Tax Deal: Lefties Go Wild, Obama Presidency Hits Apocalypse
If the commenters at the Huffington Post, and the hosts and guests at MSNBC, are any guide, the Bush tax cut deal has rendered the Obama presidency a zombie. It looks alive and is even able to move and groan a bit, but it’s mostly dead.
foxinretreat—CLASS WARFARE and some civil unrest , brewing in a neighborhood near you. Hey oligarchs how it turns out is anybody’s guess. I hope Wikileaks unleashes its info on the banks ASAP, I could care less if WS has to tank to stop this madness.
mjtaylor22—THEY GOT MOR EBANG FOR THEIR BUCK, HOW BOUT INCREASE UI PAYMENTS, AND SEND EVERY CITIZEN A CHECK FOR AT LEAST 1,000..SORRY TAX PAYING CITIZEN……
AdvertisementLinda Mulenbach—Dear Mr. President. You had me, and then you lost me! Can we please have a democratic primary challenger! I am DONE with Obama.
Chefbob50—Wanted: One backbone and set of balls send to B. Obama c/o 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Wash. D.C.
Well, Chefbob, you obviously sent Obama your heart in 2008. Why not complete the deal now? There’s more HuffPo commentary at the link, including stuff like this:
srheard—The next time I vote for a President, I am going to rank strong negotiating skills right up there with literacy and intellect.
That’s funny. Conservatives brought up the “competency” argument in 2008 and got slapped with the race card. Now here’s a liberal playing competency against Obama. I happened to be watching MSNBC’s Ed Schultz (so you don’t have to) when the deal came down on Monday. His guest was liberal Rep. Keith Ellison. I thought the two might have an on-air rage party.
Looking beyond the fever swamps, Paul Krugman doesn’t like the deal at all. Sen. Dick Durban thinks the Democrats may walk out on it (which would only mean they will get a worse deal after the GOP takes over the House next year). And liberal Rep. Jim McDermott calls the deal “Obama’s Gettysburg.” Which, if you think about it, puts Obama in the role of Robert E. Lee. Guess that means Biden gets to play Gen. Pickett. Heh.
“srheard—The next time I vote for a President, I am going to rank strong negotiating skills right up there with literacy and intellect.”
LOL! None of the three qualities was ever shown by Obama, neither as candidate nor president.
Who exactly was the “reality-based community”, again?
Who exactly was the “reality-based community”, again?
We get examples of those loons every day from the likes of our favorite refugees from reality and troll posters like BC, Aaron and no-sensey. They all share a narcisstic compulsion to put on display the sick parade of collectivist pornography that passes for their thought processes.
They never seem to understand that we’re not laughing with them. We’re laughing at them.
“pining for a crisis to resurrect him”
Okay, this deserves a LOL. Perhaps even a, I think it is, ROTFLOL, or some thing like that. I think a crisis for Obama, besides adjusting for wind on a golf course, would be his undoing. From what I’ve seen, he can’t handle crises. A crisis would be like adding another torpedo to sinking ship that’s had its superstructure flattened by dive bombers. I guess the torp would be, “just to be sure.”
If there is not a “crisis’ of some sort before 2012, Obama will have a difficult time getting re elected. SSSOOOOOOOOOO..look for something, it is going to happen, somehow, somewhere, SOMEthing…
Obama is a wiener. And it looks like a lot of folks on the right are not as tough as they talked during election times.
Slow down. That same sort of talk was extremely popular among the left during Bush’s terms, and I recall certain of my more excitable friends saying similar things about Clinton.
Obama, however little respect he may have for the office, the Constitution, or the American people, lacks the nerve to engineer a crisis.
If he did, it would be a fiasco to make Carter’s situation with the Iranians resemble a high tea in a victorian mansion!
The monsters in the 0bama regime need a Reichstag fire incident to ‘improve’ their prospects. That’s about the only card left they have to play.
Nothing is beyond them.
After all, no matter how bad it gets, we deserve it for our centuries of being the worst people on earth.
centuries…bad people…i surely hope you are being sarcastic
if republicans don’t learn o talk back to things like obama’s rhetoric today on unemployment payments etc…he tells the world he’s being held hostage by republicans, and republicans just sit there..duuhhhh Not looking into things, talking back etc Answer to creep back word for word..shut him down.
