The GOP needs to critique this Chart: Obama's ownage of Bush

[cybrsage]

So, in essence, they said "we are just making stuff up - nothing we show you here can ever be expected to be true".

Thanks, that is SOOO much better. If they did not believe their own numbers, why did they use them?


EDIT: Of course, the report that went along with that chart said this:

“As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan,” reads the report.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/econ...ow-8-2012-ends


EDIT EDIT: $700 billion dollars to create or save only a scant 150,000 jobs!!! SUCCESS!!!!

A little over a month ago, the Administration said the stimulus bill had created or saved 150,000 jobs. That's a far cry from the 3 million to 4 million jobs that Romer and Bernstein foresaw back in January.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...#ixzz20Bd1ck00

[glenn1]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

There's plenty of "doublethink" on both sides here. If you really care about intellectual consistency, you might try acknowledging Romney's almost dizzying flip-flopping on this very issue, not to mention the fact that the idea of the mandate came from the Heritage Foundation.

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

Both sides are being predictably dishonest and self-serving. They're both warping things to their own advantage. The right is being a little worse than the left (as usual, of late), but they have both conveniently changed how they present the law based on the ruling.

While I'm hardly a Romney fan, this thread isn't about him but rather about Obama "owning" Bush - let's keep on subject. I'll even stipulate about the right being a "little worse" if that makes you happy and serves your need to score some partisan points.

[CallMeJoe]

Originally Posted by cybrsage

No lies, they DID make a claim. Stop spreading misinformation about them not making a claim.
They made a claim and failed to deliver upon their claim. If you want to also add ineptness to their list of failures, be my guest.

Mostly False.

[cybrsage]

CallMeJoe - always a day late and a $700 billion dollar stimulous package short.

[CallMeJoe]

Originally Posted by cybrsage

CallMeJoe - always a day late and a $700 billion dollar stimulous package short.

My apologies. Your misrepresentations are far too numerous for me to keep current.

[cybrsage]

Originally Posted by CallMeJoe

My apologies.

Your apology is accepted.

[glenn1]

Originally Posted by CallMeJoe

Mostly False.

If you expect anyone to actually believe this "he didn't say promise, he only offered economic projections" bullshit then you're stupider than I thought. Don't insult our intelligence with this weasel-word "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" crap.

[cybrsage]

They have to use it - it is all they got to protect their messiah.

[CallMeJoe]

Originally Posted by glenn1

If you expect anyone to actually believe this "he didn't say promise, he only offered economic projections" bullshit then you're stupider than I thought. Don't insult our intelligence with this weasel-word "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" crap.

Not my interpretation, Politifact's.

Don't worry, I fear it would not be possible to insult your "intelligence".

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by glenn1

If you expect anyone to actually believe this "he didn't say promise, he only offered economic projections" bullshit then you're stupider than I thought. Don't insult our intelligence with this weasel-word "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" crap.

Fantastic example of pure denial, of believing what you want to believe in contradiction what was actually said. The presentation & the accompanying documentation were, are, and always will be as quoted above.

Nobody's engaging in one of those "I never said that" Dick Cheney moments except maybe you...

Notice how quickly Cybr obfuscates & dodges when caught lying... no surprises in that.

[glenn1]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

Fantastic example of pure denial, of believing what you want to believe in contradiction what was actually said. The presentation & the accompanying documentation were, are, and always will be as quoted above.

Nobody's engaging in one of those "I never said that" Dick Cheney moments except maybe you...

Notice how quickly Cybr obfuscates & dodges when caught lying... no surprises in that.

Well by that standard, Bush didn't "promise" there were WMDs in Iraq, he simply quoted intelligence "projections that contained disclaimers saying the estimates had significant margins of error," and any suggestion to the contrary is "mostly false."

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by glenn1

Well by that standard, Bush didn't "promise" there were WMDs in Iraq, he simply quoted intelligence "projections that contained disclaimers saying the estimates had significant margins of error," and any suggestion to the contrary is "mostly false."

Pure desperation. The Obama admin expressed no doubts that we were in an extreme economic downturn, and the Bush admin expressed no doubts about the "dangers" of Iraqi Wmd's & their nasty little "reconstituted nuclear program", either...

[piasabird]

O'Bamma passed the largest tax increase in history on the lower middle class.

[cybrsage]

Originally Posted by piasabird

O'Bamma passed the largest tax increase in history on the lower middle class.

He is smugly proud of it too.

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by piasabird

O'Bamma passed the largest tax increase in history on the lower middle class.

Originally Posted by cybrsage

He is smugly proud of it too.

When the first wingnut postures dishonestly, the second one swears it's true.

