Obama - If You've got a business, you didn't build that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 16 NEXT
 

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

I don't care about your interpretation of the speech as a whole

OK then. There's that.

Hey buddy? Read my posts. Not what you wish my posts were. I refuse to care about your interpretation of the speech as a whole UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION! I'm trying to figure out where you went wrong - did you fail to understand the speech at a high level, or at a more basic level? And more importantly, are you being honest with us? The fact that you are trying so hard to avoid typing a simple yes or no answer seems to indicate that no, no you are not willing to be honest.

No. I just assume he is a radical leftist intent upon taking money from those who earned it, etc.

Yes. You assume. That's your problem. You assume that Obama is a collectivist bent on destroying this country. You assume that you can take Mitt Romney on his word that he will shore up the deficits by closing loopholes and widening the base. You assume. You don't look, you don't research, you don't investigate. You assume. And that gets you into a whole heap of trouble when you try to debate with people like me, who assume jack shit and actually get their damn research done. Your assumptions are wrong more often than they are right, and here's the worst part: when we point out why your assumptions are so drastically wrong, you, more often than not, either discredit it, or flat-out ignore it - remember John Thune? I presented fairly clear evidence from a source that was biased in your favor and proved you wrong, and you consider to ASSUME, because "you were there", that that source (an actual investigation by a high-level state republican attorney) couldn't be right.

It's like you have a fundamental disconnect with reality - if something doesn't match your preconceived notions, then you refuse to accept it as accurate. This is not a good quality, and you'd do best to do a lot less assuming and a lot more investigation. Because it makes you look like an idiot, time and time again. It reinforces the notion that most of us hold (based on experience with those who actually are republicans) that most people are republicans not because of information they have, but because of information they lack. You make your side look bad, because you look bad, because you make baseless, biased assumptions - many of which are almost instantly debunked, several of which are not just baseless and biased, but outright insane. I mean, Jesus christ, have you read what you've been writing? It's insane! And if you don't understand this, then you have more problems than I am willing to tackle.

And then there's the lying. The avoiding of simple yes-or-no questions (not even qualifying why you find the question malformed, just dodging like a Santorum Aide pressed into a corner). The obfuscation of the discussion. The intentionally dishonest debate tactics. Do you just not notice this shit? Because believe me. We do. And if you don't, then you need to re-evaluate and re-read your posts, because it's a problem. A very real problem, and one you should address, because it's not making you any friends around this forum.

paraphrasing: appears to be describing what he thinks the plan would do

No, using the knowledge of how the plan is set up and other data to analyze what the plan would do. It's not "what I think the plan would do". It's "what the plan, assuming that it was implemented as described, would do". No "think". Just math.

While you're off topic by a lot, let me know when the Democratic party sees to it that Warren Buffet and his secretary are paying equal percentage rates on taxes. I personally don't think it will ever happen.

What does this have to do with the issue? This is income tax. Just income. Not capital gains, or estate, or anything else, just income.

You imply that Romney and Republicans aren't any good, but you should be able to find that Romney, short of Ron Paul, has propossed budgets that do more to close our defecit than any other major candidate including Obama. Is this true or not?

Will I find that? Is this true or not? Huh. I wonder. Now here's what I want to know: how are you so sure? Can you cite some sources? I somehow doubt you can, because Romney doesn't actually seem to have proposed any solid budgets[1]. What we do have is his tax plan, which is an unmitigated disaster - even extreme cuts to Social Security and Medicare, the only other part of his budget we have any specifics of, would leave the program with a far larger deficit than Obama's plan - and a promise to close loopholes which the Tax Policy Center calls impossible. You might wanna read that article in the footnote, it's quite telling.

Yes, an attack on individualism is reasonable at this point,

At this point, you appear to be agreeing with my larger point after calling me paranoid for thinking my larger point which is just very strange.

No, what I was addressing as "paranoid" was the larger point was that Obama was anti-business, a collectivist, that he was a radical leftist, and similar such statements. Idiotic statements like that. Your assumptions. You know, ass-you-me.

EDIT: Whoops. Killed the thread. Sorry guys!

[1] As Marketwatch points out: "It's impossible to directly compare Obama's detailed budget proposal with Romney's vague ideas. Until we get more information, we can't know if Romney's plan would produce smaller deficits than Obama's. But there would be deficits.

Don't ask the CBO or the Joint Tax Committee to evaluate Romney's plan, because they refused to even try. It's too fuzzy. But the Tax Policy Center, a respected non-partisan think tank, has scored Romney's tax plan, at least the parts that weren't completely opaque."

[...]

Romney's plan would reduce federal revenue by nearly half a billion dollars in 2015 below what it would be if current policy continued. That would put revenue at about 15% of GDP, compared with spending of around 20%. The deficit would be about 5% of GDP, compared with 3.1% under Obama's budget.

Gorfias:
In this case, greater context was given to the quote by others in this thread. To those like me that think Obama a radical anti-individual leftist, the greater context went on to further clarify my opinion. At that point, why did I ever need more context?

