If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, their tax plan will invariably meet a fork in the road, presenting the Republican administration with a difficult choice. Romney/Ryan believes they can slash tax rates, increase defense and entitlement spending, and reduce the deficit, all at the same time. When push comes to shove, and they're forced to deal with the arithmetic, which will be the higher priority: tax cuts or deficit reduction?
Last week, Romney economic adviser Kevin Hassett said, if the figures "don't add up," the tax plan "would have a different change in rates" -- in other words, a Romney administration would have no choice but to scale back its tax-cutting ambitions. This week, Greg Sargent noted that Paul Ryan told Fox News the opposite.
In this clip, at around the 2:14 mark, Fox's Chris Wallace poses a hypothetical. Let's say there's a President Romney, the host said, and "the math doesn't add up." The question is, "what's most important" to a Romney-Ryan administration?
RYAN: Keeping tax rates down. By lowering tax rates, people keep more of the next dollar that they earn. That matters. That is incentives. That's pro-growth policy. That creates 7 million jobs. And what should go first...
WALLACE: So that's more important than...
RYAN: That's more important than anything.
So, for all the talk about the debt crisis that threatens the fabric of civilization, Ryan is now willing to concede that the Romney-Ryan tax cut plan -- at a cost of about $5 trillion, disproportionately benefiting the very wealthy -- is "more important than anything," whether the math adds up or not.
They kinda sorta pretend to care about the deficit once in a while, but they really care about slashing taxes on the rich.
If there's a Romney-Ryan administration next year, and it has to choose between cutting taxes less or increasing the deficit more, the choice has apparently already been made.
As Greg added, "That is as clear a statement of priorities as you could want. Ryan admits that even if the math in their plan can't work, that even if the tax cuts cannot be paid for by ending loopholes and deductions on the wealthy, he and Ryan would not scale back their planned tax cuts on the rich one penny."
I'm not sure how much more it'll take before the political establishment drops the pretense that Paul Ryan is a "deficit hawk," but at this point, he's not even trying anymore.
Leave a Comment:
Ryan needs to ask the 47% of us who don't pay Federal Income Tax how important this is. We just barely survived over ten years of lower taxes. Where are the jobs?
Vikki, tax cuts are more important than anything for Real Americans!
Sure, there were jobs and loads of growth after Clinton raised the top marginal rate, and there were no jobs after GWB cut them. But the rich got way richer relative to everyone else. And that is all that matters!
There you go again questioning the right winged mantra. Trouble is there are still blue collar workers that are easy prey for this sort of bull. Remember folks even trash collectors still rant about the so called death tax that they will never pay because they will never reach the million plus worth that the estate tax kicks in at.
Mitt gets to make his grand pronouncements about moochers and Obama's welfare nation, but not once has he made the jobs correlation.
The interconnectedness of our economical network is blatantly ignored by these men, that their selfish short views will ripple out in long slow repercussions across the nation and the world in the exact same way our US financial institutions had a hand in generating the global crisis.
Our world doesn't need more "leadership" of the Romney/Ryan egocentric short view variety. These men are not visionaries, they are selfish. And they chose to see nothing of the many people and countries still struggling to cope with the ripples of the last group of short-visioned financial gurus running amok under the Bush Administration.
They kinda sorta pretend to care about the deficit once in a while, but they really care about slashing taxes on the rich.
We always knew it, but it's nice of him to say it. Maybe this will help get the message through to all those Villagers who are in denial about this fact.
Sorry, but many Americans still believe that what Ryan is saying will apply to them - even if they're collecting food-stamps, unemployment, WIC, driving the pick-up to the trailer park - it's those "other" undeserving people that will be affected...Wink, wink...
It's just Ryan slipping up and admitting it's all about "starve the beast" so these real-life John Galts can destroy Social Security, Medicare, and the regulatory system.
From Mike Lofgren, a Republican staffer and budget analyst who worked on the insides of Republican machinations in Congress for 30 years:
If you haven't already read his article in Truth-Out, you should:
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult | Truthout
And there's his book: The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy,Democrats Became Useless,and the Middle Class Got Shafted: Mike Lofgren: 9780670026265: Amazon.com: Books
Agree, Zora. And even as Mitt & Co cut their benefits out from under them, some liberal strawman will be held up as the effigy for these unfortunates to lay the fire of their hate to.
