Obama flat out lies for another scare tactic.

7 lies in 2 minutes, leftist still think he's the best person for the job????????????

[youtube:3s75km57][/youtube:3s75km57]

AspenValley wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: Stop picking on millionaires.

Especially when it is all smoke and mirrors to deflect from all the failed programs and wasteful spending that got us here and will have no effect on our budget what so ever!

It's not all smoke and mirrors. Just do your homework, Viking. The Bush tax cuts REALLY did a number on the deficit, especially combined with the unaddressed systemtic economic problems that have been left unaddressed for decades.

It's really easy to rant about "wasteful" programs but it doesn't solve the basic problem. I don't think there is a person here who likes to pay for "wasteful" programs. We may differ over which we think are worthwhile and which are "wasteful", but no one disagrees that we'd like to see government spending less.

But unfortunately, even if we cut out every single "wasteful" program, and even ones we all agreed were NOT wasteful, we still can't get rid of the deficit without either a) causing deliberate, severe inflation in order to "inflate away" the debt or b) raising taxes.

In fact, the likelihood is that it's going to take both.

I know the Dem talking points are that the Bush tax cuts escalated the debt load, but I think the economy had a lot more to do with it. Under Clinton and the dot com bubble, wages and capital gains went through the roof. Much more to tax.
Bush started after the dot com bust and then had the 9/11 disaster which also slowed the economy, and now spending has increased so much under Pelosi, Reid, Bush, & Obama, taxes only pays 25% of the load. So even if you raised taxes 10% on the wealthy, it would still be less than 30% of what we actually need.

The Viking wrote: Let's look at facts. Compare a Democrat run state of Illinois who has raised it taxes over 67% and raised spending, and the Republican run stae of Texas who has Cut taxes and spending. Which state's economy is working and growing and which is one of the worst?

Which state has oil wells contributing to the state's economy?

Conservative Voice wrote:

The Viking wrote: Let's look at facts. Compare a Democrat run state of Illinois who has raised it taxes over 67% and raised spending, and the Republican run stae of Texas who has Cut taxes and spending. Which state's economy is working and growing and which is one of the worst?

Which state has oil wells contributing to the state's economy?

Oil resources are not a good estimator of a state's wealth, many of the poorest people live in oil producing states like Nigeria.

Canada- has drilled their way out of this recession. Canada has job openings and they are hiring Americans because they don't have enough Canadians to fill all the openings.

Canada is a perfect example of a country that is no longer in recession because they have exploited the energy opportunities available to them. Obama should take notice.

SS109 wrote:

Conservative Voice wrote:

The Viking wrote: Let's look at facts. Compare a Democrat run state of Illinois who has raised it taxes over 67% and raised spending, and the Republican run stae of Texas who has Cut taxes and spending. Which state's economy is working and growing and which is one of the worst?

Which state has oil wells contributing to the state's economy?

Oil resources are not a good estimator of a state's wealth, many of the poorest people live in oil producing states like Nigeria.

We're talking about the economies of Texas compared to Illinois. Not Nigeria.

I didn't say Texas was wealthy because of oil. I asked which had oil contributing to the state's economy?

AspenValley wrote: Anyone who thinks you can just "cut cut cut" the deficits away is dreaming.

A huge portion of the deficit is due to the Bush tax cuts, anyway you slice it. And when you add in the costs incurred by the two unnecessary wars Bush got us into it, it accounts for a huge portion of the remainder.

And yet you guys don't seem to have learned a very simple lesson.

You can't just slash taxes while at the same time pushing for expensive wars.

Wars have to paid for. What would you suggest instead of taxes to do that? A bake sale?

And what the left will never understand is that the economic recovery that followed those tax cuts might not have happened if the taxes had been left alone or raised. They are looking at the economy that included those tax cuts and prognosticating what the tax cuts cost based upon what the tax revenues would have been without those cuts in place while failing to acknowledge that such results are as flawed as the supposed logic used to construct the original argument is. What the left fails to look at or understand is the rise in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP that followed those tax cuts. Prior to the tax cuts, the revenue as a percentage of GDP stood about where it does today. After the tax cuts were implemented, spurring investment and job creation, the economy was growing at double the rate it was before the tax cuts were put into place. As a result of that economic growth, both the amount of tax revenues and the revenues as a percentage of GDP grew instead of remaining flat or decreasing further as is the case with the current executive.

I will agree that Bush made the same mistake as LBJ did in trying to provide both guns and butter if that makes you feel any better. The problem we have here is that the law requires a set percentage of increase for the butter part and the "progressives" outright refuse to consider reducing the amount of butter that they are redistributing to those in the electorate who are voting for their living when they go to the polls.

We managed to pay off the debt incurred during FDR and WWII with lower tax rates, but it took drastically cutting the amount of money the federal government spent as well. Of course, we weren't spending 65% of the federal budget on charity back then like we are today either. Don't want to anger those folks who are voting for their living - it might save the nation from bankruptcy, but it sure won't help your reelection chances.

The most discriminated class of individuals ... the millionaires.....there are less millionaires (325,000) in America - than homosexuals (sexual perverts) and yet millionaires are made out as financial queers.

I wonder what the average professional sports player thinks about an additional 5% jobs creation tax? I bet they would rather hire PRETAX a bunch of whores for $ 50K per year than give it the biggest whore - DEMOCRAPS.

Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength
http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

44% of Congress people are millionaires. The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent

Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/tax_letter.pdf

If they are patriots why don't they go ahead and send their voluntary 5% tax (gift) to the Treasury?

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html