Which is funny, since compared to most of therest of the western world he is at most middle-right and american taxes are pretty low in comparison. If he is radical leftist, how would you name them?

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

I don't care about your interpretation of the speech as a whole

OK then. There's that.

have you examined his tax plan?

No. I just assume he is a radical leftist intent upon taking money from those who earned it, etc.

paraphrasing: appears to be describing what he thinks the plan would do

While you're off topic by a lot, let me know when the Democratic party sees to it that Warren Buffet and his secretary are paying equal percentage rates on taxes. I personally don't think it will ever happen.

You imply that Romney and Republicans aren't any good, but you should be able to find that Romney, short of Ron Paul, has propossed budgets that do more to close our defecit than any other major candidate including Obama. Is this true or not?

Yes, an attack on individualism is reasonable at this point,

At this point, you appear to be agreeing with my larger point after calling me paranoid for thinking my larger point which is just very strange.

Also, I'm with the other people in this thread. You seem to recognize that this "you didn't build this statement" is both irrefutably right, AND that it is an attack on individualism.

Are you conceding my point? Not that you agree it is bad for him to say, but that I understand it correctly. He really is picking this time to attack individualism?

Which makes the rest of the West, Communists right? (Considering that based on the west as a whole his middle-right) Should have known that Soviet Union still existed and had succesfully taken over Europe. Would have shut down NATO ages ago.

As for Romney, his plans is to increase the deficit from the current 3.1% to 5%. Giving the excess money they are now 'not' taking in tax to the rich. I dont really see how thats going to 'help' your country. The people who recieve the money is porting it off to tax-havens anyway.

Good point, esp. given an economy that's heavily dependent on consumer spending and easy credit, esp. credit that cuts across the board, as seen in the chart in this article:

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/30/krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt/

aided by tax cuts, among others:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett_2.html

and four decades of trade deficits, etc.

lapan:

Gorfias:
In this case, greater context was given to the quote by others in this thread. To those like me that think Obama a radical anti-individual leftist, the greater context went on to further clarify my opinion. At that point, why did I ever need more context?

Which is funny, since compared to most of therest of the western world he is at most middle-right and american taxes are pretty low in comparison. If he is radical leftist, how would you name them?

Centrists in their own environment. I understand radical leftism actually works in some smaller countries. I understand it does not in others. I think it might even work on a state by state basis in the USA. I don't think it works in the USA in whole. I am happy to see you don't argue with my main point though.

Nikolaz72:

As for Romney, his plans is to increase the deficit from the current 3.1% to 5%. Giving the excess money they are now 'not' taking in tax to the rich. I dont really see how thats going to 'help' your country. The people who recieve the money is porting it off to tax-havens anyway.

See above about other countries. What if you are right and Romney is worse than Obama? I honestly do not know. Just yesterday my kid asked me what if McCain had beaten Obama and governed no better (which I suspect would be the case). I honestly don't know. Romney makes right wing sounding promises. Obama doesn't. What's a right winger to do?

Stagnant:

I refuse to care about your interpretation of the speech as a whole UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

Yes? I think? It shouldn't matter. Everyone, including you, is agreeing with my interpretation which means the clip is as complete as it needs to be to get the message across. Some love that message, others hate it.

...

Yes, an attack on individualism is reasonable at this point,

At this point, you appear to be agreeing with my larger point after calling me paranoid for thinking my larger point which is just very strange.

No, what I was addressing as "paranoid" was the larger point was that Obama was anti-business, a collectivist, that he was a radical leftist, and similar such statements. Idiotic statements like that. Your assumptions. You know, ass-you-me.

EDIT: Whoops. Killed the thread. Sorry guys!

well, this thread should die. What should be my final words. Again:

The clip had enough infomration that was needed. Virtually everyone understood what was meant or implied by it. Some love that message, others hate it.

Gorfias:

See above about other countries. What if you are right and Romney is worse than Obama? I honestly do not know. Just yesterday my kid asked me what if McCain had beaten Obama and governed no better (which I suspect would be the case). I honestly don't know. Romney makes right wing sounding promises. Obama doesn't. What's a right winger to do?

Obama doesn't make promises. He comes through. Your ignorance is no excuse for getting this wrong after we explain it to you time and time again. Speaking of which...

Stagnant:

I refuse to care about your interpretation of the speech as a whole UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

Yes? I think? It shouldn't matter. Everyone, including you, is agreeing with my interpretation which means the clip is as complete as it needs to be to get the message across. Some love that message, others hate it.

Except that no, I'm not agreeing with that. Nobody is agreeing with that. Again, stop fucking lying, open your ears, and listen! The Romney campaign is desperately trying to make you believe that, but by cutting out the context, the clip's meaning goes from "even If you own a business, you didn't build the system of roads and bridges that your business ships on" to "Even if you own a business, you didn't build that business". DO YOU SEE HOW THIS CHANGES THE MEANING OF THE SPEECH?!

The clip had enough infomration that was needed. Virtually everyone understood what was meant or implied by it. Some love that message, others hate it.

