quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

You want to talk about riots and what affects people, research Watts.

And people just wont get that pissed these days.

Lady tazzy, I disagree with you on this point.

You might be surprised what "people" end up doing, it is still very early yet, and things are going to get much, much worse.

When things get worse, we can discuss what "people" will do, when many, many people's backs are up against the wall.

quote:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:

I thought it (Obamas speech) was a disgrace. I thought I’ve rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan, and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor. But we're a year-and-a-half away from Election Day, and it was supposed to be a speech about policy. He didn't even get to his own alternative until more than half-way through the speech, and when he did, he threw out these numbers suspended in midair with nothing under them with all kinds of goals and guidelines and triggers which mean absolutely nothing. The speech was really and was almost entirely an attack on the Ryan plan. And it was deeply dishonest.

BRET BAIER, HOST: Paul Ryan’s plan. The budget.



KRAUTHAMMER: Let me give you one example how dishonest it was. He went on and on about how the Republicans want to steal from your grandma to lower taxes on the rich. And he talked about the Bush tax cuts and how much he’s going to stand on the bridge and oppose any extension which is what he knows how to do. He has done it over and over for the last six years. The Ryan plan is not about the Bush tax cuts. It transcends them. It's about what the deficit, what Obama’s own commission had recommended: that you strip out loopholes and you lower the rates for everyone. It’s not about whether it should be the Bush rates or the Clinton rates. The whole new approach which the Simpson-Bowles commission had recommended itself. In fact, Bowles had recommended in one of its scenarios a high rate of 23 percent. Ryan’s is at 25 percent. Obama did this knowing that this is a way to play to his base. It was a speech that was quite remarkable in how demagogic it was, and I say that with all due respect.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/13/krauthammer-obamas-speech-was-disgrace-shallow-and-deeply-dishonest#ixzz1JtZ8qPzx

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I happen to agree with Krugman on this, Sanity. Neither proposal is perfect, one is founded in fantasy, the other in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You can keep Krugman, he is a dope and a fool. Krauthammer nailed the situation much better, re Obamas take on the Ryan proposal

quote:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:

I thought it (Obamas speech) was a disgrace. I thought I’ve rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan, and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor. But we're a year-and-a-half away from Election Day, and it was supposed to be a speech about policy. He didn't even get to his own alternative until more than half-way through the speech, and when he did, he threw out these numbers suspended in midair with nothing under them with all kinds of goals and guidelines and triggers which mean absolutely nothing. The speech was really and was almost entirely an attack on the Ryan plan. And it was deeply dishonest.

BRET BAIER, HOST: Paul Ryan’s plan. The budget.



KRAUTHAMMER: Let me give you one example how dishonest it was. He went on and on about how the Republicans want to steal from your grandma to lower taxes on the rich. And he talked about the Bush tax cuts and how much he’s going to stand on the bridge and oppose any extension which is what he knows how to do. He has done it over and over for the last six years. The Ryan plan is not about the Bush tax cuts. It transcends them. It's about what the deficit, what Obama’s own commission had recommended: that you strip out loopholes and you lower the rates for everyone. It’s not about whether it should be the Bush rates or the Clinton rates. The whole new approach which the Simpson-Bowles commission had recommended itself. In fact, Bowles had recommended in one of its scenarios a high rate of 23 percent. Ryan’s is at 25 percent. Obama did this knowing that this is a way to play to his base. It was a speech that was quite remarkable in how demagogic it was, and I say that with all due respect.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/13/krauthammer-obamas-speech-was-disgrace-shallow-and-deeply-dishonest#ixzz1JtZ8qPzx

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I happen to agree with Krugman on this, Sanity. Neither proposal is perfect, one is founded in fantasy, the other in reality.

quote:

tazzy, let's hope protests, and quiet civil disobedience on a mass scale is enough.

If/when armageddon comes, it will likely be related to nuclear/atomic weaponry and wars, don't ya think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And his opinion of the speech has what to do with either plan?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Obama used the commission’s framework, calling for changes to Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and the tax code. But on a key metric — debt as a share of GDP — Obama’s proposal would reduce it to 75 percent by 2023, versus 60 percent under Bowles-Simpson, according to Galston’s analysis.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53242.html#ixzz1JtjWTyy3

Seems like they were looking for 40%, not 23.

quote:

Obama’s $2 trillion stealth tax hike

Talk about fuzzy math. President Obama claims higher taxes will account for a mere third — $1 trillion — of his proposed $3 trillion debt reduction over 12 years, not counting less interest expense. Wrong. The actual number is probably around 50 percent of $4 trillion in savings — some $2 trillion — and could be closer to 60 percent. (More details below.) Instead of offering a template for a Grand Compromise, Obama seems to have created a Grand Obfuscation.


...


1) Obama’s Framework is a speech, along with a roughly 15-page fact sheet that is unlikely ever to get placed under the CBO microscope. It’s tough to score generalities such as the president’s claim the plan would put “deficits on a declining path toward close to 2.0% of GDP toward the end of the decade.” “Close to”? “Toward the end”?

2) The Obama Framework also fails to give a clear trajectory of where the debt-to-GDP ratio is heading, other than to call for a trigger that would boost taxes or cut spending in 2014 if the ratio doesn’t appear to be bending lower.

3) Other oddities abound. The plan has a 12-year time frame rather than the customary ten. It doesn’t indicate  what baseline it uses to make claims that it cuts debt by $4 trillion, if you include interest expense. Nor does it spell out what economic projections are being plugged in. Obama’s 2012 budget released in February was more bullish than the CBO’s, which Ryan uses.

4) Also unlike the Ryan Path, the Obama Framework doesn’t show how his plan affects debt and deficits over the coming decades. If it did, Obama would have to reveal that he can’t a) keep government spending above historical levels and b) balance the budget and reduce debt long term without c) jacking middle class taxes through the roof.

The Obama Framework is so vague and fuzzy that doing a true apples-to-apples comparison between the Ryan Path and the Obama Framework comparison is almost impossible. (Best guess: Ryan cuts $3 trillion more than Obama over a dozen years.) This could be intentional.

The tax issue mentioned earlier provides a perfect illustration. Toward the end of his speech last week, Obama said the following:

Full article here

quote:

Try agai, the CBO hasnt scored Obamas "plan" and even Reuters, which leans pretty far to the left on most things is ripping Obama a new one over it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini


If/when armageddon comes, it will likely be related to nuclear/atomic weaponry and wars, don't ya think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

dawg, I have not conflated anything.

You impute and impugn me with things I never said.

You ain't changed nothin but the name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

fox n krauthammer, limbaugh and coulter, we have the axis of evil and lies right here. Who is the messenger?
anyone surprised?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Im fine with free speech, Im enjoying bringing up your idiotic posts, you brought up coulter, you brought up Limbaugh, you brought up krauthammer and fox as if they are gods

quote:

ORIGINAL: desiertoperro

I would like to see evidence that Sanity thinks they are Gods.

Is that the sort of lie that would be banned on Canadian TV?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Dont you know, or havent you heard... its okay for leftists such as luce to lie, derail, make ad hominem after ad hominem.

You want to know why?

Its because they dont have anything else, they have absolutely no logical discussion or debate to offer!

quote:

ORIGINAL: desiertoperro

I would like to see evidence that Sanity thinks they are Gods.

Is that the sort of lie that would be banned on Canadian TV?

quote:

ORIGINAL: desiertoperro

I would like to see evidence that Sanity thinks they are Gods.

Is that the sort of lie that would be banned on Canadian TV?