Just one week after they cut off Obama's sentence and skip two sentences to make it look like Obama's saying small business owners "didn't build" their business, when the very preceding sentence makes it clear he's talking about roads and bridges, Romney's campaign doubles down on lies.

Here's what Obama said at a fundraiser Monday:

Quote:“I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan. And it worked.”

Here's what Romney's ad featured:

Quote:Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan. And it worked.

It should be plainly obvious to anyone reading the preceding sentence that Obama is talking about the success under the Clinton tax rates, which haven't been in place for 10 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-..._blog.html

OK let's go back to the Clinton tax rates. Can we go back to Clinton level spending?

C'mon Max. That doesn't matter. We ALL know Obama believes that anyway!

(07-26-2012 04:30 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  OK let's go back to the Clinton tax rates. Can we go back to Clinton level spending?

Adjusted for inflation?

And all the interest on all the debt piled up thanks to Bush's wars, lost revenue from his tax cuts and the economic downturn and the necessary corrective economic measures in TARP and the stimulus?



Even if we could go back to Clinton era spending, now is not the time to do it because the falling demand will kill our tepid growth. When we've achieved a full recovery we can talk.

8 days clowns

You clowns even know what is significant about 8 days and increasing just the rates on those over 200k?

Lies, damn lies and Max's daily progressive lying points

Who cares what obama says? We all know he's either lying, doesn't know what he's talking about, or spouting off about something that no one gives a **** about.

(07-26-2012 04:30 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  OK let's go back to the Clinton tax rates. Can we go back to Clinton level spending?

Also, scale back all gov't agencies and programs to their Clinton levels. If it didn't exist then, eradicate it. Although I do worry about how libs would function without all the gov't intrusion in their lives they would lose with that move.

Clearly, "it worked" since there was no dot-com bubble that burst right after Clinton left office, leading to a recession, right? Oh sorry, I forgot that policies only have a carry-over effect to a new administration when it's a transition from a Repub to a Dem.

Wow, I had no idea Obama was so involved in the economic policy during the Clinton years. Better make sure Clinton's bio on the WH website is updated to reflect that accordingly.

(07-26-2012 04:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And all the interest on all the debt piled up thanks to Bush's wars, lost revenue from his tax cuts and the economic downturn and the necessary corrective economic measures in TARP and the stimulus?



Even if we could go back to Clinton era spending, now is not the time to do it because the falling demand will kill our tepid growth. When we've achieved a full recovery we can talk.

Can we achieve full recovery with the spending we are seeing? No.

(07-26-2012 05:03 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 04:30 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  OK let's go back to the Clinton tax rates. Can we go back to Clinton level spending?

Also, scale back all gov't agencies and programs to their Clinton levels. If it didn't exist then, eradicate it. Although I do worry about how libs would function without all the gov't intrusion in their lives they would lose with that move.

Yes. This.

Quote:Clearly, "it worked" since there was no dot-com bubble that burst right after Clinton left office, leading to a recession, right? Oh sorry, I forgot that policies only have a carry-over effect to a new administration when it's a transition from a Repub to a Dem.

I don't blame the dot-com bubble on anyone but the idiots who thought askjeeves.com was the best way to search the interwebs. Well that isn't exactly true, but you get what I'm saying.

I just saw an Obama ad in which he said he plans to "responsibly pay down the debt!"

Hahahahahaha.... Lies and absurdities. Unless you live in a world where everything is EXACTLY the opposite of reality.

Since you lie a lot on this board, what gives you the right to express indignation?

(07-26-2012 04:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  And all the interest on all the debt piled up thanks to Bush's wars, lost revenue from his tax cuts and the economic downturn and the necessary corrective economic measures in TARP and the stimulus?



Even if we could go back to Clinton era spending, now is not the time to do it because the falling demand will kill our tepid growth. When we've achieved a full recovery we can talk.

Typical Max, post two very colorful graphs with no explanation of the source, methodology, or assumptions. Typical ambulance chaser trick of putting a big graph on an easel where the jury can stare at it, hoping the bright colors will overwhelm the fact that you haven't explained it properly. Judges don't like that, and neither do the rules of evidence. That's why you have to prove things up before you can use them in court.

Of course, if you provided a detailed explanation of how the artists/authors came up with the numbers to support their graphs, it would immediately become obvious that there are a bunch of highly questionable treatments given to the facts in preparing it. I've seen the graph before, gone to the source, and documented a number of the methodological errors in preparing this, but I'm just too busy to take the time to go chasing after old posts right now.

So why don't you just post the source and explain the methodology that was used and the assumptions that were made to come up with the numbers?