No. The Romney campaign has picked it up, edited it to change its meaning by removing the context, and is running with that lie. You can either accept that the editing changes its meaning, or you can deny it; that doesn't change the fact that it's true. The OP of this thread didn't understand its meaning until we did a full-on high-school grammatical analysis. So cut the shit. Also, citation that the Romney plan would cut the deficit; the only specifics we have have it raising the deficit immensely.

Stagnant:

Gorfias:

See above about other countries. What if you are right and Romney is worse than Obama? I honestly do not know. Just yesterday my kid asked me what if McCain had beaten Obama and governed no better (which I suspect would be the case). I honestly don't know. Romney makes right wing sounding promises. Obama doesn't. What's a right winger to do?

Obama doesn't make promises. He comes through.

Obama comes through with ideas at the Federal level that are too Left wing. He is not a right winger, nor does he pretend to be one. So, if Romney fails the right, I ask, again, what is a right winger to do? Vote Libertarian? Voting for a 3rd party is like throwing a vote away.

Stagnant:

I refuse to care about your interpretation of the speech as a whole UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

Yes? I think? It shouldn't matter. Everyone, including you, is agreeing with my interpretation which means the clip is as complete as it needs to be to get the message across. Some love that message, others hate it.

Except that no, I'm not agreeing with that. Nobody is agreeing with that. Again, stop fucking lying, open your ears, and listen!

See, again obscenities where I think you are already agreeing with the main point. Does Obama want to increase taxes or not? Does he want to increase the size and scope of government, with laws like "Lilly Leadbetter" or not? I think he does, you've shown graphs in which he does and said we can afford it, we both agree on this. This clip reminds me of what appears to be an agreed upon fact.

How is this a lie? How can you write you do not understand what that clip is about, and then explain it in a manner that means exactly what I think it means and then curse me?

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

I refuse to care about your interpretation of the speech as a whole UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

Yes? I think? It shouldn't matter. Everyone, including you, is agreeing with my interpretation which means the clip is as complete as it needs to be to get the message across. Some love that message, others hate it.

Except that no, I'm not agreeing with that. Nobody is agreeing with that. Again, stop fucking lying, open your ears, and listen!

See, again obscenities where I think you are already agreeing with the main point.

I think the problem is that Gorfias is considering anyone who agrees with his assertion that Obama is left-wing (in a USA 'more left-wing than the Republicans', holds a few views that Republicans would never hold, etc, kind of way) as agreeing with the assumption that he holds a specific ideology which includes the belief that people aren't responsible for the success of the businesses they own. The video is then just extra evidence to back this up.

Gorfias:
Obama comes through with ideas at the Federal level that are too Left wing.

Nope. Again, government has shrunk under Obama at an all but unprecedented rate, while the private sector has grown considerably. Taxes for almost everyone has gone down (something that the TEA party, a party all about taxation, somehow hasn't grasped) under Obama. So I ask: how is this not right-wing?

See, again obscenities where I think you are already agreeing with the main point. Does Obama want to increase taxes or not?

Malformed question; I reject the premise that you can just say "increase taxes" like that. It's fair to claim that he wants to increase revenue, and it is fair to say that he wants to increase taxes on certain high-income brackets. It's not fair to claim that he wants to increase taxes with no qualifying remarks.

Does he want to increase the size and scope of government, with laws like "Lilly Leadbetter" or not?

Does he? Citations, buddy. How has Obama increased the size and scope of government?

I think he does, you've shown graphs in which he does and said we can afford it, we both agree on this.

I never said we could afford it, I simply pointed out that Obama's government growth is, overall, net negative and considerably smaller than any of his predecessors. Furthermore, if you actually looked into the issue, the graphs tell a much weirder story than "Obama raised federal spending". Not only are we in the middle of a recession, with more and more people requiring federal aid and states needing government funding left and right, with killer droughts and radical new weather patterns really slamming the USA, but the states have drastically cut back on spending. So they have to rely on the fed to help them out.

How is this a lie? How can you write you do not understand what that clip is about, and then explain it in a manner that means exactly what I think it means and then curse me?

I do understand, because I have considerable background knowledge - I saw the speech as a whole, and understood the context. What I'm arguing is that those who haven't, those who just saw that piece of the speech, would not understand, and this is backed up by the statements made by the OP, the Romney campaign, and you.

Gorfias:

Obama comes through with ideas at the Federal level that are too Left wing. He is not a right winger, nor does he pretend to be one. So, if Romney fails the right, I ask, again, what is a right winger to do? Vote Libertarian? Voting for a 3rd party is like throwing a vote away.

ill ask the same thing i asked seekster when he was insisting that obama was a left winger, name 1 thing that obama has done or suggested that is "too left wing"

reonhato:

ill ask the same thing i asked seekster when he was insisting that obama was a left winger, name 1 thing that obama has done or suggested that is "too left wing"

I think Stagnant would agree Obama wants to raise taxes... er, revenues that include taxes on the wealthiest. That is certainly to the left of those that want taxes cut on the wealthiest. Correct?

Stagnant:

Gorfias:
Obama comes through with ideas at the Federal level that are too Left wing.

