Obama, the Liar-In-Chief
 

I'm watching the Olympics last night, and I see an Obama commercial. He talked about Romney's proposed tax plan, which an independent firm says would raise taxes on the middle class, and lower taxes for the wealthy. I have no problem with Obama saying that, because that really happened.

Here's where Obama shows what a bold-faced liar he is...

Obama then says something to this effect...

"this kind of trickle-down tax effect has been tried before, and it's the reason the economy failed in the first place".

I have heard Obama say this many times, that the Bush tax cuts caused the economic collapse. Earth to liberals...the subprime mortgage crisis, and fishy financial products tied to mortgages, caused this recession. NOT TAX CUTS.

How can Obama say this with a straight face? How can any thinking, knowledgable person vote for him? Obama cannot fix the econmomy, if he refuses to admit what the underlying problem is!

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals today. On the conservative side, you have a guy like Paul Ryan say "I hate proposing this, but the numbers are irrefutable. Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable, so they need to be fixed."

What's the liberal response to this? Do they offer different numbers, to suggest that everything is OK? No.

Do they admit that there is a massive problem, but offer a different solution? No.

So what do they do? They say "See? Paul Ryan hates old people and poor people!!", and they (literally) make a commercial of Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound old lady off a cliff. That's their strategy - demonize conservatives, and then maintain the status quo.

Spence, PaulS, RIROCKHOUND, please tell me, exactly, where I'm wrong here? If I say Obama is a flat-out liar for saying tax cuts caused the recession, why would that be wrong?

Can't wait for your responses...

It's interesting that you failed to quote the line in the commercial that contradicts your post :devil2:

-spence

Which was?

Spence, the man said (has said many times) that the tax cuts "got us into this mess".

It's just not true. I know he wants it to be true, and you want it to be true, because it makes conservatives look bad. If it were true, I'd support liberal economics.

But...it's...not...true.

I tried to use monosyllabic words in that sentence in the hopes you might understand, but why bother...

They are all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing liars.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well...? What was it? Come on Spence, what was Obama's line that contradicts my post?

My post claimed that (1) Obama is blaming the recession of Republican tax cuts, and that (2) Obama is therefore lying.

I'm curious to knwo what Obama said later in that commercial, that contradicts that? Enlighten me, go ahead...

I don't believe John McCain is...but we didn't want that, he wasn't hip enough.

Trust me.. To get where they are, you have to cheat lie and steal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, because I'm such a dunce you need to talk down to me :huh:

If the commercial you quoted above is the same one I saw, Obama went on to add lose bank regulations as another big part of the problem...contradicting your post.

I'd hope we could all agree that the Bush Tax Cuts and regulatory policy did have a tremendous impact on both the deficit and the recession.

Does this justify going out of your way to angrily smear the Commander in Chief as a liar?

-spence

Spence, please try to follow along...

Obama said that Republican tax cuts caused the current recession.

If, he said later on that the banks were also a part of the problem, UNLESS HE TOLD THE AUDIENCE TO IGNORE WHAT HE SAID ABOUT TAXES CAUSING THE RECESSION, then it does not contradict my post. Not in the least. He lied. Am I going too fast for you?

And if Obama did mention loose banking regulations contributed to he recession (which is true), do you know who signed the de-regulation into law, which allowed credit default swaps and collaterized debt obligations? The tea partier Bill Clinton.

"I'd hope we could all agree that the Bush Tax Cuts and regulatory policy did have a tremendous impact on both the deficit and the recession."

As for the tax cuts, you cannot say what impact, if any, they had on the recession, and here is why. Again, try to keep up...federal tax receipts INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts. It's possible that the cuts were stimulative. Meaning, if the tax rates were higher by X percent, you have no way of knowing that tax ravenues collected would have increased by the same X percent. You somehow don't know that, and I gather you work in a financial position of some sort? Unbelievable...

As for the regulatory policy...the de-regulation was passed by a Republican congress, and signed into law by Clinton. Both parties therefore seem to share blame. But I don't hear too many liberals suggesting that.

You say that the tax cuts had a tremendous impact on the recession? Spence, please tell me how a recession is caused by letting people keep a bit more of their own money? Hmmm?