Nope. Nothing needs be said in response. If we speak, then the other side will defend him. It will be perceived as partisan. His rant stands on its own demerits. (Hey, good one. lol )
“Never interrupt your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.” – Napoleon I
He said it was Obama’s Gettysburg? The results at Gettysburg were excellent for President Lincoln, not so good for the Democrats.
I’m not sure why anyone’s surprised. Other than health care, has Obama done anything that leftists can look at and say “That’s our man!”?
How about when he tried to get the duly deposed President of Honduras back into office. That was a great moment in leftyhood.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/12/zelaya-removal-is-allowed-by-honduras-constitution/
And I think appointing all the Czars…
Wait for a little while longer and the FCC will shit down the internet,to make it a fair playing field.
Your bills in the US are going to triple.
Just ask Al Sharpton,he is going to shut down Rush and Obama will be kneeling next to him.
This Gettysburg metephore is so tortured, it suggest an absolute ignorance of American History. Now that can’t be, can it. From our educated superiors? Let’s unpack it. Gettysburg, by it horific loss of life on both sides, really brought home the Union/confederacy conflict. And whioch side is Obama supposed to be? Picket’s charge,, was al ast ditch effort by the Confederates to turn the tide resulting in a slaughter. Is that rteally the ideal metaphor for the Obama administration? Hmm
Hmmmm…perhaps someone should ask those Blue Dogs if they felt like members of Pickett’s division on July 3, 1863. I think the casualty rate was similar.
I rather liked the Gettsyburg analogy, having come up with it some time ago. I sort of saw ObamaCare as the Democrat’s ‘Lee’s invasion of the North’. “Vicksburg’s in trouble, we gotta do this now. We have the forces, we may never have this favorable a balance again, yeah, it’s a gamble, a damned bold one, but now is the time, it may cost us, but if we win, hoo boy, it may be game over”…. etc etc.
And Nov. 2nd was Pickett’s charge. Had the Dems done well, genuine limited government may have been doomed for our lifetimes. And, mercifully, it was not to be.
I wished I was a cartoonist, who could draw on November 3rd that picture (from the movie) of Stephen Lang’s Pickett, wide-eyed in horror as the shattered remnants of the “Elections have consequences” Democratic congressional delegation stumble, decimated, ragged and bloody, back to Seminary Ridge, to later withdrawl ignominiously from the field of total defeat. (I waited in vain for an “It is entirely my fault” from Robert E Obama.)
It’s a nice vision, anyway.
I’m a great artist…. in my own mind.
Garrett – Battle based analogies are an excellent way for Americans to communicate with each other. We all know instantly what someone means when he or she writes Gettysburg, Waterloo, Pearl Harbor, or the Maginot Line. If Uncle Joe Cannon were mentioned most of us would move on to the next comment.
I still do not understand how Pickett survived the charge with his reputation intact. Shouldn’t he have led the charge with Armistead?
Well, remember that Lee was constantly admonishing Longstreet to avoid getting to far out in front, before during and after Gettysburg (and Longstreet was eventually kocked out of action for months after getting shot in the front of his troops.) It is possible that Pickett was either following similar orders, or had gotten that message indirectly.
No way to know, but ‘Band of Brothers’ also had that scene at Foy, in Belgium, when Major(?) Winters is about to leap out to salvage a faltering attack, and is told in no uncertain terms by General Sink that his job is behind the battle, not in it.
It is hard to say. The picture of the heroic general leading the charge is all well and inspring, but I will leave to others who can speak from experience about when it is and is not appropriate for field commanders to put themselves directly under fire.
(uh oh, Civil War, we’ll be here all day….
)
To compare Republicans to terrorists – and remember, Pelosi defining Tea Partiers as ‘unAmerican’ – means that Obama is denying that he is the president of all Americans. He’s not just a Democrat; he is above the partisan islands.
Remember, how he claimed that he’d be post-partisan? Yet now he’s calling Republicans terrorists? Remember his claim that he’d be post-racial, and yet, he and his administration have set up the most racially ‘hot’ and divisive regime in a generation. What about his obvious class warfare? How he denigrates anyone who makes money and tells people that at some time, they are ‘wealthy enough’?… (other than himself and such elitists in his cabinet who neglect to pay taxes…)
Obama goes with ‘power’ not ideology. He himself has no commitment to any ideology – socialist or capitalist, Democrat or Republican. His commitment is to himself as being ‘in control’ of others. This is easy to do as a community organizer, where he doesn’t set up policy and just tells the workers to ‘go out and activate’. That’s all Obama can do.