Nope. Again, government has shrunk under Obama at an all but unprecedented rate

Yet we have record deficits, comparable to GDP. Obama supporters have already been caught on this type of matter.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/

See, again obscenities where I think you are already agreeing with the main point. Does Obama want to increase taxes or not?

Malformed question; I reject the premise that you can just say "increase taxes" like that. It's fair to claim that he wants to increase revenue, and it is fair to say that he wants to increase taxes on certain high-income brackets. It's not fair to claim that he wants to increase taxes with no qualifying remarks. [/quote]

Do we agree that the clip is really about raising taxes of the successful?

Does he want to increase the size and scope of government, with laws like "Lilly Leadbetter" or not?

Does he? Citations, buddy. How has Obama increased the size and scope of government?

This isn't him? http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/ I promise you, this sort of thing doesn't happen for free.

I think he does, you've shown graphs in which he does and said we can afford it, we both agree on this.

I never said we could afford it,

You wrote, " And believe it or not, a 6.1% increase on money earned past $400,000 is not going to kill anyone." Now you are playing semantics.

How is this a lie? How can you write you do not understand what that clip is about, and then explain it in a manner that means exactly what I think it means and then curse me?

I do understand, because I have considerable background knowledge - I saw the speech as a whole, and understood the context. What I'm arguing is that those who haven't, those who just saw that piece of the speech, would not understand, and this is backed up by the statements made by the OP, the Romney campaign, and you.

And yet, again, you seem to be writing that what the ad is REALLY about is exactly what I think it is. You champion the message, I object. I truly think at that point we are done.

Gorfias:
I think Stagnant would agree Obama wants to raise taxes... er, revenues that include taxes on the wealthiest. That is certainly to the left of those that want taxes cut on the wealthiest. Correct?

Are you saying that everything that is to the left of you is automatically radical left then? Because unless you do, then this is still a non-sequitur to get to "radical leftist".

Skeleon:

Gorfias:
I think Stagnant would agree Obama wants to raise taxes... er, revenues that include taxes on the wealthiest. That is certainly to the left of those that want taxes cut on the wealthiest. Correct?

Are you saying that everything that is to the left of you is automatically radical left then? Because unless you do, then this is still a non-sequitur to get to "radical leftist".

I was asked to name specifically one thing. I did. Are you writing you think Obama to the right of Romney? Is Romney giving speeches you think are just as pro government as "you didn't build that"?

Gorfias:
I was asked to name specifically one thing. I did. Are you writing you think Obama to the right of Romney? Is Romney giving speeches you think are just as pro government as "you didn't build that"?

No, don't ask stupid questions that you know the answer to just to slow down debate and aggravate. The point stands: You call him a "radical leftist". What is your justification for that? This guy, whom Progressives dislike for being a sell-out, whose administration called Liberals "fucking retarded", this guy who continues most procedures that W. Bush went with, this guy who broke his promise to his base to close Gitmo and end the civil rights infractions installed by the Republicans, this guy who sold out on left-wing ideals on almost any issue? How can any sane person consider this right-winger a "radical leftist"? Even other Americans consider him "centrist", so you can't even argue with the "different spectrum" here; it's only far-right radicals who try to paint the big compromiser as a Socialist or otheriwse radical left. Hell, I wish he were left-wing.

Gorfias:
the quote fucked up and im too lazy to fix it

since when is raising taxes only leftist thing to do? reagan raised taxes, is he a leftist?

as for the article from peter ferrara. the man is a right wing looney. he has claimed in the past there are more muslims in amerca than afghanistan (obviously not true, he is for things like privatised social security and he has worked for the heartland institute, the most sorry excuse for a think tank to ever exist.

his idea that reagan cut all this spending and raised revenue by cutting taxes so much is baseless. he raised revenue by raising other taxes so he could cut income tax, even then revenue as a % of GDP was lower in 1989 than it was in 1981. so despite all the cries to look at how it worked from the right it in fact did not work, the economy did not grow to cover the costs of a lower tax rate. his spending averaged 22.4% of GDP, well above average, as a result he tripled the national debt.

when he talks about obamas spending he ignores a whole lot of important things. he ignores that 2009 was mainly bush, he ignores that the bush tax cuts and a recession drastically cut revenue (this is why obamas spending looks high when done as a percentage of GPD, in real terms obama has hardly increased spending, the problem has been the revenue dropped). the big one is when mentioning bush he completely ignores the fact that bush had 2 wars the he did not put on the books, something obama did do.

basically by linking to an article that is so extremely and obviously bias you are just showing your colours. you are showing you have no intention of actually learning about the real world, you are just content to continue to live in the fantasy land of the right wing of america.

Skeleon:

Gorfias:
I was asked to name specifically one thing. I did. Are you writing you think Obama to the right of Romney? Is Romney giving speeches you think are just as pro government as "you didn't build that"?

