Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (55344)	9/6/2012 6:25:32 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 71588

No, it means Romney = Obama on the economy. Paul is the only guy that gets economics... we made that point before.... guess you forgot. So why vote Obama? Cause he's much less likely to get us into war with IRAN... (of course Paul is better there too, but as you say I'll take second best). We should note that war with Iran is the worst thing that could happen economically too... so Obama may have the edge on the economy in that sense. ... as well as having a president that could actually talk to others in the world.... instead of drool. DAK

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (55344)	9/6/2012 10:39:50 PM
From: greatplains_guy	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

He is a liberal pretending to be a libertarian to try to get people to reelect the disastrous Obama.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (55344)	10/5/2012 8:52:44 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Obama's $4 Trillion Lie Exposed by His Own Budget Fri, Oct 05 2012 00:00:00 E A14_ISSUES Posted 10/04/2012 06:45 PM ET Accuracy: At one point in Wednesday night's debate President Obama boasted about his "balanced" plan to cut the projected 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. One problem: His own budget exposes this claim as flat-out false. Even fact checkers at reliably Obama-friendly mainstream media outlets jumped on Obama's claim. ABC's John Karl called it "mostly fiction." He noted, for example, that Obama counts the $1 trillion budget cut deal he already signed with Republicans as part of his plan. And, he said, Obama counts $800 billion saved from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, savings that were going to occur anyway. An AP fact check pointed to the same flaws while noting that Obama also "uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors." The Washington Post's in-house fact checker called it "Obama's faux deficit plan" and the war spending trick was a "major budget gimmick." And Politifact.com, the fact-checking site run by the Tampa Bay Times, could only muster a "half true" rating for Obama's claim. It pointed to an analysis of Obama's plan by the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which found just $2.4 trillion in deficit cuts, and another by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which found only $2.1 trillion. But you don't need to consult a bunch of fact checkers or outside budget experts to verify Obama's claim. As he said in the debate, his "specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan" is "on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise." So we took Obama up on his challenge and went to that website to locate his budget plan. You can find it here(http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets%20/budget.pdf). And sure enough, there on page 206, is a table showing what the total 10-year deficit would be if the government were left on auto-pilot — the "adjusted baseline" — and what it would be under Obama's budget plan. But what that table shows, clear as day, is that Obama's plan would trim just $1.98 trillion from the projected 10-year, $8.7 trillion deficit. Even for government work, that's a far cry from $4 trillion. Then there's Obama's claim that for every $2.50 in spending cuts "we ask for $1 of additional revenue." But the very next pages, Obama's budget shows he'd cut spending a mere $94 billion over the next decade, while raising taxes by $1.9 trillion. In other words, for every $1 in spending cuts, Obama would raise taxes by $20. Maybe that's why, when the House and Senate brought Obama's alleged $4 trillion, balanced plan up for a vote earlier this year, not one member of either party approved it. As Obama said in the debate: "It's — it's math. It's arithmetic." news.investors.com