Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks

+6
othershoe1030
gulfbeachbandit
VectorMan
2seaoat
Nekochan
boards of FL
10 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney "traded barbs" and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.

Here is a sample of what's being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:


— One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.

Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."

PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney's charge is "half true."

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."

Still, as NPR's Julie Rovner has reported, "some of the money does indeed reduce future Medical spending, and the fact is, you can't reduce health care spending and preserve Medicare for 78 million baby boomers without slowing its growth."

— In listing his objections to the Affordable Care Act, Romney said it "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."

But the Times and National Journal have reported that the board in question wouldn't make treatment decisions, a point Obama made during the debate. National Journal called Romney's characterization of what this board would do "one of the biggest whoppers of the night." PolitiFact gave Romney's claim a "mostly false" rating.

Under the law, the board's job would be to keep Medicare spending within a particular target (not a dollar figure, but as a factor of GDP) but the board is prohibited from choosing the benefits to be restricted to achieve savings, so it cannot make treatment decisions.

FactCheck.org, which has likened the charge about this panel to the earlier claim from Republicans that Obama would create "death panels," writes that "the board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, cannot, by law, 'ration' care or determine which treatments Medicare covers. In fact, the IPAB is limited in what it can do to curb the growth of Medicare spending."

— On cutting the federal deficit, PolitiFact writes, "Romney claimed that Obama had said he would 'cut the deficit in half.' That's the case. ... Obama said he put forward 'a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.' That's true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we've previously found his claim that his budget plan would 'cut our deficits by $4 trillion' Half True.)"

— As for Obama's claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR's John Ydstie says that's true. But it also ignores an inconvenient truth (for the president), that about the same number of jobs were lost during Obama's first year in office.

— And on a lighter note, the debate opened with a tender moment and a fact that soon was disputed on Twitter. In acknowledging his wedding anniversary, Obama said that "20 years ago I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me." An astute tweeter noted that 20 years ago, the first lady's last name was Robinson.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/romney-backs-away-from-own-tax-plan.php?ref=fpa

Romney Backs Away From Own Tax Plan

At the first presidential debate in Colorado Wednesday night, former Gov. Mitt Romney disputed a central criticism of his tax reform plan — and appeared to disavow one of its central features.

Responding to President Obama’s description of Romney’s proposal, Romney claimed: “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of the scale you’re talking about. I think we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I won’t reduce the share of tax paid by high-income people. … I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce revenues going to the government. My number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that no tax cut that will add to the deficit.”

So who’s right?

Romney has run for months on a plan to lower everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent — an amount that independent analysts have concluded will reduce revenues by $5 trillion over 10 years.

Romney has also insisted that his plan will be deficit neutral and that it won’t increase taxes on the middle class. But according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and other analysts, Romney won’t be able to make good on both of those latter promises.

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.

Faced with this basic description, Romney said, “If the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I would say absolutely not.”


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

[quote="boards of FL"]http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney "traded barbs" and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.

Here is a sample of what's being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:


— One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.

Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."

PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney's charge is "half true."

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."

Still, as NPR's Julie Rovner has reported, "some of the money does indeed reduce future Medical spending, and the fact is, you can't reduce health care spending and preserve Medicare for 78 million baby boomers without slowing its growth."

— In listing his objections to the Affordable Care Act, Romney said it "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."

But the Times and National Journal have reported that the board in question wouldn't make treatment decisions, a point Obama made during the debate. National Journal called Romney's characterization of what this board would do "one of the biggest whoppers of the night." PolitiFact gave Romney's claim a "mostly false" rating.

Under the law, the board's job would be to keep Medicare spending within a particular target (not a dollar figure, but as a factor of GDP) but the board is prohibited from choosing the benefits to be restricted to achieve savings, so it cannot make treatment decisions.

FactCheck.org, which has likened the charge about this panel to the earlier claim from Republicans that Obama would create "death panels," writes that "the board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, cannot, by law, 'ration' care or determine which treatments Medicare covers. In fact, the IPAB is limited in what it can do to curb the growth of Medicare spending."

