More Fox "News" Lies about Obama

[Tread]

In Fox News's never ending campaign to get false information out to the public in order to beat Obama, Dick Morris continued telling fantastic lies about Obama's tax plans with Hannity there to talk him thru it and encourage him.

These guys make me sick. God forbid we have a fair fight with the candidates true positions being debated. These guys are SCUM and it is truly a shame that we do not have broadcasting licenses that can be revoked whenever someone shows such a blatant disregard for the truth. What do you think the odds are that Hannity will give a correction?
From the June 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:


HANNITY: All right, I'm going to tell you something. You -- this is -- you wrote some phenomenal stuff. I want you to tell everybody, your first chapter, President Obama -- what would he do?


MORRIS: He would double the capital gains tax. That means that you get far less when you sell your home, or your 401(k), or your stock plan. He would double the dividends tax. That means that old ladies who clip coupons from corporate stocks get less money.

He would double the -- he would increase the limit on Social Security taxes, which means instead of paying 12 1/2 percent of the first $100,000, you pay it on everything that you're making.

HANNITY: Wow.

MORRIS: So that gives you --

HANNITY: And you'll never get that money back.

MORRIS: It gives you an effective tax rate of 60 percent, and it means no boss can raise your pay without having to shell out that extra money in taxes.


The true facts are that Obama's tax plan does not raise the capital gains/dividends tax or SS taxes (or any other taxes for that matter) on anyone making under 250k per year, or 97% of the American public. The facts are clearly stated on his website, and have been for some time, so there is absolutely no excuse for this. Or you can hear Obama say it himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0oj7yAuHg

[DRIVEWAY]

When u raise the capital gains tax are u changing the IRS rules on people making less than $250K??

[bigmack]

In Fox News's never ending campaign to get false information out to the public in order to beat Obama
Tough to have much of a point when you reek of bias. Have you been paying much attention to media bias over the years found on virtually every station besides Fox? Let me guess, as your like minded comrades position finds them, your outrage is selective.

Thanks for your thoughts. Take a number and have a seat.

[Tread]

It's EASY to have a point when the facts are so cut and dry. This was a broadcast of an outright lie about Obama that was easily verfiable, as was made up quote they reported on from Obama's brother last week which clearly never appeared in the transcript.

These were not opinion or bias pieces, these were outright lies with no room for opinion or interpretation.

If you can provide 2 similar outright lies from the "media bias" outlets on McCain's positions or background within the last 2 weeks (or month for that matter) I will happily denounce them as well. There is no place for lies in this kind of programming because too many in the American public believe every word these commentators say. And if you shrug off lies and don't denounce them either, you are just as much a part of the problem as the commentators telling the lies.

[Steve 'StatMan']

It isn't a lie, it just won't affect most people. Alas I will also not be affected.

Amazing. I just made it to 60.

[Tread]

It is absolutely a lie to state:

he would increase the limit on Social Security taxes, which means instead of paying 12 1/2 percent of the first $100,000, you pay it on everything that you're making.

100% false. His plan has you paying the exact same thing you are today unless you make over 250k and only then do you start to pay more.

And also grossly misleading how he painted capital gains, "coupon clipping old ladies" will not have their taxes increaed either, nor will 97% of the rest of us.

[bigmack]

And if you shrug off lies and don't denounce them either, you are just as much a part of the problem as the commentators telling the lies.
Noble work you're doing pointing out media lies.

Have you heard Hannities radio program? He calls it the "Stop Obama Express". Hardly the words of a journalist.

I'm still recovering from Chris Matthews' leg tingling when BO talks.

I'd get over your outrage. In the grand scheme of things, it just doesn't matter.

[Greyfox]

He's also the Jolly Green Giant

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama vowed yesterday he would break the United States' addiction to "dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive" oil if elected president -- and one of his first targets might well be Canada's oil sands.
A senior Obama advisor said it is an "open question" whether oil from northern Alberta fits with the Democratic candidate's plan to shift the United States sharply away from consuming carbon-intensive fossil fuels.

"If it turns out that those technologies don't advance … and the only way to produce those resources would be at a significant penalty to climate change, then we don't believe that those resources are going to be part of the long term, are going to play a growing role in the long-term future," said Jason Grumet, an Obama energy advisor.

[Tom]

Obama is an uninformed fool.
He is just a front.
He speaks drivel and has no idea what end is up.

I am sure most world leaders are salivating at the though of this rube getting elected. He will be the great eqaulizer.....by dumbing us down to thier world status.

[Tread]

And what is Britt Hume's excuse? Is he not a news anchor? Rather was run out of town for one false story (rightly so) yet these liars are allowed to stay on the air year after year.