Tax cuts may have worsened the debt, IF you assume that higher tax rates would lead to more tax dollars collected. But we know, we absolutely know for certain, that tax revenue can increase following tax cuts. I'm not saying that the tax cuts necessarily caused revenue to increase. But you can't say they didn't cause revenue to increase, either.

Spence, you're in finance? Do you know why stores have sales? Don't you admit that higher prices don't always mean you'll see higher revenue?

"because I'm such a dunce you need to talk down to me"

Bingo. Read your post here, Spence. It;s breathtakingly inaccurate at best, downright stupid at worst.

Finally, did Obama mention that one teeny-tiney cause of the recession was the liberal notion that poor people have a right to $400,000 mortgages? Did he admit to that? I bet not. And that also played a tremendous part. Yet Obama (and you) won't mention that...

But true to his liberal colors, Obama won't tell any of these people that they bear any responsibility for taking out stupid mortgages. Because one of the cornerstones of liberalsim is a complete, total, perfect, "lack of responsibility". If someone making $35,000 a year agreed to a $600,000 adjustable-rate mortgage, it wasn't that they were stupid and deserve to face the consequences. Nope. It was the banks's fault. Some mean Republican (probably a white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit) made them do it.

"Does this justify going out of your way to angrily smear the Commander in Chief as a liar?"

It's only a smear if it's not true. The man lied. So I called him a liar. Again, is that going too fast for you?



Good day.

I believe the quote was...

There's certainly plenty of neutral economic analysis to defend his assertion, noting of course that it is a campaign commercial after all.

I'd also wager heavily that Obama believes it.

So lie, not so fast...

I'm not going to wade into the reasons for the housing crisis again. There are hundreds of pages on this site alone and my position is clear.

And you need anger management therapy. I'm really concerned you're not going to be able to make it until November.

-spence

"There's certainly plenty of neutral economic analysis to defend his assertion"

His assertion is that trickle-down economics caused the recession. Spence, what is the "nuetral" data to support that?

If anything, it was trickle-up economics that caused this, namely, people at the bottom half of the scale spending more money than they shoiuld.

Spence, have you or Obama never heard of something called the "subprime mortgage crisis"? How did "trickle down economics", or tax cuts, cause that? Remember, in your last post, it was you who said that tax cuts had a "tremendous" impact on the recession, and I dispute that.

"you need anger management therapy"

Spence, you jumped the shark with that insipid coment about whites who oppose gay marriage being equivalent to those who wear "God hates fags" tshirts. That was your lowest moment on here, but hardly new territory for you. I'm not angry at all, but I have no more patience for the likes of you, and I'm taking the gloves off. I will expose your unsupported, deranged, ranting every chance I will get, because it's intellectually dishonest, cowardly, and not in any way productive in terms of solving real problems. If you don't like it, then put some small bit of reason in something you say.

We have srious problems to solve. You and your ilk deny the very existence of those problems (meaning, you deny that medicare is in huge trouble), and worse, you demonize people like Paul Ryan who propose solutions.

We have serious problems. We don't have any more time for charlatans who demonize those who try to propose honest solutions, rather than propose alternate solutions.

Paul Ryan: Medicare is in serious economic danger, it needs to be fixed in order to be saved. I propose one solution that addresses the problem...

Liberals: See? Paul Ryan hates sick people!

Do you really, really not see anything wrong with that dialogue Spence?

Don't worry about me. Not only will I "make it" to November, I'll be sitting pretty. The most forseeable, preventable economic crisis imaginable is coming. Your political bretheren have driven us to the edge of a precipice, and rather then steer away, they want to accelerate. If that's what you're going to do with our economy, those that see it coming and act rationally, will weather the storm just fine.

Spence, perhaps you have heard of the "tech bubble crisis", and the "subprime mortgage crisis". The next one will be worse, and it will be called somethiing like the "sovereign debt crisis". Your side has, for some reason, been successful in telling people not to worry about the fact that the dike is cracking and starting to leak. You can say "notihng to see here" all that all you want, but the physical laws of our world don't care about politics.

i am in tears.....you've been pretty funny lately :jump1:

sounds like a great argument for limiting their power once they've cheated and lied and stolen their way there :uhuh:

unless you believe that they suddenly become benevolent and honest and virtuous and full of good intentions once there :)

Nobodies mentioning the USPS DEFAULTED!! on it's pension payments? Senate and Congress both walked away on that one.

