His central theme?
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"
Like almost everything out of this man's mouth, his speech was pure excreta. He took bricks of leftist dogma, mortared them together with BS, and built a house of lies.
President Obama has racked up more publicly-held debt that all previous presidents combined, and he has the temerity to lecture us about fiscal responsibility, shaking his finger at Bush and Reagan.
Progressive America: Brought to You by Lies & Propaganda
Obama repeated the lie that tax cuts increased the national debt. As always, he is wrong. Every time we cut taxes, the economy grew and actual taxes collected by the federal government increased. Revenue is defined as the money the federal government takes in from taxes.
To refute the shameless lefty lies told to us by our president, here are the facts on taxes, revenues and economic growth
Tax Cuts Resulted in More Revenue
Contrary to the unhinged liberal propaganda, the data show that revenue did increase after the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush II tax cuts. The chart below is for the Reagan years and it shows the growth in constant 2005 dollars. The same happened after the Bush tax cuts. You can go here and run the numbers yourself.
The data plainly show that revenue increased after each tax cut, and GDP also kept climbing. So clearly, the culprit in all of this is the spending.
So Reagan and Bush tax cuts resulted in more tax money pouring into the government coffers. Unfortunately, this goaded politicians on to even wilder spending orgies, resulting in the growth of the national debt.
The Liberal Lie
This is where the mischief comes in. Liberals scream and point to the debt chart, ignoring the first chart showing the increase in revenue. To them, this "proves" that tax cuts cause debt. They have to leave out the fact that revenue increased and the economy grew in order to "prove" their lie. That tax cuts caused the debt is patently and provably false. Too much spending is what exploded the debt.
I defended John Boehner a few days ago, and I retract not one word. I think he's a good man. However, I now stand with the torches and pitchfork brigade. We need to cut trillions, not billions from the federal budget and the money needs to be returned to the people who earned it. If the progressives insist on buying votes, they can do it with their own damned money.
Cool picture yoinked from IntelBook
27 comments:
Well said. If this does not awaken the Republican party, nothing will.
During the Clinton years when we ran "balanced" budgets, federal spending decreased as a percentage of GDP. If i recall we had some pretty decent economic growth back then.
If you're not familiar with Hauser's Law, look it up. Maybe I'll need to do another post on it. Professor Hauser has found that revenues stay about the same a percentage of GDP regardless of where tax rates are set.
Thinker: I have read some articles about that, and I think his argument is pretty convincing.
Set taxes too high and people who make a lot of money funnel it into unproductive enterprises, depriving the government of revenue.
Some of the best ideas I've heard include this knowledge, targeting government size to this ideal percent of GDP.
So you didn't like what Obma had to say. Wait til you see what the Congressional Progressive Caucus came up with; The People's Budget. They did this because Obama's budget is, in their opinion, right of center. Hand me a pitch fork, please.
One thing is certain: Taxes decrease my revenue, my standard of living, and my ability to support my family.
I did my taxes yesterday. A significant portion of my meager income comes from freelance work. Because it's self-employment, I pay the entire Socialist Security, etc., tax. That means that 15.3% of my income is taken, in addition to income tax. I knew that the bill was coming due, but I didn't know that I was going to be allowed even fewer deductions than last year (I haven't changed; the laws have).
Last month, I regularly worked 16-hour days, without more than 15 to 30 minutes of rest during that time, trying to save up for some necessities (not luxuries) we have been putting off.
That money's gone now. All of it.
It wasn't used on me or my family. It didn't put food in my kids' mouths or shoes without holes on their feet. I need a new pair of glasses, and I have been putting it off until that money came in (horrible eyes and the need for multi-focals makes glasses expensive). Well, the waiting and the blurry vision will continue indefinitely and my kids will have to use a bit of tape on their shoes, thanks to "Social Security."
I went through a hellish nightmare of a month working for nothing. I'm worse off than if I had worked just a bare minimum. Somebody else is spending my money. I worked as hard as I could, far past wise limits, and the federal government took all of the fruits of that work.