No, don't ask stupid questions that you know the answer to just to slow down debate and aggravate. The point stands: You call him a "radical leftist". What is your justification for that? This guy, whom Progressives dislike for being a sell-out, whose administration called Liberals "fucking retarded", this guy who continues most procedures that W. Bush went with, this guy who broke his promise to his base to close Gitmo and end the civil rights infractions installed by the Republicans, this guy who sold out on left-wing ideals on almost any issue? How can any sane person consider this right-winger a "radical leftist"? Even other Americans consider him "centrist", so you can't even argue with the "different spectrum" here; it's only far-right radicals who try to paint the big compromiser as a Socialist or otheriwse radical left. Hell, I wish he were left-wing.

I think, for the USA, you can be a centrist leftist if you just want to tweak things, but keep the basic American character (independence, self reliance, individualism, pro traditional family)intact. I think Obama, for a USA President, hates this country as it is. I think he wants American's dependent upon Government. I think he admires (with some good reason) European nations and wants the USA to be more like them. I understand the work requirement for welfare, under Obama, is recently gone.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/republicans-cry-foul-over-obama-welfare-revisions/1#.UBfSYbSe7ng

Add that to the Julia stuff, and right wingers see the President as wanting to end traditional marriage and use government to socially disenfranchise child rearing partners. Single mom's are a major part of his base: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/single-women-favor-obama-151713797.html

I do understand the Left's frustrations with much of his Agenda. But right wingers think the "dream" or "nightmare" of the USA being more like Europe ever closer because of this man's efforts.

To stay relevant to this thread, I'd argue that, in the, "Obama is a pro government Leftist radical" view, I understand the "you didn't build that" clip perfectly. I think everyone else does as well.

Gorfias:
To stay relevant to this thread, I'd argue that, in the, "Obama is a pro government Leftist radical" view, I understand the "you didn't build that" clip perfectly. I think everyone else does as well.

Of course is your understanding perfect when under the premise of the "Obama is a pro government Leftist radical"-view, but that view itself is utterly false and thus every conclusion you come to is as well. It certainly explains your heavily tinged interpretation, of course, but that doesn't make the interpretation any more valid. That said, you know, I've read some more of your posts here these past few pages and frankly I think it's better I don't even get involved any further than I already have. I see nothing good coming from it.

reonhato:

since when is raising taxes only leftist thing to do?

I suppose it is why you raise taxes that matters as well. See my other comments.

as for the article from peter ferrara. the man is a right wing looney.

He is also apparently correct in this matter. I'll post more if you like.

I will write that the Left once worried that the Internet was controlled by the right. I do think that is way over. Maybe leftists have more time on their hands to write.

I note, a right winger makes an observation. I do a search looking for that observation and I get many, many hits of people objecting to the observation and really have to go searching for the observation itself now.

That the Obama administration was caught in a transparent lie about its spending was written about in a number of places. Try finding them in such a search now. Not easy, but I do want to re read one now.

EDIT: I don't think CBS has right wing bias.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

It does reference Bush having something off budget (wars/medicaid) but seems non-committal about how much that adds to the problem over-all.

Gorfias:

reonhato:

since when is raising taxes only leftist thing to do?

I suppose it is why you raise taxes that matters as well. See my other comments.

as for the article from peter ferrara. the man is a right wing looney.

He is also apparently correct in this matter. I'll post more if you like.

I will write that the Left once worried that the Internet was controlled by the right. I do think that is way over. Maybe leftists have more time on their hands to write.

I note, a right winger makes an observation. I do a search looking for that observation and I get many, many hits of people objecting to the observation and really have to go searching for the observation itself now.

That the Obama administration was caught in a transparent lie about its spending was written about in a number of places. Try finding them in such a search now. Not easy, but I do want to re read one now.

EDIT: I don't think CBS has right wing bias.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

It does reference Bush having something off budget (wars/medicaid) but seems non-committal about how much that adds to the problem over-all.

the article mentions basically nothing.

lets put some things in perspective. in 2008 the budget was 2.9 trillion, the revenue was 2.7 trillion. (we will skip 2009 since it can be argued for ever about who is responsible for what spending). in 2010 the budget was 3.7 trillion and revenue was 2.1 trillion.... see the problem. the spending increased massively overnight because obama put little things like wars on the books. it might be worth taking note that for 2012 the budget was 3.8 trillion and revenue was 2.47 trillion.

its also worth noting that if you take away the 2 wars and the bush tax cuts instead of the 9 trillion + deficit predicted over 8 years under obama you get 6, if you add in the tax increases that have been so adamantly blocked by the republicans you are all of a sudden back to a similar figure as bush.... while the country suffered much harder economic times.

the biggest thing you need to know is something that the CBO predicted. in 2001 they predicted there would be a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus in the next 10 years. of course that goes down the drain in 2008 when the recession hits.... but for a majority of the 10 years it was a boom period, bush wasted it and the result is now massive debt.

in comparison a country like i dont know... australia, recognized that the 2000s was an awesome time and our government didnt do massive tax cuts and spend like a teenage girl with her first credit card, they kept the surplus, of course 2008 rolls around and hey whaddya know we had money to burn.

Gorfias:

reonhato:

since when is raising taxes only leftist thing to do?