The challenge is that your posts are so full of half-truths, made up crap, stereo-types and otherwise such out to lunch-ness that I don't even really know where to begin.

-spence

You don't know where to begin? How about telling us how tax cuts (which means we get to keep a little more of our money) have a "tremendous impact" on the recession?

This recession was caused by 2 things...the subprime mortgage crisis, and fishy financial products that were leveraged to risky mortgages.

If you can tell me how tax cuts (especially tax cuts that were followed by INCREASES in tax revenue) had a "tremendous impact" on this recession, well, I am all ears...

I'll even get you started, how's that? You just fill in the blank. Here we go...

I, Spence, admit that the Bush tax cuts meant that all Americans got to keep a higher percentage of their incomes. Furthermore, after those tax cuts, I concede that tax revenue collected by the feds increased. I, Spence, feel that had a "tremendous impact" on the recession because_______________________________"

There. Now you know precisely where to begin.

Good luck, you'll need it...

out to lunch"ed"ness

i think that's correct....

you two are lucky TDF isn't around :rotf2:

Spence said that white people who are opposed to gay mariage are all in the same boat as jerks who wear "God hates fags" tshirts. I've never said anythiing here, nor could I, that compares with that. If the moderators let that fly, my stuff here pales in comparison.

The ironic thing is that gay marriage is an issue on which I agree with him. But he still managed to marginalize himself, even as I was trying to agree with him.

Here, I just want to know how tax cuts (especially cuts followed by increased tax ravenue) had a "tremendous impact" on the recession. I've heard Obama say that, though I see he doesn't bother to explain the connection. Spence, in true liberal parrot fashion, also regurgitates that talking point. I'm just trying to figure out how, if we get to keep a slightly higher percentage or our wages, that made anyone else poorer?

Afetr all, revenues collected, and government spending, both increased after those tax cuts. But if tax cuts had a "tremendous impact" on the recession, I genuinely want to know why, because I don't want to be misinformed.

he seemed satisfied with my answer on the subject and didn't accuse me of wearing off-color tee shirts :)

you ask alot of questions and demand answers that you should already know or expect the predictable response...if someone responds predictably, you shouldn't get angry....if someone believes that the only or largest issue that we face is that government is underfunded .....they will also believe that the increase or decrease in taxation is either the solution or the problem

Stop being reasonable or I'll have to put you back on ignore :love:

Can't argue with any of that...

Back to the main point of this thread. Obama said in a commercial that trickle down tax cuts are what caused this recession. I'm not making that up, it's what the man said.

Can anyone here support that statement? Merely repeating it, is not supporting it.

That's because TDF actually had better things to do than be here to get between a couple of "Pre-Teen Girls" arguing whether its "Edward or Jacob" :rolleyes:

Until he gets to work...

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

don't know about you guys, but i love the newer version of nebe :uhuh: dude is spot on.

Well, when revenues went up with the Bush tax cuts, that could pay for the wars. But even more to the point, foreign wars are the responsibility of the Federal government and its legitimate financial responsibillity. Its current massive bureacracy and the programs and regulaltions it spues forth, spending trillions of dollars, for the most part, are not legitimate, Constitutional responsibilites. And now there is only the dwindling Afghanistan war, so tax cuts, even under the pay for the war responsibility, especially if they allow the private sector to flourish better as a bottom up force thus creating more gvt. revenue, shouldn't be such a problem, and especially if the gvt. stops, or at least cuts back on, its bureaucratic spending.

LOL, I can' beliteve he has been posting for the last 6 months without
bashing Bush. :D

Yes, and in addition there was the costs of 9/11, forming Homeland Security and Katrina besides the wars,
all Federal responsibilities.
Now that those expenses are close to being over, there should be more $$ to help
pay down the debt unless it's used for expanding Big G even more.

I don't think it was so much he wasn't hip enough... but more that wretched woman that was chosen as his running mate.

"So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession?"

I never said that. I specifically said that the fishy financial products played a large role. But since the de-regulation of those products was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Democratic president, i don't see how one party is at fault.

Also, I think that the Bush tax cuts had just about nothing to do with it.