That's not liberty. It's slavery.
At this point, the federal government harms me far, far more than it helps me. It harms me far, far more than Al Queda ever has. It harms me far, far more than any conventional criminal ever has. It harms me far, far more than any disease ever has.
Could it be, that in 2011, my own government is my worst enemy?
Even if I didn't agree with Beck on so very many issues, I'd still love him for causing such a freak out among the leftists. The bunch that got him fired.
Thank you for joining the brigade.
Boehner may be a good man, but what we need as Speaker of the House, which after all controls the 'purse strings' of U.S. spending, is an American with a spine willing to do what needs to be done and Boehner failed miserably on both count's.
The "Progressives" may have win the round but they will never, ever win the fight. Not if I have anything to do or say about it.
We need a strong GOP to start taking command. Otherwise, no one is going to have enough money to support their families, but giving it to the government.
OMG silverfiddle I swear Obama is destroying us and our nation. How much longer do we have to suffer with this fool in office? This is totally unacceptably outrageous!
Ya' know, I think you all need a basic lesson in the Scientific Method.
You can not say with any surity "Tax Cuts Resulted in More Revenue." You just can't say that. The relevent data doesn't even exist. Yes, revenues went up, but spending far outpaced it, as did inflation in many important sectors, like the military and medicine.
Whatever the case, we do not have an observable alternate universe that can prove that revenues would not have been higher had the taxes been as well.
We do have history, though, and that informs us that cutting taxes during these sorts of times is always a bad idea.
So, in what alternate universe do you guys live?
JMJ
Jersey: Thank you for the clarification. The data does not prove that the increase in revenue was the result of the tax cut.
The data does prove that liberals lie or are willfully ignorant when they say tax cuts caused an increase in the debt, when they clearly did not.
Why are you cluttering up the debate with such useless things as facts? Goebbels and Karmen would be ashamed of you.
Exactly, Silver. You are proving a negative, and you can't do that. It would be specious logic.
I can no more say that higher rates would have produced higher revenues, than you could say the opposite. It is an unrepeatble experiment.
Again, basic science and math.
"The data does prove that liberals lie or are willfully ignorant when they say tax cuts caused an increase in the debt, when they clearly did not."
Oh, c'mon. We're going broke on the discretionary side. Entitlements actually work pretty well, and consistantly stimulate the economy.
What do you want? A cushion for your parents and grandparents, hardworking Americans who built this country, or a giant war machine?
JMJ
everyone is thoroughly disgusted Silver....speech?..more like campaigning again!! .Have a nice weekend~!
Jersey: You've got your logic muddled. True I cannot prove the tax cuts caused the increase in revenue or the increase in GDP.
Also true, is that both revenue and and GDP went up after the cuts, PROVING that the cuts did not result in a decrease in revenue or GDP, despite what many propagandists on the left would have use believe.
True you can't prove a negative. I can prove (and just did) that the liberal propaganda point that says tax cuts cause deficits is a LIE.
Silver, voodoo revenue never matched spending and inflation. The whole point of raising revenue is to meet costs in the first place. What the hell exactly are you "PROVING" here? The only thing I see proven is the failure of voodoo economics.
JMJ
I am "PROVING" that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts did not result in less revenue. They did not rob the treasurey. Revenue increased. It doesn't prove that they made the revenue increase, but the data does prove definitively that they did not result in a decrease in revenue.
If you can't understand that point, then you are willfully ignorant. You're smarter than that Jersey! Wake up!
Silver, c'mon man. Revenues could certainly have been higher under a more progressive scheme. You wouldn't argue that, would you?
You can't prove a negative. You're a grown man. You know that. You can not prove that revenues wouldn't have been higher with higher rates. You simply can't make that assertion. On top of that, modern American history shows that higher top marginal rates have helped work this country out of all sorts of economic problems.
What are you even arguing with here?