I'll give you a hand with one. The tax cuts number represents all the "Bush tax cuts" and not just the ones for the "rich." But even your side does not want to get rid of the tax cuts for other than the "rich." So to be honest, shouldn't you separate the impact of the tax cuts for the "rich" from the tax cuts for everybody else? Why doesn't this graph do that? Simple, because if it did that then it would show this great big section attributable to the "good" tax cuts and this little bitty segment attributable to the "bad" tax cuts, and of course that would reveal the falsity of the idea being put forth by your side that repealing the "Bush tax cuts" for the "rich" would have a material impact on the deficit. Also, there is general agreement, even among your side, that there is some offsetting positive economic effect of tax cuts--not dollar for dollar, but not zero either. That's why your side doesn't want to repeal the cuts for everybody else but the "rich," in fact they keep talking about not doing that during a recession because they don't want the negative impact on the economy.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the "Bush tax cuts." They should have been matched with spending cuts to maintain at least a nominal budget balance and they should have been oriented toward the supply side (dividends, capital gains, corporate income tax) and less toward "trickle down" demand stimulus. If I were the republicans, I'd give up the tax cuts for the "rich" in a heartbeat if I could trade them for something useful. What I'd really favor is a complete restructuring of the tax code along Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin lines, except that I'd go further in the same direction than they did.

But I am a fan of honesty. And I'm a CPA who spent a lot of time as an expert witness before I became a lawyer in administrative proceedings where it was pretty much your expert against my expert. So I've exposed more than a few cases where numbers were manipulated dishonestly by others to try to prove a point. And these graphs have been manipulated in dishonest ways to prove points. I'm not attacking you personally as dishonest, because I'm pretty sure you didn't prepare these. But whoever did prepare them is being at least very misleading, if not outright lying.

Really? No cons willing to admit this ad goes too far?

Quote:I just saw an Obama ad in which he said he plans to "responsibly pay down the debt!"

Hahahahahaha.... Lies and absurdities. Unless you live in a world where everything is EXACTLY the opposite of reality.

That's not absurd at all. He's proposed raising taxes on billionaires, the GOP obstructed. He's proposing extending the Bush tax cuts for EVERYBODY up to $250k of their income and letting all income over that amount be taxed at Clinton-era rates, and the GOP is obstructing, and holding the middle class tax cuts hostage (which everyone agrees on). He's willing to cut defense. These are all very easy cuts to make and taxes to raise, and which will have minimal negative impact on GDP growth and jobs.

Quote:Typical Max, post two very colorful graphs with no explanation of the source, methodology, or assumptions. Typical ambulance chaser trick of putting a big graph on an easel where the jury can stare at it, hoping the bright colors will overwhelm the fact that you haven't explained it properly. Judges don't like that, and neither do the rules of evidence. That's why you have to prove things up before you can use them in court.

Of course, if you provided a detailed explanation of how the artists/authors came up with the numbers to support their graphs, it would immediately become obvious that there are a bunch of highly questionable treatments given to the facts in preparing it. I've seen the graph before, gone to the source, and documented a number of the methodological errors in preparing this, but I'm just too busy to take the time to go chasing after old posts right now.

So why don't you just post the source and explain the methodology that was used and the assumptions that were made to come up with the numbers.

I'll give you a hand with one. The tax cuts number represents all the "Bush tax cuts" and not just the ones for the "rich." But even your side does not want to get rid of the tax cuts for other than the "rich." So to be honest, shouldn't you separate the impact of the tax cuts for the "rich" from the tax cuts for everybody else? Why doesn't this graph do that? Simple. because if it did that then it would show this great big section attributable to the "good" tax cuts and this little bitty segment attributable to the "bad" tax cuts, and of course that would reveal that the idea being put forth falsely by your side that repealing the "Bush tax cuts" for the "rich" would have a material impact on the deficit. Also, there is general agreement, even among your side, that there is some offsetting positive economic effect of tax cuts--not dollar for dollar, but not zero either. That's why your side doesn't want to repeal the cuts for everybody else but the "rich," in fact they keep talking about not doing that during a recession because they don't want the negative impact on the economy.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the "Bush tax cuts." They should have been matched with spending cuts to maintain at least a nominal budget balance and they should have been oriented toward the supply side (dividends, capital gains, corporate income tax) and less toward "trickle down" demand stimulus. If I were the republicans, I'd give up the tax cuts for the "rich" in a heartbeat if I could trade them for something useful. What I'd really favor is a complete restructuring of the tax code along Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin lines, except that I'd go further in the same direction than they did.