That is what all the debt talk is about from the right. It lays the groundwork for both the reason and the excuse to cut social programs if Mitt wins. Oh, Obama broke the country and we have to SAVE it by cutting all your safety nets...blah blah blah.
Yes their solution is to always cut ours but never theirs. They keep their socialized benefits while stealing ours. Only difference is that we already paid for ours.
"Only difference is that we already paid for ours."
And that is the salient point we've paid for ours, and we'd be paying for theirs" - thru the nose!
Wallace: What if your secret tax plan turns out to be completely fictional?
Ryan: Our backup plan is to plant money trees, because tax cuts are people, my friend.
But will the money trees be the right height?
You might have to stand on the backs of poor people to reach it.
Is that one of them there zingers?
New Drinking game :
For every Mitt Zinger a shot of yer favorite followed by Bazinga!!
For all their talk about "cutting taxes", there is the a 500 pound gorilla everyone seems unaware of:
Taxes are the lowest in 50 years! (in 1962 the top rate was 70%)
If they were serious about fiscal responsibility (and the aren't) they would set the capital gain tax at the same rate as earned income. (with a deduction for the little old lady getting $20K a year from her nest egg)
That done, I would address algorithmic stock trading- billions of shares are computer traded, by the nanosecond. Why are these transactions not taxed?
Many interesting questions .....but if we took time to consider them...it would take too long.
Please remember Obama bad Vote republican
See easy peasy
Sorry you're wrong DAY, the top tax rate didn't reach 70% until 1965.(pg.43) That was on income over $200,000 ($1,424,633 in 2011 dollars)
In 1962 the top rate was 91% on income over $400,000 (pg. 47, $2,971,716 in 2011 Dollars). In 1962 you didn't dip below 70% until the $76,000-$88,000 bracket(69%). ($564,664-$653,821 in 2011)
L.B. Johnson first got Congress to cut the rates in 1964, as planned by Kennedy, to 77% on income over $400,000 ($2,895,221), reaching below 70% in the $120,000-$140,000 ($868,566-$1,013,327) bracket at 68.5%.
They had been as high as 92% in 1952-3 (Korean War) and 94% in 1944-5 (WWII) at even lower inflation-adjusted amounts ($200,000 in nominal dollars). Remember when we paid for our wars?
Oh, and if you were single, cut the dollar amounts in half.
Source: Tax Foundation: US Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History 1913 -2011 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
How bright can a guy be who is still enraptured with Ayn Rand and her fairy tales of wealth?
The VP debate my be even more entertaining than the Prez. I don't think Joe Biden is above flat out laughing at Paul Ryan if he starts babbling like this in the debate.
Ryan is so good at speaking with a calm modulated tone. Biden will have to push him outside that, corner him, then let rational dialogue show Ryan's real stance, lying prone at the well-dressed feet of the ultra-wealthy.
The reasoning is simple; if you don't keep your promise to lower taxes on your wealthy donors, you won't continue to get their donations.
What a hard hitting news story. Budget criticism from a party and President that didn't pass a budge of their own in four years. A party and president that used the Simpson Bowles Debt Commission scheme to avoid ANY budget, then walked away from the commission and it's findings anyway. http://youtu.be/cETlLlDuT78
Geithner explains why Obama never embraced Bowles-Simpson
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/211153-geithner-explains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson
Spending to GDP for measure? http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html Not for the leftists who need to push another BIG LIE.
Maybe this is where you reply with the 'one-term' president MEME. Maybe the 'obstructionist' Republican MEME. That is all the regular media-matters-mental-midgets like sick-n-effin-tired have. Going to strawspam your MEMES today Sparky? Vorwart Sparky!!
The Obamaganda is getting so bad, even McClatchy had to call Obama out out on one of his MANY outright lies
Obama claim of cutting spending is not right
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/28/170033/obama-claim-of-cutting-spending.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/28/170033/obama-claim-of-cutting-spending.html#storylink=misearch
Considering the total and complete failure of this presidency, what could the Obamaganda machine do? Spread the LIES and propaganda with @msnbc and Steve Brenen. Great propaganda piece yesterday too referencing @msnbc's own story link and they still have to LIE to try to make a point. Bait and switch bin Laden for AQ. Funny!! http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/01/14168879-inexplicably-renewing-the-obl-debate?lite
Yes, the no-budget-Barry democrats talking about math and the budget is VERY funny. Keep up the good work Kool-Aid drinkers. Oh Yeah! http://youtu.be/nBeUGqeYsQg
Beware the Ides of March- and excess links!
