And I quote....:LIAR!"

[Tom]

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/123659/top_9_lies_in_obamas



2. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal.

This line is to make you think the president has been working super hard on the budget. He did propose one in May. It got shot down (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget) 97-0 in the Senate. Yeah, I don’t like boring people with my defeats either.

[Greyfox]

The Pres has left all of this too long. He had commission recommendations 6 months ago that he just ignored.
Standard and Poors is now threatening to downgrade America's credit rating even if the debt ceiling is raised.
The debt was 20 % of the GDP when Obama came to power.
The debt is now 25% of the GDP today. That's a huge incurrence of debt under his regime, just 3 years!
Unfortunately, today's debt = tomorrow's taxes.
There is no way the next President can avoid increases in Taxes to get out of the mess that Obama will leave behind. However, it's his mess if re-elected.
Personally, I think that the brightest Republicans should be running from the Presidency rather than for it.

[thaskalos]

Personally, I think that the brightest Republicans should be running from the Presidency rather than for it.
That's EXACTLY what I said about the Democrats...3 years ago.

[Greyfox]

That's EXACTLY what I said about the Democrats...3 years ago.

You called it right. Bush didn't leave the economy in good standing and Obama drove it over the cliff.
Who except a power monger would want the crap that's coming ahead?

[thaskalos]

You called it right. Bush didn't leave the economy in good standing and Obama drove it over the cliff.
Who except a power monger would want the crap that's coming ahead?
Yep, they just want to line their own pockets...and those of their friends.

They destroy the country, and then retire to a life of giving speeches and writing books... making mega millions in the process.

Who cares about you and me?

Anybody know what happend to the middle class?

Maybe Bush and Obama should write a book about THAT!

[mostpost]

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/123659/top_9_lies_in_obamas




There are so many things wrong with this article that it's hard to know where to start, so I will just go in order.
1. For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

Obama is clearly trying to blame Bush for all the problems he so famously ‘inherited.’ The president misleads the public here in a couple of ways. First off, he implies that the Bush tax cuts caused revenue to the federal government to shrink. Not true. Revenue was increased, because businesses had incentive to create more jobs which led to more taxpayers and therefore more increased tax revenue.

As for the comments on spending too much on wars and health care ... really, President Obama? For better or worse, you have not ended the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, and you’ve even started a new one in Libya. And then there’s Obamacare. I did not agree with Medicare Part D, but to say that’s the problem is like calling a burning match a problem while standing next to a bonfire.


Revenue fell from 2000 to 2001. Revenue fell from 2001 to 2002. Revenue fell from 2002 to 2003. It also fell from 2007 to 2008. So in half the years of the Bush Presidency, revenue fell from the previous year. In total revenue for the eight years of the Bush Presidency increased 38% as compared to total revenue for the eight years of the Clinton Presidency. Now before you start patting yourselves on the back, the same increase for the Clinton years was 66%. All of this does not take into account what we could have had.

Obamacare vs. Medicare part D. you sure you want to go there. Obamcare has nothing to do with the current debt in as much as most of its provisions don't go into effect until 2012 or later. Also Obamacare is funded, Medicar part D was unfunded.

2. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal.

This line is to make you think the president has been working super hard on the budget. He did propose one in May. It got shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Yeah, I don’t like boring people with my defeats either.

That vote was on whether to take up the proposal, not on its merits. Obama had a new proposal in the pipeline and debating the original would have been a waste of time. Do you seriously think that no one would have supported the proposal if they had been arguing the merits.

3. Let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations.

President Obama’s health care plan defunds Medicare of half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Is that what he calls modest? I haven’t seen any Republicans advocating for those kinds of draconian cuts to senior health care. Yet he still continues to tell the public that it’s the Republicans that want to metaphorically throw Grandma off a cliff?

Obama's health care plan does not affect seniors benefits at all. The savings come from two sources. One is a crackdown on fraud and abuse. The other is the elimination of subsidies to private insurance companies involved in the Medicare Advantage program. Of course these companies are opposed to their free lunch being taken away and are promulgating false rumors.