I suppose it is why you raise taxes that matters as well. See my other comments.

as for the article from peter ferrara. the man is a right wing looney.

He is also apparently correct in this matter. I'll post more if you like.

I will write that the Left once worried that the Internet was controlled by the right. I do think that is way over. Maybe leftists have more time on their hands to write.

I note, a right winger makes an observation. I do a search looking for that observation and I get many, many hits of people objecting to the observation and really have to go searching for the observation itself now.

That the Obama administration was caught in a transparent lie about its spending was written about in a number of places. Try finding them in such a search now. Not easy, but I do want to re read one now.

EDIT: I don't think CBS has right wing bias.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

It does reference Bush having something off budget (wars/medicaid) but seems non-committal about how much that adds to the problem over-all.

Once again, you are ignoring the facts. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $4 trillion. Bush tax cuts $2.8 trillion. Add on the interest and you have $7 trillion just there. Spending under Obama has increased at a historically low rate, the problem is revenue is not high enough to cover the costs of government services that people demand.

If you take away the wars, the tax cuts and add increased tax for the wealthy (to the sum of $1 trillion extra revenue from 2001-2011) the US debt would be half of what it is.

The problem is America does taxes the wrong way. In America you set the taxes and then do the spending. People demand a certain level of service provided by the government and in the end this costs more than the taxes you have set.

The way you are suppose to do it is work out what services the government is to provide and then set taxes at a level that covers the cost of those services. If you increase services you increase taxes, decrease in services lowers taxes. It is the same with costs, if costs increase taxes have to as well, if costs decrease than taxes can decrease.

The two have to be linked and the problem the US has is government has been expanding services while cutting taxes, the opposite of what you are suppose to do.

reonhato:

the biggest thing you need to know is something that the CBO predicted. in 2001 they predicted there would be a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus in the next 10 years. of course that goes down the drain in 2008 when the recession hits.... but for a majority of the 10 years it was a boom period, bush wasted it and the result is now massive debt.

In fact, growth throughout the 2000s in the USA was actually pretty weak. It was substantially lower than the 1990s, even despite supposedly excitatory policies of tax cuts, deficit spending and low interest rates.

We might wonder, then, would 2001-2008 have been even worse without?

* * *

In my reading around, it seems apparent there has been a generalised problem in the West of slumping productivity growth. Productivity gains are probably the most important basis of economic growth: workers producing more on average for each time unit worked. More credit simply masked the decline until credit blew up.

The explanation for decreased productivity, however, I find lacking.

The post above (gorfias') shows a lack of knowledge regarding both how and when a budget is decided (assigning all of 2009's spending to Obama for example), the effects of a massive drop in revenues etc. You could, quite accurately though, say that he didn't push for the Bush tax cuts to expire when they should have as much as he could have resulting in even lower revenues compared to estimates that were already too high due to an underestimation of the economic fallout of the 2008 crash. Of course though this an "attack from the left".

I would like to draw your attention to the image below.
image
This is basically the raw numbers, anyone with two brain cells, knowledge of economics and no political axe to grind with regards to the economy can also see that this is not adjusted for inflation. If you do that (so you get real terms spending increases/decreases instead of nominal) Obama has decreased spending in his time in government by around 1.5%. Per capita estimates show a likely drop of around 5% in real terms (adjusted to 2009 dollars, compared to 2009) for FY2013. I believe Nixon was the last president to have annualised real terms spending decreases.

I could also start getting into your national debt, the way it's organised, the types of bonds sold, the rate of interest on said bonds and how that works, along with more fundamentally what it actually is. I'd probably also, like many other economists, lament that that the American public is so misinformed and vulnerable to shitty talking points on these things that it's become an issue.

Gorfias:
I am a right winger. I see that clip. I understand that it shows Obama is a big government guy. The clip clarified.

In other words, you decided what you wanted to be true, and then ignored anything that didn't fit your preconceived notions.

But I can see you're going to go down swinging here, as we're on page 11 and your responses amount to nothing more substantial than, "Nuh-uh!" The quote is taken out of context. Fact. You can dislike the facts all you want, but they won't magically change just because they don't fit what you wish was true.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
I am a right winger. I see that clip. I understand that it shows Obama is a big government guy. The clip clarified.

In other words, you decided what you wanted to be true, and then ignored anything that didn't fit your preconceived notions. .

Most of the people that saw that clip are arguing that Obama was correct. I'm stating what my "preconceived notion" is and others, who oppose my world view, agree that I am correct. What's to argue? I think we both agree the clip, in context, was not about shrinking the size and scope of government and cutting revenues and taxes.

To all arguing Obama hasn't spent a lot, or that Bush did, some things to consider:

I'm not all that happy with Bush. He did not get rid of the Department of Education. If anything, he expanded government involvement in education with things like, "no child left behind." He also expanded Medicaid regarding prescription drugs. Even NRO states they hope Romney is better.

But Obama's medical plan alone is being described as a tax that will really hit in 2014. It is going to be expensive. I don't know where things like bailing out GM so they don't need to reorganize or .5 billion to Finland auto companies fits into your budgets. Or millions to refurb a couple of houses. Roads to nowhere, etc.

