Just 4% of People Want to Cut Deficit by Tax Increases Alone

[BigSkyBob]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Reductions in the rate of growth of government spending are not "cuts." They are increases in spending.

[Holmes]

Thought Obama's plan was a little of column a, a little of column b.... wait, why am I taking the bait?

[King]

This is true because I said so.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Reductions in the rate of growth of government spending are not "cuts." They are increases in spending.

[memphis]

Sometimes, reading helps. Even just the headline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-still-pushing-for-big-deal-on-debt/2011/07/15/gIQArjbFGI_story.html?hpid=z1

[Lief 🗽]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Nope. Wrong.

[NVGonzalez]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Nope. Wrong.

[Simfan34]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Nope. Wrong.

83% Cuts
17% Tax hikes

Wrong. Very wrong.

[BigSkyBob]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Nope. Wrong.

83% Cuts
17% Tax hikes

Wrong. Very wrong.

Really? Again, this comes down to the semantic meaning of the word "cut." A "cut" in spending is an absolute reduction in spending. A reduction in the rate of increase of spending is an increase in spending, but, in the convoluted logic of Washington it is a "cut."

People whom claim that Obama's plan can be described as being X% cuts, and Y% taxes aren't telling the Truth because there simply isn't an Obama plan, and, so, there are no numbers to crunch. The only actual proposal offered by Obama are to extend the temporary reduction in the payroll tax. So, the only concrete item that Obama has offered is properly scored as increasing the debt.


And, again, even these numbers have a track record of mendacity. Historically, tax increases also have been scored as budget cuts by claiming savings in interest. "Interest saving" shouldn't be scored as either a tax, or a "cut." The national debt will continue to grow, and interest paid on the debt. Again, slowing the rate of increase in the debt is passed off as a tax cut.

[BigSkyBob]

Sometimes, reading helps. Even just the headline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-still-pushing-for-big-deal-on-debt/2011/07/15/gIQArjbFGI_story.html?hpid=z1

A careful reading would indicate that if Obama hasn't offered a plan.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Sometimes, reading helps. Even just the headline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-still-pushing-for-big-deal-on-debt/2011/07/15/gIQArjbFGI_story.html?hpid=z1

A careful reading would indicate that if Obama hasn't offered a plan.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Sometimes, reading helps. Even just the headline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-still-pushing-for-big-deal-on-debt/2011/07/15/gIQArjbFGI_story.html?hpid=z1

A careful reading would indicate that if Obama hasn't offered a plan.

So is your claim basically that if a nonexistent plan DID exist it would be entirely tax increases, because that's how Obama rolls? Or something? What exactly are you trying to say?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Nope. Wrong.

83% Cuts
17% Tax hikes

Wrong. Very wrong.

Really? Again, this comes down to the semantic meaning of the word "cut." A "cut" in spending is an absolute reduction in spending. A reduction in the rate of increase of spending is an increase in spending, but, in the convoluted logic of Washington it is a "cut."

People whom claim that Obama's plan can be described as being X% cuts, and Y% taxes aren't telling the Truth because there simply isn't an Obama plan, and, so, there are no numbers to crunch. The only actual proposal offered by Obama are to extend the temporary reduction in the payroll tax. So, the only concrete item that Obama has offered is properly scored as increasing the debt.


And, again, even these numbers have a track record of mendacity. Historically, tax increases also have been scored as budget cuts by claiming savings in interest. "Interest saving" shouldn't be scored as either a tax, or a "cut." The national debt will continue to grow, and interest paid on the debt. Again, slowing the rate of increase in the debt is passed off as a tax cut.

Simple mind+over confidence ≠ smarts

A reduction in the growth of spending is considered a cut because the agencies "cut" will have to reduce services in order to stay within their budget.  I know "inflation" might be somewhat abstract, and therefore a completely foreign concept to you, but it does actually play a central role in our spending habits.

If we had an economy with no inflation, your elementary understanding of the way the money system works might have some standing in this argument.

I won't even go into how different programs might see different levels of inflation/spending growth due to factors like, oh, say, population growth.  Your head might explode.

[opebo]

In fact the economically sound and reasonable 'solution' to the deficit would be 100% tax hikes.  What 'the people' want is usually what is worst for them, the silly asses.

[Simfan34]

In fact the economically sound and reasonable 'solution' to the deficit would be 100% tax hikes.  What 'the people' want is usually what is worst for them, the silly asses.

The first assertion is wrong, the second is correct.

[Mehmentum]

Which is, basically, Obama's plan.

Nope. Wrong.

[opebo]

In fact the economically sound and reasonable 'solution' to the deficit would be 100% tax hikes.  What 'the people' want is usually what is worst for them, the silly asses.

The first assertion is wrong, the second is correct.

Thanks for confirming my points.