The "fiscal cliff".....

Make him read his own sources Recus. The Huffington Post article says nothing that he is claiming but he has chosen to interpret a couple of sentences completely out of any context the article meant to go and the other source is just a Right-wing blog not really wedded to the facts so to speak. He tried to venture out of the RW echo chamber for a brief second but not far enough to actually make any sense.

 

Yes. See my previous post on "mendacious malarkey" as purveyed by our fellow member.

 

Yes, we were posting simultaneously and I read your critique and you pretty much came to the same conclusion that I came to. His links are often just links for the sake of links tangentially related to the subject but clearly not proving anything he is asserting, but you can’t tell him that. After so many exchanges with him that basically require me to explain to him that what he is asserting is not supported by what he has linked to, I just consider him a lost cause and move on at that point. It works for him because he then believes that he has won the day and pats himself on the back and continues to wallow in self-righteous ignorance…the ugliest kind. But it is not my job to educate the uneducable. They deserve whatever their personalities earn them. That’s education enough.
Keep posting Recus. Your posts are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant cesspool.

 

OK, so try the CBO report http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-08-12-FiscalTightening.pdf

The last time I checked, a 1.5% increase in GDP was larger than a 1.25% increase. However, Teddy might disagree with that.

 

Bait and switch, which is all I expected from you. Your assertion was in regard to the effect of the tax deal on government revenue and employment. None of what you said is supported by any report from the Congressional Budget Office. Now you bring in a quote about the GDP. You are aware that GDP is not the same thing as government revenue, aren't you? You do understand that GDP is not the same thing as unemployment statistics, don't you? Why do you think that anybody would be taken in by your tap-dancing?

 

- ahh!

 

Don't argue with him, he's in the 100th percentile... YOU'RE WRONG because he's on the right.

 

I thought that he was number 2 in his class. And by number 2 I mean...

 

So let me guess, the government's intake and employment rate both go up and the GDP go down. That is what you are saying?

 

Talk about your bait & switch...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gger-hit-earning-500-000-new-fiscal-deal.html

BO sold the lemmings on raising taxes on "millionaires & billionaires" and this is what we get?

 

Yep. "Thanks, Obama" indeed.....

View attachment 1155 View attachment 1156

 

Even if this were true and not a spin on the tax deal, didn't Republicans also vote for this deal? Just curious, why do the Republicans that voted for this bi-partisan legislation get no admonishment from you guys? Hum?

Senate: 89 Yes 8 No
House: 257 Yes 167 No
Obama: 1 signature

Whether you like the deal or not you really can't credit one person for its creation and passage.

Oh yeah! Now I remember. Thanks Recus!

 

I realize it is a technicality, but Obama did not sign the bill. He was in Hawaii when it was enacted.

 

hahahahaha.

 

Do people, especially 'conservatives' not realize this payroll tax break was actually an Obama stimulus plan and not a reduction in taxes? Do they not understand that it wasn't a tax break at all...it was really just more deficit spending? Do they not realize that we were putting that 2% back into SS from the general budget thereby increasing deficit spending by that amount?

It didn't decrease anyone's taxes, it just postponed them.

 

wow! You've really come around. You've finally realized that tax breaks are just spending by any other name. Welcome to the light.

 

Of course they destroy the deficit the same way as our ridiculous overspending. Who has been the only one on this forum that wanted ALL of these temporary "tax breaks" to expire for just that reason? Hmmmmm. And now the two parties have gone and agreed to make the vast majority of them a permanent deficit problem - with no budget cuts to offset them at all. Surprise. Surprise.

But, I will say that this "payroll tax holiday" should have been an obvious stimulus program to anyone since the money to pay for it was, by law, to be covered from the regular budget.

Bribe the idiot voters with some extra money in their paychecks. Then borrow to put that money in Pot A so it can then be moved to Pot B where you took it out of in the first place. Just another shell game the 2 parties play on most of you guys.

 

Methinks a lot of the problem lies therein.

 

It is amazing, really. We are 16 Trillion in debt and, somehow, the whole world would come apart if people making under $200K or $400K had to go back to paying the exact same rates they paid under the last Democratic President just over a decade ago.

And we are supposed to believe that the world would similarly come to apart if they had followed through on cutting spending from 3.80 trillion to 3.68 trillion per year - the Sequestration postponement - when in 2001 we were only spending 1.86 Trillion a year.

These are the only types of things these 2 parties can seem to agree on and they are complete fallacies just meant to placate the populace by giving them everything in the short term and not worrying about the long term ever.