— On cutting the federal deficit, PolitiFact writes, "Romney claimed that Obama had said he would 'cut the deficit in half.' That's the case. ... Obama said he put forward 'a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.' That's true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we've previously found his claim that his budget plan would 'cut our deficits by $4 trillion' Half True.)"

— As for Obama's claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR's John Ydstie says that's true. But it also ignores an inconvenient truth (for the president), that about the same number of jobs were lost during Obama's first year in office.

— And on a lighter note, the debate opened with a tender moment and a fact that soon was disputed on Twitter. In acknowledging his wedding anniversary, Obama said that "20 years ago I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me." An astute tweeter noted that 20 years ago, the first lady's last name was Robinson.

The WP and NYT must have missed where Romney also said he would do away with many deductions for higher income people.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:The WP and NYT must have missed where Romney also said he would do away with many deductions for higher income people.

From the second link, and the chorus of rationally minded analysts that have been going over this tax plan for the last year...

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:The WP and NYT must have missed where Romney also said he would do away with many deductions for higher income people.

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.

But lowering the tax rate and reducing deductions is not all that Romney proposes. He says that he would cut spending. Something that Obama promised to do but hasn't. And if jobs come back under these policies, then tax revenues increase.

Clearly, Boards, Obama lost big last night. And you know it because you are intelligent. And there are fact checkers having a hey day with a lot of what Obama said last night too.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:The WP and NYT must have missed where Romney also said he would do away with many deductions for higher income people.

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.

But lowering the tax rate and reducing deductions is not all that Romney proposes. He says that he would cut spending. Something that Obama promised to do but hasn't. And if jobs come back under these policies, then tax revenues increase.

Clearly, Boards, Obama lost big last night. And you know it because you are intelligent. And there are fact checkers having a hey day with a lot of what Obama said last night too.

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:The WP and NYT must have missed where Romney also said he would do away with many deductions for higher income people.

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.

But lowering the tax rate and reducing deductions is not all that Romney proposes. He says that he would cut spending. Something that Obama promised to do but hasn't. And if jobs come back under these policies, then tax revenues increase.

Clearly, Boards, Obama lost big last night. And you know it because you are intelligent. And there are fact checkers having a hey day with a lot of what Obama said last night too.

You must have listened to a different debate. Obama outlined where he cut spending. Romney has said he would make tax rates 20% for everybody.Now he's saying he'll reduce tax rates AND reduce deductions. It's common sense if you reduce exemptions and credits you'll pay more taxes. So what he is saying doesn't make any sense.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:But lowering the tax rate and reducing deductions is not all that Romney proposes. He says that he would cut spending. Something that Obama promised to do but hasn't. And if jobs come back under these policies, then tax revenues increase.

Clearly, Boards, Obama lost big last night. And you know it because you are intelligent. And there are fact checkers having a hey day with a lot of what Obama said last night too.

I am the first to admit that Romney "won" that debate last night. My problem with that is that he had to completely make shit up to do it. Tax Policy Center has reviewed Romney's tax plan and deemed it not mathematically possible without the elimination of deductions used by the middle class. Romney has yet to elaborate on his deductions and is now even backing away from the $5 trillion half of the equation. Romney says he has a healthcare plan that provides for everyone, even with pre-existing condition. Romney says Obamacare is a "government takeover of healthcare". This was the Politifact 2010 Lie of the Year! Romney says over half the companies that received benefit from the $90 billion invested in green energy have failed. No numbers even remotely agree with that. Romney says Obama has grown government and supports "trickle down government". Over a million government jobs have been shed over this Obama term. Etc... etc... etc...


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

BHO had his fair share of "fact checks" disputing what he said, here is but one example that you BHO sheeple choose to ignore - there are others too:

“It’s important for us...that we take some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America.”
--Obama
"This is fantasy money. The administration is counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/factchecking-the-first-presidential-debate-of-2012/2012/10/04/9d47934e-0d66-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_blog.html#pagebreak

Like everything else with BHO it's all smoke and mirrors as he desperately tries to deflect attention from his pitiful performance in the last 3 1/2 years.