But even all that is besides the point. What is that clip about? Do we understand it? I think we ALL do. Obama is excited by government and what it can do. He wants more revenues and wants more from certain people. I think we all get that, it is not out of context because we understand it and some of us like the clip and others like me are outraged. Really, end of story here. Does anyone disagree and state they think the clip is about shrinking the scope and cost of government while cutting taxes for the rich and shrinking deficits? I think not.

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
I am a right winger. I see that clip. I understand that it shows Obama is a big government guy. The clip clarified.

In other words, you decided what you wanted to be true, and then ignored anything that didn't fit your preconceived notions. .

Most of the people that saw that clip are arguing that Obama was correct.

Yes, they are. Because yes, Obama was correct:

Obama:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

If you have a business, you didn't build the roads and bridges, Internet, and other forms of infrastructure and support that allowed your business to thrive. There's absolutely nothing objectionable in Obama's words taken in-context because they're absolutely correct. It's only when you lie and take them out of context that they become objectionable. So howsabout you stop doing that, mm'kay?

Gorfias:
I think we both agree the clip, in context, was not about shrinking the size and scope of government and cutting revenues and taxes.

Well duh, of course it's not about shrinking the size and scope of government or cutting taxes. It's also not about blue myna birds or the Horsehead Nebula or the joys of prolonged cunnilingus. It's about what it was about: that government has a place in supporting private business and that businesses should not take a completely self-interested and factually-incorrect position of pretending that government had no place in their success. That's not "big government". That's just government. Admitting that it is possible for government to positively affect our lives is not "big government". You're either being intentionally deceptive. Stop it.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

In other words, you decided what you wanted to be true, and then ignored anything that didn't fit your preconceived notions. .

Most of the people that saw that clip are arguing that Obama was correct.

Yes, they are. Because yes, Obama was correct:

Good, someone agreeing the quote was not out of context! That they understood it and have an opinion on his having said it!

Obama:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

If you have a business, you didn't build the roads and bridges, Internet, and other forms of infrastructure and support that allowed your business to thrive. There's absolutely nothing objectionable in Obama's words taken in-context because they're absolutely correct.

In your opinion his having said that is non-objectionable and that's fine. It is a defense of the statement. Stop acting like you don't know what he was speaking of. You and I both knew what that clip meant outside of playing a larger portion of his speech.

As for objectionable, in my opinion, if I were a brain surgeon, and my mom was telling my patients they'd be dead and without my services, and without her burping me as a babe, those services would not be possible, I'd still object regardless of the truth of the matter . Personally, I'd think she was up to something, likely wanting something from me and arguably down playing my own contributions to my credentials.

Sorry you appear to think our government is already so large and powerful I have stopped having the right to object.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

snip

Eh, liars can do statistics. Check this:

http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/

image

That larger number during the Obama years has a cost no matter how you fudge the numbes. Period.

There are a million other ways to screw with our money. How do we score card these guys? Keep spending as limited as possible. It wasn't a conservative that invented the Department of Education or Americorps. It wasn't a Conservative that got us involved in Kosovo or Libya.

All these guys, Democrats and Republicans need watching.

On topic, do you agree, watching the clip of Obama, you understood what he was on to?

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

Yes, they are. Because yes, Obama was correct:

Good, someone agreeing the quote was not out of context!

Another lie. Are you deliberately trolling the forum?

Stop acting like you don't know what he was speaking of.

I know exactly what he was speaking of- that the government made roads bridges, and the Internet. You also know what he's speaking of, and you're lying to make it about big government because that fits your agenda. Very poor form.

Sorry you appear to think our government is already so large and powerful I have stopped having the right to object.

Another lie. I never said you don't have the right to object. I said you should not lie. We all know you're lying, that's three explicit lies in your response to me alone. Howsabout you save the minuscule shred of credibility you have left and stop, eh? All you're accomplishing is demonstrating for us that your position is completely and totally morally bankrupt; that the only possible way anyone would accept it is for you to deceive them into accepting it.

Ummm Gorfia's, when you say "radical left" it sounds like "Fox News Opinion". our 2 parties dems and repubs are to the right of center. right is leaning fascist. dems are no more radical left as repubs are. If anything repubs are radical right and pushing for a fascist state. Just to be clear fascism is just as bad as socialism and anyone that wants a good strong eceonomy based on trade and freedoms would not want either socialism or fascism.

You really need to take a look at how far right our country leans on an international scale and then you would see that Obama is actualy a conservative who leans more left than the republicans. And yes i said on an international scale. No man is an island, no nation is alone and can survive today. you need to think internationaly because we are on an international platform since WW1.

All our problems with our economy have a root cause in how far towards fascism we are moving, every radical right that gets in congress makes it that much harder to get things back on track.

