OT: FACT CHECK: Convention speakers stray from reality

Page 3 of 9  
wrote:

Didn't RR have to deal with a D Congress? So they all postured, just like the last 4 years. The difference is that RR and the Congress could get to a solution. Obama hasn't been able to Congress to act, and neither has Boehner or Reid. Personally I think Congress should be locked up in one big room with cots, toilets, bread and water until they hammer out something. No showers.

You mean, making people unemployed, increasing productivity by the remaining workers, hoarding the cash has "worked"? I know you don't mean that because private employment has gone up relatively well in the last few years. And I agree that the fiscal cliff especially, as well as uncertainty with ACA and other regulations has stopped things. I worked in academic medical research and the off again on again funding really has hurt progress. Especially now that clerical work requires more people than actual research, and you have to apply for grants so much that there is hardly time for research.

Umm, it is my understanding that the Canadians pressured the State Dept to approve this, bypassing some or much of the domestic US approval process regarding environment. So, yes and no, the approval was fudged and when that was found out the Canadians were indeed pissed. For the rest, see my above paragraph.

Yep. Some docs will leave insurance-paid care. They have everywhere already. The administration of claims is too cumbersome, slow and painful. OTOH, I have had no real problems with my docs and my Medicare and supplemental. I hate the deductible, but like the lack of copay, so it is 6 or 1/2 doz.

Yes, but the SC fight specifically was between Boeing and its Seattle- based unions who wanted to keep lucrative jobs up there, rather than have them go to non-union SC. Of course that fight was probably fueled by lawyers ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

growth in the workforce. There has been little real growth for quite a while. Thus the employment rate not moving around all that much. Nobody hoard cash at these rates, but they do if they don't have much ability to decide what something is REALLY going them a few months (or heck days in many cases) down the line. Hard to get anybody to make long term commitments when there is so little transparency in regulations, rules, taxes, etc.

It was put off with specific instructions that the studies were to be submitted no earlier than after the election.

But as the cuts continue, more will see that as an option. Especially the Boomer docs. If it wasn't for the foreign med students, we'd already have unfilled openings in some residency programs.

Well I did say "most"(grin)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, not totally accurate. The final decision was put off until some time in 2013. Here is the wikipedia discussion, which I believe to be rather impartial. It involves to whole Keystone pipeline project not just the XL portion. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is immediately after the election. So, he put the kibosh on something at the last minute to pay off his base and the decision will conveniently not happen until after the election. This is just part of group of rather blatant plays to his base that involve changes. For most of his term he had said it was against the law to let immigrant kids stay in the US... until a couple weeks ago and then it was miraculously!!! Same with his sudden turn about on gay marriage. I don't mind politicians buying off their constituents, just don't insult my intelligence by pretending it anything else. (The GOP thing on signing the no tax pledge is similar just to be bipartisan-grin)>
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're possibly/probably quite right. Keystone XL: I'd love to have the US be totally selfsufficient with energy that is generated and used responsibly and efficiently. That includes taking into account environmental "problems". Among those are the chance (never zero) of a leak (and Keystone has not had a terribly good record). On top of that there are (as far as I can judge) legitimate problems with the Keystone XL project in getting that "bitumen" out of the ground and flowing through a pipeline. They involve the need of heat (=energy=CO2), and the acids that are formed as byproducts of mining those sands, as well as the stripmining that could be devastating to the landscape.
Immigration: This is a tough issue. Illegal is illegal. But if kids were brought here, were educated here, proved themselves productive and civil-minded here, are living just like Johnny next doors, and have never known a life in (say) Mexico, should they just be sent back to the wilderness (so to speak) because they weren't born here of Americans who had legal citizenship? I would really rather send the hoodlums from the ghettos of Newark and Paterson away than these hardworking, intelligent kids. Maybe I am painting too "happy" a picture here, but I am for a program like Obama started, which is similar to the DREAM Act that was canned by the hoodlums in Congress. The execution of our immigration laws is a disgrace, but unless we implant RFID IDs into each visitor to the US to keep track of them, or institute a national ID to be produced upon demand by (designated?) law enforcement, we will never solve the problem (IMNSHO).
Gay marriage is a simple and useful extension of marriage. To me marriage is a legal contract between 2 people. If they want to get a "blessing" from a religious official, that is their business. And I would never force a priest of whatever flavor to perform the legalistics of a marriage.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