"Hurry along, children- it's just a crazy man on a soap box. The poor dear."
What are you talking about? A budget was presented using the Simpson and Bowles Debt Commission recommendation. Paul Ryan is one of the Senators who voted down the budget. Secondly what you mean to say is that no new budget has been introduced since the 2009 budget proposal. A budget has to be presented every year in order for the government to keep the lights on. The upcoming sequester that you keep hearing about? That is a budget debate. It never ceases to amaze me how people don't know this.
How are you defining a "total and complete" failure and how does this apply to Obama's presidency? What does any of this have to do with Romney and Ryan and their budget? How is this not a red herring argument?
Your first link is Ryan claiming this is what he did which a. is not true and b. doesn't provide evidence that what he is saying is true. It is also unrelated to your first argument: that Obama created the Simpson-Bowles Commission as an excuse to not pass a budget. The youtube clip doesn't make or reinforce the argument you're presenting and in fact doesn't negate the idea that Obama created the Commission to seriously address the issue. It's a complete non-sequitur.
Re the Hill article: You are being misleading according to the very article that you linked to about the Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission. What this is saying is that the Obama Administration did not like that the Debt Commission wanted to make drastic cuts to Medicare and Social Security so the Obama Administration used the commission to come up with a plan following some of their recommendations, but not all of their recommendations. But this article also debunks your first claim. It shows that Obama not only was working to come up with a feasible budget option, but that he was working behind the scenes actively with Republicans to try to come up with a viable budget. So your second source says that your first argument is a lie or at least misrepresenting. I am curious: did you even read this article before you linked to it?
I have no idea what you are talking about here. A. it's a non-sequitur to your initial argument about the budget b. it has nothing to do with the thread topic and c. you provide no context or rationale for why you presented this chart. This is the most confusing paragraph...
Re McClatchy: ....OK first and foremost yeah when you say that you're cutting spending what you are always saying is that you are cutting projected spending. You can't cut spending once the money has already been allocated by the federal government. But secondly this article never provides evidence for why it is that their claim is or isn't true. I will say, however, that it does appear his claim has to do with projections by the CBO about potential savings that the US would have (around $1 trillion) if Obama's tax policy were put into place. So at the very least you could argue this is dishonest on Obama's part.
But what does this have to do with the budget issue of your first claim? What does this have to do with Romney and Ryan and their budget proposal? Again this is a non-sequitur provided without any context as to why it's given.
ok....what does the posting on OBL have to do with the budget issue or with this thread? How was it a lie and what evidence do you have of it being a lie? What was the lie? This sentence makes even less sense than the last. A. it's a non-sequitur having nothing to do with anything and b. you don't even provide evidence to assert the premise. You just make the accusation and then link back to the article you just claimed was wrong.
Cartoonthenews!
Laughable. You cant read or watch videos. Don't bother to click a link.
http://youtu.be/cETlLlDuT78
Geithner explains why Obama never embraced Bowles-Simpson
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/211153-geithner-explains-why-obama-never-embraced-bowles-simpson
Cartoonthenews!
Hanging your hat on the Obama budget proposal that lost in the senate 97-0? That one? Thanks for proving my point. Obama never intended to pass a real budget during his term. When does the sequestration debate occur? After the Election. You almost had a point. Now back to the peanut gallery with the rest of the FRAUDS
.....I clicked all the links you gave which is why I addressed each one individually
The first video you linked: it is not proven true or false. It is Ryan asserting that X is true. Just because Ryan claims X doesn't make X true. I stated this in my first post, please read next time. Do you have anything that confirms Ryan's statement to be true? That confirms the timeline, etc.? That would be evidence. Otherwise this is just an assertion of fact by Ryan without evidence.
You re-post the same article I just said you were misquoting. That article states that you are misrepresenting Obama's budget entirely. It says that he did not think that Democrats would vote for the Medicare/SS cuts and that he didn't think Republicans would vote for the tax increases so he did not use the Simpson-Bowles Commission verbatim. Remember the Simpson-Bowles commission was a recommendation board about what could be done to cut the debt and deficit. A budget was created around their recommendation and that budget was proposed before the US Congress. The congress voted it down for the aforementioned reasons: people did not like the cuts to medicare and ss and the cuts to defense and the tax increases. That was about as bi-partisan and realistic of a budget a person could get and it was voted down. This doesn't show that the president wasn't serious about reducing debt, but it does show the powers that be within the congress and addressing problems of debt and deficits. If you use this logic- that no one voted for the budget- as evidence that the budget wasn't a serious proposal then this means you must admit the "counter-proposal" Ryan is saying he offered was also not a serious proposal since it was voted down in the Senate. Obviously that's a ridiculous standard to hold to. The logic here doesn't compute.