Wtf "taxes" are you talking about, anyway? The tax penalty of not acquiring a healthcare plan, something that very, very few will likely do or pay? How's that the biggest tax increase in history?

Demonstrate that lower middle class taxes will increase in the face of very strong healthcare plan subsidies available to them under the ACA. Demonstrate that their taxes will actually go up at all, rather than the cost of healthcare for them actually going down, becoming affordable, because of those subsidies.

Where do you get off with this concern trolling wrt the working class, the lower middle class, anyway, given your posting histories?

[cybrsage]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

Wtf "taxes" are you talking about, anyway? The tax penalty of not acquiring a healthcare plan, something that very, very few will likely do or pay? How's that the biggest tax increase in history?

Lets start by making this simple, for I know you understand simple.

Who is far more likely to not have health insurance, a rich man or a poor man? Take your time and think it over. CORRECT! A poor man is more likely to not have insurance.

Why? Well, for many reasons. The big two are price and the type of job(s) (or lack thereof) the man works. But for whatever reason, poor people have a far greater chance of having no insurance than rich people.

This new tax (the one you are trying to pretend Obama did not sign into law after promising not to), is levied upon EVERYONE. The Rich, The Poor, The Middle Class...EVERYONE is hit with this new tax. Now, and this is the real kicker, you can get a credit exactly equal to the tax if you have health insurance.

That is right, the rich are guarenteed a tax credit by Obama by simply showing they obtained something they had all along. Yep, the rich will not pay this new tax.

How about the poor - hmm...lets see. The only way to get the credit to offset the new tax is if you have health insurance. The poor do not have health insurance.

OH NO!!! Not having health insurance means you do not get the credit designed to offset the new tax!!! The poor will have to PAY THE NEW TAX!!!

Supposedly, states will voluntarily put themselves far deeper into debt and extend their medicaid coverage to the poor so the poor will get the tax credit to offset the new tax Obama placed on the poor (after promising he would not). Most states will probably not do so. Even if they do, the tax IS STILL THERE. Thus, Obama raised taxes on those making under $250,000 (when you raise taxes on everyone, you raise taxes on the poor too).


Is this clear enough, or do I have to create a Sesame Street skit for you?

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by cybrsage

Lets start by making this simple, for I know you understand simple.

Who is far more likely to not have health insurance, a rich man or a poor man? Take your time and think it over. CORRECT! A poor man is more likely to not have insurance.

Why? Well, for many reasons. The big two are price and the type of job(s) (or lack thereof) the man works. But for whatever reason, poor people have a far greater chance of having no insurance than rich people.

This new tax (the one you are trying to pretend Obama did not sign into law after promising not to), is levied upon EVERYONE. The Rich, The Poor, The Middle Class...EVERYONE is hit with this new tax. Now, and this is the real kicker, you can get a credit exactly equal to the tax if you have health insurance.

That is right, the rich are guarenteed a tax credit by Obama by simply showing they obtained something they had all along. Yep, the rich will not pay this new tax.

How about the poor - hmm...lets see. The only way to get the credit to offset the new tax is if you have health insurance. The poor do not have health insurance.

OH NO!!! Not having health insurance means you do not get the credit designed to offset the new tax!!! The poor will have to PAY THE NEW TAX!!!

Supposedly, states will voluntarily put themselves far deeper into debt and extend their medicaid coverage to the poor so the poor will get the tax credit to offset the new tax Obama placed on the poor (after promising he would not). Most states will probably not do so. Even if they do, the tax IS STILL THERE. Thus, Obama raised taxes on those making under $250,000 (when you raise taxes on everyone, you raise taxes on the poor too).


Is this clear enough, or do I have to create a Sesame Street skit for you?

Nice empty rant, demonstrated nothing other than your blind partisanship.

You forgot to mention the sliding scale tax credits used to offset premiums & copays, deliberately, I'm sure.

http://www.communitycatalyst.org/doc...ity_in_ACA.pdf

http://healthreform.kff.org/Coverage-Expansion-Map.aspx

Hey- it's just more red state welfare- no surprises in that.

You also forgot to mention that those whose incomes fall below the poverty threshold don't have to pay the tax under any circumstances-

Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009
the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

If you're poor enough to not have to file a tax return, you aren't required to pay. You can still file if you want, particularly if you're eligible for EITC... which isn't counted as taxable income, either.

Unremarkable how you shifted the discussion from the lower middle class to the poor in an attempt to obfuscate... SOP, huh?

[cubby1223]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

Romney's economic policies look an awful lot like Bush's. Since I'm not really aware of any president with a more catastrophic economic record than Bush, this certainly seems like relevant information to me!

Excellent analysis of complex issues! I'm glad you're here to give the color commentary!