I'm glad you can tell the difference between a commentator and a news anchor, but either person is not entitled to spread lies. Commentators are entitled to their own opinions, not their own made up facts. And the sad reality is that many people DO treat these people as news anchors and treat every word they say as fact. And then use that information when they vote, so I believe it absolutely does make a difference.

[bigmack]

And the sad reality is that many people DO treat these people as news anchors and treat every word they say as fact. And then use that information when they vote, so I believe it absolutely does make a difference.
Koolaid Chuggers ain't gonna make/break this clambake. (DelMar merchandise for the person knowing the role of E in Clambake) What little substance either of these two command will have to do. The bad news is that your camp is a tad light on substance. Any objection to that fact and/or claim welcome.

[boxcar]

He's also the Jolly Green Giant

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama vowed yesterday he would break the United States' addiction to "dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive" oil if elected president -- and one of his first targets might well be Canada's oil sands.
A senior Obama advisor said it is an "open question" whether oil from northern Alberta fits with the Democratic candidate's plan to shift the United States sharply away from consuming carbon-intensive fossil fuels.

"If it turns out that those technologies don't advance … and the only way to produce those resources would be at a significant penalty to climate change, then we don't believe that those resources are going to be part of the long term, are going to play a growing role in the long-term future," said Jason Grumet, an Obama energy advisor.

Of course not. How NoBama will break the U.S.'s "addiction" will be raising the gasoline taxes through the stratsophere. (Wonder, though, if he'll only do that to those who make $250K+ per year?) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[ddog]

gas taxes should be raised through the roof.
oil co taxes should be cut to offset.

we want to encourage the supply discourage the demand.

If we would have done it years ago when it was PLAINLY the correct course then we would be in much better shape now.


You ask any major oil guy , they will tell you nothing scares them more than the thought of oil back at 85bucks a barrel when they are in the middle of a massive spending binge to get the supply going and they based that on 125.00 per barrel.

As to anything Morris has to say, it's just the ravings of a dumbass.

The statement you quoted would have one committed if taken seriously, just the 401K crack should disqualify him from airtime.

But, yeah, take a pill, nothing of substance gets on the MSM anymore.
It really does give one pause when you realize that they STILL have people in this country that tune in and seem to think it is a serious enterprise.

Talk about LCD in spades!

Garbage in garbage out seems to apply.

[JustRalph]

This from the Barack Obama Website:

"Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $102,000 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/"

This is what he said while campaigning in Iowa"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."
Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.

He has said he would put no limit on the Social Security Tax. That means that everyone who makes over 102k gets an immediate increase of 12 percent on every dime they make over 102k? Does it not?

He happily leaves taxes off as an "Issue" on his "Issues" web page......interesting how that works.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Here is how one Lawyers group analyzed the Obama Numbers on Social Security on Lawyers working in New York City

http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/entries/Barack%20Obama%20tax%20plan%20Above%20the%20Law%20 blog.jpg

Here are the comments:

The effect is enormous. Betsy’s marginal tax rate goes up from an already ridiculous 42.5% to 51.4%—not including the new 6.2% marginal tax on your employer. Subject to how she structures her withholding, Betsy’s take home pay drops an average of $515 a paycheck—less in the early months of the year, but much more in the later months of the year. Add in the effects on her bonus, and Betsy loses nearly $20,000/year in take-home pay.

I added a third column: how big a pay cut would you have to take to receive the same take-home income? The answer is that Obama’s tax increases have a bigger effect on your income than a law firm cutting New York salaries by $34,000.

Now, money isn’t everything. A BigLaw associate, who is already handsomely paid, might find it worthwhile to take the equivalent of a $34,000/year paycut to have Barack Obama as president instead of John McCain; how else will we guarantee more Obamagirl videos? But given the hue and cry seen on Above the Law and XOXOHTH over salary fluctuations that are a fraction of that size, BigLaw associates may want to fully consider the effect of the candidates’ tax plans on their economic well-being. If you’re willing to reject a law firm over a few thousand dollars, how much money would sway your presidential vote and campaign contributions?

Here is the website: http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/obama_biglaw_and_taxesor_obama_1.php

If you think a lawyer making what is in the graphic above living in New York City is a rich person, you are out of your mind.

[chickenhead]

Our country is bankrupt at this point, if you take our SS and Medicare obligations to present value.

The guys who were in for 6 years who should have cut spending didn't (to say the least), so now we get the guys who raise the taxes. SPending will of course balloon under them as well.

I'm waiting for the party whose gonna cut spending and raise taxes...they'll get my vote. Me, and like 12 other guys.