The budget that got presented in 2009 was affirmed I believe by 58 votes. That budget has then been extended each year the president has been in office since a new budget hasn't been voted on (many have been proposed by both Democrats and Republicans, but they all have been voted down). Each year we've had to then vote to extend the last budget. That has to be done in order for the government to allocate money. The budget that you're referring to- the 97-0 budget- was brought up in I think 2010 so it obviously was not the budget I was referring to. You are either confused here or deliberately strawmanning. The point I made here was that you said that no budget has been proposed- this isn't true. A budget has been proposed, it's just not a new budget. Your argument doesn't refute this, but is, again, a non-sequitur.
The sequester date wasn't set by the president and has nothing to do with the election cycle.....the sequester has to do with stalling measures undertaken by the Republican Party that pushed the date of budget re-negotiation closer and closer to the election. At the best you'd be accusing Republicans of playing politics here- to which I'd agree. But these two thoughts are non-sequiturs. You lumped them together when they don't go together. And, for the record, I didn't prove your point: you strawmanned my argument and then falsely claimed that proved your point. Don't put words into other people's mouths. That just shows weakness on your part.
How am I a fraud? That doesn't even make sense. What did I claim about myself that isn't true? I should also add
Somebody needs to review their Schoolhouse Rock at YouTube.
Boy: Woof! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?
I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.
Bill: Well I got this far. When I started, I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman and he said, "You're right, there oughta be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.
I'm just a bill
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.
Boy: Die?
Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Oooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.
Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?
Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
Boy: Oh no!
Bill: Oh yes!
I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no?
Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old...
Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?
Bill: No!
But how I hope and I pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Congressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!
Bill: Oh yes!!!
I think I'll have to bookmark this for the next tiresome TeaTard who forgets that the President isn't King, he has to deal with the parliamentary bodies. I also wish they had included the part about appropriation bills having to start in the house.
Well, well, look what we have here. Looks like Cartoonthenews! has done a might fine job of showing shhit-for-brains troll to be a, well, ..., shhit-for-brains troll.
Good job, CTN!
Romney is losing some of his wealthy donors. They finally can see how idiotic his so-called policies really are. If you don't have a plan for the issues by Oct. 1st, how likely are you to come up with anything of substance? As for Paul Ryan, be warned. Do not touch Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. Boomers will not take kindly to this.
as mr. benen has noted several times, rmoney has the worst surrogates ever...
Sen. Roy Blunt on Sunday said Romney's campaign vow to cut taxes across the board has always been qualified by the simultaneous elimination of other tax benefits – the net result being a much more modest bonus than the 20-percent cut Romney has trumpeted on the trail.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/259359-blunt-romney-never-said-hed-slash-taxes
Republicans are intentionally obstructing every move the President makes to improve the economy and create jobs , then they complain that he hasn't done anything; they get away with this garbage because most people ,even the "educated" , simply have no idea how this government works !(or is suppossed to work.!) In spite of this the econonmy is rebounding ,because of thePRESIDENT'S COMMITMENT to thew American people.! And thewse hateful fools won't even recognize that he has KILLED more terrorist than any president ever , not to mention Osama Bin-Ladin!!! If Bush (who -remember said ,"I have no idea where he is " ?), would have gotten Bin-ladin they would erect a monument to him.... HYPOCRACY,HATRED AND BLATANT LIES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY OR OUR PRESIDENT!!!!
Cartoonthenews!
You obviously didn't. Just another of your false representations. The article says "Geithner, under heavy fire from the Senate Budget Committee, said the Obama administration “did not feel” it could embrace it because the cuts to defense were too deep and the reforms to Social Security relied too much on benefit cuts."
Was Obama going to follow the findings of the Commission. NO. Really, nice try. You even lose with pedantics and semantics. How progressive.