Republicans on the other hand want to destroy Medicare and turn it into a voucher program.
The information on the "defunding of medicare can be found at this radical left wing website.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2010/09/25/does-obamacare-really-cut-medicare-benefits-to-senior-citizens/

4. [A] significant number of Republicans of Congress are insisting on a different approach. A cuts-only approach. An approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all.

Would these be the same wealthy Americans and corporations that earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the taxes? They really don’t contribute anything at all? You know who doesn’t actually contribute anything, Mr. President, is almost every other American. Nearly half of us don’t pay a single dime to Uncle Sam. They are the ones not contributing, not the wealthy (or as I like to call them, the employers).

http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.aspx
The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent have over 38 percent of the wealth and pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes. These households have an average wealth of $10.2 million and pay only 3.5 percent of their wealth in taxes. By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes.

The above is from the Office of Social Justice of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis. It looks at the matter from the standpoint of accumulated wealth, not just annual income.

5. We all want a government that lives within its means.

Obviously not, Mr. $1.5 Trillion Deficit.

Obama bought a house which the previous owner had severely neglected. Fixing it up is going to cost money.

6. Under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans that make under $250,000 a year would see no tax increases at all. None.

Correct. Now where can they pick up their unemployment checks when they are let go because their employers can no longer afford to pay their salaries?

We had the Bush tax cuts for eight years and during that time we had the smallest job growth in our history except for the Great Depression. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the theory that tax cuts create jobs. A tax increase means some people won't be able to afford another yacht. And frankly I don't care.

7. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade, millionaires and billionaires, to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.

See #4 above.

Ditto

8. Understand, raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money; it simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.

Well yeah, if you’re not going to cut any spending, we won’t be able to pay the interest on the loans we already owe to China. But there’s more than enough revenue to pay the important bills like the interest on our debt and the entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Those bills, by the way, are the ones that get paid first. As insolvent as they are in the long run, the money is there for them right now. And in the event of a government shutdown, Grandma will get her social security check.

Obama has offered $4.4T in spending cuts. The stalemate is because Republicans refuse to agree to $.8T in revenue increases.

9. We have to [raise the debt ceiling] by next Tuesday, August 2, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills. Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default, is if the rest of us agree to their deep spending cuts-only approach. If that happens and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills. Bills that include monthly Social Security checks ...

Don’t forget to specifically fear-monger the elderly! Don't be scared, Grandma, Social Security checks will be sent out, even if the government shuts down. And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t that happen in 1995? Or was that a government shutdown and not a default? Even so, Social Security entitlements were still paid.

Jenny, are you stupid? (Rhetorical question-I have no doubt of the answer)
The debt ceiling had no part in the 1995 shut down. Essential services such as military pay, security and Social Security were not affected. While it is likely the Social Security checks would go out next month, no one can predict how a long term crisis would affect them.

[skate]

Mostly Toasted...so sad.

get some facts behind your butt.

the previous administration did very good up until 2006, when suddenly congress would not support the president.

Just go to the Fed Gov. finance site, look into the Tax revenue brought in during Bush years. Fact...the Rev. was almost $800 Billion more than during the FishbellieBill Years. woooo!

You cant compare other administrations with only some of the facts.

Example, during FishbellieBills term, we (USA) did not have the competition we have today, that's why it is a BAD Idea to raise tAXES.

THE cOMPETITION we now have consist...China, Russia, Brazil. India, hence our taxes are TOO High...NOW.

You've been BURNT:cool:

[skate]

Dear Burnt

The Cuts that theBO wants are cuts that Previously were Not suppose to be of existence.

we kept hearing about the Iraq War not being funded...Now we keep hearing about theBO Cutting funds from the "NOT FUNDED":lol:

[Tom]

Note to mostie......sorry, you are wrong.
But thanks for playing.

[skate]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/corporate_gdp.gif

[ArlJim78]

we've seen this movie before, Washington comes up with some flim flam that makes it appear that they've done something bold. thats why we can't trust them, thats why we can't cave in, thats why we need a balanced budget ammendment, thats why we cannot increase taxes. these jokers will find a way to spend the money and the cuts that are supposed to happen in the out years never materialize. Obama has no clue and can't be trusted, he screws up everything he touches and is now playing this only with his re election in mind. he is the only one who is hell bent on raising taxes.
Reids plan is a joke also, there are no real cuts in his plan.

shut it all down because these jokers don't get it.