[JustRalph]

If you think Fox was over the top............BTW, Sean Hannity is not a Journalist..........and has never claimed to be as far as I know. You will love this video. And it is only going to get worse

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

[King Ritchie]

The true facts are that Obama's tax plan does not raise the capital gains/dividends tax or SS taxes (or any other taxes for that matter) on anyone making under 250k per year, or 97% of the American public. The facts are clearly stated on his website, and have been for some time, so there is absolutely no excuse for this. Or you can hear Obama say it himself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0oj7yAuHg

How can you pass judgement on Hannity, Morris and Fox News when you don't comprehend what they say? You, Trend, need to get an education. You, like Obama are a Dweeb.

[hcap]

How can you pass judgement on Hannity, Morris and Fox News when you don't comprehend what they say? You, Trend, need to get an education. You, like Obama are a Dweeb.Kingy, understanding Faux Noos is similar to understanding your posts. I personally try to suppress any symptoms of nausea that might interfere with the humor.

BTW, it's Tread-not Trend.

[lsbets]

So JR - if what you posted is accurate from Obama, than it appears retread is the one who is full of it, doesn't it? Retread, JR shows pretty clearly the plan is to raise SS tax on all income over the current limit, can you oint us to something that says other wise?

[lcohen]

Sort of like the left wing media repeatedly stating that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years

[jonnielu]

In Fox News's never ending campaign to get false information out to the public in order to beat Obama, Dick Morris continued telling fantastic lies about Obama's tax plans with Hannity there to talk him thru it and encourage him.

These guys make me sick. God forbid we have a fair fight with the candidates true positions being debated. These guys are SCUM and it is truly a shame that we do not have broadcasting licenses that can be revoked whenever someone shows such a blatant disregard for the truth. What do you think the odds are that Hannity will give a correction?
From the June 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:



HANNITY: All right, I'm going to tell you something. You -- this is -- you wrote some phenomenal stuff. I want you to tell everybody, your first chapter, President Obama -- what would he do?



MORRIS: He would double the capital gains tax. That means that you get far less when you sell your home, or your 401(k), or your stock plan. He would double the dividends tax. That means that old ladies who clip coupons from corporate stocks get less money.

He would double the -- he would increase the limit on Social Security taxes, which means instead of paying 12 1/2 percent of the first $100,000, you pay it on everything that you're making.

HANNITY: Wow.

MORRIS: So that gives you --

HANNITY: And you'll never get that money back.

MORRIS: It gives you an effective tax rate of 60 percent, and it means no boss can raise your pay without having to shell out that extra money in taxes.



The true facts are that Obama's tax plan does not raise the capital gains/dividends tax or SS taxes (or any other taxes for that matter) on anyone making under 250k per year, or 97% of the American public. The facts are clearly stated on his website, and have been for some time, so there is absolutely no excuse for this. Or you can hear Obama say it himself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0oj7yAuHg


How do you people stand around and let these idiots even talk about raising taxes??? Is this correct, that socialist security taxes are 12.5% now?

jdl

[JustRalph]

Social Security Taxes have been 12 percent for a long time. 6 percent comes from you........6 percent from your employer. You never even see the employer side of it.

I used to give performance reviews to my employees and I would use a worksheet on what they were paid etc. I used to show them all costs for everything........including Health care and social security taxes. You would be surprised how many people don't know that they pay 12% of their salary to social security. Think about that.

They never get near that back either.

Here is a site I find interesting. Although I don't know anything about it. I can't verify the numbers......but interesting nonetheless.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/01/approximating-social-securitys-rate-of.html


Comments from the Frederal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on SS:

Social Security has evolved from humble beginnings in 1935 as a program of "forced saving" intended to ensure retirement income for the elderly into its present form: a complex, resource-intensive program that redistributes income across individuals and households based on a wide variety of characteristics. In general, Social Security favors low-wage earners over high-wage earners, older workers over younger workers, women over men, and immigrant workers over U.S.-born workers. The "average" U.S. worker faces a rate of return on contributions that is quite low--less than 2% after adjusting for inflation. By comparison, the real yield on a 10-year inflation-indexed Treasury Bond is currently around 3.5%. In addition to being low, rates of return from Social Security must be viewed as risky because they are subject to change from future political actions that will be needed to ensure long-term solvency of the program. Under intermediate demographic and economic assumptions, Gokhale (1998) reports that the OASI payroll tax rate must be increased by about 4 percentage points (from 10.7 to 14.6%) to pay for projected benefits on an ongoing basis, i.e., for 75 years and beyond. Alternatively, long-term solvency could be achieved by cutting benefits by 25%. Either action would reduce the real rate of return for the average U.S. worker to around 1%. A tax increase would be disproportionately borne by young workers (who are further from retirement) whereas a cut in benefits would penalize young and old workers in a more even-handed way. While numerous ideas for reforming Social Security exist, none have yet to be formally proposed in the U.S. Congress. Continued delays in addressing Social Security's long-term financing problem will only lead to more painful adjustments in the future.

http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr99/el99-34.html

The next time you hear somebody say they don't want Social Security privatized.........think of this

Most people work about 40 years at least.