He doesn’t set the agenda of work; he doesn’t devise policies and programs. Notice how he delegates all such work to others. Then, once these others have given him the policy – he goes out and campaigns for it. He can’t answer questions about it; he just campaigns!
So far, Obama has been selling the policies and agenda of people like George Soros, Pelosi, Reid, etc. But, since the GOP took over the House in November – then, THEY are going to set the policies. This puts them in power.
Obama cannot, psychologically, let them set the policies…and be, himself, out of power. He himself has no ideology, no agenda. He follows what he’s told by someone in power…and he’s been that way all his life, from his mother, father, grandmother, wife, Rev. Wright, Soros, Pelosi…etc.
Now – he’ll do what the GOP, in power, want…otherwise, he psychologically feels ‘out of power’. And he can’t handle that.
What will he do with the Democrats who feel that he was/is ideologically ‘one of them’ and has thus betrayed them? They don’t understand that Obama has no ideology. None. He just aligns himself with power. Obama will first chastize them for criticizing him; he can’t handle criticism.
And if they keep it up – he’ll behave as if they don’t exist. That’s what he does to people whom he can’t control. They cease to exist for him.
He won’t ‘go over’ to the GOP for they represent the freedom of the individual from control..and Obama needs to control people. He’ll simply align himself with them IF/WHEN they are in power. That’s all.
He’s a psychologically very mixed up boy!
Hot Air has a rumor that the regent may give in to Republican “demands” on coal and nuclar.
That would be #2, ETAB.
But I’m getting a bit worried that you are right about all this. If you are, he could end up pulling a Clinton, even without Clinton’s evil brilliance. It would be a “Clinton painting by the numbers”.
Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote, not even close. Clinton won for two reasons: Ross Perot coming in third and the fact that Bush and Dole were lethargic at best. Had Clinton been heads-up either time, he would have lost, despite his tactics.
NEWS FLASH! Hot Air has a rumor!
When have they had anything but?
It’s quite possible you are absolutely right.
How about “Obama’s Maginot Line”? Can we all get behind that one, so to speak?
I say yes to the suggestion we all get behind Maginot Line and for those that do not like war metaphors we can substitute the Mendoza Line.
I have no idea what the political landscape will be in 2012, so it would be absurd for me to opine on O’s reelection prospects; however I will say that Obama’s record of incompetence, immaturity, petulance and fecklessness since taking office has been a pleasant surprise, and fills me with hope for the future.
“Looking beyond the fever swamps”?
Hell, Paul Krugman IS the Swamp Thing.
“It’s tempting not to negoitate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed,”
Anyone else notice that Obama is in effect saying that we should negotiate with terrorists that harm hostages? I know he was just using an analogy, but what happens the next time AQ takes a hostage and wants to negotiate? Think they’ll remember that line?
I noticed that phrasing. I thought it might have been a typo, but seeing it reported that way in more than one location makes me think it’s probably accurate.
A Monty Python skit sprung full-blown into my head upon hearing it. “You! Inside the bank! We can get you the helicopter and the briefcase of cash, but you MUST shoot a hostage first to show good faith!”
Feel free to add to it.
Oh poor President Obama. He simply had to give in because those mean nasty Republicans got all those mean nasty voters to elect them. So what was he to do? Stand by his lefty principles and friends? Tell his radical buddies that if he listened to them he’d lose his job AND the Senate in 2012?
And anyways, isn’t it all Bush’s fault?
Mr. Preston:
That’s funny. Conservatives brought up the “competency” argument in 2008 and got slapped with the race card.
One wonders if, all of these liberal moonbats now mouthing the exact same criticisms of the Alleged Hawaiian that us “wingnut racists” have been pointing out all along, the Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is going to authorize “Rainbow Robes” for the benefit of all the new Liberals it will be inducting…
Perhaps a slight of hand and the ‘school records’, ‘birth certificate’ etc appears as a ‘leak’ from a left source as payback for lecturing those that are just like him,and being just like him , cannot stand to be lectured.
The Obama surrender represents a terrible blunder/failure on the dems part, a failure that is the fault of the Kenyan, Pelosi and Reid. We all knew that the Obama tax increase were scheduled; they’ve been on the books ever since he took over.
If, way before the election, Obama had offered tax increases only for those above a $million or even a 1/4 million, the pubbies would have had to accept, giving Obama a point in the election.