.....the findings of the Simpson-Bowles Comission weren't intended to be followed verbatim. They were recommendations about what could be done to reduce the debt and deficit. Obama took that recommendation and came up with a budget that was largely based on Simpson-Bowles. With that said you made the claim that he made this commission with the intention of not passing a budget. The article doesn't prove this claim and in fact disproves the claim: it says that Obama was attempting to get what reductions he could get passed through the Senate. The snippet you quoted was part of the article explaining as much. You are making the assertion that if 100% of the recommendation isn't followed that means that Obama wasn't following the commission at all. This is an absolutist position and it's absurd. You can't assert that because something isn't 100% that it therefore isn't anything. Following the commission 80% and 20% with adjustments is still following the commission.
Your statement is, again, a strawman about my argument and about the article. The article does not prove the statement you are asserting. Either provide evidence for your claim or admit it's a strawman.
Cartoonthenews!
Really? Flat out LIES from you now, nice change in tactics. What Budget of Obama's 'is largely based on Simpson-Bowles? Ryans budget is based on it and passed the House. http://youtu.be/cETlLlDuT78
How about this:
Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote
Obama's 2012 budget failed 97 to 0 last May after Obama himself last April said he wanted deeper deficit cuts.
The House earlier this year unanimously rejected Obama's budget.
Yes, that was one serious budget. Now, back to the peanut gallery for you.
...
The article from cnn does not have anything to do with the Simpson-Bowles Commission nor does it debunk the quoted segment from me that you are calling a lie. It states that the president's budget got zero votes. His budget got zero votes because it included cuts to medicare and social security, drastic cuts to defense, and tax increases which no one in the US Congress liked. I already stated as much. This does not debunk my statement that Obama presented a commission largely based on Simpson-Bowles since the Simpson-Bowles commission recommended these cuts and tax increases. The lack of votes, again, does not mean that Obama was not intending for his budget to get passed. Again by this logic that would mean that Ryan did not intend for his budget to get passed since no one in the Senate voted for the Ryan budget proposal.
I think you are confusing the fact that people disagreed with the budget and the idea that the budget wasn't intended to be put into place. The latter requires that you have operational knowledge of the president which is something you have not yet proven. You have not proven that the president did not intend his budget to be passed
...the Forbes article you wrote to was a. an opinion piece b. written by a person who is working for the Ryan and Romney campaign and c. does not prove it's assertions to be correct. The highlighted piece, for instance, does not prove that Obama's budget would not have balanced the budget. It also doesn't prove it's assertion that Obama's budget would only cut 2.2 trillion and not 4 trillion. But it does prove that at least 2.2 trillion would be cut, which debunks another article you linked to earlier.
I do not think you are reading the articles you're linking to.
Cartoonthenews!
Do your delusions help you lie? Back up YOUR STATEMENT LIAR
Deflect and talk in circles with ZERO FACTS and PROVEN LIES. That's right, you HAVE ZERO proof of your statement, my video link backs mine up. Wait, you needed a strawman so you skip that and cite the cnn link. Save your meaningless words and go back to the peanut gallery with the rest of the leftist pathological LIARS.
Daniel, you are becoming unhinged. Best take the rest of the day off...
Your video link doesn't back anything up- it is Ryan saying that he proposed a budget and that is why he voted against the Simpson-Bowles report. Ryan claiming that X is true is not the same as X being true. If President Obama came out and said that he presented a budget he thought was serious would you immediately believe that statement? I don't know, because I don't know you, but if I had to guess you'd call bullpuckey on it and present the information you're presenting now. Ryan claiming X is true, but not providing evidence for X is the same problem. I cannot take Ryan at his word- I need evidence that what he claims is true. The video does not provide this information.
The articles you linked to confirm that Obama presented a budget that was based largely on the Simpson-Bowles proposal. Now it does say that Obama curtailed Medicare and Social Security cuts in order to appease Democrats while making larger cuts to the US military and closing loopholes that were not favorable with Republicans. You could be saying that this was a bad idea since it ended up not getting votes. However your own articles are affirming that my statement is true: Obama based his budget- the one that got voted down- off Simpson and Bowles, but not entirely off Simpson and Bowles. Like I said you cannot take the absolutist position that because it was not 100% it therefore means he didn't intend the bill to pass. You made the assertion that President Obama did not intend for his budget to pass. You have yet to prove your claim true.