[mostpost]

Mostly Toasted...so sad.

get some facts behind your butt.

the previous administration did very good up until 2006, when suddenly congress would not support the president.
Does until 2006 include 2001 when real revenues dropped by $34B from 2000?
Does it include 2002 when we took in $135B in revenue less than in 2001
And in 2003 revenue was down $71B from the previous year. Nobody is denying that Bush took in more revenue than Clinton. Over any eight year period revenue will increase if only because of the population increase. The truth is that under Bush the rate of increase was half what it was under Clinton, half what it was under Bush-Reagan and lower than any administration since Hoover. As for your accusation that the Congress would not support the President. Of course they wouldn't. Thank God.
Just go to the Fed Gov. finance site, look into the Tax revenue brought in during Bush years. Fact...the Rev. was almost $800 Billion more than during the FishbellieBill Years. woooo!
What is your source? Mine is:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html Table 1.1
Your $800B figure is way off-low. Which does not change the fact that revenue under Bush grew less than under any administration since Hoover.
woooo. yourself!!
You cant compare other administrations with only some of the facts.

Example, during FishbellieBills term, we (USA) did not have the competition we have today, that's why it is a BAD Idea to raise tAXES.

THE cOMPETITION we now have consist...China, Russia, Brazil. India, hence our taxes are TOO High...NOW.
Competition from our own companies which have moved manufacturing to foreign countries, which stash profits off shore and which refuse to pay American wages to American workers.

You've been BURNT:cool:

I feel more like ice right now.

[mostpost]

Note to mostie......sorry, you are wrong.
But thanks for playing.

Thanks for informing me. Silly me; I thought that presenting the actual facts would count for something. Obviously the important factor is an ex cathedra pronouncement by Tom. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/corporate_gdp.gif

You do realize that this chart shows that the corporate tax burden is now 1/6 of what it was in 1953? Or do you?

[Pace Cap'n]

You do realize that this chart shows that the corporate tax burden is now 1/6 of what it was in 1953? Or do you?

Is that bad?

[fast4522]

Give it another week, for those of you here who want to act like Obama lets see if I feel your pain.

[mostpost]

Is that bad?
Yes. :jump: :jump:

[Tom]

We still have the second highest corporate rates in the world.
This is a big part of the reason that many companies are doing their growth overseas. They are investing on foreign soil and creating jobs and makin large profits.

All the things that the Obama-Dem business climate here at home are preventing.

[skate]

You do realize that this chart shows that the corporate tax burden is now 1/6 of what it was in 1953? Or do you?

You see...what we want (USA) is not a higher Tax Rate...nope...but a higher amount collected...as in COLLECTED...As in the Bushey Admin. *see Chart.


I would guess that this shows why you are having such a problem.

If the Corp tax is 1/6 lower, why is it that the Tax collected under this 1/6 lower rate is so much higher.

Does this say , in your mind, that an increase in tax would lower the Tax collected, because this is xactly how it works?...yep.

that is xactly why the Bushey Admin was able to collect more Rev, almost $800 Billion more, than did Fishbellie Bill, after the Bush Tax Cut went into law.

What you can also confirm is that the Economy, GDP, increased while the rates went DOWN.

Is the BO looking to increase rates at the very time we are higher than our Competition.... dont you get it?...Very Simple....:cool:

[skate]

dear Melt Down

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/listdocs.cfm?topic2id=20

just go to the address above you'll see Copr Taxes (Receipts) collected under Bushey Total some 5,86 Billion more the FishBellies.

that's only the Corp taxes.

And keep in mind this was under the Bushey Tax Cuts.

Also...for the benifit of others...the Bushey Tax Cuts are REALLY obsolescent.

This happens when Competition becomes stronger, as in Russia , China, India Brazil, Cuba, etc.oh and Mexico, Canada and the-skate.