Put 5k away every year for 40 years at 2% and you end up with over 300k.

2% is a way low number btw, But how many people do you know who draw back even close to 300k from social security after they retire? At $1200 a month in benefits you need to live ten years after retirement to get back 144k. Try 20 years to get near your 300k. The problem is 300k is pretty low compared to what you could have made in the private sector with 5k a year. If you averaged 5% you would have over 600k at retirement..........such a good deal huh? You gonna live to 105? Btw, the 5k number is ten percent of your salary if you make 50k a year. Social Security is taking 12%........... :bang:

[jonnielu]

I'm not surprised at all at the number of people that are unaware of the rate. Since most propaganda mills only cite one half of the percentage, I thought for a minute that it had been raised to 25%. I'm sure the cattle that authorize their employers to take it and then authorize the federal governmanet to hand it out amongst the neighborhood wouldnt mind. They have no idea of how the scam works in the first place. Most actually still believe that there is a trust fund, since the propaganda mills continue to call it one.

If Fox, or any other network wanted to be accurate, they would call it the poilitical power, vote buying, jurisdiction increasing scheme at the expense of those willing to surrender their citizenship program.

jdl

[boxcar]

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Great post and very informative, JR.

There's no way any Ponzi scheme can be modified, fixed, altered, adjusted, reformed -- whatever. apart from it being painful. A Ponzi scheme is what it is. SS and the income tax are the two lamest ideas Big Gov has ever hatched.

Boxcar

[ddog]

yes it was if you were still living in 1999.
Wait, by gosh ,I see it now!

Carry on.

[46zilzal]

How can you pass judgement on Hannity, Morris and Fox News when you don't comprehend what they say? You, Trend, need to get an education. You, like Obama are a Dweeb.
Between the yelling over all who come on the show, and the idiotic presumptive stories, usually without a shred of evidence, along with the daily agenda of scripted stories (see the great documentary OUTFOXED), their show is right there with The Daily Show...matter of fact, the latter is more informative.

[boxcar]

yes it was if you were still living in 1999.
Wait, by gosh ,I see it now!

Carry on.

You and Zilly must be joined at the hip given your proclivities for such valuable insights and stimulating ideas. Don't know what this forum would ever do without libs like you. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. While you're at it, genius, why don't you share with us just what has changed since 1999 that has made the SS ponzi scheme so much better.

[Lefty]

Tread, the lie is in the name of your thread. Obama himself hasd said he plans to raise taxes, capital gains and SS. Hannity and Colmes is a commentary show and Dick Morris is a frequent guest, as is, many many top dems and I have given an incomplete list many times. So you need to get some facts and stop spreading your own brand of lies.

[46zilzal]

Hannity made to look like the idiot we all know him to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZO7MPxJIs&feature=related

[King Ritchie]

Kingy, understanding Faux Noos is similar to understanding your posts. I personally try to suppress any symptoms of nausea that might interfere with the humor.

BTW, it's Tread-not Trend.

The "Sheep", Hcap provides us with more intellegent thought.

[King Ritchie]

Between the yelling over all who come on the show, and the idiotic presumptive stories, usually without a shred of evidence, along with the daily agenda of scripted stories (see the great documentary OUTFOXED), their show is right there with The Daily Show...matter of fact, the latter is more informative.

"Sheep", Zil weighs in with more intellegent thought. Maybe hcap and zil should move to california and make it legal.

[Lefty]

h'cap, what makes you nauseas about Fox News is that lil libs like you can't stand fair and balanced. It's an absolute FACT that the dem view is stated over and over again by many many prominent dems. So since you can't face that fact you and zilly and others have to resort to cutesy little sayings you get from your lib blogs.

[46zilzal]

Hannity is a loon who cannot get his facts straight nor seems to care to either.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806170004

[Lefty]

zilly, are you just incapable of watching something and giving your own opinion in your own words? It appears you cannot..
Hannity had the Rev Wright issue right didn't he? He was all over it before anyone else picked it up. Media matters is a leftwing creation. Nuff said.
zilly wanna cracker?

[46zilzal]

People who worked there tell it like it was.
http://www.outfoxed.org/

As former Fox reporter/anchor Jon Du Pre put it in the documentary “Outfoxed,” “We weren’t necessarily, as it was told to us, a newsgathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point of view … we were there to reinforce a constituency.”