Do yourself a favor and shut off Fox news, put away the right wing media and research the political spectrum from an unprejudiced unbiased point of view. Hitler on the far right Stalin on the far left. what is socialism, and what is fascism? where does our politics land on the political spectrum both our right wing and left wing? Just do yourself a favor and study that shit. Once you learn it then go back to the news and media and everytime someone on the right says socialist or radical left you will see they are full of shit and should not be trusted.

Seriously, educate yourself if you want to talk politics.

Katatori-kun:
snip

I'll be generous and state that you may be lying to yourself. I think you fully understand what that clip is about without greater context, as does everyone else. When most people I'm responding to admit that, then I may comfortably stop repeating myself.

JET1971:

You really need to take a look at how far right our country leans on an international scale

I've read that the USA is only a few percents off of what Canada spends by its central government. I don't think Canada is right of center. Do you?

Thats why I said do the research Gorfias. I am not familiar with canada's politics in regards to the political spectrum, I do know they dont vilify left leaning politicians like you are want to do.

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:
snip

I'll be generous and state that you may be lying to yourself.

Then you're lying, and arrogantly doing so to boot. Obama speaks English. I speak English. I know what he said. Seriously, give it up.

I think you fully understand what that clip is about without greater context, as does everyone else.

Then you're wrong.

When most people I'm responding to admit that say what I want them to, then I may comfortably stop repeating myself lying.

I fixed your typo there.

Gorfias:

I'll be generous and state that you may be lying to yourself. I think you fully understand what that clip is about without greater context, as does everyone else.

Say that to yourself in the mirror five times in the mirror. Maybe it'll finally trigger in your head.

JET1971:
Thats why I said do the research Gorfias. I am not familiar with canada's politics in regards to the political spectrum, I do know they dont vilify left leaning politicians like you are want to do.

LOL, that's my point. They are relatively leftist, yet the USA with it's great right wing government is pending about the same as them (per National Review Magazine). NR complains that you can't spend like the left without taxation forever and all we're going to be bit by the spending without taxation (borrowing) eventually. I agree.

I knew all that, you write you didn't, and then complain I do no research. Odd.

Katatori-kun:
snip.

You've simply stopped making any sense. It is this simple. I saw the clip, thought, "Oh, Obama wants to take more money from people that earned it and give it to people that haven't". Others objected, stating they knew of context, wrote about it in great detail, and when they were done with all that detail, I'm still stating: he said it because he wants to take more money from people, etc. Nothing changed.

I'm betting you would like to take more money from the richest people in the country. I'm betting you would like the US government to offer more goods and services. Maybe provide more government jobs? Pay for higher education? And it is my opinion (as long as I'm allowed to have one) based upon your other writings that you understood the clip without greater context and agreed with it.

You write that Obama is correct about his position. You might look fat in jeans, but were I to run up to you screaming that were so, I could be correct, but a reasonable person could think I were up to something. Talk you out of your jeans so you give them to a friend? Force you to buy different pants my buddy is selling at a sizable profit? Something.

I could be wrong about you and those like you, but still basing my opinion on your writing without lying. At that point, when you call me a liar, you just sound hysterical. I would think better of you.

Ninjamedic:

Gorfias:

I'll be generous and state that you may be lying to yourself. I think you fully understand what that clip is about without greater context, as does everyone else.

Say that to yourself in the mirror five times in the mirror. Maybe it'll finally trigger in your head.

Did you see the clip and think it changed something for you? When finding out greater context for that clip, did it change your political views?

Gorfias:

Ninjamedic:
ship

Did you see the clip and think it changed something for you?

The Clip of Obama? Yep, now I have more respect for him. He's actually wiling to back what he says.

When finding out greater context for that clip, did it change your political views?

What greater context? He made a mispronunciation that was deliberately misinterpreted by the Romney campaign for political gain.

What he said was common sense, if you made a business today, you're self-determination wasn't the only factor in it (Although it was one of the most significant). The infrastructure that facilitated the growth of that business came about due to contributions from people be it collectively (Taxation) or individually (Other businesses, private financing) Nothing you achieve nowadays is because of you own actions by themselves.

I'm not arguing whether or not he wants less/more taxation, I'm saying that claiming that he is "Big Government"/Socialist based oh that speech and his term so far is dishonest.

Gorfias:

TheGuy(wantstobe):

snip

Eh, liars can do statistics. Check this:

What has been made abundantly clear by you once again posting a talking point (If you wish to know the data used for that particular graph is not actually complete federal employment but rather executive branch civilian employment excluding federal postal workers that pulls 2011 out of it's arse as the data has not been released) is that you do not understand economics, monetary theory, how the US government works or even apparently basic mathematics.

You are an economic illiterate Gorfias, which by itself is not objectionable as it can be a difficult subject for people to understand, but you are proud of your ignorance which makes it contemptible. Period.

I shall try to explain this is in as basic terms as possible while speaking slowly and enunciating so that you can understand.
The dollar amount of spending ,the big number you're so afraid of, has not increased at a rate equal to or greater than inflation during Obama's term. I'm sorry that the facts don't fit with your worldview and are making you irritated but there is nothing that can be done about that other than educate yourself and stop being so proud of your ignorance and in doing so hopefully become less angry.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked