6 Dec

Remember when Obama said this? Neither does he [Reader Post]

                                       

Way back in 2011:

YouTube Preview Image

On July 2

2, 2011 President Obama offered raising the debt ceiling last summer by closing loopholes and not raising taxes.

OBAMA: What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.

Today:

“If we’re going to raise revenues that are sufficient to balance with the very tough cuts that we’ve already made and the further reforms in entitlements that I’m prepared to make, that we’re going to have to see the rates on the top 2 percent go up. And we’re not going to be able to get a deal without it,” he told Bloomberg News in his first interview since the election.

“It’s not me being stubborn. It’s not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math,” he added.

It’s not Obama being stubborn. It’s Obama being dishonest.

And what it is I always say? Liberals have zero long term memory and Obama knows it.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Economy, Politics, propaganda bureau, Taxes and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, December 6th, 2012 at 5:00 am
| 348 views

32 Responses to Remember when Obama said this? Neither does he [Reader Post]

  1. Nan G says: 1

    So, was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    He is lying now.
    He has slithered from his stand-by fallacy of the Straw Man to his fallacy of the Band Wagon and now he is relying on the fallacy of the False Dilemma.

    There are always multiple ways to skin a cat or to get to a desired total number.
    When Obama tries to paint us all into one tiny ”or-else” corner he is lying.

    ReplyReply
  2. Hard Right says: 2

    More proof the dems want to hurt Americans just for political gain.

    http://freebeacon.com/mcconnell-offers-geithner-cliff-plan-as-amendment/

    ReplyReply
  3. John says: 3

    Obama is in a much stronger position now Nov was a big victory

    ReplyReply
  4. Hard Right says: 4

    Obama is in a much stronger position now Nov was a big victory “

    Much stronger position to screw over the little guy for political gain, maybe.
    Big win? No. Narrow margin popular vote wise.

    ReplyReply
  5. Nan G says: 5

    @Hard Right: You’re correct, Hard Right.
    Some numbers’ guy was on TV talking about the ”win.”
    Had only 50,000 votes (total) in a few close states gone the other way Romney would have had the same electoral college ”landslide” Obama is claiming.

    Two things: most of Obama’s margin in popular vote came from CA where he won by 20 points.
    But he could have gotten the same CA Electoral College votes had he won by 2%.

    And also, EVERY Senator and EVERY Representative was also elected.
    Just the same as Obama.
    His victory carries no more weight than theirs do.
    He certainly has no right to usurp the Congressional Power of the Purse Strings just because ”he won.”
    That garbage about insisting on the right to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling to infinity is purely unconstitutional.
    The courts wouldn’t let him have it even if the Congress rolled over for him.

    ReplyReply
  6. Scott in Oklahoma says: 6

    Today he says we’re gonna run off the cliff, on Octobr 23rd he assured the world, during the debate with Romney, that “Don’t worry, sequestration won’t happen”. Pretty confident talk before the election, lies of course; I don’t think he has the ability to tell the truth about anything, or be absolutely honest about anything. The only thing I can remember him bein honest about was the terrifying statement he made before the ’08 election about fundementally changing the country; he’s accomplished that.
    He has a Charlie Manson like ability to convince people to do his bidding and support him, in fact he makes Manson look like a rank amatuer. And he’s been responsible for more deaths than Manson has, by a long shot.

    ReplyReply
  7. Nan G says: 7

    @Scott in Oklahoma:
    Geoff (who came up with the jobs’ graph that compares with/without stimulus and reality) has succinctly explained how Obama gets all his policies:
    Commenting on this:

    The reason can be as simple as a visceral hostility and opposition to American grandness.

    By what right do we do these things, when others in the world are suffering?