2seaoat



This is where it gets amusing. I have been attacked as being a RINO because I believe the math cannot work without revenue increases, shrinking of government, and targeted job credits. The math simply does not work without revenue increases. Now you compound an already impossible situation by further reducing taxes. Now for the low wattage information folks.....they go great....less taxes equal less government and this is a good thing. However, what they simply do not understand is that there are already limits on what the high income folks can deduct on the mortgage deduction.

Let me give you an example. A two million dollar a year income has a wealthy citizen living in a million dollar home. They have a 30 year mortgage of 500k and they pay 5% interest on that mortgage, or 25k interest per year. The current top rate is 35% for income over 379k a year so this taxpayer gets a little over 10k write off on the mortgage deduction. That deduction represents less than a 1/2 of a percent of our high income earner. Now if you reduce 20% of 700k taxes due on that income, and the high income person is going to get ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND DOLLAR A YEAR gain.....but Mitten the Kitten will balance the budget because he has eliminated the mortgage deduction.....OH MY the high income person nets 130k.

Now how is this 130k going to be recouped. Well the fellow making 50k a year and who is paying 15% is going to pay 7.5k taxes, and a 20% drop in his taxes puts 1.5k in his pocket.....but that person has a 150k dollar home and a 100k mortgage. He loses a 5k mortgage deduction, or 750 dollars, meaning he loses half of his gain in the cut in rates with the loss of the deduction....he gets a measly 750 bucks, and it is going to take almost 200 middle Americans to equal what one high income person is going to get with these proposed tax cuts. The math is simple. The smoke and mirrors are not very sophisticated, but then again we can see some of the responses on this forum over the last few weeks. Mitten the Kitten is the candidate of the Oligarchy and they have bought America.....if anybody thinks the debate matters a bit......it does not.....it is and always has been street theater, and rarely can change the direction of an election.....but the math......that is a deal killer.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreamsglore wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:The WP and NYT must have missed where Romney also said he would do away with many deductions for higher income people.

According to TPC, even if Romney closes all loopholes and deductions for high-income earners, that alone will not account for all the revenue he loses because of the rate cut. Thus, to make the overall plan deficit neutral he’d have to raise the tax burden on middle income Americans.

But lowering the tax rate and reducing deductions is not all that Romney proposes. He says that he would cut spending. Something that Obama promised to do but hasn't. And if jobs come back under these policies, then tax revenues increase.

Clearly, Boards, Obama lost big last night. And you know it because you are intelligent. And there are fact checkers having a hey day with a lot of what Obama said last night too.

You must have listened to a different debate. Obama outlined where he cut spending. Romney has said he would make tax rates 20% for everybody.Now he's saying he'll reduce tax rates AND reduce deductions. It's common sense if you reduce exemptions and credits you'll pay more taxes. So what he is saying doesn't make any sense.

No, Romney did not say he would make a tax rate of 20% for everybody. I have no idea what you heard, but that's not what he said. He said he would lower the rate 20%, across the board. And that he would do away with many deductions for those over a certain income. He did not specify what that income would be and he indicated that that point (at what income level people would start losing deductions) was up for debate.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:But lowering the tax rate and reducing deductions is not all that Romney proposes. He says that he would cut spending. Something that Obama promised to do but hasn't. And if jobs come back under these policies, then tax revenues increase.

Clearly, Boards, Obama lost big last night. And you know it because you are intelligent. And there are fact checkers having a hey day with a lot of what Obama said last night too.

I am the first to admit that Romney "won" that debate last night. My problem with that is that he had to completely make shit up to do it. Tax Policy Center has reviewed Romney's tax plan and deemed it not mathematically possible without the elimination of deductions used by the middle class. Romney has yet to elaborate on his deductions and is now even backing away from the $5 trillion half of the equation. Romney says he has a healthcare plan that provides for everyone, even with pre-existing condition. Romney says Obamacare is a "government takeover of healthcare". This was the Politifact 2010 Lie of the Year! Romney says over half the companies that received benefit from the $90 billion invested in green energy have failed. No numbers even remotely agree with that. Romney says Obama has grown government and supports "trickle down government". Over a million government jobs have been shed over this Obama term. Etc... etc... etc...

Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit? I don't claim to know that everything Romney said passes the fact test--a lot of it is up to debate AND depends on what the economy is like over the next few years. Romney's numbers assume that the employment level will increase and tax revenues will increase, along with him cutting federal spending, including cutting 10% of the federal workforce. I don't know if Romney can or will come through on his promises if he wins. But I KNOW that Obama has FAILED in his promises he made in 2008.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

[quote="Nekochan"][quote="boards of FL"]
Nekochan wrote:Bu I don't know if Romney can or will come through on his promises if he wins. But I KNOW that Obama has FAILED in his promises he made in 2008.

And that is the "nut gut" of the matter. These BHO pinheads look at a 2 minute response in a debate, campaign clips, and a few fact check web sites looking for Romney to explain a solution to the economy when he is not even in office nor had a chance to work with other lawmakers to flesh out what might be a legitimate proposal. Meanwhile, back at the chicken ranch, we have BHO who has failed to live up to his vastly inflated opinion of himself in what he can accomplish. BHO's lack of success has shown he is not capable of real solutions, only making more empty promises.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

This is priceless!!!.....First 'BF' asks...when did Romney become a democrat?....Then calls him a 'liar' and gets hit in first wave of facts checks...so 'liar and democrat' go together?....

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

How is that cutting the deficit in half? Look at the chart you posted for the years 2000-2008. The deficit percentage was lower under Bush in all those years.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Calculating the deficit resulting from revenue vs operating costs is part voodoo, however based on your provided numbers I see another deficit increase between 2010 and 2011. There are a lot of factors involved and if someone were really interested they could read the following.
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11frusg.pdf

Nekochan

Nekochan

Well, heck, I can't copy and paste Board's chart but if you look at his chart and the years 2000-2008, the deficit percentages were MUCH lower in all Bush's years than they have been in 2009-2012. I don't know why Boards would post this chart. I'd be trying to hide it if I were him.



Last edited by Nekochan on 10/4/2012, 11:28 am; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

How is that cutting the deficit in half? Look at the chart you posted for the years 2000-2008. The deficit percentage was lower under Bush in all those years.

You asked me to show you how the deficit has been cut. I did. It hasn't been cut by half, but it has been cut. Yes, the deficit with respect to % of GDP has been high over the last 3 years. this is because that calculation is a function of tax revenues, which - as you see from the table - have completely fallen off a cliff. This played a major factor in the $1 trillion+ deficit that Obama inherited.

Oddly enough, you appear to support the candidate that now wants to reduce taxes even further. He states that this will be deficit neutral due to the elimination of deductions, none of which will affect the middle class. Tax Policy Center has determined this to be mathematically impossible, but OK.


_________________
I approve this message.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

How is that cutting the deficit in half? Look at the chart you posted for the years 2000-2008. The deficit percentage was lower under Bush in all those years.

You asked me to show you how the deficit has been cut. I did. It hasn't been cut by half, but it has been cut. Yes, the deficit with respect to % of GDP has been high over the last 3 years. this is because that calculation is a function of tax revenues, which - as you see from the table - have completely fallen off a cliff. This played a major factor in the $1 trillion+ deficit that Obama inherited.

Oddly enough, you appear to support the candidate that now wants to reduce taxes even further. He states that this will be deficit neutral due to the elimination of deductions, none of which will affect the middle class. Tax Policy Center has determined this to be mathematically impossible, but OK.
No the deficit hasn't been cut. It's higher now that when Bush left office. Really, are you serious?
Yes, tax revenues have fallen off the chart with Obama's unemployment numbers.

VectorMan

VectorMan

I tell ya', the look on Obama's face throughout the debate, in those split screen shots, was priceless. He was pissed! LOL

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks 570x600

Romney stomped Obama's ass right into the ground!