No, he/they screwed around and lost the election badly. I don’t understand why the pubbies are even talking to him. They should negotiate the same way the dems negotiated on ObummerCare. Let all the tax increase go into effect, put the blame on the dems and once they take control and the howls are heard across the land, offer a full, permanent repeal. We’d isolate the liberals and the Kenyan and hang the massive tax increases around their necks in 2012.
With today’s deal, if it passes, we’ve given Obama a way out. He’ll claim victory and lie some more.
Where are the pictures that morph Obama and Bush? The Kenyan is more Bush than Bush was; he’s doing what Bush did AND we don’t have to listen to the media and Hollywood whine about it.
So, the administration: spent the second half of TARP, a 800BIL stimulus package that did nothing, a Trillion dollar ObamaCare package and they and liberals are mad that we can’t keep the status quo and keep the money we earn. Insane. It’s the right and center who are held hostage to dumb gimicy policies of the left that don’t work other than buy votes and act as payoffs to unions. I can see 2012 from my Alaskan window.
This is the Obama version of GHWB caving in after “read my lips”.
srheard: —he next time I vote for a President, I am going to rank strong negotiating skills right up there with literacy and intellect.
You elected a Diversity Hire.
He can’t handle the workload. He grows bitter and frustrated. Blames racism for his failure. Blames Whitey. Blames the System. Anyone and anything but himself. Files EEO complaint against America. Drops out.
Next time, don’t consider skin color when voting for President. It should be as relevant as hair color.
The “My plan would have worked if it weren’t for your meddling kids!” President.
I am not comfortable with the President of the United States calling members of the opposite party terrorists. Terrorists are illegal enemy combatants who should be shot on sight, and at will. Or hung after a perfunctory trial. He is over the top, and his talk is of the sort that leads to violence. Already we have one Democrat saying the time was here for pitchforks. Crazy talk. Unnecessary in a civil debate.
I haven’t noticed any democrats in the last 24 months either capable of or desiring a civil debate regarding ideas….so your point is?
Then this must have been Obama’s Gettysburg Address. If you compare him to Lincoln in other respects, that would seem to be a very accurate analogy.
I think we’re comparing him to Jefferson Davis.
It is too early to celebrate. Remember when the nation thought that Obama care was defeated last December? The celebration starts with the return of the remaining Porkulus money, the rejection of the 40 million more on insurance, an honest Republican chamber, and the resignation of the alledged Hawaiian. There is also a longer list of fundamental transformations to correct, mostly renunciations.
Obama’s press conference backfired because he is defensive, angry, & bitter since he’s getting criticism from his Left flank & from both Obama Democrat Caucuses from the House & Senate given he did not talk to them prior to last night’s speech. Obama is in complete meltdown. This is just the beginning of the end for Obama. Just wait until the new Congress comes in January. Obama already is weakened by the November midterms, but now the weakness is coming from his Left flank wth Reid & Pelosi turning on the amateur-in-chief.
Obama not as Napoleon I but as Napoleon III fits a lot better…
SO Obama is the farce. Who was the tragedy?
Palin.
That would be Carter.
These recent comments show President Obama to be somewhat less politically capable than Bristol Palin. No, not Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin.
Commenting on speculation that she went on Dancing With the Stars because her mom wanted her to make up for political damage done by Bristol’s pregnancy, Bristol offered the view, “My mom and Senator McCain losing the election had nothing to do with me. The economy was in trouble and the voters saw Mr. Obama as offering a better solution to the economy.”
Good, good, definitely shows a sense of sportsmanship, fair play, a sense that her mom lost based on a judgement of the voters on the substantive issue of the economy. Much, much better than the President did today.
Then Bristol went on to say something to the effect that the continued economic crisis as shown that the voters were wrong. Um, not so good. Don’t . . . blame . . . voters. I would have said something to the effect, “After two years and a lock of meaningful improvement in the economy, the voters have changed their choice back to the Republican Party, signalling that they want a sea change.” Yes, knock Mr. Obama, or at least suggest that Mr. Obama has gotten a strong message from voters, but don’t ever say the voters made a bad decision.
Then you have President Obama 1) telling Liberals that they are sulking, and 2) calling the Republicans “hostage takers.” No, no, and no, and a much bigger gaffe than Bristol. It seems that Bristol Palin has (somewhat) better political instincts than the President.
Very funny and perfectly on the spot. More than half Obama’s age, Bristol shows uncomparably greater maturity and wisdom than the self-destructive commie pretending to be POTUS.