    Geoff wrote this:

    Yeah – that’s the social worker part. Then you add in the *takes a big toke and talks in that breath-sucked-in voice* “wouldn’t it be great if we took all the money from the rich people and spread it around?” */end toke* silly bull session stuff and you’ve captured most of his policy.

    http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/i-think-we-all-saw-this-coming/#comments

    ReplyReply
  8. johngalt says: 8

    Obama and the liberal/progressives have made their bed with the campaigns they ran this year. Kinda hard for them to turn away from that now and accept any compromise.

    Now the rest of us have to dirty ourselves in the bed they made. Disgusting.

    ReplyReply
  9. oil guy from Aberta says: 9

    I buy much oil field equipment- most of it from Texas. I need plenty of depreciation allowance for items that can become “boat anchors” if the rig activity slows down. Close the loopholes and I quit buying capital expenditures. Pulling out of N Dakota is so very simple. Saskatchewan wants drilling iron. They have 40% of the Bakken activity.

    ReplyReply
  10. Scott in Oklahoma says: 10

    @oil guy from Aberta: If we were ever to overhaul the tax code, the reason would be to spread the revenue wider, make more citizens pay “their fair share” all the way down the income level. I am sure businessess would end up with a lot different tax picture as well, one which would encourage growth, business developement and capital expenditures. I wouldn’t call depreciation a “loophole” as much as I would call it a business expense which comes off the total revenue, expenses deducted in the process of developing the profit/loss statement which is a tool in figuring the taxes due.

    ReplyReply
  11. Hard Right says: 11

    Gee, what a shock. Not one post from lib#2, tom, or greg.
    Notice how they duck iron clad proof of liberal hypocrisy?

    ReplyReply
  12. Richard Wheeler says: 12

    NanG re#5 Once again I must call TOTAL B.S on your claim that 50,000 Obama votes placed anywhere for Romney would have secured an electoral victory. Not even close. This election was not as close as 2000 or 2004. Get over it.

    ReplyReply
  13. Hard Right says: 13

    @Richard Wheeler:

    2.8% margin of victory in the pop vote, rich.
    BTW, how about commenting on obama saying one thing then, then doing a 180?

    ReplyReply
  14. Richard Wheeler says: 14

    H.R As you know “W” lost the pop. vote in 2000 and won by 2.4% in 08. E.C wins obviously much closer than Obama’s 2012 victory.
    73% of American electorate asking for Repubs. and Dems. to work together on this. Concur–Personally think Simpson -Bowles a good place to start.

    BTW Looking to 2016 Your worst nightmare. HRC preferred by 63% of electorate including 35% of Repubs. Good news is we got a LONG way to go.

    ReplyReply
  15. johngalt says: 15

    @Richard Wheeler:

    It probably depends on what election results you are using, as to whether it’s 50k votes, or if 50k votes is even close to the number that was needed. I don’t buy that 50k vote number, but I do think that the election was much, much closer than Obama and the Dems are asserting it was.

    Using CNN’s numbers for the election results, only 180,000 votes changed from Obama to Romney would have won Romney the election, spread over only 4 states (NV, OH, VA, FL).

    Now, is 50k close to 180k? In terms of absolutes, no, it isn’t. However, considering the total number of votes cast, around 121.8 Million, there is very little difference in 50k and 180k. It’s a matter of perspective, then, isn’t it?

    And regarding the 2000 and 2004 elections, I agree that the 2000 election was “much” closer, but I cannot agree about the 2004 election.

    In the 2004 election, only a one state swing would have given Kerry the Presidency over Bush, and out of the possible one state swings, only Ohio was closer, with 60,000 votes as the number required. Florida, on the other hand, was won by Bush by over 380,000, meaning that 190,000 votes would have needed to be swung Kerry’s way. And in terms of overall votes, again, 60k isn’t that much different than 180k, when we are talking about 120 Million Plus votes being cast.

    Anyone who looks closely at the numbers from this past election can only conclude that the election, while having a wide margin in terms of EC votes, was much closer in terms of the votes required to change the election result.

