked for a $2.5 trillion increase in spending. That isn't the way to keep your promise about cutting deficits. You can't cut something by increasing it.

Unless you believe that Obama genuinely wants to keep taxes low (which is the opposite of what all conservatives have been saying for years), then we must assume that many of these are compromises with congress.

I don't even have to disagree with you on that for Obama to still be a hypocrite. But he is pushing for lower corporate tax rates.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 1:13:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 9:25:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:00:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:34:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:25:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yeah, had he gotten his way, the National debt (according to your source) would be about $12.5 trillion at the end of this year. Thank god the republicans stopped all that spending. By the way, what is the current debt? And how much has it grown since Jan 2011?

According to which source? I think you are seriously misreading something.

Your latest source. It says what the debt would be under his plan in year X. You can't cherry pick the numbers and say "these numbers in the report are what is real, and those other numbers are all wrong," since they are based on the same measurements.

It would be much easier to just post the link and point to the figure you are talking about. You know, Page X, XX,XXX,XXX.

Are you talking about this source?

http://www.cbo.gov...

I still don't know where you are getting your "about 12.5 trillion" figure. Do you mean the 12.66 trillion in public debt for 2013, Table 1-2, page 4?

If so, what is the supposed issue with that? 12.5 trillion in publicly-held debt at the end of this year would be bad. We're only at 11.13 trillion right now.

Every budget he asked for, asked for MORE spending on top of the current rate on which we were spending. EVERY YEAR he has asked for more debt than he is currently getting.

Not exactly true. You'll notice that spending is noticeably similar and the largest difference between the Baseline and the president, is from lost revenue. If you read the CBO report, you'll see that most of that revenue is from not allowing temporary tax cuts expire. That means that the CBO is making calculations based on the tax rates going up, not based on maintaining the current rate.

And, we are talking about deficits. You know what a deficit is?

Obama spoke about how bad the deficit is, but he always proposed budgets that would increase it. His first budget, he asked for $2.7 trillion dollars in increased spending, with $1 trillion decreased revenue.

Verses letting ALL TAX CUTS EXPIRE. Do you realize that such a thing would never happen (neither the republicans, nor democrats want ALL to expire)? The CBO "baseline" is inaccurate because of that. The "Baseline" is based on all tax cuts expiring (you did not respond to that), it should compare against the current rates if they were to continue (not expire). In which case, we would see the deficit be reduced.

If you read through the report (pages 8 - 10) you'll notice that he is not proposing anything NEW that will lower the revenue. You're engaging in a changing of the goal posts between deficits and taxes. It creates a lovely catch 22 for Obama that works great for uneducated voters.

If he CONTINUES the current tax rate, you can complain that he is RAISING the deficit. If he LETS THEM EXPIRE, you can complain that he is RAISING taxes.


We also know, from Obama's past behaviors, that he compromises from the get go (cutting out things that he knows he'll need to compromise on), as seen with the single-payer option that was never even put on the table because he knew congress wouldn't go for it.

Ok, let's argue that we give you that, for the heck of it. It's not like his budgets got passed anyway.

Even if you argue the revenues side of it like that, Obama's first budget still asked for a $2.5 trillion increase in spending. That isn't the way to keep your promise about cutting deficits. You can't cut something by increasing it.

Unless you believe that Obama genuinely wants to keep taxes low (which is the opposite of what all conservatives have been saying for years), then we must assume that many of these are compromises with congress.

I don't even have to disagree with you on that for Obama to still be a hypocrite. But he is pushing for lower corporate tax rates.

In exchange for scrubbing a number of loopholes, and revamping the tax code to limit companies from moving funds off shore to dodge taxes. This is yet another example of the negligent generalizations that you've done.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 1:23:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/11/2012 1:13:06 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:25:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:00:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:34:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:25:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yeah, had he gotten his way, the National debt (according to your source) would be about $12.5 trillion at the end of this year. Thank god the republicans stopped all that spending. By the way, what is the current debt? And how much has it grown since Jan 2011?

According to which source? I think you are seriously misreading something.

Your latest source. It says what the debt would be under his plan in year X. You can't cherry pick the numbers and say "these numbers in the report are what is real, and those other numbers are all wrong," since they are based on the same measurements.

It would be much easier to just post the link and point to the figure you are talking about. You know, Page X, XX,XXX,XXX.

Are you talking about this source?

http://www.cbo.gov...

I still don't know where you are getting your "about 12.5 trillion" figure. Do you mean the 12.66 trillion in public debt for 2013, Table 1-2, page 4?

If so, what is the supposed issue with that? 12.5 trillion in publicly-held debt at the end of this year would be bad. We're only at 11.13 trillion right now.

Every budget he asked for, asked for MORE spending on top of the current rate on which we were spending. EVERY YEAR he has asked for more debt than he is currently getting.

Not exactly true. You'll notice that spending is noticeably similar and the largest difference between the Baseline and the president, is from lost revenue. If you read the CBO report, you'll see that most of that revenue is from not allowing temporary tax cuts expire. That means that the CBO is making calculations based on the tax rates going up, not based on maintaining the current rate.