[Lefty]

zilly, that film by former disgruntled employees has long been refuted as untrue crap.
Here's a suggestion: Watch for yourself. Form your own opinions. I have been watching about 3 yrs. I see dem'lib after demlib come on and give their opinions. There is actual debate. I see this for myself. Now who am i to blve? You, your bogus film or my "lyin eyes"

[delayjf]

Boy Tread, I'd have to say ole JR took you out back to the proverbal wood-shed. I have also heard Obama claim that he wanted to double the lowest Capitol Gains tax rate. Change we can believe in indeed.

JR - thanks for the education - your my hero. :ThmbUp:

[46zilzal]

There is actual debate. I see this for myself. Now who am i to blve?
Their form of debate is to simply OUT SHOUT the other person, or cut their microphone.

[ddog]

You and Zilly must be joined at the hip given your proclivities for such valuable insights and stimulating ideas. Don't know what this forum would ever do without libs like you. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. While you're at it, genius, why don't you share with us just what has changed since 1999 that has made the SS ponzi scheme so much better.


Soon as YOU explain the ss ponzi scheme and path to privatization?

You see , it's like kids and candy, they want it but us elders have to ration it out to them.

dolt.

That incisive enough fer you.

[Tom]

Their form of debate is to simply OUT SHOUT the other person, or cut their microphone.

See, now that just shows you do not watch it and have no clue what you are talking about. There is a difference between news and talk shows. You confuse talk shows with news. Hannity is not a news show - it is a talk show. Rush is not news, he is a talk show. Both are biased and that is what their shows are all about. Same with Knucklehead Ed Schultz and Sister Sleeze on Airhead America. That is a given. News, zilly, news, google it.

Go to the news shows to make judgments. I have not heard many, aside from Russert, BHS, like Neal Cauvuto in asking the hard questions to both side. I've listened to him grill repubs and call them on thier scripted replies many times.

I do not hear this from Wolf Blitzer too often. Some on CNN do a fair job, most do not. I don't know of anyone on ABC, cBS, of any of the NBC-clones who are very objective.

[bigmack]

I do not hear this from Wolf Blitzer too often. Some on CNN do a fair job, most do not. I don't know of anyone on ABC, cBS, of any of the NBC-clones who are very objective.
You're asking for him to figure that out by himself. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. Fox is the enemy because of Mothership directives. These drones can't figure out things on their own. They've been surrounded by bias for years and had no idea. They still don't.

[Tom]

Yeah, I must have had a senior moment there, Mac! :bang:

[hcap]

Accuracy
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/Fox%20News%20Propaganda.jpg

Fairness
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc227/jle1127/foxnews.jpg


The "Sheep", Hcap provides us with more intellegent thought.

Da King doing dilligent research

http://www.yellowcakewalk.net/images/bush_sheep.jpg

zilly, that film by former disgruntled employees has long been refuted as untrue crap.Disgruntled as Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil' General Sanchez, Scotty McClellan?
Score another for sheep lefty

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k288/cherelle64/SheepleWatchFoxNews.jpg

And here's one of the rest of the paceadvantage Faux Noos fan club guys in rapt attention. Watching the Noos
http://www.gburgforum.com/SpecialFrontpgaes/April/herd-of-sheep.jpg

[Lefty]

Their form of debate is to simply OUT SHOUT the other person, or cut their microphone.
zikllysosilly, if you'd just bother to watch, you'd see and hear those demlibs give as good as they get. Does Keith Overbite(courtesy Mark Levin)have conservative guests on? Does thelegtricklefor Obama guy on Hardball have conservatives on? Prob is libs just don't like but one side being presented. That's why they storm college stages, and why the dimlibs in congress trying to bring bk the unFairness Doctrine.

[Lefty]

hcap, are you telling me I don't know what I actually see. You guys are the ones that constantly parrot the lib blogs. I try to be orig and if I use someone else's cutsey names, I give credit. Your party and Obama is a joke on Democracy.

[Secretariat]

Just Ralph,

My income? These guys you are showing make well over a quarter of a million a year. A bit more than most of us. Let's hope they start paying so we don't have to keep borrowing from China.

[chickenhead]

2% is a way low number btw, But how many people do you know who draw back even close to 300k from social security after they retire? At $1200 a month in benefits you need to live ten years after retirement to get back 144k. Try 20 years to get near your 300k. The problem is 300k is pretty low compared to what you could have made in the private sector with 5k a year. If you averaged 5% you would have over 600k at retirement..........such a good deal huh? You gonna live to 105? Btw, the 5k number is ten percent of your salary if you make 50k a year. Social Security is taking 12%...........

Sign me up! All you have to do is get the current group on SS to agree to stop receiving it. Old people don't vote, do they? ;)

Otherwise, option B is to actually increase our savings rate. Not such a bad thing it seems.

[Tom]

SS, brought to you by dems.
Then corrupted by dems.