    ReplyReply
  16. Richard Wheeler says: 16

    J.G You’re rambling . Kerry wins in 04 with about 80,000 more votes in Ohio ( or 40,000 swing.). He didn’t need Fl, or any other state to win.
    Romney needed Fl, Ohio, Nev and Va. to get E.C win. Would need A LOT more than Nan’s 5o.ooo swing to do that. CNN’S 180,000 probably low but closer.To cherry pick that 180,000 is not practical.
    Didn’t say this election wasn’t close. Said it wasn’t as close as 2000 and 2004 in popular vote or E.C results.That’s a Fact.

    ReplyReply
  17. johngalt says: 17

    @Richard Wheeler:

    73% of American electorate asking for Repubs. and Dems. to work together on this. Concur–Personally think Simpson -Bowles a good place to start.

    Good, then you understand that Obama and the WH asserting his “I Won” attitude is wrong. After all, the Republicans gained seats in the House, correct? And the last I checked, the Federal government had THREE branches, not one.

    So any talk that Obama gained some sort of ‘mandate’ to raise taxes on the “rich” is pure BS, just like it would be pure BS to suggest that since the GOP gained members in the House, that the electorate gave them some sort of ‘mandate’ to hold firm on taxes.

    And as for the Simpson-Bowles plan, I might agree with you, if it meant either that or “going off the cliff”. At least with the plan, the Defense spending wouldn’t just arbitrarily be cut, leaving many of our soldiers overseas without the necessary support they need to do what we ask of them. I’m not saying that cuts to Defense shouldn’t happen, just that to arbitrarily say, “let’s cut $150 Billion from Defense” is the wrong thing to do, even though many liberal/progressives would agree to doing such a thing.

    As a former soldier, Rich, you ought to realize, as well as any of us ex-military members, that the wrong cuts to military budgets could easily leave those soldiers out in the field without the necessary support to even survive, let alone complete missions effectively.

    And the Simpson-Bowles plan only calls for $4 Trillion in cuts over the next decade. Do you realize that doing that still leaves deficits of over $800-900 Billion per year? Still higher than under any other President we’ve ever had? And the only thing Obama seems to want to do is raise taxes and cut defense spending, without touching anything else. UNSUSTAINABLE!

    We conservatives will wait patiently for you liberals, and liberal/progressives, to criticize Obama for not being serious about fixing the financial mess in DC.

    ReplyReply
  18. Hard Right says: 18

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Too bad obama doesn’t want to “work together”. He wants to crush the GOP at the expense of the country.

    ReplyReply
  19. johngalt says: 19

    @Richard Wheeler:

    J.G You’re rambling . Kerry wins in 04 with about 80,ooo more votes in Ohio (40,ooo swing.).

    No, I wasn’t. And according to CNN’s 2004 numbers, Bush won Ohio by more than 119,000 votes, and I rounded up to 120k for easy math. That means a 60k vote swing was needed, per the numbers I saw.

    Romney needed Fl and Ohio and Va. to get E.C win. Would need A LOT more than Nan’s 5o.ooo swing to do that.

    Actually, those three states wouldn’t have been enough. Romney needed one more, and NV was a mix of the lowest EC votes needed, plus the lowest difference in popular vote within the state.

    As for Nan’s 50k, I did say this;

    I don’t buy that 50k vote number, but I do think that the election was much, much closer than Obama and the Dems are asserting it was.

    Are you having a reading comprehension problem today?

    Didn’t say this election wasn’t close. Said it wasn’t as close as 2000 and 2004 in popular vote or E.C results.That’s a Fact.

    And I agreed with that regarding 2000 election, Rich. But in 2004, the biggest difference was that Kerry only needed a 1 state swing, to gain the EC votes, while in 2012 election, Romney needed 4. Other than that, the actual vote swing numbers are statistically the same, considering the total number of votes tallied.

    I used CNN numbers, Rich. All of which are easily verifiable by someone doing a simple search on the net. And considering statistical evidence, my comments were right on the money, and in no way “rambling”.