No surprise here; Just compare their parents…
BHO, Harry Reid, Pelosi, and their minions like Keith Ellison are NOT liberals. They are a collection of statist hacks (Reid, Durbin, etc.), airheads (Pelosi), and America-haters (BHO and his neighborhood friends).
What I want to know is who gets to play Gen. Sherman?
If the lame duck congress does not pass Obama’s compromise tax deal, Obama will lose whatever credibility he had with the Republicans and won’t be able to negotiate with them in the future.
And Obama sees a tax crisis on Dec. 7, but not so much in Jan thru Nov.
What a jerk!!
How’s that hope an’ change thing workin’ out for ya, Democrats?
Liberal pwnees should have listened to this guy way back in 2008:
“The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger — a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.”
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, AUGUST 2008
Sorry if anyone here has seen me post that quote elsewhere — it’s just too good to waste. I’ve been troll-posting it all over lefty sites, too.
While he’s accusing the Republicans of being terrorists it looks like it’s the Democrats who are searching for a rope and a tree. Of course, they have more experience with that sort of thing….
So true but certainly a very sharp statement. As few know MLK was a Republican, so many who lack a knowledge of history, do not know the legacy of the Democratic Party; a party that refuses to apologize for its actions of the past, but continues to apologize for any AMERICAN foreign policy or DOMESTIC INJUSTICE.
*shrug*
He didn’t have the numbers. So be it – republicans keep running the US into deficit and refuse to let anyone do anything to pay for it. Be it on their heads. Then they make a big song and dance about how democrats are selling their grandchildren into slavery (or somesuch).
I think extracting the deal on getting unemployment benefits extended was a decent enough outcome. That was the right thing to try for. That’s the whole “giving a damn about human beings” thing.
Matthew, apparently you accept the falsehood that tax hikes will reduce the deficit. History shows this to be false, again and again.
Every time taxes go up, revenue to the government goes down. Proven again and again.
Every time the government gets more money, they spend even more than they get in. Proven again and again.
I give you some credit for accepting the compromise, clearly recognizing it as such. The Far-Lefties (and Far-Righties like me) do not accept compromise well, thus the squeals from the Left.
For the record, I do not like the unemployment extensions. I do not like folks getting comfortable being poor. However, I also accept that, because of government meddling, the economy is not reacting properly, and so there are factors beyond folks’ control, so I accept the necessity.
The economy will pick up somewhat this year, with the tax cuts extended, and a new Conservative Congress acting as a stabilizing influence. If this proves true, as I fully expect, then the benefits should definitely NOT be extended again. It should be made absolutely clear that they will not be. Absolutely not. This is so that people have time to prepare to face harsh reality again.
Hey, Matthew, try looking at facts rather than lefty talking points.
Fact: Obama has added more to the national debt than all previous presidents… going back to the original George W. (that’s Washington) combined.
Go ahead and complain about the mote in the Republican’s eye while ignoring the redwood trunk in your own. It just shows how little you know.
“Hey, Matthew, try looking at facts rather than lefty talking points.”
Hey – how about posting a link that works.
“Fact: Obama has added more to the national debt than all previous presidents… going back to the original George W. (that’s Washington) combined.”
Fact: you can’t read a graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.png
Yes, that’s a wiki page so I expect you’ll declare it to be leftist or whatever. But it does point out where you can get the source data, and I’ve checked it and, you know what? It’s accurate.
Obama’s addition to total US federal public debt is still less (as a fraction of GDP) than Bush I, and about the same as reagan. In simple dollar figures, at the end of 2008 (i.e. baby bush’s watch) obama inherited a debt of just less than 10 trillion dollars. It’s currently projected to hit 13.8 billin at the and of 2010. Yes, that’s a big increase. Absolutely. But it’s nothing like “… more to the national debt than all previous presidents …”. Where on EARTH did you come across a claim like that? And what possessed you to believe it?
Democrats might be “tax and spend” but republicans are “don’t tax, but just spend anyway”. Take your pick as to which is more responsible.
Link works just fine for me, Matthew. It’s just that you don’t want to accept what it says. Allow me to quote the third paragraph in its entirety (with appropriate emphasis added by me):
Now, how about answering that charge?
Bush’s debt was also more than every previous administration – COMBINED!
“Link works just fine for me, Matthew.”
Hmm. It works for me now. Yesterday it was showing me a 404 page.