If you'd like to highlight a claim of mine that I made that you'd like me to prove, please do so. So far I have merely fact checked your assertions and you have been the person making the claim. Remember it's the person who makes the claim that has to prove himself or herself correct; not the person who questions it, expresses skepticism, or fact-checks.
What statement do you want me to back up and what am I lying about? The CNN article, in no place, asserted that the president presented a budget that he knew would fail. That was the statement I had given that you highlighted and then posted the CNN article in response to. At no place in that article does it refute, or indeed even address, the statement I gave. Simpson-Bowles is not the subject of that article; it is, as I stated, a non-sequitur that made zero sense, given the context of our conversation, for you to include. It does verify that multiple budget proposals were brought forward, but that they didn't pass. That, however, was not the conversation we were having nor was it the highlighted segment of mine you were attempting to refute. You still haven't proven me wrong on any statement and you haven't proven yourself right on any statement either.
I really would be careful as to whom I'm calling a liar here.
Again?! Looks like shhit-for-brains troll got his mangina handed to him/her again. Should have stopped while you were behind shhit-for-brains troll.
There is no doubt that Ryan is being truthful; isn't that an advance? Republicans have never reduced deficits since before Reagan, but they have always cut tax rates for the rich.
Did you ever notice that Paul Ryan looks like Eddie Munster with Dumbo ears?
Oh, yeah, and he's a lying POS.
Hey cartoon, Obama hasn't had a budget in almost for years. No need to talk about budget there isn't one.
Again that is not true. A budget must be presented every year in order for the government to run. What you mean to say is no new budget has been proposed since the initial budget of 2009. Everything else has been a continuation of that last budget which is what leads us to the sequester and the debt ceiling problems we've been having.
It is OK to not like what the president is doing and to disagree with him, but we need to do so on the basis of fact and not opinion. You are accusing the president of something that isn't factually true. That doesn't make you appear stronger nor does it make your criticism more valid. It makes you appear desperate and your criticisms appear hollow.
The fact that the person I am responding to makes non-sequitur comments, makes comments not related to the thread, doesn't address the issue of Ryan's policy problems, and doesn't provide evidence to back up his assertions is a huge give away that the statements he is making aren't true. It should behoove you, as a critical thinker, to question anything presented to you that isn't based in fact.
I am completely mind boggled by the right wingers who are posting here today that resent the fact that I am asking critical questions, expressing skepticism, challenging assumptions, and fact checking. Yet I suppose you would accuse me of "drinking the kool aid" since apparently you, like the goth kids from South Park, believe you're the only anti-conformist and in order to be an anti-conformist like you I must do everything you do, right? It's such a huge level of cognitive dissonance I'm struggling to wrap my head around it.
Do your delusions help you lie? Back up YOUR STATEMENT LIAR
Deflect and talk in circles with ZERO FACTS or LINKS . That's right, you HAVE ZERO proof of your statements, my video and links backs mine up.. You have none. Save your meaningless words and go back to the peanut gallery with the rest of the leftist pathological LIARS.
What does your video prove? The article you linked to- the one by McClatchy mentioning Bernake- states outright that the Simpson-Bowles commission was considered in the bill proposed by Obama, but that Obama made some concessions that were not recommended by the debt commission. Did you even read the report? I do not think you did because you seem to be flabbergasted about what it said. I think you're becoming a little unhinged here...
Holy Propaganda!! Do your delusions help you lie? Back up YOUR STATEMENT LIAR
Deflect and talk in circles with ZERO FACTS or LINKS . That's right, you HAVE ZERO proof of your statements, my video and links backs mine up.. You have none. Save your meaningless words and go back to the peanut gallery with the rest of the leftist pathological LIARS.
I do apologize it was Geitner and The Hill; not Bernake and McClatchy. It is saying right there in the article that Simpson-Bowles is the framework they built concession around. Again I do not think you read the actual article.
What am I lying about here?
Hoo boy. Poor ol' shhit-for-brains troll. What a little man.
I guess Ryan and Obama are twins!
Cartoonthenews!
Sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe it is like my post from just over a week ago. Strange that it didn't get much support from the peanut gallery when I said this....
<Another fact-filled post from an obamabot. It is entertaining to observe cognitive dissonance in almost real-time as you and your comrades can only resort to name-calling when confronted with the fact that you support total bullsh@t written at @msnbc
Polly want a cracker?
....because you are accusing someone of name calling when you are the only one name calling.