Anything a dem does turns to shit.

[chickenhead]

Bush and Co managed to make the largest single expansion to the welfare state in 40 years with Medicare.

He balanced that out by not paying for it, tho, so I guess its all good.

And, he did win Florida on the back of it.

Something the heritage foundation said back in 2003 when it was getting pushed thru...might be a pertinant idea to people up in arms about Bushs tax cuts going away, but who looked the other way as spending exploded:

President Bush's recently enacted tax cut and tax reform package will likely be the first casualty
Because of arcane budget rules, the bulk of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2008 and the end of 2010. Extending these tax cuts or making them permanent will be enormously difficult in an environment of skyrocketing spending for government-provided health care. Indeed, the creation of a prescription drug entitlement may be akin to repealing the Bush tax cuts.

[ddog]

The small bit of economoc policies that have been pushed by Bush and his admin have of course been a disaster and as always was the case will come back to bite the hands they thought they were helping.

He has tried (I guess) , but he and his admin have been a disaster on their part of the deal.

The unfunded amounts he has spent at HIS demand are immoral and along with the Berquacky, well as predicted, you can see the short term outcome.

The real bad part hasn't even hit shore yet.
He has doomed this country to a horrible , horrible debt load , which can only be inflated out of.

Hope that works somehow and that our foreign buddies will take our IOU forever.

[Lefty]

They said the same thing of Reagan. Yada yada yada.
If Obama gets in, then you'll see some real debt load. His healthcare plan alone will doom us, if he doesn't let the terrorists get us first.

[ddog]

Left,

They(who is that) SAID the same THING, but this is a flash just for you.

It is NOT the Regan years, things change, the HARD NUMBERS change.

This is not like Regan, nothing the same at all.

NOTHING.

Oh and this as well, if Mccain is going to stay with the nutjobs he has around him as econ advisors , then I am going to have to think very hard, since Ruben and Volcker who could come in with BO are light YEARS ahead of anything the pugs have to offer.

No comparision, a rout.

[chickenhead]

Yada yada yada.

a bulwark of conservative principles you are Lefty.

Amazing.

[JustRalph]

Just Ralph,

My income? These guys you are showing make well over a quarter of a million a year. A bit more than most of us. Let's hope they start paying so we don't have to keep borrowing from China.

Ah, Class warfare. Went right back to the playbook for your answer huh?

[boxcar]

Soon as YOU explain the ss ponzi scheme and path to privatization?

If you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, you're farther behind the 8 ball than I even thought. (At this point in time I wouldn't even call you stupid for fear of insulting all the stupid ones out there!)

And why do I have to explain anything to you. You made the utterly lame response to my post that lauded JR's informative one. This was your lame-brained reply:

yes it was if you were still living in 1999.
Wait, by gosh ,I see it now!

Carry on.

So, once again: You explain yourself. Tell us how SS has become so much better since '99! What has changed so drastically since '99 to make the Federal Reserve Bank's observations irrelevant or immaterial for today? Or are you just another meathead stuffed with air?

Boxcar

[ddog]

If you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, you're farther behind the 8 ball than I even thought. (At this point in time I wouldn't even call you stupid for fear of insulting all the stupid ones out there!)

And why do I have to explain anything to you. You made the utterly lame response to my post that lauded JR's informative one. This was your lame-brained reply:



So, once again: You explain yourself. Tell us how SS has become so much better since '99! What has changed so drastically since '99 to make the Federal Reserve Bank's observations irrelevant or immaterial for today? Or are you just another meathead stuffed with air?

Boxcar

Boxcar,

I am going to ignore the fact that you can't seem to explain anything about which you post.

And that your first instinct is to assume you know that which by your posting above you clearly do not.

I said, that if you were living in 1999 that the analysis posted was ok.

You "took" this, given your great insight, not on display anwhere, but I will assume it anyway, to mean that I was
saying that the problems spoken of could STILL be solved with the same 1999 based solution set even though the prolem has GOTTEN WORSE SINCE THEN.

What I said is exacly what I MEANT, the 1999 based policy prescriptions WILL NOT DO THE JOB NOW.

So, if you really have any interest, you don't, but whatever, in a serious exchange then I need your definition reply to the questions I asked so I know your frame of reference as it implies what you wish to discuss.
What an ulitmate empty suit you post as.


Anyway, you gave nothing , as is your norm.
Even for "just a horseboard" you are the Dutrow of rationality.


I , however will point you to this.
Read and get back to me on my questions.


http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/ssissuebriefno.%205%20no%20cover.pdf

[boxcar]

Boxcar,

I am going to ignore the fact that you can't seem to explain anything about which you post.

And that your first instinct is to assume you know that which by your posting above you clearly do not.