much what they want to, even if of the same party. Congress decides how the money will be spent. The executive spends the money AS Congress allocates it. He can't withhold money that he doesn't want to spend or move it around. The Supreme said that way back during the time of Nixon when RMN tried to stop spending by not spending (AKA sequester).

EVERYBODY from US to corporations of all sizes, and even households got WAY overleveraged. Cheap money from the Fed made it worse, and so did a time of long term prosperity with LONG times of growth followed (up until this last one) by relatively short and shallow recessions. This all built up until it couldn't and we are not going to be able to work ourselves out of 30 or so years of tomfoolery in even 4 years. A lot of this is simply reverting to the historical mean.

to happen is blowing smoke up your wazoo. Heck we don't know for sure how the intended consequences are going to shake out. The UNintended consequences are gonna be even more thrilling.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That is perhaps how it is intended to happen. How the accountants explain it may be another thing.

I saw some stats for that, but am having difficulty finding them back again, in part because short term memory is not quite what it used to be. And stats are only for when you need to prve something <grin>. It makes sense, though. Money spent on luxury items won't support economy as well as money on everyday items.

Agreed. But salting away money in the coffers of the rich is surely not going to help the economy. I'm trying to think of a tax cut of some kind to stimulate the economy, instituted near the end of some year after 2000, where everyone suddenly had something like $400 more. It worked wonders to crank up the economy. Can't remember the details, whether it was Clinton or Bush 1.

Generally, you are right. Specifically, it seems that no one wants to go back to having pre-existing conditions that affect the ability to buy insurance, most everyone likes the idea of getting uninsured people on the insurance rolls, etc, etc. Repealing Obamacare in total is a nigh impossibility. Then it becomes which parts of that interlocking giant can you repeal without the whole thing falling apart.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WTF are you talking about now? WTF do accountants have to do with it? A president cannot ignore law and refuse to spend money. Geez, if it were that simple, every president would be doing it all the time on whatever they did not like. They are not. Nixon tried to and it was ruled illegal.
You're not doing anything here to impress folks with the knowledge of liberals. And see why I say it must be a thing about how your brain is wired? There is just no gettting through to you.

In other words, you have no stats and the claim is just typical lib crap to support class warfare.

And where did this economic gem come from? If a guy buys a Cadillac or a big boat built in the USA, why is that not supporting the economy, while buying corn flakes and toilet paper is? Actually in most states, buying that car not only supports jobs, it also generates sales tax fees, maybe gas guzzler fees too. Isn't that what you libs want? More money going into the govt? If it's spent on corn flakes, it almost is never taxed. In other words, you just failed economics 101.
Did you ever even take an economics course?

The economy was in recession. Bush cut taxes and it worked. The economy grew. Tax revenues grew. The deficit shrank and was down to $160bil in 2007. Why are you so quick to comment and so short on facts? How could you not know it was Bush who cut taxes. Those tax cuts have been in the forefront of all the lib attacks to this day. Remember when Obama was against coninuing those tax rates? Then he was for it, because it was essential to keeping the recovery going. Now he's against it again. He's as confused as you are.