"we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone"

True. But I don't feel that government debt had much at all to do with this recesion. This recession was caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, and the rippling effectsthroughout the financial sector. Government debt will have everything to do with the next recession, however,

"Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before?"

I don't know. In the case of the bUsh tax cuts, I don't see that it matters. Because th efact is (and thgis seems to escape liberals), tax revenues increased aftre the tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts did not result in tax revenue being lower than it was before the tax rate cuts.

People, mostly liberals, do not seem to be able to grasp that. If tax revenues always decreased proportionately with tax rates, you'd have a point. But clearly they do not. What I mean is this...no one can say for sure that the feds would have collected more revenue, if Bush had not cut taxes. It's not that simple. All we know is this...after Bush cut tax rates (the percentage of one's salary that one pays) tax revenues collected by the feds (total dollars collected) hit their all-time high.

Liberals constantly claim (falsely) that the Bush tax cuts (1) onlyhelped the rich (that is demonstrably false), and (2) caused the recession (which makes no sense).

I think I have answered most, if not all, of your questions.

So can you answer one of mine? Just one...if Bush's reduction in tax rates were followed by an increase in tax dollars collected by the feds, how can that cause a recession?

The feds collected more tax dollars from us after the Bush tax cuts. Not less. More. That is undisputed fact, and it annihilates the liberal theory that increasing tax rates will automatically increase tax revenue. Even though it's demonstrably false, liberals continue to beat that drum.

"So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession?"

I specifically said that fishy financial products, tied to mortgages, played a big role. So I cannot imagine why on Earth you'd claim that I said something so stupid.

"top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for"

Bush advocated a top-down approach? Then can you explain why Bush lowered tax rates for everyone, not just for the rich (which liberals like to lie about)?

Romney wants a small-government approach. Why does that, in your view, equate to a "top-down" approach? Romney isn't proposing to eliminate anti-poverty programs. He isn't proposing to eliminate welfare, food stamps, or unemployment. He just doesn't want the feds doing things they suck at. In a sane world, liberals would happily debate the merits of a limited-government approach. Instead, as always, they demonize the other side, saying things like "that's how we got into this mess, and he wants to do it again! We can't afford that!"

Rockhound, government debt didn't cause this recession (though it will cause the next one). And let me make one more point, and try to pay attention, because this is something liberals REALLY struggle with. Let's pretend I agree with you that federal tax revenue plays a big role in recessions...President Bush cut tax rates. Those lower tax rates were followed by the largest amount of tax dollars ever collected by the IRS.

Thus, where do liberals get off claiming that the Bush tax cuts cost us anything? You cannot know for sure that higher tax rates would have produced more tax revenue. It's not that simple. Why? Because demand increases when you reduce price. Always.

Rockhound, do you claim that higher tax rates will always produce more tax dollars, than lower tax rates? If so, why not impose tax rates of 100%?

It is irrefutable, demonstrable fact, that it's possible to lower tax rates and increase tax revenue. It happened within the last 10 years, for God's sakes.

Now, please don't suggest that I'm saying lower tax rates will always increase tax revenue, because that's equally ridiculous. But they don't always move proportionately. Liberals hate that fact, and thus cannot accept it.

That is a common misconception. Now, I'm no Palin fan. But the fact is, McCain was trailing in the polls untuil he picked Palin, at which time he lept ahead in the polls and stayed ahead, until the economy collapsed.

If you want to say she was a dunderhead, you have a point. But it's demonstrably false to say that she 'hurt' his campaign more than she 'helped' it. The media really likes to say she torpedoed his candidacy, but the simple facts do not back that up.

And when I say I'm no fan, I mean on the ticket for VP, not as a person. I'm shocked to hear you call her "wretched". Anyone who decides to give birth to a baby with Down's syndrome (and she did that before she was wealthy) gets an A+ for compassion in my book. I don't like her kid having a voyeuristic reality show. But I'd rather have lunch with her than the liar-in-chief.

from the crazy liberal Bruce Bartlett :smash:

"Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.
It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year."

and this:
"...And on July 15, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said, “Even the much-maligned Bush tax cuts brought in an additional $100 billion a year to government coffers.”