I said, that if you were living in 1999 that the analysis posted was ok.

You "took" this, given your great insight, not on display anwhere, but I will assume it anyway, to mean that I was
saying that the problems spoken of could STILL be solved with the same 1999 based solution set even though the prolem has GOTTEN WORSE SINCE THEN.

What I said is exacly what I MEANT, the 1999 based policy prescriptions WILL NOT DO THE JOB NOW.

You're a pathetic joke. All of a sudden the above paragraph is what you "meant"!? How could this be when the Fed didn't offer any specific prescriptions, but instead was merely diagnosing the state of SS. Their analysis was on the mark in '99 and is still applicable to today's situation because there's been no meaningful changes made to the SS system. This is my take.

So, meathead, I ask you on more time: Why isn't the Federal Reserve Bank's analysis (your term this time) relevant for today? What has so drastically changed with the SS system since they made that analysis? You're the one who made the utterly stupid remark. So, a reasonable person would think you have a rationale reason or two for making that kind of comment. Or are you're just another windbag incapable of finding your butt even with your both hands glued to it? Which is it? Put up or shut up. Substantiate your criticism or just concede your gray matter isn't screwed in very tightly.

Boxcar

[ddog]

You're a pathetic joke. All of a sudden the above paragraph is what you "meant"!? How could this be when the Fed didn't offer any specific prescriptions, but instead was merely diagnosing the state of SS. Their analysis was on the mark in '99 and is still applicable to today's situation because there's been no meaningful changes made to the SS system. This is my take.

So, meathead, I ask you on more time: Why isn't the Federal Reserve Bank's analysis (your term this time) relevant for today? What has so drastically changed with the SS system since they made that analysis? You're the one who made the utterly stupid remark. So, a reasonable person would think you have a rationale reason or two for making that kind of comment. Or are you're just another windbag incapable of finding your butt even with your both hands glued to it? Which is it? Put up or shut up. Substantiate your criticism or just concede your gray matter isn't screwed in very tightly.

Boxcar


Name calling and bluster won't extract your foot from your mouth, so do as you will.
I notice that the guy who posted the stuff JR? seemed to take the meaning of the 1999 comment.

He didn't come back with your kind of nonsense.
SO.......

You don't think that the years since 1999 have done anything to change the analysis that was done in 1999?

You don't think we are deeper in debt of all kinds than 1999?
You don't think we have wasted anything of the "surplus" since 1999?
You don't think that the boomers retirement is closer now than in 1999?

You don't think that real median wage growth has stagnated since 1999?
You don't think that the tax adjustments and inflation and AMT and other unfunded liabilites we have piled up and I could list another THOUSAND things have CHANGED since 1999?

I am still waiting for one reply of any substance from you.
Hell will freeze over it seems.

You post as a screaming child who is late for the tit.

I must conclude that posting anything of import aimed at you is akin to the old saying(around 1999 I think) of don't jump in with pigs if you don't want to come out muddy.

You are really just another of the pathetic parrots, once deprived of your talking points you are empty.
Want a cracker there Polly?
Do you want me to explain what you thought you meant by ss ponzi scheme is that what it takes for you to have a thought?



ps.

the link still works , read it and post something based in earthly reality.

[delayjf]

The small bit of economoc policies that have been pushed by Bush and his admin have of course been a disaster
What policies are you referring to here?
then I am going to have to think very hard, since Ruben and Volcker who could come in with BO are light YEARS ahead of anything the pugs have to offer.
If OB wins, what will their policies or stratgies be?

[skate]

Our country is bankrupt at this point, if you take our SS and Medicare obligations to present value.

The guys who were in for 6 years who should have cut spending didn't (to say the least), so now we get the guys who raise the taxes. SPending will of course balloon under them as well.

I'm waiting for the party whose gonna cut spending and raise taxes...they'll get my vote. Me, and like 12 other guys.


Welp, during the 90s it took bout 15% of the USA tax dollar to fund the USA (gov.) debt; today it's under 10%.

AAAhhhh, growth=victory.

And only with debt do we have growth.

[skate]

Obamma, you, are like the Muzak of the political world.

Ya gots no informational content for the long term

[skate]

It is absolutely a lie to state:



That mcnutsy wants to keep "troops in Iraq for 100 years".:rolleyes:

Now when "they repeat this" do you consider it to be a lye?

[Tom]

My man skate!
Where've ya been?

Muzak.....BO= Mr. Muzak!

I love it. What tune does he play?

Candyman!

sing

Yes we can, 'cause I'm the Candyman,
I mix it up with love and throw it under the bus!

stop singing

:lol:

[chickenhead]

Welp, during the 90s it took bout 15% of the USA tax dollar to fund the USA (gov.) debt; today it's under 10%.