“It’s just that you don’t want to accept what it says.”
I don’t think you understand what it says
“Allow me to quote the third paragraph in its entirety”
Allow me to explain the third paragraph. But first, let’s start with another graph from that nasty communist wiki site, just to illustrate what I’m about to explain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
Notice the two lines. The black line is the total federal government debt. It includes statutory liabilities like social security (which falls outside the usual budget process). The red line shows just the debt owed to non-government entities, like treasury bond holders and banks and wotnot. THAT line is what Boskin’s article refers to. You said:
That is not what that article claims. It excludes intra-government debt – i.e. money that the government effectively owes itself. He’s not talking about the 13.8 trillion headline figure, he’s talking about a 9.2 trillion dollar external liability – i.e “debt held by the public”.
Check out this site – it can give you the numbers:
Debt To The Penny, And Who Holds It
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
When you say “Obama has added more”, that is also not what that article claims. That talks about the likely impact of the budget, and it was also written in march last year. The reality is that no, obama has not doubled the debt held by the public at all (which is what Mr Boskin’s scary-music wording actually means). Right now, Obama has increased that portion of the federal debt by about 45% – based on figures of:
End Of 2008: 6,369,318,869,476.5412/01/2010: 9,269,344,310,610.90
“Now, how about answering that charge?”
Wrong on all counts.
At the risk of gilding the lily, it appears to me that Bush I / Reagan did far more damage, in real AND percentage terms, than obama has or ever will. So I ask you – where’s the outrage?
Where’s the outrage at Bush’s spending, Matthew?
Well, after a quick Dogpile search, I found the libertarian outrage from both The Cato Institute and Reason Magazine, and then there’s the Washington Post showing conservative criticisms of Bush’s spending from early in his first term…
Now, Matthew, where is the lefty outrage about Obama’s running up the debt to even higher levels than Dubya?
So you’re must ignoring my systematic destruction of your claim and moving on to a parting comment? Interesting.
The outrage about obama’s spending is not hard to find. It’s everywhere. There’s a slight difference, though – conservative run up their debts during the GOOD times – democrats pay off that debt during their good times. If you don’t understand what obama’s doing and why, then you’ve apparently been relying on the wrong news sources.
Your banking system packed up and closed its doors – and took out a sizable chunk of the world’s financial systems with its little packets of lies. Deal with it. If Obama et al. weren’t doing what they’re doing, the great depression would be looking like a kid’s birthday party by now.
He’s paying for his predecessor’s cock-ups. The most terrifying possibility is that an alternative president might NOT have done what obama’s doing. In which case you could have kissed goodbye to the status of “world superpower”. You’d have ceded that to china.
I always ignore arguments that use Wikipedia as a primary source, and I never use Wikipedia as a primary source myself. Two sides of the same coin, you see.
It would be absurdly easy for me to edit a Wiki entry to say “Matthew is a lefty who knows nothing about economics,” but I doubt you’d accept that as definitive.
Find some non-Wikipedia sources, and I might answer them… if they’re from a relatively unbiased source.
ConservativeWanderer
“I always ignore arguments that use Wikipedia as a primary source, and I never use Wikipedia as a primary source myself. Two sides of the same coin, you see.”
The wiki source was to show you the relationship between the red line and the black line. The primary source for the data that I used in my argument was treasurydirect.gov.
Stop making excuses. You were utterly wrong.
“It would be absurdly easy for me to edit a Wiki entry to say “Matthew is a lefty who knows nothing about economics,” but I doubt you’d accept that as definitive.”
If that’s how I’d used the reference you might have a point. But I didn’t, and you’re just looking desperate. Have some integrity and just admit your claim that “Obama has added more to the national debt than all previous presidents…” was completely wrong.
Or … stop whining about what references I used and put up an argument that can’t be trivially shot down with facts.
Matthew:
I don’t care if the Wikipedia source was to demonstrate that water is wet. I have principles, and I stand by them, and I refuse to debate anything that comes off a “source” that is as easily edited as Wikipedia.
If declaring victory based on such flimsy evidence lets you keep your self-respect, that’s fine by me. My principles are not negotiable.
And, to be honest, the fact that you can’t come up with a non-Wikipedia source means that your case is very flimsy indeed. You might win arguments with the HuffPo crowd based on that, but you haven’t proven anything except that you have no idea what a “credible primary source” is.
