|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Do you remember Obama's "balanced approach?"|
Do you remember Obama's "balanced approach?"
Posted - 1/29/2013 1:23:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
...the one that insisted the only way to reduce the federal deficit was to tax "millionaires and billionaires?" The one that also insisted that no spending be cut?
Yeah, that one.
Now it turns out that the 2013 TOTAL of all the revenue to be derived from the tax on the "rich" is about $40 billion. A paltry $40 billion.
And that paltry $40 billion is going to be ALL eaten up...every single penny plus another $20 billion...by the Sandy relief bill that's being debated right now.
Anyone who believes anything Obama says is nuts. And anyone who supports him needs to have his head examined.
Posted - 1/29/2013 9:47:09 AM | show profile | flag this post
Posted - 1/29/2013 9:56:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
So are you saying...
We shouldn't give relief to the people still suffering after Sandy? Nice...If we didn't have the tax increase, we would be that much more in debt. Is that what you are in favor of, increasing the debt? You must be since you supported Bush and his disastrous policies that got us here...
Posted - 1/29/2013 10:02:52 AM | show profile | flag this post
This is a new tactic
by the radical left wingers on here...who don't have cogent answers to legitimate questions about the Obama administration's inept governance.
It's part of their usual pattern of trying to change the subject to obscure the truth.
Obama was absolutely intransigent about taxing the "top two percent." He claimed it was a "balanced approach" and necessary to pay down the federal debt (never mind that he flatly refused to make any real spending cuts).
Now, of course, what conservatives have been saying all along has been proven accurate...that the tax derived from the "rich" would only run the government for a few days...and fund ONLY A PALTRY TWO THIRDS of the Sandy relief bill.
That amount of money is insignificant when juxtaposed with the debt...even Obama's annual deficit...and proof positive that Obama's "balanced approach" was merely a political line in the sand...a populist rallying cry...more class warfare.
Posted - 1/29/2013 10:20:46 AM | show profile | flag this post
It's just trolling.
"...the one that insisted the only way to reduce the federal deficit was to tax "millionaires and billionaires?" The president never said that.
"The one that also insisted that no spending be cut?" That's also a lie. The Spending Cuts were last year, the tax hikes this year. So when you look at the whole package, it's a pretty balanced. approach.
(NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- "President Obama's budget for 2012 takes a sharp knife to government spending, with proposed cuts that will reduce deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years." Feb 2011) ("The Joint Committee on Taxation, which scores tax bills for Congress, said raising the income and investment tax rates and patching the alternative minimum tax will lead to $574.4 billion more in revenue over the next decade" [from your article today]
So we have billions in cuts, billions in revenues, that stretch for years. The "Sandy Relief" bill if for HURRICANE RELIEF. We're not planning on spending that each and every year.
Either you can't add, or don't know the difference, or you don't agree with helping out those in NY/NJ/CT etc; whatever...it's just another pack of mis-truths because you hate Obama.
In short--you're trolling again.
Posted - 1/29/2013 10:49:20 AM | show profile | flag this post
Notice dogson's "shotgun" approach
First, he reiterates the same discredited bullsh*t from last year concerning the so-called "spending cuts"...NONE of which are real (they merely rejigger the way some interest on the federal debt is calculated)...then he says he wants to spend the amount of the Sandy relief every year...for what he doesn't specify...therefore taxes on the "rich" are necessary.
As the saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t."
Posted - 1/29/2013 11:09:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
Of course we expect you to put words into the presidents mouth (Obama's "balanced approach?" the one that insisted the only way to reduce the federal deficit was to tax "millionaires and billionaires?" The one that also insisted that no spending be cut?" He said NEITHER)
And of course we know you can't add (Billions in spending cuts and billions in tax revenue add up to a whole lot of money)
But please don't put words into my mouth. "then he says he wants to spend the amount of the Sandy relief every year...for what he doesn't specify..." I never said that. In fact, I pointed out "HURRICANE RELIEF...We're not planning on spending that each and every year."
Look. I'm not saying that "Sandy Relief" isn't expensive, it is. But the damage was extensive in hugely populated areas. What pisses me off is when Congressmen (of either party) complain about money being spent on disaster relief--when it's not their backyard--when it's not their constiuents that need help. Texans don't want to help pay Jersey Shore. And Rhode Islanders aren't too keen on Texas drought relief. Californians (who get money for wildfires and muslides) thinkwe spend too much on Lousiana...and on and on and on.
BUT--when you frame this as somehow another 'Obama lie' is just trolling. That was my point.
Posted - 1/29/2013 11:17:31 AM | show profile | flag this post
The guy who cannot...repeat, CANNOT...accurately quote me, has to exaggerate and distort everything he says for some sort of "dramatic effect," wails, "Please don't put words in my mouth."
Hoist on your own petard again, pal.
Posted - 1/29/2013 1:58:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
See how egregious I am?