The Washington Post pretty much tears up Obama's recent news conference.
Seems that most of Obama's main talking points don't really match up with reality or at least the impression he gives.
For example
" The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet own"
Sounds fine and dandy till you start to add up the numbers.
The Jet loophole is worth $300 million a year, and that is million with an M
Hedge fund loophole is worth $1.5 billion a year. No where near the amount some members around here seem to think it would be worth.
Oil taxes are worth another $4 billion a year.
So we are looking less than $6 billion a year and yet Obama wants us to think that these rich evil jet flying oil using hedgefund managers are keeping kids from getting an education or seniors from getting medical care...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html?hpid=z2
How do you read what is above and tell me that Obama is not being disengenuous?Theres been a lot of discussion about revenues and raising taxes in recent weeks, so I want to be clear about what were proposing here. I spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary Americans, and I want to extend those middle-class tax cuts. The tax cuts Im proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.
It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but weve got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means weve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship. That means weve got to stop funding certain grants for medical research. That means that food safety may be compromised. That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden. Those are the choices we have to make.
So the bottom line is this: Any agreement to reduce our deficit is going to require tough decisions and balanced solutions. And before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our childrens education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think its only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys. I dont think thats real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.
That's hilarious. But it's worth saying that one big reason we're in this mess is that as a nation we've adopted the attitude that $300 million is insignificant."Before we ask our seniors to pay more for health care, before we cut our children's education, before we sacrifice our commitment to the research and innovation that will help create more jobs in the economy, I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys. - Obama
The irony here is that Obama reauthorized the private jet tax break as part of his "stimulus" package...unbelievable.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/
I use the post a lot because they do good work.I think it's funny how you love to quote the Washington Post because you thinks it's a liberal newspaper.
I use the post a lot because they do good work.
Also, the biggest indicator of media bias is selection bias. It is not in the stories you read, but in the stories you never see in the first place. Perfect example would be the fact that the NY Times did not run one story on Kucinich's Syrian remarks. NOTHING! Not even an editorial like every other major US news source. If you only read the NY Times you would not know one thing about the Kucinich controversy.
It should always be per year IMO.I like when we're talking about spending, like healthcare reform, it's always "over the next 10 years", but when it's tax cuts, it's "per year".
In response to multiple posts here is part of the transcript:
How do you read what is above and tell me that Obama is not being disengenuous?
He mentions corporate jets three times (must have some serious poll data about that) and yet reality tells us that the jet loophole is so small they can't even guess at how much revenue it will generate.
Obama lists a bunch of taxes we need to increase and suggests that if we keep them then bad things will happen to student loans, medicare etc etc.
But as the Washington Post points out ALL of Obama's tax cuts put together add up to $6 billion per year.
While student financial assistance alone is $42 billion per year.
Medicare is $494 billion next year.
$6 billion in additional revenue vs $500 billion in spending?? This is how we balance the budget?
When Clinton did it, the ratio was 100% tax increases with ever-increasing deficits as far as the eye could see. After the Republicans took over Congress in '94, every Clinton budget was DOA. The Dems wouldn't even bring them up for votes most years, so the Republicans had to introduce them and vote them down. Every Clinton veto was to decrease the spending cuts, to force the Pubbies to not cut as much. (Or more accurately, to not cut the rate of growth as much in the vast majority of cases; few departments' budgets actually declined year to year, with most cuts existing only in the miracle of baseline budgeting.)No, you just keep lying. For example, there are estimates of the revenue from closing the corporate jet loophole - you in fact already posted them when that suited before your purpose before you decided saying they don't exist suited your purpose - something that's a very good idea, but which you have only posted that they're a small amount of revenue, but not once said you support doing that I've seen.
The Joe Biden led negotiations had reached a point of 83% spending cuts, 17% revenue increases, with no tax rate increases, when Republicans walked out.
Funny enough, the Republicans had said THEIR position was that the effective ratio was 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. Now, when Bill Clinton did this, it was 50-50.
When Democrats said 'ok, 83-17', Republicans said 'not what you agree we're opposed to our plan of 85-15 and demand zero tax loophole and subsidy closing'.
Democrats agreed to trillions in spending cuts over the next decade. The real issue is that Republicans have no business threatening the credit of the US as they are doing.
Should Obama threaten to nuke Texas if the Republicans don't give in to his demands? To audit all the Republicans' tax returns, to sic the NSA on them, to put them in jail?
That sort of abuse of power is like what the Republicans are doing in threatening to not pay our bills. It's an irresponsible outrage not being called what it is in the media.
They just report the horse race details of the dealing and the harm it would do, with little if any comment about the outrageous threatening of the US.
It'd be like reporting Pearl Harbor as "many ships exploded" without any mention of the Japanese doing the attack - just that they and the US had a dispute while it happened.
'The US and Japan didn't reach agreement on their dispute, and because they could not agree, the ships blew up in a major disaster. Each side blames the other.'
Most Democrats I'm hearing say Obama should not link any deficit reduction to the debt ceiling renewal and let Republicans either pay our bills, or choose to harm the country.
The deficit reduction can be dealt with as its own issue. Obama didn't do that.
