Jamie_B Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 http://www.truth-out.org/eight-false-things-public-knows-prior-election-day64486 [quote]There are a number of things the public "knows" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs. Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there: 1) President Obama tripled the deficit. Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion. 2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy. Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been. 3) President Obama bailed out the banks. Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama. 4) The stimulus didn't work. Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs. 5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts. 6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion. 7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to. 8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget. This stuff really matters. If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country could go broke. If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn't work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression. If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes. All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|RayDoggBengal| Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 Why do you want to confuse people with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 ^^^ Because truth has a well-known liberal bias. And Jamie hates America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 [quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1287953815' post='934022'] ^^^ Because truth has a well-known liberal bias. And Jamie hates America. [/quote] You forgot to call me a pinko communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 ^^^ that goes without saying, Stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 [quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1287961663' post='934157'] ^^^ that goes without saying, Stalin. [/quote] AH! So the "B" in Jamie_B stands for [b]Bolshevik[/b]! It all makes sense now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullichicken25 Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote]1) President Obama tripled the deficit. Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.[/quote] this ones a bit misleading...makes it sound like he hasn't increased the deficit it hasn't trippled, but the debt has certainlly increased at a higher percentage than in previous years a couple minutes on wikipedia with a calculator tells me that for most of the 2000's it grew by just over 7% a year. Then in 08 it shot up 10%, then 18% in 09, then about 8.5% in what i had availble for 10 its also entirely possible that im wrong..i spent my economics classes wathcing episodes of 24 on my laptop so i dont actually claim to know shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='mullichicken25' timestamp='1288025776' post='934497'] this ones a bit misleading...makes it sound like he hasn't increased the deficit it hasn't trippled, but the debt has certainlly increased at a higher percentage than in previous years a couple minutes on wikipedia with a calculator tells me that for most of the 2000's it grew by just over 7% a year. Then in 08 it shot up 10%, then 18% in 09, then about 8.5% in what i had availble for 10 its also entirely possible that im wrong..i spent my economics classes wathcing episodes of 24 on my laptop so i dont actually claim to know shit [/quote] you're assuming the deficit is like a credit card that bush handed over upon obamas election and any and all spending from prior to obama stopped. which isnt correct, while some huge spending on the deficit ovvured post obama election, he didnt necessarily put them in place, thus not his spending... the president who approved the spending or set in action the policies that spent are moreimportant than the year in which they occured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote]7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit [b](compare that to the military budget!)[/b] Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.[/quote] This is supposed to be a non-partisan, neutral website... right? Just thought it interesting this was their push button comment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1288028566' post='934526'] This is supposed to be a non-partisan, neutral website... right? Just thought it interesting this was their push button comment... [/quote] Is it wrong? I mean lets compare it to the military budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288032596' post='934558'] Is it wrong? I mean lets compare it to the military budget. [/quote] No... but if you're going to play that game there are several, SEVERAL budgets that it could be compared to... just was funny the military budget was the chosen one. Which, typically, is a liberal hot button. Hence, my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1288035297' post='934575'] No... but if you're going to play that game there are several, SEVERAL budgets that it could be compared to... just was funny the military budget was the chosen one. Which, typically, is a liberal hot button. Hence, my question. [/quote] So then you would have been more comfortable if they said welfare....got ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288036846' post='934581'] So then you would have been more comfortable if they said welfare....got ya. [/quote] Not uncomfortable, or comfortable, either way... just thought it was funny reading it. when I read anything political I attempt to read if with the full knowledge of the writer's slant or bias... in the past you've touted this website as being straight down the middle with no bias. I just thought it was comical when we went from talking about a budget item that can't increase the deficit (SS), to ones that can, the first this writer mentioned, humorously, was military. There are a bunch of em... but, whatever. This website it impartial, and straight-lined. Jamie said so. Good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1287951055' post='933924'] [b]3) President Obama bailed out the banks.