Obama, the Liar-In-Chief

[Jim in CT]

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...

[spence]

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

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-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...

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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

[Nebe]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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...

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[spence]

I believe the quote was...

"You have a choice to make," he intones. "It's a choice between two very different plans for our country." Then he warns: "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."

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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

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

[striperman36]

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

[spence]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

[scottw]

out to lunch"ed"ness

i think that's correct....

you two are lucky TDF isn't around

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

out to lunch"ed"ness

i think that's correct....

you two are lucky TDF isn't around

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

you two are lucky TDF isn't around

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"

[Sea Dangles]

Until he gets to work...

[RIROCKHOUND]

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

[afterhours]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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...

This is a peculiar understanding of "top down/bottom up." Generally, when applied to current politics, top down refers to government as being the mover and shaker of society with the people following its direction and regulation, and bottom up refers to the private sector, "the people" being the creators of and driving force, with the government, in a democratic free market system republic, being merely a cohesive force with limited powers granted to it and consented by the private sector. Tax policies, whether those of Obama or Bush or Romney, would all be top down policies. Tax cuts would be government, the top, relinquishing power thus restoring it to the bottom, the people, so, would be enabling the bottom to direct and produce more. Tax raises would be the opposite, shifting power to the top, the government, and siphoning power from the bottom. In effect, lowering taxes is a bottom up approach, and raising taxes is a top down approach. This applies to on whomever the taxes are raised or lowered, the rich, middle class, or poor. Top down tinkering to favor any class is usually, if not always, divisive. The theory that cutting taxes on those who create business and the ensuing jobs is a top down decision to enable bottom up conditions to flourish. But picking the winners and losers, the "class" that benefits from policies is class warfare that divides.

The founders and their Constitution never intended for an ultimate top down system of government that would divide the people and give it the power to create the conditions of society. That was to be left to the people, bottom up. Ironically, In their view, the top WAS the people. Though societal structures as flow charts or pyramids place government on top, their Constitution was the most anti-government government document ever written. It was government ceding power from the top of the flow-chart to the bottom sectors. It was government limiting itself from the top and dispersing it to the people to govern, for the most part, themselves. It was government limiting its own power, and letting the greatest portion of powers to remain in the hands of the people who were to be, in contrast to previous notions and practices of government, the actual top of the chart. Progressive shift in politics has now given government the highest position.

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

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by afterhours

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

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

"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.