It is hard to know where these totally erroneous ideas come from. Federal revenue fell in 2001 from 2000, again in 2002 from 2001 and again in 2003 from 2002. Revenue did not get back to its 2000 level until 2005. More important, revenue as a share of G.D.P. was lower every year of the Bush presidency than it was in 2000."


Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com

She's had just as many, if not more, embarrassing public comments as Joe Biden has had and repeatedly displayed a level of ignorance to common issues that even Biden would have difficulty competing with.

I'd hardly say that she "decided" to give birth to a Down's baby, especially someone that says she'd be opposed to her own daughter having an abortion even if she was raped(Sarah Palin on Abortion). It'd be the epitome of hypocritical if she hadn't had the child.

Yea, trickle down works great when your economic growth is being fueled by a credit bubble!

-spence

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. Yes, this does assume a level of responsibility we've not seen from either party.

Assuming that in this case "Progressive" = Republicans and Democrats?

There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

I'd also argue that government revenues ultimately have more to do with larger (increasingly global) economic trends rather than incentives like low taxation or deregulation.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. Trusting industry has given our housing market a 10+ year wound...

How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?

-spence

Spence...please elaborate on this gem :)

Depends on what you mean by positive. And it depends on what you mean by historic. There were boom times with lower taxes and less regulation in the past. But, if you prefer Wilson's, and the progressives', idea of society being a well ordered bee hive, directed by government, then tinkering with economic levers from the "top" may be your way of achieving a positive vector. If you prefer individual sovereignty, the vector should be directed by the people, not the government.

This also includes Corporate Taxes: Corporate income taxes for the past three years have hovered at just over 1 percent of GDP, lower than for any three-year period since World War II. The average for OECD countries is 3.5 percent.

The problem I have is the amount of $$’s wasted. Too many stories of gross and wasteful spending and so much scandal in our Government. Regardless of taxes being historically low, an argument could be made that government spending is historically high. So it’s the chicken and the egg, cut spending or increase taxes. I think we need a little of both from everyone. Not just concessions from the rich or the poor, but from everyone. (even though I don’t know what is rich and what is poor)

lower taxes and less reguation allow the individual the freedom to determine their own vector....they also restrict the governemnt's ability to interfere in the life of the individual...which is a problem for the progressive who believes that everything must flow through government and obviously have very difficult time relinquishing whatever control they gain over the individual through government regulation and various forms of taxation.....

this whole discussion reminds me of the Milton Friedman-Donahue from the 70's...nothing has really changed and Donahue and company will never learn..the montra is essentially the same:uhuh:

DONAHUE: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?


FRIEDMAN: Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

DONAHUE: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

FRIEDMAN: And what does reward virtue? Do you think the communist commissar rewards virtue? Do you think Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.

DONAHUE: Well --

FRIEDMAN: I don't even trust you to do that.




ahhh...the "angels who are going to organize society for us"...the "Philosopher Kings"

Yuval Levin had a great analysis of this recently

This remarkable window into the president’s thinking shows us not only a man chilly toward the potential of individual initiative, and not only a man deluded about the nature of his opponents and their views, but also (and perhaps most important) a man with a staggeringly thin idea of common action in American life.

The president simply equates doing things together with doing things through government. He sees the citizen and the state, and nothing in between — and thus sees every political question as a choice between radical individualism and a federal program.

But most of life is lived somewhere between those two extremes, and American life in particular has given rise to unprecedented human flourishing because we have allowed the institutions that occupy the middle ground — the family, civil society, and the private economy — to thrive in relative freedom.

The Hollow Republic - Yuval Levin - National Review Online

it was not "trusting industry" or lack of regulation that gave our housing industry a 10 year wound, it was removal by government through cohersion, threats and supposed good intentions, any "risk" for lenders and other players up the line creating the environment for all sorts of unfortunate consequences, government also created a culture that sought to reduce standards and requirements for home ownership to such a level that not only was there little risk for the lenders but little responsibiity required on the part of the buyers ....this happens frequently when government steps in to assume or reduce the risk to the individual or entity and corresponding responsibility to society....government creates vehicals that carpool the risk in life for the individual(and other entities) and mitigate responsibiity and often in areas where they have no business meddeling, they load the vehical up with both unwilling and willing participants and then the vehical goes careening off a cliff....