And, we are talking about deficits. You know what a deficit is?

Obama spoke about how bad the deficit is, but he always proposed budgets that would increase it. His first budget, he asked for $2.7 trillion dollars in increased spending, with $1 trillion decreased revenue.

Verses letting ALL TAX CUTS EXPIRE. Do you realize that such a thing would never happen (neither the republicans, nor democrats want ALL to expire)? The CBO "baseline" is inaccurate because of that. The "Baseline" is based on all tax cuts expiring (you did not respond to that), it should compare against the current rates if they were to continue (not expire). In which case, we would see the deficit be reduced.

I told you already, I don't have to argue that point and he is still hypocritical. Even if the tax cuts expired, he would still have been increasing the deficit. He proposed nothing to decrease it, not even close. Your argument that he didn't raise revenues because it wouldn't happen doesn't matter. Even with the raised revenues, the deficit would have gone up.

If you read through the report (pages 8 - 10) you'll notice that he is not proposing anything NEW that will lower the revenue. You're engaging in a changing of the goal posts between deficits and taxes. It creates a lovely catch 22 for Obama that works great for uneducated voters.

You're not listening.

First, Obama never even proposed to let them expire. If he really believed it, he should have done so.

Second, even if the tax cuts expired, his budget would have increased the deficit.

No matter which way you look at it, the deficit was going to go up under his budget.

If he CONTINUES the current tax rate, you can complain that he is RAISING the deficit. If he LETS THEM EXPIRE, you can complain that he is RAISING taxes.

No, all I'm talking about is his promise to cut the deficit. All he did was propose budgets that increase it, EVEN IF YOU GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT


We also know, from Obama's past behaviors, that he compromises from the get go (cutting out things that he knows he'll need to compromise on), as seen with the single-payer option that was never even put on the table because he knew congress wouldn't go for it.

Ok, let's argue that we give you that, for the heck of it. It's not like his budgets got passed anyway.

Even if you argue the revenues side of it like that, Obama's first budget still asked for a $2.5 trillion increase in spending. That isn't the way to keep your promise about cutting deficits. You can't cut something by increasing it.

Unless you believe that Obama genuinely wants to keep taxes low (which is the opposite of what all conservatives have been saying for years), then we must assume that many of these are compromises with congress.

I don't even have to disagree with you on that for Obama to still be a hypocrite. But he is pushing for lower corporate tax rates.

In exchange for scrubbing a number of loopholes, and revamping the tax code to limit companies from moving funds off shore to dodge taxes. This is yet another example of the negligent generalizations that you've done.

No, it's another example of how inconsistent Obama is. Lower taxes are bad, but tax credits can stimulate the economy.

Anyway, it's off topic. Like I said, no matter which way you look at it, he lied.

Get over it.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 1:35:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/11/2012 1:23:52 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/11/2012 1:13:06 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:25:06 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 9:00:04 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:34:02 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/10/2012 8:25:34 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yeah, had he gotten his way, the National debt (according to your source) would be about $12.5 trillion at the end of this year. Thank god the republicans stopped all that spending. By the way, what is the current debt? And how much has it grown since Jan 2011?

According to which source? I think you are seriously misreading something.

Your latest source. It says what the debt would be under his plan in year X. You can't cherry pick the numbers and say "these numbers in the report are what is real, and those other numbers are all wrong," since they are based on the same measurements.

It would be much easier to just post the link and point to the figure you are talking about. You know, Page X, XX,XXX,XXX.

Are you talking about this source?

http://www.cbo.gov...

I still don't know where you are getting your "about 12.5 trillion" figure. Do you mean the 12.66 trillion in public debt for 2013, Table 1-2, page 4?

If so, what is the supposed issue with that? 12.5 trillion in publicly-held debt at the end of this year would be bad. We're only at 11.13 trillion right now.

Every budget he asked for, asked for MORE spending on top of the current rate on which we were spending. EVERY YEAR he has asked for more debt than he is currently getting.

Not exactly true. You'll notice that spending is noticeably similar and the largest difference between the Baseline and the president, is from lost revenue. If you read the CBO report, you'll see that most of that revenue is from not allowing temporary tax cuts expire. That means that the CBO is making calculations based on the tax rates going up, not based on maintaining the current rate.

And, we are talking about deficits. You know what a deficit is?

Obama spoke about how bad the deficit is, but he always proposed budgets that would increase it. His first budget, he asked for $2.7 trillion dollars in increased spending, with $1 trillion decreased revenue.

Verses letting ALL TAX CUTS EXPIRE. Do you realize that such a thing would never happen (neither the republicans, nor democrats want ALL to expire)? The CBO "baseline" is inaccurate because of that. The "Baseline" is based on all tax cuts expiring (you did not respond to that), it should compare against the current rates if they were to continue (not expire). In which case, we would see the deficit be reduced.

I told you already, I don't have to argue that point and he is still hypocritical. Even if the tax cuts expired, he would still have been increasing the deficit. He proposed nothing to decrease it, not even close. Your argument that he didn't raise revenues because it wouldn't happen doesn't matter. Even with the raised revenues, the deficit would have gone up.

http://www.cbo.gov...