When Clinton did it, the ratio was 100% tax increases with ever-increasing deficits as far as the eye could see. After the Republicans took over Congress in '94, every Clinton budget was DOA. The Dems wouldn't even bring them up for votes most years, so the Republicans had to introduce them and vote them down. Every Clinton veto was to decrease the spending cuts, to force the Pubbies to not cut as much. (Or more accurately, to not cut the rate of growth as much in the vast majority of cases; few departments' budgets actually declined year to year, with most cuts existing only in the miracle of baseline budgeting.)
Clinton deserves a bit of credit for the balanced budget, because he could have been even worse, but only a very little bit.
All together, OBRA plus direct economic factors, plus even higher than expected revenues from their interaction combined to produce a $311 billion fiscal improvement. That $311 billion wiped away more than 85 percent of the deficit. No help from Newt Gingrich required.
Clintons major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Eight years ago, when our party met in New York, it was a far different time for America. Our economy was in trouble, our society was divided, our political system was paralyzed. Ten million of our fellow citizens were out of work. Interest rates were high. The deficit was $290 billion and rising. After 12 years of Republican rule, the federal debt had quadrupled, imposing a crushing burden on our economy and our children.
First, we proposed a new economic strategy: Get rid of the deficit to reduce interest rates. Invest more in our people. And sell more American products abroad.
We sent our plan to Congress. It passed by a single vote in both houses. In a deadlocked Senate, Al Gore cast the deciding vote. Not a single Republican supported it. Their leaders said it would increase the deficit, kill jobs, and give us a one-way ticket to recession. Time has not been kind to those predictions.
The Republicans said then they would not be held responsible for the results of our economic policies. I hope the American people will take them at their word.
Today, we are in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history. More than 22 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in 30 years, the lowest female unemployment in 40 years, the lowest Hispanic and African American unemployment on record, the highest home ownership rate in our history. In 1995, we turned back the largest cuts in history in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment; and proved two years later that we could find the way to balance the budget and protect our values. Today, we have gone from the largest deficits in history to the largest surpluses in history - and if we stay on course, we can make America debt-free for the first time since 1835.
Welcome to the Democratic position.
Lawrence O'Donnell had a good segment on this but I can't find the clip.
Yup. They just made the biggest cuts in history not long ago. What was it, like 2% of the deficit? Whatever it was it was absurdly insignificant.
One side has got to call the others bluff on this issue as both are way to partisan right now to actually work together. Propose your bills with BOTH tax increases AND significant spending cuts and make the other side vote on it. Hell, I would propose the bills separately, one with the tax increases and one with the spending cuts if I was the Dems. Make them vote for one and not the other and then challenge them on their stance on the deficit come election time.
I'll just go watch his debate clips where he promised us no tax increases.
The bolded part is completely false.Stop with this. Clinton won the budget battles because the populace sided with Clinton after the government shutdown. Clinton campaigned in 92 on eliminating the deficit, and got the ball rolling with his tax hike.
The Joe Biden led negotiations had reached a point of 83% spending cuts, 17% revenue increases, with no tax rate increases, when Republicans walked out.
Funny enough, the Republicans had said THEIR position was that the effective ratio was 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. Now, when Bill Clinton did this, it was 50-50.
When Democrats said 'ok, 83-17', Republicans said 'not what you agree we're opposed to our plan of 85-15 and demand zero tax loophole and subsidy closing'.
The bolded part is completely false.
Bill Clinton NEVER mentioned eliminating the deficit until AFTER the Republicans took over congress and the government shut down that lead to the budget deal.
Read his inaugural address and his first 2 state of the unions. In all three cases he talks about 'lowering' the deficit, but never talks about a balanced budget.
And then AFTER the budget deal he starts to talk about the balanced budget.
You can also look at his Federal budgets. His first two (maybe 3) budgets did not do anything to eliminate the deficit. It was only after the budget agreement that he presented one that showed a balanced budget.
The facts are clear as can be. Had the Republicans not taken over in 1994 Clinton would have NEVER worked on a balanced budget.
But you can give him credit for the tax increases.
Don't fall for the false narrative or some piece from a liberal site like American progress.Didn't read through any of the links I see. They show that the majority of the money that made the surplus was from money brought in through his 93 tax increase. The links also show that much of the republican compromised budget actions actually worked against lowering the deficit. Read through it and hopefully it will help you better understand the situation.
Clinton campaigned on lowering the deficit but didn't feel that it could be done within an 8 year window. He talked about a 15 year plan to get the country into the black and paying down the national debt. He talked about paying off most of the debt eventually. Did he say he was going to eliminate the deficit in his term? No. But that was the ultimate goal he was working towards. He was a fiscal conservative whether you like it or not.
As his tax cuts and growth-targeted spending plans went into affect, they had a much better impact than the CBO anticipated and allowed for a balanced budget down the road. The tax increase that Clinton passed, that Republicans said would be the downfall of the economy were the most important piece of the balanced budget.
The bolded part is completely false.
You can also look at his Federal budgets. His first two (maybe 3) budgets did not do anything to eliminate the deficit. It was only after the budget agreement that he presented one that showed a balanced budget.
The facts are clear as can be. Had the Republicans not taken over in 1994 Clinton would have NEVER worked on a balanced budget.