Obama. Taxes. Lies.

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

Obama, during the 2008 campaign:

“If you are a family making less than $ 250,000 a year……you will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income Tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up.”

Obama in an interview with Bloomberg this week:

President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

He makes lying sound so reasonable, doesn’t he?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

72 Responses to “Obama. Taxes. Lies.”

  1. #1 |  Mike | 

    It was always a lie. With all the new spending — and the bipartisan agreement that neither Medicare nor Social Security nor defense can be cut — they’re going to have to raise taxes.

  2. #2 |  ZappaCrappa | 

    Meet the new boss…same as the old boss.

  3. #3 |  Cynical in CA | 

    At least we get to argue about what the word “agnostic” means, rather than what the word “is” means.

    He’s so much more sophisticated than Clinton.

    Bush? He didn’t use words. Well, not real ones anyway, which I found so much more entertaining.

  4. #4 |  Kal | 

    Yes, It would be so much better if he didn’t change with shifting economic circumstances and just held to a past position no matter what. That would be so much better.

  5. #5 |  Bob | 

    All the ideas will be on the table? What about not spending?

    They have a saying in Texas: “If you find yourself in a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging.”

  6. #6 |  Windypundit | 

    Kal, changing your approach to problems to meet shifting obstacles is a good thing. But making promises beforehand that you know you may not be able to keep…that’s lying.

  7. #7 |  Marty | 

    ‘honey, I know what i said before we committed, but I’m a bit agnostic about the monogamy thing… i’d just like to get all the possibilities on the table.’

    michelle seems like a bright girl- I can’t see her buying any of this! I’ve always said that americans act like abused spouses that wanna believe the assholes they married. I wish people would start looking at what people do, instead of believing everything people say.

  8. #8 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Kal, there have been no “shifting economic circumstances.” Nothing has changed since Obama took office. He inherited the mess, remember? And he decided to put his faith back in Bernanke, the Keynesian clown. Obama owns the mess now.

  9. #9 |  Paul B | 

    try again

    http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/citizen-review-board-apd-301395.html

  10. #10 |  Mike T | 

    Yes, It would be so much better if he didn’t change with shifting economic circumstances and just held to a past position no matter what. That would be so much better.

    How about a 100% income tax on the bankers who profited from the bailouts? I’ve seen numerous sources say that the agreements they had with their banks stipulated that they would not be entitled to a bonus if the value of their portfolios dropped to any significant degree. The only reason they got the bonuses was that the feds allowed them to commit fraud by continuing to value their mortgage portfolios at the same level as they did before the crash.

    Ergo, a 100% income tax on their bonuses should be something that even a randian could have sympathy for.

  11. #11 |  Karl | 

    Did not know there where so many worldclass economist on here. If only you guys could get in there the economy would all be fixed, no promises broken, no opinions changed. Consistent principled stands all round come hell or high water. The solutions you lay out are so simple and obvious why can’t Obama see it? Oh well what can you expect from a liar I suppose. Well, At least we can all still point at the govt. and complain about how hypocritical they are.

  12. #12 |  DBN | 

    Ergo, a 100% income tax on their bonuses should be something that even a randian could have sympathy for.

    Except that taxes targeted at specific individuals, like a Tax on Everyone Who Donated to My Political Opponent or a Tax on Those Guys Who Beat Me Up in 4th Grade veer dangerously close to property seizure.

    Of course there were bankers who profited from the bank bailouts. Just like there were union members who profited from the bailout of GM. That’s the way it goes; if you don’t like it then you should have opposed the bailouts. Anything else sounds like sour grapes.

  13. #13 |  Mark S. | 

    Not to defend Pres. Obama but let’s dial down the ad hominem attacks until ACTUAL tax legislation is offered. Calling him a liar because he’s allowing a policy study group to consider all options is unfair and unreasonable. I think it’s quite refreshing he’s not hamstringing his advisors with some arbitrary ideological/political criteria.

    Don’t we want the President to get advice free from political considerations? Condemn Pres. Bush for fostering a groupthink culture within his circle of advisors and then condemn Pres. Obama for not fostering the same culture? What sense does that make?

    If Pres. Obama does offer legislation that would go against his campaign promises then yes, he deserves condemnation. But heckling at this point is premature and a bit hypocritical.

  14. #14 |  Les | 

    Mark S., I see your point in regards to this particular issue. I loathed the Bush administration, but Obama has certainly been blatantly dishonest in dealing with FISA, terror suspects, lobbyists, and even in the healthcare debate, among other things. So, there are lots of areas in which he’s earned heckling and he’s certainly earned the label “liar.” It’s not unreasonable to distrust him on any issue.

  15. #15 |  John Wilburn | 

    #12 @ Mark S – premature and hypocritical? You’re kidding, right?

    In the context that Mr. Obama used, “Agnostic” means “doubtful and/or noncommittal” – I see nothing “doubtful and/or noncommittal” about his previous “position;”

    “If you are a family making less than $ 250,000 a year……you will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income Tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up.”

    Maybe it’s me, but that sounds pretty definitive…

  16. #16 |  BamBam | 

    Audi Green Police …
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/50364.html

  17. #17 |  Marc | 

    “It was always a lie. With all the new spending — and the bipartisan agreement that neither Medicare nor Social Security nor defense can be cut — they’re going to have to raise taxes.”

    Exactly. I was actually getting worried he wasn’t going to raise taxes. Blame Obama and politicians if you want, but it’s ultimately the fault of the idiotic electorate. I’d LOVE a politician to come out and say, “If you want all of these social programs and defense spending, we need higher taxes.” Or suggest raising the gasoline tax and use the money to pay for mass transit and tax breaks for buying fuel efficient cars. But if any of them does say things like that, no one votes for them! Do you really think it’s possible in this day and age to get elected president promising to raise taxes so you can balance the budget. Or…*gasp!* a “war tax” so for once we can actually do that whole support the troops thing everyone likes to claim they’re doing? Maybe if people today (rather than in 10-20 years from now) were paying for Iraq and Afganistan, more people would want us out ASAP. But people are just a bunch of aging babies who want all the entitlements they can get but don’t want to pay for them. Look at California’s voter initiatives for even clearer proof. Politicians only gain their power by telling voters what they want to hear. Place the blame where it belongs.

  18. #18 |  Mark S. | 

    #15 @ John W.

    No I’m not kidding. I don’t think it’s reasonable to call him a liar on this issue. We are not talking about anything other than the tax issue and that is all I’m referring to in terms of what I think is an unfair and undeserved attack at this point. Allowing his advisors to consider all options is perfectly reasonable despite his campaign promises.

    I’m very doubtful he will refrain from backpedaling on his campaign promise regarding taxes but until he does so I think it’s premature and hypocritical to criticize him for allowing consideration of all options. Call him a liar when he actually proposes a change to the tax code that breaks his campaign promises but until then I think you’re wrong in your criticisms on this particular point.

  19. #19 |  Let's Be Free | 

    JW, I don’t know about you but I’m not going to be Jenny Sanford gullible. When someone backs off a vow, that means something. If not a liar, the man is manipulative and deceitful, in a Nixonian way. I wouldn’t count on Obama’s word.

  20. #20 |  Mark S. | 

    @ #18

    Since when does advocating restraint from calling someone a liar on a particular issue until it flushes out equate to being gullible?

  21. #21 |  TJ | 

    “Read my lips. No new taxes.” Let us remember how Bush 41 was “dispatched” after reneging on this statement.

    May the same happen to Obomer. Time to kick him to the curb.

  22. #22 |  John Wilburn | 

    “The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,”

    Mr. Obama made a definitive statement (i.e. no possibility of misinterpretation – no increase in taxes for those under 250k income) – now he’s saying, in effect, that other people are free to change his position, and by doing so, the responsibility for that change, lies with them…

    The man is a liar, in spirit, if not in fact, and further, is morally bankrupt, and lacks the courage of his own convictions…

    A typical politician, in other words…

  23. #23 |  Les | 

    Mark S., I agree 100% in making sure a criticism is based on facts. But given that Obama signed a bill back in April that raised the federal cigarette tax by 150%, and that the vast majority of smokers make less than $250,000 (making it an extremely regressive tax), doesn’t that justify calling him a liar for saying that “no taxes” would go up for those people?

  24. #24 |  bobzbob | 

    I’m glad we have a president who will actually consider the issues rather than adhere to rigid dogma. The fact is that in 2008 the depth and length of the current recession could not be forseen. If doing the right thing for the country requires breaking a campaign promise, then more power to him.

  25. #25 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    MikeT – You want to set a precedent that bonuses which are “unfair” should be subject to a 100% tax? Your faith in the Government’s future usage of that power is…yea, I think you can see my point.

    I believe, quite strongly, that the Government should have a strictly limited ability to tinker after-the-fact with contracts. Creating the rules under which they can be approved in the first place is their function, but tinkering afterwards is dangerous…it means that in many cases those contracts are not worth the paper they’re written on if someone in the media decides they don’t like your company.

    The media doesn’t need *more* power.

  26. #26 |  Rick H. | 

    bobzbob: The fact is that in 2008 the depth and length of the current recession could not be forseen.

    How about in 2006?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zw

  27. #27 |  Mark S. | 

    @#23 Les

    Yes. That is a good point. And he rightly deserves criticism for it.

  28. #28 |  ktc2 | 

    Danica Patrick crashed on lap 68 at Daytona (really). Queue the jokes about blowing a rod at 69.

  29. #29 |  cliff | 

    >>>>>bobzbob: The fact is that in 2008 the depth and length of the current recession could not be forseen.

    How about in 2006?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zw<<<<<<<&lt;

    SMACKDOWN!

  30. #30 |  Matt | 

    “The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,”

    Excluding, of course, the idea that government and its mechanics ought to get the fuck out of everyone’s life.

  31. #31 |  Michael | 

    It’s not surprising. Danica has to deal with twice the weight and half the traction.

  32. #32 |  bobzbob | 

    Lol- Peter Schiff has been predicting recessions every year for the last 10. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But let me rephrase – There was no significant consensus that anticipated the timing and depth of the current recession.

    I voted for Obama because he WASN”T dogmatic – everyone knows you can’t get elected (thanks to the stupidity of the american public) unless you campaign on a no taxes platform. Its better to get a thinker in office than a dogmatist even if he isn’t sincere about the tax pledge.

    “Excluding, of course, the idea that government and its mechanics ought to get the fuck out of everyone’s life.”
    I love the irony of people who use the government created and developed internet to complain about the government.

  33. #33 |  Tsu Dho Nihm | 

    Lol- Peter Schiff has been predicting recessions every year for the last 10.

    Oddly enough, he’s been right for the last 10 years. We had the dotcom bust in ’99-’00, and then we’ve had the Fed manipulating the interest rate/money supply ever since (well, actually they started fucking us a long, long time ago in a smoke-filled room too damned close for comfort). We really have been in a recession for the last 10-12 years. But various government and pseudo-government (ie, Federal Reserve) policies have hidden it from most of the public. I certainly don’t claim that Peter Schiff is a visionary, but I do understand that the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government are counterproductive to the average person, and that’s exactly what he’s been pointing out.

    Let’s just keep bringing on inflation, massive government spending and debt. That’ll bring us out of this mess we’ve been in for a very long time, and was brought to the fore by the asinine actions of the reprehensible Nixon in 1971.

  34. #34 |  BamBam | 

    Obama is a liar, just like almost every politician at any level. To remind everyone, the President is not a dictator in our Republic (not a democracy). The President can sign things into law which are presented to him by the House and Senate combined bills. The President can veto a bill, but can be overridden by a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate. Ultimately all things go through the House and Senate, who should ideally vote along Constitutional lines, not party lines. Most votes and bills are unconstitutional and thus invalid.

  35. #35 |  BamBam | 

    My (supposedly) comments were removed as tags. This country is supposedly not a dictatorship, etc. blah blah blah

  36. #36 |  Drew | 

    “But making promises beforehand that you know you may not be able to keep…that’s lying.”

    But the accusation of lying, in that case, relies on inferences about the person’s state of mind.

    Obama probably did, fairly reasonably, expect that he could achieve what he envisioned without raising taxes on the middle class. Then the economy went all to hell, TARP became a inevitability, and so on. If he changes his mind, he’s going to have to own up to it and make account for it… but it still doesn’t make him a “liar” because he originally thought it was reasonable, and then was wrong, in hindsight.

    Mark S. is being reasonable. People are being over-the-top/abusing the word liar.

  37. #37 |  ClassAction | 

    Drew catches the crux of it.

    A lie (a statement made with knowledge of its falsity) is different than breaking a promise. While most people accept narrow exceptions to the general prohibition against lying, people accept much broader justifications for when it is appropriate to break a promise, like when the conditions that existed, or were thought to exist, at the time the promise was made have changed in some way that makes keeping the promise too difficult, impossible, or against someone’s best interest.

    Whether any of that applies in this case is up for debate.

  38. #38 |  Windy | 

    We are doomed:
    http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/100213-stossel-road-serfdom.php

    FTA:
    According to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest? Worse, the dependent class is growing. The 60 percent will soon be 70 percent.

  39. #39 |  dsmallwood | 

    to be fair, he only lied about not lying

  40. #40 |  Nando | 

    Every President has been a lyar. Every single one promised something during their campaign that they either reneged on or blatantly ignored once they were in power.

    I’m going to assume that the reason is the same reason why I always said I wasn’t going to be an asshole like my boss until I got promoted to his spot and found that his decisions were much more difficult than I could’ve imagined as a worker, where I wasn’t privy to the information that my boss had to make his decisions. Sometimes you have to change your policy once you have all the information, something he couldn’t have had as a candidate.

    I’m not saying this is right or wrong, or that he should or shouldn’t be condemned for doing it. I’m just saying that I think I understand.

  41. #41 |  John Wilburn | 

    When someone (such as a politician, trying to win an election) makes promises that they know, realistically, that they cannot keep (no new taxes, smaller government, more transparency, more accountability, chicken in every pot, etc., etc., etc.) then they are a liar in spirit, and once it is seen that the promise was an empty one, they are a liar in fact…

    I cannot believe the justifications I’m reading – Mr Obama is nothing more than an extremely gifted salesman; gifted, because he succeeded in convincing a lot of gullible people that he, somehow, was different from every other lying, conniving, self-serving, asshole politician…

  42. #42 |  Chris Mallory | 

    #36
    So he thought he could turn the country into even more of a socialist hellhole WITHOUT raising taxes? Then his is stupid.

  43. #43 |  Chris Mallory | 

    #32 ” I love the irony of people who use the government created and developed internet to complain about the government.”

    Just imagine what we could be using if the government had gotten out of the way. But hey, we got Tang and those nifty pens that write upside down.

  44. #44 |  bobzbob | 

    FTA:
    According to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest? Worse, the dependent class is growing. The 60 percent will soon be 70 percent.

    That is one of the most skewed pieces of reporting i’ve ever seen, (no suprise that it comes from Stossel). Are you suggesting that the average person should receive LESS in benefits than they pay in taxes? If so, where should the tax money go? The fact that the number is 60% reflects that tax money is pretty evenly distributed back to the people in benefits. One would expect it to be 50%, but because we have a moderatly progressive tax system that number is a bit higher. BTW, according to FTA my children are counted among that 60%, because they go to school!

    Another amussing lie that Stossel sells is that Hayek’s “book was a hit. Reader’s Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.” Hayek’s book was a flop except that RD decided to pick it up an include it their publications.

    If stossel was an honest man, he would have said that readers digest included a condensed version in their monthy magazine, which at the time had several million subscribers. The condensed version sold no where near that many copies alone (and those that were sold went in the usual RD anthology to subscribers.) But as we have seen many times, Stossel is not an honest man.

  45. #45 |  bobzbob | 

    It amazes me how the libertarians delite in calling politicians liars, then liberally quote from the biggest liar in the media, Stossel.

  46. #46 |  Stephen | 

    While we are on the subject of lying, this might be of interest to some of you.

    http://rawstory.com/2010/02/obama-admins-promise-dea-continues-raids-medical-marijuana-growers/

  47. #47 |  bobzbob | 

    “In his apology, Stossel did admit that some tests he relied on to support his conclusion had never been conducted. ”
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/stossellies.cfm

    If you have to lie to support your ideology, what value is it?

  48. #48 |  ClassAction | 

    #44:

    John Stossel may or may not be a liar, but your claim that he is a liar because he characterized The Road to Serfdom as a “hit” is particularly weak. The Road to Serfdom is a specialized piece of political philosophy, not a work of popular fiction. It doesn’t have to sell Grisham numbers to have been a hit. The fact is, in less than a month of publication in the US, a third print run had been ordered. It was an unexpected success for its genre. You could probably call it a “minor hit.” But you couldn’t legitimately call it a “flop.”

    It’s also not clear what you mean by calling the article a “skewed” piece of reporting. If all that you mean is that Stossel has a political philosophy that differs from yours – well, that’s no surprise, but that’s also not any particularly insightful criticism. If you mean that Stossel has a HIDDEN agenda and he unfairly manipulates facts – well that’s okay, but you have to show that for your criticism to have any merit.

    Your objection that your family is counted amongst those that receive more in taxes than they contribute because they attend public school is indicative of nothing more than that you subscribe to a different, not altogether coherent, political philosophy. After all, why shouldn’t your family’s consumption of tax resources through the public education system NOT be counted? As a general rule of thumb, a single family home’s taxes in any given community will only ever cover one child in the public education system. Any more than one child makes the family a net financial drain on the community, to be subsidized by the rest of the population. Why is acknowledging this so controversial?

  49. #49 |  ClassAction | 

    #47:

    To your credit, I just googled some background information on Stossel’s report on organic farming, and that is definitely a much stronger case for his either deliberate dishonesty (if he knew that the experiments he relied upon had never been performed) or sloppy fact-checking (if he didn’t). His refusal to retreat from his claim in light of the undercutting of his evidence is pretty telling.

    (apologies if this posts twice)

  50. #50 |  Mark S. | 

    @#41 John W.

    You seem to have expert knowledge in determing when a campaign promise is a lie. Could you please share the criteria you use in determining such things? We know that not all campaign promises are lies (e.g. Bush tax cuts) so please educate me on your system for separating fact from fiction.

  51. #51 |  Mattocracy | 

    #24 | bobzbob |

    Yeah, I’m really glad we have a president that is willing to do whatever he wants without regard to the moral wrongness of it. Thank god he isn’t tied to dogma, he might actually do the right thing every once in a while. Like actually bring the troops home. Like actually close Gitmo. Like end the DEA raids on legal marijuana operations. Like get rid of the Patriot Act. Like create a more transparent federal government. But lucky for us he isn’t tied to dogma so we can get taxed some more. Glad that was the overriding aspect of his personality that made you vote for him.

    Why do you come here and make statements that we tear apart?

  52. #52 |  Mattocracy | 

    To state that Stossel is the biggest liar in the media is rather dogmatic statement itself. Basically, Stossel holds opinions that you don’t agree with more often than not. That in itself doesn’t make him or anyone else a constant liar. Compare his style of reporting to that Hannity, O’Rielly, Nancy Grace, or Olberman. They flat out resort to ad hom attacks and tremendous mischaracterizations. That is what makes someone a shyster. I watch Stossel regularly and he does not resort to those tactics.

  53. #53 |  Steve Finlay | 

    Marc identifies the core of the problem: “it’s ultimately the fault of the idiotic electorate”. There is really no point blaming Obama, Bush, or any of the politicians. They simply cannot get elected without either saying things that are blatantly false on their face, or deliberately failing to mention the OTHER things that would be needed to make them true.

    For example, in order to make Obama’s promise to not raise taxes a reality, a government would have to reduce Social Security and Medicare payments, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, cancel farm subsidies, and end drug prohibition — and probably a few more things besides. Yet if this were your election platform, you would be treated as if you were stark raving mad. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin would be considered “serious”.

    This is not the politicians’ fault. This is the voters’ fault.

  54. #54 |  BamBam | 

    CA police detective calls for open fire on open carry people:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585807,00.html

    East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend’s status update

    “Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!” Tuason replied. “He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!”

    “Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!”

    “Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!” — referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.

    Of course the practice of shooting someone to get 2 weeks vacation while an “investigation” ensues is just this one bad apple’s attitude, right? Right?

  55. #55 |  Nathan W. | 

    @#50 Mark S.

    A campaign promise becomes a lie simply when the politician goes back on what they said. (I.E. No tax increase for people making under 250k then allowing that decision to be altered by someone else) If our president was unable or decided not to make sure that statement was honored then he should not have made it in the first place. As far as needing to know what “system used for determining fact from fiction” is concerned,listen to what our government says and then watch what they actually do. Period. Maybe you should go back and brush up on your copy of “Politics for dummies”.

  56. #56 |  John Wilburn | 

    #50 @Mark S

    First of all, when he was running for president (this falls into the category of “making promises one can’t keep”) he said;

    “If you are a family making less than $ 250,000 a year……you will not see your taxes go up. Not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income Tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up.”

    The president has no control over the tax code; he can make suggestions and recommendations, but without the backing of a 2/3 majority of the folks in the puzzle palace, he has no say – Mr. Obama, being a Constitutional Scholar, is abundantly aware of this – the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn, is that he knew he was making a promise he couldn’t keep (lying in spirit), when he opened his mouth…

    (But it’s the kind of thing that gets votes from people who live in Never Land…)

    Then;

    “Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
    “The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.””