But I am a fan of honesty. And I'm a CPA who spent a lot of time as an expert witness before I became a lawyer in administrative proceedings where it was pretty much your expert against my expert. So I've exposed more than a few cases where numbers were manipulated dishonestly by others to try to prove a point. And these graphs have been manipulated in dishonest ways to prove points. I'm not attacking you personally as dishonest, because I'm pretty sure you didn't prepare these. But whoever did prepare them is being at least very misleading, if not outright lying.

I got the graph off of Daily Kos. They, if you look at the graph, took it from the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who in turn based it on CBO estimates. I'm busy as well and when I receive information from serious sources with reputations to protect, I tend not to question the methodology, unless it's unintuitive or someone is paying me to do so.

You make a legitimate point about "bad" and "good" Bush tax cuts, but you make the false assumption that what is "good" now was "good" before the recession. I agree on keeping the tax cuts in place for the lower and middle classes, but that is because of the hole we're in now, which is in part to blame on the Bush tax cuts, which helped inflate the housing bubble. Before the recession, all of the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary and were overheating the economic engine. Now, the middle class desperately needs the relief and our economy needs the consumer demand, so let's keep it for them. But the rich can take the hit and our growth won't be effected too much.

This is just my opinion, but if it weren't for the Bush tax cuts a. our debt would be much lower, thanks in part to the fact that b. the crash wouldn't have been as severe (meaning our revenue level would be much higher).

Here's what I honestly believe. I fear Romney will just give this country away to monied interests and screw over the rest of us. We must have someone in office this election who will make sure the Bush tax cuts expire on the mega rich, and the dividend, investment, and estate taxes rise. I don't say this because I hate the wealthy; I say this because our economy is built on spending, and the middle class and poor is where the bulk of that spending comes from. That spending is the real job creator, because it creates demand. If Romney gets in there and the rich get all the tax breaks, the middle class and poor must pay more, meaning they have less to spend, which lowers demand, which lowers job creation. The Republicans insist you can just "reduce spending" to balance the budget, but that is complete BS because it is just code words for "f'k everyone on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security," without realizing that consumer spending contributes to our economy a hell of a lot more than building some bomb to drop on some god forsaken **** hole in the Middle East.

We need to start paying down our debt, and the best way to do it, with doing the least damage to our growth prospects, is for the wealthy and corporations to start paying their fair share again. Romney and the Republicans have literally no plan to increase revenue, and no legitimate plan to cut spending (when the biggest bills are hands off like DoD spending). There are hard choices to make, and the choices Romney will make are going to disenfranchise 99% of the people.

(07-27-2012 09:11 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Really? No cons willing to admit this ad goes too far?

Quote:I just saw an Obama ad in which he said he plans to "responsibly pay down the debt!"

Hahahahahaha.... Lies and absurdities. Unless you live in a world where everything is EXACTLY the opposite of reality.

That's not absurd at all. He's proposed raising taxes on billionaires, the GOP obstructed. He's proposing extending the Bush tax cuts for EVERYBODY up to $250k of their income and letting all income over that amount be taxed at Clinton-era rates, and the GOP is obstructing, and holding the middle class tax cuts hostage (which everyone agrees on). He's willing to cut defense. These are all very easy cuts to make and taxes to raise, and which will have minimal negative impact on GDP growth and jobs.

Quote:Typical Max, post two very colorful graphs with no explanation of the source, methodology, or assumptions. Typical ambulance chaser trick of putting a big graph on an easel where the jury can stare at it, hoping the bright colors will overwhelm the fact that you haven't explained it properly. Judges don't like that, and neither do the rules of evidence. That's why you have to prove things up before you can use them in court.

Of course, if you provided a detailed explanation of how the artists/authors came up with the numbers to support their graphs, it would immediately become obvious that there are a bunch of highly questionable treatments given to the facts in preparing it. I've seen the graph before, gone to the source, and documented a number of the methodological errors in preparing this, but I'm just too busy to take the time to go chasing after old posts right now.

So why don't you just post the source and explain the methodology that was used and the assumptions that were made to come up with the numbers.

I'll give you a hand with one. The tax cuts number represents all the "Bush tax cuts" and not just the ones for the "rich." But even your side does not want to get rid of the tax cuts for other than the "rich." So to be honest, shouldn't you separate the impact of the tax cuts for the "rich" from the tax cuts for everybody else? Why doesn't this graph do that? Simple. because if it did that then it would show this great big section attributable to the "good" tax cuts and this little bitty segment attributable to the "bad" tax cuts, and of course that would reveal that the idea being put forth falsely by your side that repealing the "Bush tax cuts" for the "rich" would have a material impact on the deficit. Also, there is general agreement, even among your side, that there is some offsetting positive economic effect of tax cuts--not dollar for dollar, but not zero either. That's why your side doesn't want to repeal the cuts for everybody else but the "rich," in fact they keep talking about not doing that during a recession because they don't want the negative impact on the economy.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the "Bush tax cuts." They should have been matched with spending cuts to maintain at least a nominal budget balance and they should have been oriented toward the supply side (dividends, capital gains, corporate income tax) and less toward "trickle down" demand stimulus. If I were the republicans, I'd give up the tax cuts for the "rich" in a heartbeat if I could trade them for something useful. What I'd really favor is a complete restructuring of the tax code along Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin lines, except that I'd go further in the same direction than they did.

But I am a fan of honesty. And I'm a CPA who spent a lot of time as an expert witness before I became a lawyer in administrative proceedings where it was pretty much your expert against my expert. So I've exposed more than a few cases where numbers were manipulated dishonestly by others to try to prove a point. And these graphs have been manipulated in dishonest ways to prove points. I'm not attacking you personally as dishonest, because I'm pretty sure you didn't prepare these. But whoever did prepare them is being at least very misleading, if not outright lying.

I got the graph off of Daily Kos. They, if you look at the graph, took it from the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who in turn based it on CBO estimates. I'm busy as well and when I receive information from serious sources with reputations to protect, I tend not to question the methodology, unless it's unintuitive or someone is paying me to do so.

You make a legitimate point about "bad" and "good" Bush tax cuts, but you make the false assumption that what is "good" now was "good" before the recession. I agree on keeping the tax cuts in place for the lower and middle classes, but that is because of the hole we're in now, which is in part to blame on the Bush tax cuts, which helped inflate the housing bubble. Before the recession, all of the Bush tax cuts were unnecessary and were overheating the economic engine. Now, the middle class desperately needs the relief and our economy needs the consumer demand, so let's keep it for them. But the rich can take the hit and our growth won't be effected too much.

This is just my opinion, but if it weren't for the Bush tax cuts a. our debt would be much lower, thanks in part to the fact that b. the crash wouldn't have been as severe (meaning our revenue level would be much higher).

Here's what I honestly believe. I fear Romney will just give this country away to monied interests and screw over the rest of us. We must have someone in office this election who will make sure the Bush tax cuts expire on the mega rich, and the dividend, investment, and estate taxes rise. I don't say this because I hate the wealthy; I say this because our economy is built on spending, and the middle class and poor is where the bulk of that spending comes from. That spending is the real job creator, because it creates demand. If Romney gets in there and the rich get all the tax breaks, the middle class and poor must pay more, meaning they have less to spend, which lowers demand, which lowers job creation. The Republicans insist you can just "reduce spending" to balance the budget, but that is complete BS because it is just code words for "f'k everyone on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security," without realizing that consumer spending contributes to our economy a hell of a lot more than building some bomb to drop on some god forsaken **** hole in the Middle East.

We need to start paying down our debt, and the best way to do it, with doing the least damage to our growth prospects, is for the wealthy and corporations to start paying their fair share again. Romney and the Republicans have literally no plan to increase revenue, and no legitimate plan to cut spending (when the biggest bills are hands off like DoD spending). There are hard choices to make, and the choices Romney will make are going to disenfranchise 99% of the people.

8 days


and im not even going to get into your dailyPOS linked chart, had a good laugh though.

Max, you don't seem to be good at math but just so you know Obama's plan of taxing the rich more won't be enough to dent the deficit he ran up with things like "cash for clunkers". It will just shrink the tax base, making things even worse.

You must but a lot of the late night gimmics on TV.

The deficit he ran up was necessary to fight the aggregate demand deficit caused by the recession under Bush. You're not going to shrink the tax base appreciably by allowing rates to go back to what they were under Clinton.

No it's not going to close the deficit but it's a lot better than the GOP plan of doing nothing to raise revenues, or cutting entitlements, which the GOP won't actually do but if they did would slash demand even further and plunge us back into negative growth/a recession.

(07-27-2012 10:02 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The deficit he ran up was necessary to fight the aggregate demand deficit caused by the recession under Bush. You're not going to shrink the tax base appreciably by allowing rates to go back to what they were under Clinton.

No it's not going to close the deficit but it's a lot better than the GOP plan of doing nothing to raise revenues, or cutting entitlements, which the GOP won't actually do but if they did would slash demand even further and plunge us back into negative growth/a recession.

8 days


youre an idiot