We don't even know yet the ramifications of that giant, which I would call a monster. The world turned round without it. So, I don't buy refusing to repeal the whole damn thing because the monster might fall apart. That would be a very good thing. Especially parts like where Obama can give exemptions from the mandate to whomever he chooses. Like the million dollar steak house in SanFrancisco. But catholic charities, no waivers for them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Heh! Clinton got passed a 10% surtax on luxury items (yachts, jewelry, furs, etc.). Immediately after it was implemented, yacht builders began to fail. Hundreds of artisans and experienced workers lost their jobs. Why? Because someone who wants a million-dollar boat could save $100,000 by buying his boat from a yacht builder in the Bahamas.
Luxury item support the economy considerably more than the basics. Food, for example, has a very low profit margin. Purveyors of food depend on volume to earn a reasonable dollar profit. Luxury items have a high, often greater than 100%, imbedded profit.
It is PROFIT that fuels expansion, jobs, and innovation.

Do you honestly think the rich stuff their money in a mattress? They INVEST it in other enterprises or park it in an interest-bearing account at a bank or other financial institution. If you agree so far, do you honestly believe the bank just stacks up the money in a vault? The bank INVESTS it, via loans, so that other enterprises can be created or expanded.

Nonsense. It takes only a bill of one paragraph to revoke the entire enchilada.
Some may like this or that specific feature of the Affordable Care Act, but I ask you: Did you pick your spouse only because of her eye color and shape of her nose, or was it the entire package.
I picked mine based on breast size, but I'm an exception to the general rule...
As an aside: Pre-existing conditions NEVER affected the availability of insurance. Insurance was ALWAYS available, irrespective of pre-existing conditions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you need to check your facts on this one.
The luxury tax was signed into law by GHWB and was repealed by Clinton.
http://watchingamerica.com/News/94396/u-s-luxury-tax-%E2%80%94-a-total-failure /

This part seems to be accurate.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan Espen wrote:

You are absolutely correct; I made a hideous error. Please accept my thanks for the correction.
In retrospect, I don't think Clinton deserves a huge amount of credit for the repeal. The luxury tax was so grievous, so destructive, and so little productive, that virtually anyone, not just Clinton, would have agreed it was a ghastly idea in the first place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, which goes to show you even Republicans can do stupid things when they don't understand economics. One key difference though is conservative Republicans have pretty much always been against this sort of stupidity and were against it when Bush 41 did it. This together with Bush's other tax flip- flops are what cost him his second term.
But as pointed out, regardless of who did it, it's a stunning example of the consequences of taxes designed to get the rich in the name of class warfare. Instead it cost tens of thousands of middle class workers their jobs, put some boat builders out of business and nearly bankrupted a lot more.
I'd also point out that Clinton repealed it early in his term and still managed to wind up with a surplus by the end. Which shows some Democrats are not so inclined to wage class warfare. And that you can repeal some taxes, grow the economy, and close the deficit at the same time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

This is indeed an example of a luxury tax gone awry (whosoever it was). Seems like the folly of aiming at too limited a target. Eisenhower was the last Republican President with a surplus, and taxes had a high marginal rate of 70+%? Why is taxing the rich class warfare, but taxing the poor is not?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Typical. Instead of recognizing the destructive nature of taxation, the only problem you see is that it was just too limited. So, if we had put the 10% tax not just on boats, but on cars, expensive vacations, and Patek watches, it would have worked just fine, right?
And still waiting for an answer as to why a rich person buying a boat or a cadillac isn't helpful to the economy, but some modest person spending it on a Ford Taurus, corn flakes or toilet paper is.
I ask again, did you ever take a single course in economics?

It's class warfare because the rich are already paying taxes. The poor are not. It's class warfare because, like most libs, you refuse to even look at the facts of who is paying taxes and how much. No numbers, just baseless assertions that the rich are not paying a fair share of taxes already. The truth is that the bottom 50% are paying 2% of the income tax burden. The top 5% are paying 60%. The rich are already paying a huge portion of the total burden.
And "rich" per Obama is somone making over $200K. Does that sound rich to you? Here in NJ it's middle class. And are they even making that every year? How about the poor slob that has one investment that pays off or one super year in his business? He collects $250K in profit in one good year. He's suddenly rich? Obama talks as if it's billionaires, but he's really out to screw your neighbor. And when that money isn't enough, as will always be the case, then he'll be screwing YOU.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Largely because the poor don't pay ANY taxes. If you look at tax rates the bottom two quintiles have a negative tax rate because they get more in credits than they pay in taxes. (BTW: If you want to repeal all of the Bush tax changes you also have to include the change he made in expanding the eligibility of tax credits. If you look at the charts, you will note that the year the changes went into effect, the negative tax rate of the lower quintile nearly doubled and the second quintile was added as a segment with a negative tax rate.). That the rich got the most is a major lie.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