    This shifts the responsibility for the change in policy from himself, to all the people who put “ideas” on the table – the “lie in fact” suddenly becomes academic…

    (He’s a very clever fellow – I hope you’re not in the market for a used car…)

  57. #57 |  Matt | 

    “This is not the politicians’ fault. This is the voters’ fault.”

    It’s both.

    Those in the government racket, on *both* sides of that infernal voting lever, seek control over the lives of their neighbors.

    *The* problem is a philosophical one, that will not be solved within the lifetime of anyone here.

  58. #58 |  David in Balt | 

    I am not sure what Stossel said about organic farming (can anyone provide a link please?) but organic farming is largely a sham anyway. For anyone interested I recommend checking out Skeptoid.com and search for “organic farming” or “locally grown” for more information.

  59. #59 |  J sub D | 

    Not to defend Pres. Obama but let’s dial down the ad hominem attacks until ACTUAL tax legislation is offered.

    Magnanimous guy that I am, I’ll go one step further and wait till Obama signs it. See you in August.

  60. #60 |  Ed Dunkle | 

    Obama is too scared of Republicans to raise taxes on rich people, so he’ll raise taxes on the poor instead. Meh.

  61. #61 |  bobzbob | 

    “Basically, Stossel holds opinions that you don’t agree with more often than not.”
    No, I agree with some of Stossel’s opinions. My problem is that he frequently makes things up and presents them as fact. For example, he said that tests show organic produce is more likely to be contaminated by E.Coli, when the tests he was referring to had never been done. (Fact is that tests show the opposite, because organic rules are more strict on the use of uncomposted manure.)

    ” Any more than one child makes the family a net financial drain on the community, to be subsidized by the rest of the population. Why is acknowledging this so controversial?” Except that over his lifetime that child will on average contribute 10 times the cost of his schooling, making him a net financial asset to the community.

  62. #62 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Bring on the crash! Floor it, Thelma!

  63. #63 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Karl,

    Did not know there where so many worldclass economist on here.

    I’m here. Just ask questions and I’ll do my best to learn you. I’ll even use small words and analogies.

  64. #64 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    <blockquote?
    The fact is that in 2008 the depth and length of the current recession could not be forseen.

    Except me, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, several thousand other economists and investors, and absolutely every single person who has studied Austrian all saw it coming. So, except for us, you’re right, BobZbob.

    Peter Schiff has been predicting recessions every year for the last 10.

    ROFLMAO! bobzbob is the guy building his house on a 10 year flood plain and complaining his house washed away. “You guys can never can predict exactly what month the flood will come!” This is sure way of identifying someone who knows absolutely nothing of value about investing or economics. Oh, bobzbob knows “something”, just nothing of value.

    What time is Cramer on?

  65. #65 |  Psion | 

    With regard to Stossel’s screwup on the organic produce, it was my understanding that he was told the tests had been done by the spot’s producer and that he later apologized for the mistake. In all the years this man has been reporting, he’s made a handful of mistakes. It’s ridiculous to toss out all the rest of his work based on them.

  66. #66 |  David in Balt | 

    @ Whoever gave my comment a negative, how about actually responding as to why you disagree with the fact that organic farming is sh!t instead of just giving it a negative and running away. Aware that your unscientific, unpractical leftist pet-project is a phony?

  67. #67 |  Andrew Williams | 

    Imagine if Bush had been half as good at BS’ing half the country…oh, wait….

  68. #68 |  flukebucket | 

    May the same happen to Obomer. Time to kick him to the curb.

    Run Sarah Run!

  69. #69 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Wow. So much debate about whether politicians are liars.

    It’s like having to reinvent the wheel every goddamn time.

    There’s no use arguing with crazy people who think politicians don’t lie.

    Obama was a liar years before this story came out, dummies.

  70. #70 |  Chris | 

    Apparently taxes have already gone up. Check out the increases in the 2010 withholding taxes.

    Lower wage earners that are filing as married will be impacted the most.

    http://bit.ly/90FN8N

  71. #71 |  Jerry | 

    I’m ashamed i voted for Obama, i wrote to the whitehouse 3 timesw, never got a answer, i got change alright, had to file for bankruptcy, and they foreclosed on our home of 31 years, Thank you Mr. Obama for the change.

  72. #72 |  Jerry | 

    I got change alright, they foreclosed on our home of 31 years, Thank you Mr Obama for the change, plus you never answered my emails i sent to the whitehouse. The bankruptcy judge told me your help programs are just heresay!! Boy was he right.

Leave a Reply