[/b] Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama. [/quote] Bullshit. He voted for that shit like all of the other cowards. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-213 http://metavid.org/wiki/Stream:Senate_proceeding_10-01-08_00/2:38:38/2:53:07 I like how all the shit he said the bailout was designed to prevent still fucking happened anyway. Anyone who voted for that piece of shit needs to be gone. Bye Harry Reid, you are an h-mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1288038278' post='934595'] Not uncomfortable, or comfortable, either way... just thought it was funny reading it. when I read anything political I attempt to read if with the full knowledge of the writer's slant or bias... in the past you've touted this website as being straight down the middle with no bias. I just thought it was comical when we went from talking about a budget item that can't increase the deficit (SS), to ones that can, the first this writer mentioned, humorously, was military. There are a bunch of em... but, whatever. This website it impartial, and straight-lined. Jamie said so. Good enough. [/quote] Well there ya go, it's bias therefore we can dismiss it. Not that there isnt truth to the argument, but it has bias so the argument is therefore null and void. Bias means we can dismiss truth apparently. Nevermind you display your own biases all the time too, as do I, as does everyone here, but hey if it's bias we can dismiss it because it doesnt jive with my own biases. Isnt that how it works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1288038712' post='934599'] Bullshit. He voted for that shit like all of the other cowards. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-213 http://metavid.org/wiki/Stream:Senate_proceeding_10-01-08_00/2:38:38/2:53:07 I like how all the shit he said the bailout was designed to prevent still fucking happened anyway. Anyone who voted for that piece of shit needs to be gone. [b]Bye Harry Reid[/b], you are an h-mo. [/quote] Trust me, I'd love a chance to kick him in the nuts as hard as I possibly could. With a chainsaw tied to my foot. However, you do realize that our only other option is Sharron "I'm nutty as a fucking fruitcake and probably mentally retarded to boot" Angle, right? Sharron fucking Angle. This isn't the lesser of two evils, we're fucked regardless of the outcome... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1288039395' post='934606'] Trust me, I'd love a chance to kick him in the nuts as hard as I possibly could. With a chainsaw tied to my foot. However, you do realize that our only other option is Sharron "I'm nutty as a fucking fruitcake and probably mentally retarded to boot" Angle, right? Sharron fucking Angle. This isn't the lesser of two evils, we're fucked regardless of the outcome... [/quote] Vote for somebody else, there are five people on the ballot. Stand by your principles, voting should not be a defensive mechanism to keep someone else out, you vote for who represents you best. I know all of our choices are pieces of shit, but the smallest turd I found was Fasano. He is mildly radical in the unimportant (to me) issues, but he at least has the balls to put actual ideas on his website rather than vague stances that don't say jack shit like on the other candidates websites. Oh yeah, and fuck all of the candidates who spam my mailbox with useless ads. If I get a broken Netflix due to some overzelous spam, I will be in a murderous mindstate. What makes those pieces of literal shit even more wothless is that they are just mudslinging and don't actually have any concrete ideas. It's all garbage like "Harry Reid wants to give sex offenders Viagra". Fuck that. If you resort to that kind of sleaze RIGHT TO MY GODDAMN FACE, what are you doing behind closed doors? Convince me otherwise to a different candidate, but I'm not voting for a candidate to cancel another candidate out. Sharron Angle is the worst possible choice though, by far. I'm most likely going to go with "None of these candidates." They all suck pretty hard. Yup, Nevada is fucked. The other senator (Ensign) is a piece of shit too. I can't wait to vote him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1288039941' post='934611'] Vote for somebody else, there are five people on the ballot. Stand by your principles, voting should not be a defensive mechanism to keep someone else out, you vote for who represents you best. I know all of our choices are pieces of shit, but the smallest turd I found was Fasano. He is mildly radical in the unimportant (to me) issues, but he at least has the balls to put actual ideas on his website rather than vague stances that don't say jack shit like on the other candidates websites. Oh yeah, and fuck all of the candidates who spam my mailbox with useless ads. If I get a broken Netflix due to some overzelous spam, I will be in a murderous mindstate. What makes those pieces of literal shit even more wothless is that they are just mudslinging and don't actually have any concrete ideas. It's all garbage like "Harry Reid wants to give sex offenders Viagra". Fuck that. If you resort to that kind of sleaze RIGHT TO MY GODDAMN FACE, what are you doing behind closed doors? Convince me otherwise to a different candidate, but I'm not voting for a candidate to cancel another candidate out. Sharron Angle is the worst possible choice though, by far. [b]I'm most likely going to go with "None of these candidates." They all suck pretty hard.[/b] Yup, Nevada is fucked. The other senator (Ensign) is a piece of shit too. I can't wait to vote him out. [/quote] You and me both... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1288039941' post='934611'] Vote for somebody else, there are five people on the ballot. Stand by your principles, voting should not be a defensive mechanism to keep someone else out, you vote for who represents you best. I know all of our choices are pieces of shit, but the smallest turd I found was Fasano. He is mildly radical in the unimportant (to me) issues, but he at least has the balls to put actual ideas on his website rather than vague stances that don't say jack shit like on the other candidates websites. Oh yeah, and fuck all of the candidates who spam my mailbox with useless ads. If I get a broken Netflix due to some overzelous spam, I will be in a murderous mindstate. What makes those pieces of literal shit even more wothless is that they are just mudslinging and don't actually have any concrete ideas. It's all garbage like "Harry Reid wants to give sex offenders Viagra". Fuck that. If you resort to that kind of sleaze RIGHT TO MY GODDAMN FACE, what are you doing behind closed doors? Convince me otherwise to a different candidate, but I'm not voting for a candidate to cancel another candidate out. Sharron Angle is the worst possible choice though, by far. I'm most likely going to go with "None of these candidates." They all suck pretty hard. Yup, Nevada is fucked. The other senator (Ensign) is a piece of shit too. I can't wait to vote him out. [/quote] I agree... I have said it a thousand times. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 sadly it also insures that the greater evil might win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288039344' post='934604'] Well there ya go, it's bias therefore we can dismiss it. Not that there isnt truth to the argument, but it has bias so the argument is therefore null and void. Bias means we can dismiss truth apparently. Nevermind you display your own biases all the time too, as do I, as does everyone here, but hey if it's bias we can dismiss it because it doesnt jive with my own biases. Isnt that how it works? [/quote] woooo, there big fella... I never said it was dismissed. If you'll read back... let me outline it for you. 1) Jamie, in the past, championed www.truth-out.org as an impartial, unbiased website (I believe it was in a post about what sources everyone uses for information)... 2) Jamie posts an article from said website. 3) Vol_Bengal asks if there is a writer bias, from "unbiased" website, due to a particular section of the article. 4) Jamie admits writer bias assuming Vol_Bengal is dismissing the article. So, in short, the article definitely has merit... but your assertion that the website you champion as impartial, and unbiased, by your very last post to me, contradicts that assertion. Isn't that what you always say? That different news outlets should just be honest and advertise their bias / slant right up front? That seems contradictory to what you've done in regards to this particular website, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1288093201' post='934775'] woooo, there big fella... I never said it was dismissed. If you'll read back... let me outline it for you. 1) Jamie, in the past, championed www.truth-out.org as an impartial, unbiased website (I believe it was in a post about what sources everyone uses for information)... 2) Jamie posts an article from said website. 3) Vol_Bengal asks if there is a writer bias, from "unbiased" website, due to a particular section of the article. 4) Jamie admits writer bias assuming Vol_Bengal is dismissing the article. So, in short, the article definitely has merit... but your assertion that the website you champion as impartial, and unbiased, by your very last post to me, contradicts that assertion. Isn't that what you always say? That different news outlets should just be honest and advertise their bias / slant right up front? That seems contradictory to what you've done in regards to this particular website, no? [/quote] When did I say that? In fact I believe I said in the NPR thread that nothing is void of bias. (and NPR comes about as close to non-bais as you can get.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted October 28, 2010 Report Share Posted October 28, 2010 Hiring a bunch of census workers and IRS workers and what ever gov't job Obamma jamma spits out is not the jobs needed. I can't to watch election night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2010 [quote name='STRAYCAT' timestamp='1288309986' post='935419'] Hiring a bunch of census workers and IRS workers and what ever gov't job Obamma jamma spits out is not the jobs needed. I can't to watch election night [/quote] IRS workers? What the heck are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.