Ok. Then I’ll post an amended version. Try your principles on this:
“Link works just fine for me, Matthew.”
Hmm. It works for me now. Yesterday it was showing me a 404 page.
“It’s just that you don’t want to accept what it says.”
I don’t think you understand what it says
“Allow me to quote the third paragraph in its entirety”
Allow me to explain the third paragraph. But first, I need to explain the difference between “total federal public debt” and “federal debt held by the public”
Total federal government debt includes statutory liabilities like social security (which falls outside the usual budget process). “Debt held by the public” means debt owed only to non-government entities, like treasury bond holders and banks and wotnot. THAT value is what Boskin’s article refers to. You said:
Obama has added more to the national debt than all previous presidents
That is not what that article claims. It excludes intra-government debt – i.e. money that the government effectively owes itself. He’s not talking about the 13.8 trillion headline figure, he’s talking about a 9.2 trillion dollar external liability – i.e “debt held by the public”.
Check out this site – it can give you the numbers:
Debt To The Penny, And Who Holds It
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
When you say “Obama has added more”, that is also not what that article claims. That talks about the likely impact of the budget, and it was also written in march last year. The reality is that no, obama has not doubled the debt held by the public at all (which is what Mr Boskin’s scary-music wording actually means). Right now, Obama has increased that portion of the federal debt by about 45% – based on figures of:
End Of 2008: 6,369,318,869,476.54
12/01/2010: 9,269,344,310,610.90
“Now, how about answering that charge?”
Wrong on all counts.
So – no reference to wiki. You’re still wrong.
I’m sorry, but I don’t really know where to start with that one. It seems to be a staple of american conservative thinking that all you need to do to increase revenues is cut taxes. You also seem to think cutting CGT increases revenues – a claim I think I’ve debunked here about 3 times now … using, you know, facts.
Show me a graph that proves what you claim. Go one.
Your rants deserve only one response: You still live mentaly in the world of neanderthals.
And as for you addiction to the idea of socialist justice, I had a doubtful pleasure of living in a “worker’s paradise” for the best part of my life so I know exactly how wasteful and destructive it is.
You on the other part… YOU KNOW NOTHING.
Bogdan from Australia
“Your rants deserve only one response”
Hmm. See, if you actually had an argument, it would be much more effective to simply post it. I asked somebody to back up their claim that tax cuts invariably increase revenues. If that’s true then finding some data to clearly demonstrate the effect should be pretty easy. So rather than blowing smoke, how about getting on with that?
“And as for you addiction to the idea of socialist justice, I had a doubtful pleasure of living in a “worker’s paradise” for the best part of my life so I know exactly how wasteful and destructive it is.”
I have the very real pleasure of having lived in australia for ALL of my life (excluding periods of travel, obviously). I’m not sure what your problem is, but I suggest you stick your head out of the window and see how the rest of the world is faring right now.
“You on the other part… YOU KNOW NOTHING.”
Like I said – just prove the claim and you win. Calling me names is just silly.
Obama’s presidency so far is the best example of why we need to update the Constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility to include, at a minimum, 8 units of economics with at least a B average.
And what would be the point of that? when the guardians of the Constitutional Republic of the USA in the present day decline, refuse? to examine questions of law in that Constitution which have been asked by “a bunch of loonies” with reservations about the lawfulness as President of the present incumbent.
The present incumbent who by Executive Order had, if the media reports are to be believed, documents pertaining to his provenance and qualifications for the job sealed from public examination. With collusion of all the legal officers of government (and establishment Media ) in this act of depriving the public of information they surely have a right to know about any of their employees.
The President of the US is an employee of the People of the USA, not a free agent who can decide which information to provide to his employers, or which to deny. But that ordinary, that usual, vetting of employees seems to have been over-ridden for this incumbent of the Oval Office. Which must necessarily lead to further question for persons who understand the Constitution of the USA to be the LEGAL foundation of the US Republic.The safety of which is in the charge of the Legislature, the Judiciary AND the Executive, as servants of WE the Peop;e.
Now I get it. The hostage was the American people. The ones being held hostage were those who would get the middle class tax “cut” in favor of the rich. So apparently the President believes that rich people in this country (at least those making $250,000) are not Americans. That’s why he hates them so much. The problem of course is that there are so many liberals who are rich. They must hate themselves even more because they are not Americans. That is why Buffet and Soros and Gates want to be taxed so much. Bless their hearts.