"The law, in its majesty, prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping in the gutter, stealing bread, and begging alms on the public way" - Voltaire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is a rather self-satisfied poster going around that suggests you buy local because the local guy could use your money to buy dance lessons, a football jersey, etc., while the Big Corp Guy would only use it build a third vacation home. Haven't gotten a good answer yet when I mention if the BCG doesn't build that third vacation house, a carpenter doesn't get to buy dance lessons for his kids, the landscaper (probably a small business) doesn't get to buy his kid a football jersey, etc. (BTW: THere are studies suggesting that the surtax actually cost more in unemployment payouts than it made back.

--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote: .

This is a variation on the "Broken Glass" theory of economics. There the example was that someone who breaks another's window is helping the economy by providing a job for a glazier. What the critics of the theory point out is that the owner of the broken window must now divert funds from other projects to have the window repaired.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(government's) actions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably so. Still if you have in fact seen and hear the "We built it" used by Romney BEFORE Obama made his gaff, we sure would like to see it. The first I heard of the phrase was in the controversy after Obama said "you didn't build that". And in all the media discussion of it I've never heard anyone say that Obama was replying to somthing that Romney started. Also, I would think in trying to defend Obama, the Dems would surely be running around pointing out that it was in response to what Romney had been saying. Haven't heard that, not once, until here.
In short, I think you're trying to re-write the way it happened. But if it happened the way you say, with all the press out there, it should be easy to find with Google.

Again, this is an example of where libs just can't be factual or are ignorant of how the US govt works. A president can't just decide to not spend money that has been approved and mandated under law. If Congress passes a budget that says $500mil is to be spent on progam XYZ, the president has to spend it. Which is logical, because then in areas of spending the president would have an absolute veto. Nixon tried to sequester some funds and not spend them. The Dems took it to court and it was found unconstitutional for a president to do so.
Not only does a president not have what you think they have, but they can't even line item veto spending in a bill they are signing into law. The Republicans and some Democrats have been trying to get that authority for the president for decades now. A line item veto is something most governors have. Who's against it? Why almost all of the Dems of course.

BS. It has worked. When Christie came to office, the NJ budget was $33bil and had been increasing sharply every year under Corzine. The Dems were bitching about the absolute necessity to increase taxers even more. Christie's latest budget, 3 year later, is $31.7bil. And he didn't raise taxes. What you fail to grasp again is that just like a president, a governor is not a dictator. In NJ the Dems have controlled the Assembly and Senate for decades. If Christie had a Republican legislature, things would be different.
Now, let's look at Obama. He DID have a House and Senate of his own party for his first two years. And spending went up 40%. We will have added $6tril in new debt under 4 years of Obama, going from $10tril to $16tril. And we're still piling in on at the rate of $1.2tril a YEAR.

BS. I lived in the 80s. I saw how the whole economy prospered when tax rates were reduced from 70% to 28%. The same thing happened when John Kennedy cut taxes. It's an outright lie to claim that prosperity for the majority of Americans decreased. Not only is it a lie, it's not even a good one. Why would anyone believe that high taxes, sending more money to govt, to piss away, leads to prosperity? It's also inconsistent with macroeconmics, going all the way back to Keynes.

Your ignorance of economics is just about total? Did you ever take even one course in economics? You completely ignore that one hell of a lot of a rich person's money goes to INVESTMENT. That is money that helps CREATE JOBS.
And unlike you, I don't engage in class warfare. In the words of Lincoln, you don't lift a weak man up by tearing a strong man down. Like Obama, if you had your way, you'd just seize all the wealth. Or turn the US into Europe. How is it working out for them with their high tax rates? They've had high unemployment for decades, not just recently.

Don't change the subject. Subsidies were not the issue. The cost of more regulation and who ultimately pays it was. There is no maybe in Kellogg's raising their cereal price if they have more regulation costs imposed on them. Again, it's economics 101. And yes, the fact that substitution can occur, with some consumers, faced with higher corn flake prices, considering buying some other product. But, so what? Follow that through to it's logical conclusion. If new regulations are imposed, they are not just imposed on Kellogg's. They are almost always imposed across the whole industry. So, the prices of the alternative products are similarly impacted.
And let's suppose that the prices of the alternate products are not impacted by regulation. Then Kelloggs LOSES sales. Their profits go down, they pay less in corp income tax. Maybe they lay off some workers. That is what is predicted by economics 101. And note I'm not saying there should be no regulation. Just that you are obviously in the dark about the cost and who ultimately pays for it, which is all of us.

I don't get it? Unless Obama is a liar on this, the issue is *not* costs, that shale oil is bad, etc. That is what you keep trying to drag into it, is it not? None of that is even at issue. Obama claims he's just not approving it because of environmental issues over the land that the PIPELINE is going to cross. Actually as usual, he tried to have it both ways. He said he's not saying he's against building the pipeline, he's just againt making up his mind now. Meanwhile, we have the unemployed losing their homes. Some hope and change.
Again, this is a consistent lib problem. Being wrong on even the most basic facts.

That nonsense could be used to permanently block ANY project. Do you have any idea of how many pipelines the USA has? Sure, we have a problem with one once in a while. But if we listened to you libs, we'd all be living in caves because on nonsense like the above. And similar nonsense that is blocking all kinds of projects is killing business and the economy.

The lie repeated. What specificaly did Bush do that made this "mess". You already showed that you don't understand the powers a president does and doesn not have. You thought a president doesn't have to spend the money that law says must be spent. So, now, tell us exactly what Bush is alleged to have done that caused the recession.
There have been recessions every few years forever. Some are worst than others. This one was a bad one. It was caused by excessive speculation in real estate, people buying houses they could not afford, expecting to get rich by them going up quickly. It was one investment you could not lose it. That kind of behavior has happened time and time again. Were you not with us for the stock market bubble of 1999?
So, tell, us what did Bush do by himself that created the recession?

More denialist whining. The Democrats controlled the House and Senate under Obama. The voters gave them the mandate they wanted. They had two years to do what they wanted to revive the economy. And they told us what they were doing would do exactly that. Obama even claimed Obamacare was critical to the recovery. He got that. He got his $800bil stimulus. He got to decide how to use most of the $700bil in TARP. So, it ain't gonna fly that it's those rascally Republicans that are standing in his way of success. It's just a very, very lame excuse.
Funny thing. I remember another president that inherited a big mess. An arguably equal or worse mess. We had high unemployment, double digit inflation, Tbonds and mortgage rates were at 16%, 50 Americans were being held hostage in Iran, the Soviets were expanding.... In 1984 did Reagan have to run on blaming Jimmy Carter? From Jan 1980 on you never heard Reagan blaming Carter. He didn't have to because he had a recovery plan and a leadership plan that worked. By this point in his administration we were creating 400,000 jobs a month. One month we hit 1.2 mil. Under Obama, we think 160,000 is a good month. And Reagan did it with the Democrats controlling the House the whole time. Those are the realities.

Assuming that is true, who's fault is it? Obama was in the WH and the Dems controlled Congress for 2 years. They could have done anything they wanted. Actually they did. One thing they spend enormous political capital on was Obamacare. So, clearly they thought that was more important than doing something about those mortgages.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.