We have to raise taxes. It's the grown-up, mature, smart, wise, realistic, intelligent, adult, responsible, correct thing to do.
It's either that or your kids get to pay your bills for you.
JMJ
@ Jersey: Silver, c'mon man. Revenues could certainly have been higher under a more progressive scheme.
Ah.... Jersey. After all your talk you have fallen into a trap of logical fallacy. You my friend are trying to prove a negative and things that might have been. Facts are facts. Taxes lowered, revenue went up.
You're wasting my time.
Most Americans no longer recognize the tenets of Marxism when they hear them. Indeed, most Americans want to punish the rich -- one of the tenets of the Marxist dialect.
Is it any wonder that the United States is slip, slip, slipping away?
Aye, and there's the rub:
"Entitlements actually work pretty well"
What makes you think you're entitled to anything? Because you were born? Because you're American? Because the man is keeping you down? Bullshit!
"...and consistantly stimulate the economy." I can stimulate the economy quite well on my own thank you. I don't need some government sponsored proxy to do it for me.
"The whole point of raising revenue is to meet costs in the first place." NO! The whole point of raising revenue is to meet reasonable and necessary expenses, not to dole out love to your voting bloc.
"We have to raise taxes. It's the grown-up, mature, smart, wise, realistic, intelligent, adult, responsible, correct thing to do."
BULLSHIT... the grown-up, mature, smart, wise, realistic, intelligent,adult, responsible, correct thing to do is to live within your means. How many TRILLIONS is reasonable?
Where are my entitlements? OH WAIT I DON'T GET ANY because I am grown-up, mature, smart, wise, realistic, intelligent,adult, and responsible.
Instead, I am entitled to underwrite your mortgage downpayment (real or imaginary: IRS wrongly doles out more than $500 million in credits), buy your kids milk and cheese (WIC: If you can't afford milk and cheese you ought not be having any kids), make your car downpayment (Cash for clunkers: Whoops there goes another $300B), subsidize 1/3 of your E-85 costs for that new car you got under cash for clunkers (Oh wait...we need 500M more for food programs cause corn is $7 a bushel), finance your bird bashers and the ovens to cook them in (wind/solar: US Energy Information Administration cost per megawatt/hour: Normal $78.10, Onshore wind $149.30, Offshore Wind $191.10 Solar photo-voltaic $ 396.10... Whoa Whoa Go Solar Go!), an so on and so on and so on...
The the grown-up, mature, smart, wise, realistic, intelligent, adult, responsible, correct thing to do is to cut all the entitlement programs until the corrupt cesspool we call a government can demonstrate they can effectively manage them.
Keep standing there with your hand out, maybe I'll buy you a cup of pencils and some nice shades.
Can you tell it's tax time ;)
"He took bricks of leftist dogma, mortared them together with BS, and built a house of lies."
The entire leftist ideology is a hut of shit-bricks that's constantly falling apart around them. And they spend their lives shoveling crap to keep it together to fool the masses.
Unless off course it's one of those crap holes like Cuba where they don't really care and just shoot anyone who dares to question the hut of shit-bricks.
MK: You have such a way with words!
Silver,
This is Logic 101: you can not prove that lower taxes produced more revenue than higher taxes would have. You have no way to prove that.
I theorize - based mostly on reading a wide variety of economists - that we need a combination of tax increases and spending reductions.
And, looking at this from the bookkeeping end, we have to reduce military spending first. It is producing requisite results, but can't produce necessary net results today.
We can have a highly effective and professional military with half the boots we have now. And that cut, in and of itself, would end deficit spending.
JMJ
You're off the mark, Jersey. You're arguing with imagined ghosts.
Here is what I said in the post:
Obama repeated the lie that tax cuts increased the national debt.
I stand by the statement, and the data I bring supports my statement.
There is in fact no way to prove tax cuts increased the debt, since revenue increased, as did GDP. Note the steeper spending curve. There's your culprit.
An interesting side note is that taxes as a percentage of GDP remain fairly constant through high taxation and low taxation.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.