That proves that the cognitive dissonance in effect is coming from you
People ignored you, if I had to guess, because they could not believe that you would make such a statement oblivious to the logical paradox you had just created by making the statement.
As an aside- Polly want a cracker? I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. That would mean that I would be parroting something that someone else had fed me; that would not mean I was employing cognitive dissonance. If you're going to insult me at least get the expression right.
Cartoonthenews!
The only proof the cognitive dissonance is coming from me ->> It was my line just over a week ago. The rest of your post with pretend specifics is funny too. Good for you poser. My previous post at @msnbc
Stick with the FLAT OUT LIES, Yes, your interpretation of the lone line 'Polly wants a cracker' is the only one possible because you dwell in leftist pablum and @msnbc 'truths' making you an expert in WORDPLAY.
Still waiting for the proof that.....
And of course ANOTHER FLAT OUT LIE:
Show me in that LINK where it is "mentioning Bernake- states outright that the Simpson-Bowles commission was considered in the bill proposed by Obama " LIAR! The Name Bernanke and that statement NEVER appears in the Whole article.
No, links to budget votes or even Erskine Bowles himself talking about the commission is good enough for the @msnbc propaganda machine. Live the progressive LIE.
....so the meaning of the phrase polly want a cracker is now a leftist conspiracy? You're losing it.
I already addressed the other issue; you need to read before posting.
FTR that isn't the meaning of the word "lie" either. Now you're just desperate.
Hey cartoon, every one knows Obama's first budget went down to defeat in the Senate 97 to O. That tells you what Democrats felt about it. The House has passed several budgets but Harry Reid in the Senate refuses to bring their budget or any other budget to the floor for a vote. At least we know why you go by the name Cartoon. Tell me when Reid has proposed a budget. Provide a link that has the info. A better name for you would be Clueless.
It tells you that Democrats did not like the budget. It does not tell you why they did not like the budget nor does it tell you that Obama proposed the budget specifically so it would be voted down. Neither of those latter 2 assumptions can be made unless you have evidence to make them.
For the record Harry Reid does not have universal control over whether or not bills are brought before the Senate for debate. If a bill reaches a subcommittee and the subcommittee votes it out of committee the bill automatically goes to the floor whether or not the Senate Majority Leader approves of it. It's a means for the minority party to pass legislation over the will of the majority. For most pieces of legislation the majority leader, however, does have control. But beyond this as long as a bill is being debated on the floor or is in subcommittee amendments can be added to it and amendments do not necessarily have to relate directly to the bill itself. If Republicans wanted to pass amendments to deal with the budget there is no process that directly impedes them from doing so; the only thing directly impeding them is votes. Why isn't the minority party out trying to actively get Reid and other Democrats to agree to put their bill up for debate? Any of the logic you're using here to attack Reid can easily be flipped to attack Republicans (which means the logic is flimsy at best).
I should also say that your statement prompts the immediately critical thought question: why isn't Reid allowing the bills to go to the Senate floor? If you believe his statements it's because no one will vote for the bill and that he believes the bills are being passed as filler pieces so the Republicans can tell the masses that they voted on a budget and it's the big bad mean Democrats who are stopping legislation from moving forward, but the bills aren't being designed to pass through the Senate. Reid sees them as annoying, useless pieces of legislation. Disagree? Ok, now please explain legislation that has been proposed that Reid blocked that would've passed the Senate. Unless you can name bills that would have passed the 50+1 vote threshold the bill is pointless. And if it's pointless then that affirms Reid's statement to be true.
My name is cartoonthenews because I believe that the news is a cartoon. I said as much before.
I have no idea what Reid proposing a budget has to do with the conversation of the thread (Ryan and Romney's budget) or subsequently with my debunking false claims made by another blogger. If you'd like to present a cogent argument as to why this is so please go ahead.
what does it mean to be "clueless" and what claim(s) have I made that indicate(s) I am "clueless?"
CartoontheNews!, I just wanted to say 'thank you'. I can rarely recall ever seeing anyone respond so intelligently and so informatively to what's become the scourge of the internets - rightwing nutjobs trolling blogs either for attention or, worse yet, because they truly believe.
Your replies are excellent examples of how best to counter these types, but I'm have a feeling your use of logic is probably wasted on them. By staying on topic and not descending to their level of name-calling, quoting out-of-context or strawman argument you've likely been the cause of more frustration and anger than you know.
And all in a good cause, too!