    ReplyReply
  20. johngalt says: 20

    @Hard Right:

    Too bad obama doesn’t want to “work together”. He wants to crush the GOP at the expense of the country.

    Exactly, and the requests that Obama has made regarding the “fiscal cliff” situation are evidence of this. I’m not quite sure how people can equate $160 Billion per year(higher taxes plus Defense cuts) with what will be $1 Trillion PLUS deficits.

    Now, maybe one could make the claim that the GOP isn’t serious about it either, considering their reluctance on tax increases, but at least they can give a reason supported by historical evidence as to why they do not want to raise taxes. Obama and the Dems combat any criticism with talks about “fairness” only.

    ReplyReply
  21. Richard Wheeler says: 21

    J.G. Bottom line ONE more time. By ANY measure the 2012 election was not as close as 2000 or 2004 election in popular vote or electoral college. There it is.

    BTW To suggest 60,000 swing in Ohio, is the same as 180,000 votes cherry picked and spread perfectly over 4 states is truly “stretching it” way beyond reality.

    H.R. AND J.G I believe that after all the posturing Repubs. and Dems. will reach an agreement. It’s what the people voted for.

    ReplyReply
  22. johngalt says: 22

    @Richard Wheeler:

    2012 election was not as close as 2000 or 2004 election in popular vote or electoral college. There it is.

    Ok, Rich, let’s try this again. Maybe you can apply some long-lost math skills and/or actually read and understand what I’ve written.

    I’ve agreed with you, two times previously, and again now, for a total of THREE times, that 2012 was not as close as 2000 election. I don’t think that I need to go into the details here, even though you still use it as some sort of example of my disagreement with you. Which I haven’t, at least not for the 2000/2012 election comparison.

    Now, as for 2004, you state that the 2012 election was not as close to 2004 election, in either EC or popular vote. For the EC vote, I’ve agreed with that. Twice now. Kerry only needed a one state swing while Romney would have needed four states to swing his way.

    But the popular votes needed for those swings tells a much different story, Rich. That one state swing that Kerry needed was Ohio, which Bush won with 120k vote difference. Therefore, 60k votes would have needed to swing Kerry’s way, in Ohio, for him to take the Presidency.

    In the 2012 election, Romney needed four states, NV, OH, VA, and FL, to swing his way to gain the Presidency. And in those four states, a total of 360k votes were the difference in margin of victory, meaning that only 180k votes needed to swing Romney’s way.

    Going by those votes needing to be swung the other way, compared to the total votes tallied, we can see that in 2004, .05% of the total vote total needed to be swung in favor of Kerry. In the 2012 election, that percent was only .14% of the total vote needed to be swung in favor of Romney. Statistically, the numbers are extremely close to one another.

    I’m not sure why you are being so contrary, Rich, when I am presenting factual information, some of it in agreement with you, that supports the assertions I made. It’s almost as if you are trying to have an argument when no actual opposition has been given to your overall position.

    ReplyReply
  23. Richard Wheeler says: 23

    J.G When you convince me 180,000 votes to win 4 states is as easy as 60,ooo to win one,I’m all in.
    Go Irish

    ReplyReply
  24. johngalt says: 24

    @Richard Wheeler:

    BTW To suggest 60,000 swing in Ohio, is the same as 180,000 votes cherry picked and spread perfectly over 4 states is truly “stretching it” way beyond reality.

    No, Rich, it’s not. And if you understood statistics, then you’d realize that it isn’t “stretching” it. And those states I chose weren’t “cherry picked and spread perfectly”. They happen to be the “swing” states in this past election, plus NV which was also a very close, very contested race.

    I’m not quite sure why you are being so obtuse about the 2012 Presidential race being close, especially when you make a comment that “73% of Americans are asking Repubs and Dems to work together on this”. That’s kind of what the complete election results tell us, considering the Presidential, Senate, and House elections. And I’ve agreed with that statement you made.

    It’s almost as if you are arguing just to argue.

    ReplyReply
  25. Nan G says: 25

    Obama ended up with 4.7 million more popular votes than Romney.
    2,921,106 of those were all in California.
    1,679,071 were in New York.
    That’s a total of 4,600,177.
    My point was that only a few votes elsewhere had to go the other way in a few states for the entire election to have swing BIG (in the Electoral College) for Romney instead of Obama.

    ReplyReply
  26. johngalt says: 26

    @Richard Wheeler:

    When you convince me 180,000 votes to win 4 states is as easy as 60,ooo to win one,I’m all in.

    Ok, Rich, then try this;

    Those four states need an average of only 45,000 vote swings, vice the 2004 vote swing of 60,000 needed for one state. Can you agree that swinging 45,000 votes is easier than swinging 60,000 votes, for one state? I’m assuming that you answered yes. So, we have four states that statistically, and individually, should be easier to swing than one state needing 60,000. So, what evens up the difficulty, relatively speaking, is that in 2012 there were four states needed, vice one in 2004.

    Again, statistically speaking, the 2004 and 2012 presidential race was near even. This is further seen when you look at the total overall votes cast in each one, as the popular vote was about as similar a result as you can find between two presidential elections.

    -2004 election Bush with 62.04 million votes, Kerry with 59.03 million votes. Bush with 51.243%, Kerry with 48.757%.
    -2012 election Obama with 62.6 million votes, Romney with 59.14 million votes. Obama with 51.421%, Romney with 48.579%.

    ReplyReply
  27. Wm T Sherman says: 27

    @Hard Right:

    BTW, how about commenting on obama saying one thing then, then doing a 180?

    Richard Wheeler has not one word to say about this. Only wants to talk about election scoring as if it were a football game.

    BTW, how about commenting on obama saying one thing then, then doing a 180?

    Do you or do you not have any comment on this? A response. An opinion. Not tu quoque, not ad hominem, not misdirection. Any comment on this.

    ReplyReply
  28. Richard Wheeler says: 28

    J.G. As you know all 4 swing states mentioned were won by Obama FL-77,000 Ohio 108,ooo Va. 116,000 and Nev.66,ooo— Rounded to approx. 367,000 total. Romney needed all 4 to get E.C WIN
    2004 As agreed Kerry lost Ohio by approx. 119,ooo. He only needed Ohio to get E.C. WIN

    ” Statistics” be damned—- Kerry came closer to winning in 04 than Romney did in 2012
    NanG. See above

    Last time I never said 2012 election wasn’t close, just not as close as o4. Thanks Correction

    Sherm and H.R A pol changing his mind—-how unique is that!

    ReplyReply
  29. Hard Right says: 29

    @Wm T Sherman:

    More of that liberal blindness.

    ReplyReply
  30. Nan G says: 30

    Here’s why we are falling off the fiscal cliff:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-equates-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html
    Our median income for the group of ALL working people per day is $137.
    BUT…..
    Our Federal WELFARE spending per day is already $168 for every household in poverty.
    Average all wages into an hourly average and it is $25.03/hour.
    BUT…..
    Our Federal WELFARE spending per hour divided by every household in poverty is $30.60.

    Lou Dobbs: http://video.foxnews.com/v/2017186123001/single-moms-do-better-with-welfare/
    More: http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html

    And that’s just welfare!

    How did “the Left” destroy so much of our national spirit so quickly?

    ReplyReply
  31. Hard Right says: 31

    How did “the Left” destroy so much of our national spirit so quickly?

    They didn’t do it quickly. It’s been ongoing since the great depression. FDR really got the ball rolling. The GOP failed to really roll back any of it, and has helped out at times.

    ReplyReply
  32. Pingback: Obama the Magnificent makes the debt crisis vanish | Flopping Aces

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>