So much for wiggle room! LOL



Last edited by VectorMan on 10/4/2012, 2:52 pm; edited 2 times in total

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

How is that cutting the deficit in half? Look at the chart you posted for the years 2000-2008. The deficit percentage was lower under Bush in all those years.

You asked me to show you how the deficit has been cut. I did. It hasn't been cut by half, but it has been cut. Yes, the deficit with respect to % of GDP has been high over the last 3 years. this is because that calculation is a function of tax revenues, which - as you see from the table - have completely fallen off a cliff. This played a major factor in the $1 trillion+ deficit that Obama inherited.

Oddly enough, you appear to support the candidate that now wants to reduce taxes even further. He states that this will be deficit neutral due to the elimination of deductions, none of which will affect the middle class. Tax Policy Center has determined this to be mathematically impossible, but OK.
No the deficit hasn't been cut. It's higher now that when Bush left office. Really, are you serious?
Yes, tax revenues have fallen off the chart with Obama's unemployment numbers.

The spending that occurs each year is determined the previous year, hence the Bush 2009 budget - which resulted in a deficit of $1.412 trillion. The federal deficit for 2011 was $ 1.299 trillion. Which deficit is bigger: $1.412 trillion or $1.299 trillion?

I can only laugh at the "Obama's unemployment numbers" comment.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

[quote="boards of FL"][quote="Nekochan"][quote="boards of FL"]
Nekochan wrote:W

Oddly enough, you appear to support the candidate that now wants to reduce taxes even further. He states that this will be deficit neutral due to the elimination of deductions, none of which will affect the middle class. Tax Policy Center has determined this to be mathematically impossible, but OK.

I would have to say whoever wins this election is going to realize quickly that some taxes need to be increased. If Obama, I would bet right now Repubs in Congress will go along with the proposed increase on the wealthy or some compromise of same. Obama will also have to realize his "magic money" savings he includes in proposals from decreasing war expenses is just that, magic money that does not exist. If Romney wins he will face the hard fact that his proposals need a lot of real world work and will require cooperation with both parties - something BHO has FAILED to do and he is not likely to change in a 2nd term.

Nekochan

Nekochan

boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Well Boards, where do the numbers, over the last 4 years, agree with Obama's promise in 2008 to cut the deficit?

Year Deficit
2009 $1,412.70
2010 $1,293.50
2011 $1,299.60


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

How is that cutting the deficit in half? Look at the chart you posted for the years 2000-2008. The deficit percentage was lower under Bush in all those years.

You asked me to show you how the deficit has been cut. I did. It hasn't been cut by half, but it has been cut. Yes, the deficit with respect to % of GDP has been high over the last 3 years. this is because that calculation is a function of tax revenues, which - as you see from the table - have completely fallen off a cliff. This played a major factor in the $1 trillion+ deficit that Obama inherited.

Oddly enough, you appear to support the candidate that now wants to reduce taxes even further. He states that this will be deficit neutral due to the elimination of deductions, none of which will affect the middle class. Tax Policy Center has determined this to be mathematically impossible, but OK.
No the deficit hasn't been cut. It's higher now that when Bush left office. Really, are you serious?
Yes, tax revenues have fallen off the chart with Obama's unemployment numbers.

The spending that occurs each year is determined the previous year, hence the Bush 2009 budget - which resulted in a deficit of $1.412 trillion. The federal deficit for 2011 was $ 1.299 trillion. Which deficit is bigger: $1.412 trillion or $1.299 trillion?

I can only laugh at the "Obama's unemployment numbers" comment.

2009 was a huge jump from 2008 and earlier years because of the relief act which Congress passed and Bush signed before he left office. I think it was a mistake and I said so at the time.

In fact, Obama said he would cut the deficit in half but he's only raised it even higher, year by year. He has not cut the deficit, he's raised it. He cannot even manage present a budget to Congress.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Nekochan wrote:He has not cut the deficit, he's raised it. He cannot even manage present a budget to Congress.

$1,412.70 (2009) > $1.299 (2011)


And he has presented budgets to congress each year he has been in office. This has been covered tirelessly in another thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum