Fact checking Obama's news conference.

[ProfJohn]

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

A feisty President Obama met with reporters Wednesday — a sure sign that the dispute over the debt limit has reached a critical stage.

The president, clearly intending to increase pressure on the GOP, lambasted Republicans for, in his words, refusing to get rid of “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” before cutting aid to the less well-off. He also addressed questions on Libya.

Let’s parse some of his answers and explain what he means — and how factual he was.

“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 owner. . . . 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.”
The White House and Congress have been looking for ways to cut the deficit over 10 years by $2 trillion to $4 trillion. Republicans want to cut spending, while Democrats have sought ways to increase revenues — a nonstarter for most Republicans.

While there have been reports the administration is seeking $400 billion in additional revenue, that’s apparently not a real number. At this point, the White House might accept just about anything that demonstrates what the president calls a “balanced solution.”

In a bit of class jujitsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

Meanwhile, student financial assistance, just for 2011, is about $42 billion. So the corporate jet loophole — which involves the fact that such assets can be depreciated over five years, rather than the seven for commercial jets — just is not going to raise a lot of money. It certainly wouldn’t save many student loans.

Going after hedge fund managers might raise about $15 billion over 10 years, but in a different life The Fact Checker covered Wall Street and is pretty certain those financial wizards would figure out a way to avoid this tax shift. John Carney of CNBC actually outlined how that would work.

Eliminating oil and gas preferences would raise $44 billion over 10 years, according to administration figures (table S-8), so that begins to look like real money. But the real dollars are in what the president calls “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” — eliminating the ability of people making more than $250,000 to itemize their deductions. That proposal would raise $290 billion over 10 years.

Wait a minute, the president said he would target “millionaires and billionaires” and yet the fine print of his proposal would affect couples making more than $250,000 (and individuals making more than $200,000)? That’s right.

 

[manimal]

Wonder if PJ is getting payed overtime for all his threads...

 

[Craig234]

The criticism are largely, not entirely legitimate - and he makes his own errors.

For example example of legitimate, Obama distorted things to strengthen his attacks. The corporate jet loophole is an outrage - read David Cay Johnston's book on it - but qualitatively more than quantitatively (corporate people get to fly around on the corporate jet wherever they like - but only have to count the value of doing to as income valued at the same as a first-class airline ticket, a tiny fraction of its value).

The critic misrepresented, for example, the position of Democrats, saying 'the Republicans want to cut taxes but Democrats want to raise revenues'.

No, the Democrats want to cut spending AND raise revenues - and far more the former than the latter. But that moderate position doesn't fit his piece's agenda as well.

 

[ProfJohn]

Wonder if PJ is getting payed overtime for all his threads...

I wish! But I am just a poor guy with too much time on his hands.

 

[First]

They don't really tear apart anything, since nowhere did Obama claim those taxes were the entirety of his budget solution. Raising taxes on $250K+ earning families by itself raises tens of billions more, something I don't believe he mentioned in the speech. Closing tax credits and loopholes on the middle class should also raise even more revenue than that. That would get us back to much more sound gov't revenues, because reality is we have a revenue problem that needs to be resolved with more taxes, spending cuts by themselves are meaningless with tax changes. And solving this through economic growth is great, but cutting taxes doesn't spur any significant economic growth and that's just a well known fact at this point.

 

[mchammer187]

So you are arguing against this because it does not raise taxes enough now?

 

[nobodyknows]

I wish! But I am just a poor guy with too much time on his hands.

Get a second and third job like a true conservative would do.

 

[Engineer]

Get a second and third job like a true conservative would do.

LOL, this!

 

[First]

Get a second and third job like a true conservative would do.

/thread.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Taxes need to be raised and cuts in spending made.

Not smoke and mirrors; but a decent bite out of the deficit.

At present; both sides are using smoke and mirrors when it comes to their favorites.

Admit that there are loopholes; plug those first.
Do not target a single group out by trying to play class warfare for either raising taxes or cutting spending for political gain. All that will do is freeze up any negotiations
Do

 

[Craig234]

Taxes need to be raised and cuts in spending made.

Not smoke and mirrors; but a decent bite out of the deficit.

At present; both sides are using smoke and mirrors when it comes to their favorites.

Admit that there are loopholes; plug those first.
Do not target a single group out by trying to play class warfare for either raising taxes or cutting spending for political gain. All that will do is freeze up any negotiations
Do

Welcome to the Democratic position.

Lawrence O'Donnell had a good segment on this but I can't find the clip.

 

[sportage]

Well Im sure Michele Bachmann will have all the answers. Just hang in there...

 

[ProfJohn]

Welcome to the Democratic position.

Lawrence O'Donnell had a good segment on this but I can't find the clip.

Hey Craig... maybe you didn't actually read the article...

But if we add up EVERY tax increase Obama mentioned together it would only amount to $36 billion a year.

We have a $600 billion per year deficit. Where is the other $550 billion going to come from?

 

[Dekasa]

Hey Craig... maybe you didn't actually read the article...

But if we add up EVERY tax increase Obama mentioned together it would only amount to $36 billion a year.

We have a $600 billion per year deficit. Where is the other $550 billion going to come from?

Maybe if we can get a step taken, we can get there, together? How's that whole long journey single step thing go?

 

[CycloWizard]

Hey Craig... maybe you didn't actually read the article...

But if we add up EVERY tax increase Obama mentioned together it would only amount to $36 billion a year.

We have a $1,400 billion per year deficit. Where is the other $1,364 billion going to come from?

Fixed the numbers to put the magnitude of the problem in true perspective.

 

[woolfe9999]

Hey Craig... maybe you didn't actually read the article...

But if we add up EVERY tax increase Obama mentioned together it would only amount to $36 billion a year.

We have a $600 billion per year deficit. Where is the other $550 billion going to come from?

Where did Obama state that the specific items he mentioned are the entirety of his plan? I heard him saying this is where he wants to start, and when describing these things, it sounded an awful lot like examples, not an exhaustive list. I'm also pretty sure Obama believes that deficit reduction will not occur all in one piece of legislation but more likely several pieces over time. That would seem to be the most likely scenario.

There's one valid point in the article. He did say "millionaires and billionaires" but the proposal is for people/couple making 200/250K+ per year. That was disengenuous.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Hey Craig... maybe you didn't actually read the article...

But if we add up EVERY tax increase Obama mentioned together it would only amount to $36 billion a year.

We have a $600 billion per year deficit. Where is the other $550 billion going to come from?

There's a good point you haven't mentioned before.

Oh, wait, it's a straw man you have kept repeating. Quoting myself from yesterday:

You keep repeating the same straw man, misrepresenting the liberal position.

You keep saying the liberals think they can balance the budget with only tax increases.

No one is saying that. Every time you say it, it's corrected.

At some point you get accused of lying by repeating it again.

It's an important part of balancing the budget. You don't balance it with spending cuts or tax increases alone, you do it with both.

You wasted our time with nonsense again.

 

[ProfJohn]

There's one valid point in the article. He did say "millionaires and billionaires" but the proposal is for people/couple making 200/250K+ per year. That was disengenuous.

The whole thing was.

He makes a big deal about millionaires and the like, but he knows that they aren't the entire solution.

He is like the old time pick pocket who waves his hand around mad to distract you while his other hands reaches into your pocket.

 

[mchammer187]

If it amounts to so little why is there so much resistance to it?

At least Obama is willing to play ball. It would be one thing if Republicans wanted to take the Bush Tax cuts off the table but any revenue increase like closing some tax loopholes being a nonstarter.

Your position is that these actions are so trivial than why are they even arguing over it they should just go along with it to get what they want.

 

[khon]

The whole thing was.

He makes a big deal about millionaires and the like, but he knows that they aren't the entire solution.

Honestly you're the one being misleading here.

Obama never said millionaires were the entire solution, or that closing those loopholes was the entire plan.

These are only examples of things that should be included in the plan, and the reason he brought them up, is that they're part of the current dispute with republicans.

Democrats want to look at both revenue and spending.

Republicans want to look at spending only.

 

[Craig234]

The whole thing was.

He makes a big deal about millionaires and the like, but he knows that they aren't the entire solution.

He is like the old time pick pocket who waves his hand around mad to distract you while his other hands reaches into your pocket.

You are a lot more like that pickpocket.

$250K and up is the top 1%.

So instead of his excluding the bottom 99.something percent, it's only the bottom 99%.

Wow, what a huge scam. Obviously, his hand is going into YOUR pocket by including the $250K+ crowd.

Full of crap as usual.

 

[halik]

You are a lot more like that pickpocket.

$250K and up is the top 1%.

So instead of his excluding the bottom 99.something percent, it's only the bottom 99%.

Wow, what a huge scam. Obviously, his hand is going into YOUR pocket by including the $250K+ crowd.

Full of crap as usual.

Say "millionaire", mean "family with $250K AGI"? Anyone that's ever lived in a high cost of living area (NYC etc.) will beg to differ.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"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/

 

[woolfe9999]

The whole thing was.

He makes a big deal about millionaires and the like, but he knows that they aren't the entire solution.

He is like the old time pick pocket who waves his hand around mad to distract you while his other hands reaches into your pocket.

Wrong. He never said that millionaires and billionaires are the only solution. Show me where he said that. You can't find it. His message is, tax the wealthy first, then make the harder choices beyond that. He's critizing the GOP for taking that option off the table. He shouldn't have said "millionaires and billionaires" when his proposal will reach the upper middle class but it isn't as misleading as you claim it is.

 

[Craig234]

Say "millionaire", mean "family with $250K AGI"? Anyone that's ever lived in a high cost of living area (NYC etc.) will beg to differ.

That point has been made - and exaggerated.

Ya, saying 'top 0.something percent' is not the same as 'top 1 percent'. Not quite.

But then again, a lot of the policies under discussion WOULD affect primarily if not only 'millionares'. A hedge fund manager making $50 million is a lot differently affected by a change to the rules for that income than someone who makes $250K with some in capital gains but not nearly as much.

Not that many people making $250K have a private corporate jet to fly around using the loophole on that.

Criticize Obama for hyping that example - but you're doing the same thing.