AAAhhhh, growth=victory.

And only with debt do we have growth.

Skate: The Grandmaster of the Unsustainable Debt Fueled Welfare State. Lets try to grow debt faster than GDP....forever! and see what happens.

Good luck with that.

[ddog]

AHhhhhhh, the power of inflation on top of a debased currency ......!

Little do they see , little do they care to know.......

Soldier on , we will have you all under the boot soon you little debt slaves.


Ohh, I just love them so.


:jump:

[boxcar]

You don't think that the years since 1999 have done anything to change the analysis that was done in 1999?

You don't think we are deeper in debt of all kinds than 1999?
You don't think we have wasted anything of the "surplus" since 1999?
You don't think that the boomers retirement is closer now than in 1999?

You don't think that real median wage growth has stagnated since 1999?
You don't think that the tax adjustments and inflation and AMT and other unfunded liabilites we have piled up and I could list another THOUSAND things have CHANGED since 1999?

I have absolutely no doubt you could create a meaningless list as long as the Mississippi. But your list begs the question because you haven't connected the dots for us. How have all these things on your above list rendered the Banks' analysis of the SS system immaterial or irrelevant for today? How have the above items materially and radically altered the SS system since '99?

I notice that the guy who posted the stuff JR? seemed to take the meaning of the 1999 comment.

I'll try to break this to you as gently as I can, sir: No one on this thread has given you the time of day relative to your post #25, save for yours truly. Non one has called you out on the nonsense you wrote in #25, save for yours truly. So, pray tell, please: How can you now write about how JR or anyone else took your meaning in post 25!? :bang: :bang: (May I suggest that you're delusional?) I called you out, however, because I know you're not capable of connecting those dots. I know the lights in your attic have been out for some time now (but this, too, may be Bush's fault due to the recession or depression or whatever financial funk we're allegedly in :rolleyes: ) But what you do excel at is filling up cyberspace with your cyberjunk, hoping someone will notice you and make you feel relevant. Well, I have. I have noticed the loud, hollow noise you make whenever you post. In your case the ratio of noise to signal goes well beyond inordinately high.

Ciao,
Boxcar

[JustRalph]

I told DDog a while back that I don't respond to him anymore.........

shaking it over here boss..................!

[skate]

Skate: The Grandmaster of the Unsustainable Debt Fueled Welfare State. Lets try to grow debt faster than GDP....forever! and see what happens.

Good luck with that.


Well lets try to put some perspective into our words.

As for welfare, it started way back when the-skate was a big fan of Ann Rand.

Ron Paul may have some good ideas as you might also have good ideas, but the-skate (bad boy) has to look at where we stand TODAY.
So, the skate rides the train.

What? do you think you can change "ANY" part of our (USA) welfare.
Nope, so instead of crying (not you):( deal with the situation, since we can't go back.

And guess what, we've never been better off, economically. And the only way this system will work is to have debt. No NO NO , how can you say "debt faster than growth". never never.

During the 90s our tax money spent on the interest on our debt was 15%, now we spend under 10% of our tax on that debt.
Because our GDP is reaching $14.5 Trillion.

[robert99]

skate,

Yes GDP is at that level but on a devalued dollar, also GDP is not 100% profit - you have to take out monies from that figure spent on wages, debt, taxes, tax rebates, materials, wastage, theft and imports. The Reagan deficit has gone from $153,000,000,000 to $711,000,000,000 under Bush(2). There is hardly anything left over to pay off any of that debt.

There is to my mind a series of 4 fair articles discussing the changes in USA hegemony based on a series of interviews with US citizens, starting with those joining military service at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/06/28/sm_america28.xml

It made me feel good to know a little of and about you guys. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[toetoe]

Head of Thread Tread,

Over $250,000, under $250,000 --- it's still capital gains, no ... :confused: ?

$100,000 rather than $250,000 --- wouldn't that be 60% false, and not 100% false ?

Hannity's best line: "Wow."

So you and Barry are trying to rally the 97% against the 3%, I guess ? That adumbrates a polarizing administration, should BHO succeed to the Mulatto House.

[riskman]

That adumbrates a polarizing administration, should BHO succeed to the Mulatto House.

This is necessary to make a point?

[hcap]

adumbrates? To repeat riskmans' questionThis is necessary to make a point?
Snobbishness and some racial humor and Hannity no less. Wow!
What more can one ask?

[toetoe]

If I restricted my posts to the indispensable(sp.?), I would have nary a post by now. You'd like that, wouldn't you ? Mwaha ... MWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAH.

[bigmack]

Toes - A half-witted wanker parked in Monroe pedantically doling out his deep-seeded rancor is less than interesting and deserves a mere brush of the shoulder.

[riskman]

"You can observe a lot just by watching."