If Soros and Gates don’t mind paying taxes,Why then are the majority of their investments in foreign coutries with less harsh tax systems???????.
If it weren’t for these tax systems they would be less rich by a few hundred million.
To me, DaOne has been, and doing what he sold out to do along time ago, and I bet he does not really know the end game. I may not as well, but I will suggest the following:
Entitlements are given to the poor, and lazy so they worship the State. Bowing to the world, and telling the world every country is equal causes some countries to see DaOne’s weekness in defending America’s interests. We have read how the Central Bank of the world bailed out the world, and sold out our children. Taken together these three examples of Socialism ideals, we may see a Middle East regional war, that spreads to a global war, bringing in a New Socialist Order to control everyone. Just like the CHICOMS control their people.
America can count on things getting worse at home until the southern border is secure, and Islam is not allowed to grow.
BZO, or Die!
I’ve never understood why Democrats — or anyone — think it’s possible to name some level of yearly income and say it’s the dividing line all across the country between being rich and being middle class. I assure you that $250,000 a year goes a lot further in, say, Muncie Indiana than it does in Boston or New York. Trying to make the tax code reflect this geographic variation in the cost of living would be an incredible headache (especially considering all the residency games that could be played, not to mention games in how exactly to calculate the true change in the cost of living going from one region to another). If you think about it, the difficulty is so extreme as to undercut the very concept of a truly “fair” national income tax — with “fair” being defined as a progressive tax where the “rich” pay a higher percentage of their income. Only a flat tax — with everybody paying the same percentage of their yearly income — would be able to treat taxpayers the same regardless of the cost of living where they live. Treating everyone the same used to be regarded as the essence of fairness.
Hi, In Australia , we pay a GST (consumer tax) of 10%. Everybody that buys an item pays 10% gst on it. At the end of the year we still fill intax returns ,mostly for claiming rebates on items such as rented dwelling.This is very fair and not manmy have a bitch about it.I think your country would benefit greatly from everyone paying a little tax, and not depend on just a few.
Hi, In Australia , we pay a 10% GST(consumer tax or goods/services tax). Every body who buys goods (most food not included) and services(plumber), pay this tax.We still file tax returns but mainly for claims like house rentals ,business expenses,etc.It is a fair tax and EVERBODY pays tax.
The leftie rants on MSNBC today were astounding. I thought I would see foam coming out of their mouths. The oceans stopping their rise and the world starting to heal. Yes, he’s the one alright! They wanted him and now they have him.
I think you mean “Waterloo.”
Anyone who did not watch Olberman and Maddow on Tuesday night, missed some of the greatest TV EVAH!
They trashed the Kenyan and defined him in the terms that rational Americans knew and understood in mid-2008. He is dumb, lazy, shiftless, mendacious guy (who may not be an American) who has never done anything and, is a doofus!
IT WAS WONDERFUL!!!
Don’t count your chickens before…
Never forget, and be prepared, that the LEFT is guerilla and fights, AS THEY HAVE DONE for the past half century, via distraction from true aims and methods : underground as in snake, rat; in secret tunnels, recesses; in the dark / back rooms. Be very cautious about any news, any information, for or against what this government is doing unless given proof that what they say is true.
AND don’t forget “opposition” Congressmen/ Senators are all members of the same exclusive private gentlemens’ club and value solidarity — not however in the Lech Waleska sense — above all thing OR ELSE.
Do not forget that even if this tax vote is credible, this Congress has a lot of house-cleaning still to do. And should be getting on with that, i.e. the biggest mess the earlier house-keepers made with their votes for, among others thefts, the misnamed power grab “healthcare bill”.And that the head house-keepers Pelosi and Reid still carry a big stick in this Congress.
Anyone running for president, senator, or representative should have a minimum of 10 years working in the private sector. I don’t care if it’s flipping burgers at McDonalds. Private sector, not being a grad student with the most astounding grades in history, private sector. Not living off daddy’s trust fund, actual wage producing work and living on your own, paying your own way. Not a make-work job, but one that has actual consequences. Not a government job, such as community agitator, er organizer. Mowing lawns for a living, sure. Understands the concept of labor and responsibility. You get the picture. Ten years solid work experience, period. PRIVATE SECTOR
If the current rudderless occupant of the Oval Office “pulls a Clinton” and comes around to the nexus of power (conservative), is that bad? Wouldn’t he be our puppet, not theirs?
Never mind. The thought of such a weak leader is too awful.