Let's see, when Bush took office, we were coming off of the tech bubble which hurt our economy. Will Romney face that problem? No.

When Bush took office, we were coming off of the fraud of Enron, Tyco, & Worldcom which hurt our economy. Will Romney face that problem? No.

In Bush's first term, terrorists attacked New York City which hurt our economy. Will Romney face that problem? Most likely not.

During Bush's presidency, the real estate market went out of control, of which Democrats were equally guilty in allowing happen (affordable housing), which hurt our economy. Both parties are to blame here, and the question is will Romney face a housing bubble? I don't believe so.

I just listed off 4 major reasons why the economy tanked, none of which were the result of Bush's policies.

Then you have the investment bankers, two questions here, (1) can you say with absolute certainly that Al Gore would have prevented this? And (2) will Romney's actions allow this to happen again?

You can debate the wars in the middle east, though I would not consider them to be economic policy.


Where do we go from here? Shall you keep repeating what MSNBC sound-bytes say? What the progressive activist bloggers say? Just don't ever lie to yourself saying you are a part of the solution

[cybrsage]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

You also forgot to mention that those whose incomes fall below the poverty threshold don't have to pay the tax under any circumstances-

Wait, you actually believe you have to be impoverished to be poor.

Elmo (to Maria): Elmo says Oscar is not poor because Oscar is impoverished.
Maria (to Elmo): Who told you this?
Elmo: Jhhnn did, and he is always right. He told that to Elmo too.
Maria (laughing softly): Oh Elmo, Jhhnn is usually not right. He is wrong about poverty, too.
Elmo: Really?
Maria: Yes. You can be poor while not being impoverished. Maybe Jhhnn mean impolite.
Elmo: OH! Elmo might have heard wrong. Oscar IS impolite.
Maria: Yes he is.
Oscar (from within trashcan): I heard that! Now go away, you are messing up my dinner date with Jhhnn!
Maria and Oscar look at each other, smile, walk away.

[Jhhnn]

Originally Posted by cybrsage

Wait, you actually believe you have to be impoverished to be poor.

Mired in your own bullshit, you resort to being deliberately obtuse, as usual.

The assertion you defended most vigorously, that the ACA is the biggest tax increase in history on the lower middle class, is bunk, supported only by bluster & obfuscation.

Either your thinking processes have been corrupted by integration of right wing propaganda or you disseminate it quite knowingly.

[cybrsage]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn

Mired in your own bullshit, you resort to being deliberately obtuse, as usual.

Elmo: Jhhnn, you said a dirty word! Elmo does not like dirty words!
Ocsar: Even I would not talk like you to Jhhnn, get out of my trash can.

[Doc Savage Fan]

Biggest tax increase in history for the poor and lower middle class...I don't know.

Tax increase yes.

[zinfamous]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok

I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty sure that some folks in the administration did try to justify the mandate based on Congress's taxing power.

I doubt there's any evidence that Obama specifically ordered the administration to use this line, but then I wouldn't expect a post from cybrsage as many as 20 words long that didn't contain at least one unsubstantiated claim or outright fabrication.

Yeah, the admin's lawyers actually made both arguments before SCOTUS when defending ACA.

(If you don't like this interpretation, consider looking at the penalty as a "type of tax.")

[zinfamous]

Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan

Biggest tax increase in history for the poor and lower middle class...I don't know.

Tax increase yes.

Yeah, those claims are hilarious.

Both Clinton and Reagan introduced tax hikes more than double that of ACA, when adjusted for inflation.

[zinfamous]

Originally Posted by cybrsage

So, in essence, they said "we are just making stuff up - nothing we show you here can ever be expected to be true".

Thanks, that is SOOO much better. If they did not believe their own numbers, why did they use them?


EDIT: Of course, the report that went along with that chart said this:


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/econ...ow-8-2012-ends


EDIT EDIT: $700 billion dollars to create or save only a scant 150,000 jobs!!! SUCCESS!!!!


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...#ixzz20Bd1ck00

you criticize an attempt to save and/or create a "scant" 150,000 jobs, yet in the same breath, most of you peons froth at the mouth when Keystone is shot down, claiming that this "job creator!" (roughly 2,000 jobs on short-term contracts) is exaclty what this economy needs.


FUCKINGROFLSOCKS.



The Oil Industry is the absolute worst job-producer on the planet, completely without equal in this department...yet it is argued as the foundation of our job-needing economy. Being one of the most automated industries out there, it truly is funny to see them talk about "jobs."

(sorry to distract, but when I hear such bold ineptitude with numbers, I can't help but point out such gross fallacies, and creative toying with facts)

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pre...s-development/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/25/news...jobs/index.htm