False, if the tax cut extensions are ignored we see...

"The President's budget also contains a set of changes to the U.S. system for taxing international income, which would raise revenues by $133 billion"

"JCT estimates that the proposal for a 20 percent rate would reduce revenues by $96 billion"

"the proposal would raise revenues by $70 billion."

"Proposals that CBO and JCT estimate would increase revenues include repealing the "last-in, first-out" method of accounting for inventories ($70 billion), reducing tax preferences for the production of fossil fuels ($41 billion), providing short-term tax relief to employers and expanding the base for the payroll tax for unemployment compensation ($36 billion), imposing a "financial crisis responsibility fee" ($30 billion), and taxing carried interest ($20 billion)."

The only reason that revenue is down is because of the way it measures the tax cuts that are set to expire.

This comes to $496 billion in increased revenue over 10 years.

"On the spending side of the budget, the President's policies would increase outlays relative to CBO's baseline projections) by $25 billion in 2011 and by $402 billion between 2012 and 2021 (see Table 1-3 on page 6)."

So when the faulty measurements are adjusted, something different occurs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 1:47:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know what, I'm pretty sure all that needs to be said (at least on my part) has been said. Feel free to say a final statement and we can move on to something else.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 1:48:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/11/2012 1:35:31 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cbo.gov...

Oh great...

I was talking about the first budget he proposed, you know, when he was promising to reduce the deficit.

Second, his budget is still increasing the deficit, by still not calling for ending the tax cuts. If he wanted to get that done by now, he has had the chance.

False, if the tax cut extensions are ignored we see...

As for the rest, you're probably right that year, that IF Obama had also ended the tax cuts, he wouldn't have increased the deficit.

But, without calling to end the tax cuts, he still increased spending.

So when the faulty measurements are adjusted, something different occurs.

Yeah, when you change budgets on me, you can get a different picture. Good job.

What a brave call, to decrease the deficit(kinda maybe) over 10 years by 69 Billion. Yeah, that is living up to his original claim.

Also, keep in mind that Obama can no longer ask for as much spending as he could in the past. It's not as easy for us to keep increasing our deficit at this point.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 1:49:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/11/2012 1:47:59 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You know what, I'm pretty sure all that needs to be said (at least on my part) has been said. Feel free to say a final statement and we can move on to something else.

Ok. You changed what budget we were talking about.

To make it fair, let's forget the debt ceiling, and pretend Obama is asking for everything he wants.

2012 he would have apparently called for a 69 billion reduction in the deficit over 10 years. 2010 he called for some 400 billion increase in the deficit over 10 years.

Promise to cut the deficit = broken.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2012 2:06:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/11/2012 1:48:05 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/11/2012 1:35:31 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.cbo.gov...

Oh great...

I was talking about the first budget he proposed, you know, when he was promising to reduce the deficit.

Second, his budget is still increasing the deficit, by still not calling for ending the tax cuts. If he wanted to get that done by now, he has had the chance.

False, if the tax cut extensions are ignored we see...

As for the rest, you're probably right that year, that IF Obama had also ended the tax cuts, he wouldn't have increased the deficit.

But, without calling to end the tax cuts, he still increased spending.

So when the faulty measurements are adjusted, something different occurs.

Yeah, when you change budgets on me, you can get a different picture. Good job.

What a brave call, to decrease the deficit(kinda maybe) over 10 years by 69 Billion. Yeah, that is living up to his original claim.

Also, keep in mind that Obama can no longer ask for as much spending as he could in the past. It's not as easy for us to keep increasing our deficit at this point.

I'll do this quickly, going back on my word.

The very reason that the 2011 was wrong, the 2010 is wrong. Again, you're applying a double standard. If the CBO based it's standards on a continuation of the existing tax codes (as it should) different numbers come out.

http://www.cbo.gov...

Starting on page 4 (and going to page 7).

"Relative to current law, the proposal would reduce revenues by $577 billion..."

"The President's budget includes a placeholder of $743 billion in related revenues [from "Obamacare"]."

"The President's proposal to limit, to 28 percent, the rate at which itemized deductions reduce an individual's tax liability would increase revenues by $289 billion"

"The President proposes a series of changes to the U.S. system of taxing international income that JCT estimates would raise revenues by $127 billion."

"...this analysis incorporates the Administration's estimate that the fee would raise $90 billion."

"According to JCT, the proposal would increase revenues by $80 billion."

"Those employment-related initiatives would reduce revenues by $16 billion." - this is for a single year, lets call it $160 billion over 10 yeas (the CBO does not do t he 10 year calculation on it.

"All other tax proposals in the President's budget would have the net effect of raising revenues by $29 billion."

This comes to an increase in revenue of $621 billion (when extensions are corrected) over 10 years.

I'm going to assume that you can do this again if you need it for the 2009. Okay, now I'm out, after having to repeat the same thing from the 2011 to 2010 CBO BS.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"