BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GTB Performance
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-26-2010, 01:13 PM   #1
ChrisFastM3
Captain
 
ChrisFastM3's Avatar
 
Drives: E46 M3 vert w/ LOTS of mods
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Miami, FL

Posts: 676
iTrader: (0)

DEBUNKED: Eight False Things The Public "Knows" Prior To Election Day

My friend (hardcore democrat/socialist) sent me this.

This is basically the handbook of what the left is gonna say to try (& fail) to re-elect the same dumb-asses that we currently have in office.

My response is on the bottom.

-------------

Eight False Things The Public "Knows" Prior To Election Day

There are a number 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 reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O4NV20100318

http://www.ourfuture.org/node/44430

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us...s/19taxes.html

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...ehind-infrastr

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/bu....16463997.html

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archi..._see_if_we.htm

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.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...lus-killed-rec

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67N55X20100824

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.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...-demand-stupid

http://www.speakoutca.org/weblog/200...ts-and-de.html


6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O4NV20100318

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.


---------------


Now my turn...

Come on... This is so full of half truths & 100% lies that I don't even know where to start.... Whoever wrote this is dumb as rocks or is serving an agenda to "educate" ignorant people.

Now time for some common sense…

Right off the bat I can quickly dismiss #6. What a joke! Do you really think adding 10's of millions of people to the government system will save money? Sorry, WRONG. Again I ask you, please do me the favor of checking up on how well the CBO has done in the past projecting things like Medicare, Medicaid, & Social Security for starters. www.Google.com While you're at it, take a look in how easy it is to only pay into the government system only when you NEED to. The whole government plan needs to be scrapped ASAP! It's flawed from its very fundamentals.

#7 is a straight up lie. SS funds are invested as bonds. Google what a government bond is & understand it...

#8 comes down to one basic reason. Who do YOU think will spend your $ more wisely? You or Uncle Sam? For every buck Uncle Sam takes away is a buck that'll be pissed away not to benefit our local economy or a buck not used in research & development to innovate.

#1. These numbers are another straight up lie. The real numbers are BUSH: 407 BILLION / OBAMA: $1.17 TRILLION. You're right it's not exactly 3 times but, it's damn close. Don’t feed me the TARP $ story either because once again that is a half-truth. Let's not forget the main reason why all these banks failed & needed a TARP to begin with...

this all happened under Clinton’s watch…

#2. The Bush tax cuts have yet to expire. I already know it will rise. Just a matter of time. Also, he has taxed the shit out of things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, & ammunition. Not to mention the following taxes: the medicine cabinet tax, the HSA withdrawal tax hike, the flexible spending account cap, the medical itemized deductions cap, the tax on indoor tanning services, gov healthcare, & ect.

#3. Refer to #1

#4. Are you kidding? It worked PERFECT for his agenda. The government now has their hands in banking, insurance, auto (25% of U.S. jobs are connected to the auto industry), health care, & student loans! Government control in major industries. Isn't that what you socialists want? Obviously I'm being facetious here.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." -Margaret Thatcher

#5. Wrong again. As businesses grow, they demand more employment. Also, with more $ in people's pockets, they spend more which in turn creates more customers. With more $ in the private sectors pockets, allows for more $ in research & development to create the next iPhone or whatever to sell to the public. Do I really have to elaborate more on this for you to grasp what I'm saying? Really?
ChrisFastM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-26-2010, 07:47 PM   #2
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFastM3 View Post

Now my turn...

Come on... This is so full of half truths & 100% lies that I don't even know where to start.... Whoever wrote this is dumb as rocks or is serving an agenda to "educate" ignorant people.

Now time for some common sense…

Right off the bat I can quickly dismiss #6. What a joke! Do you really think adding 10's of millions of people to the government system will save money? Sorry, WRONG. Again I ask you, please do me the favor of checking up on how well the CBO has done in the past projecting things like Medicare, Medicaid, & Social Security for starters. www.Google.com While you're at it, take a look in how easy it is to only pay into the government system only when you NEED to. The whole government plan needs to be scrapped ASAP! It's flawed from its very fundamentals.

#7 is a straight up lie. SS funds are invested as bonds. Google what a government bond is & understand it...

#8 comes down to one basic reason. Who do YOU think will spend your $ more wisely? You or Uncle Sam? For every buck Uncle Sam takes away is a buck that'll be pissed away not to benefit our local economy or a buck not used in research & development to innovate.

#1. These numbers are another straight up lie. The real numbers are BUSH: 407 BILLION / OBAMA: $1.17 TRILLION. You're right it's not exactly 3 times but, it's damn close. Don’t feed me the TARP $ story either because once again that is a half-truth. Let's not forget the main reason why all these banks failed & needed a TARP to begin with...

this all happened under Clinton’s watch…

#2. The Bush tax cuts have yet to expire. I already know it will rise. Just a matter of time. Also, he has taxed the shit out of things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, & ammunition. Not to mention the following taxes: the medicine cabinet tax, the HSA withdrawal tax hike, the flexible spending account cap, the medical itemized deductions cap, the tax on indoor tanning services, gov healthcare, & ect.

#3. Refer to #1

#4. Are you kidding? It worked PERFECT for his agenda. The government now has their hands in banking, insurance, auto (25% of U.S. jobs are connected to the auto industry), health care, & student loans! Government control in major industries. Isn't that what you socialists want? Obviously I'm being facetious here.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." -Margaret Thatcher

#5. Wrong again. As businesses grow, they demand more employment. Also, with more $ in people's pockets, they spend more which in turn creates more customers. With more $ in the private sectors pockets, allows for more $ in research & development to create the next iPhone or whatever to sell to the public. Do I really have to elaborate more on this for you to grasp what I'm saying? Really?
So let me get this straight, you just took something you got from a "socialist" friend with news articles to back it up and then tried to debunk them by stating your own opinion without any facts to back yourself up? Did you just really do that?

I have to comment on your response to number 5.....are you serious? Something tells me you don't have a business degree. Or better yet, never taken a fundamental business class.

In regards to #2 Obama did not and has not raised taxes on alcohol. These rumors are halarious! For example, this very tax people refer to his a NEVADA BILL! AB277....look it up. It's a Nevada state bill, not a congressional bill. Even funnier...the bill was never passed! As far as raising taxes on guns and ammo??? Find me 1 bill that's been introduced to do just that. Or in your case a bill that's been passed.

Last edited by TMNT; 10-26-2010 at 08:07 PM.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-26-2010, 08:01 PM   #3
ghosthi32
Banned
 
Drives: Water camel
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: strait of hormuz

Posts: 2,516
iTrader: (0)

op fail lol
ghosthi32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-27-2010, 10:09 AM   #4
bolinp78
G35 convertee
 
bolinp78's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335i (AW)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: .

Posts: 1,007
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post

I have to comment on your response to number 5.....are you serious? Something tells me you don't have a business degree. Or better yet, never taken a fundamental business class.
Higher taxes for businesses means a higher price to the consumer, which means less demand.

So while tax cuts and hiring are not direct cause and effects, tax cuts put a business into the position where hiring makes more sense, while being taxed more fundamentally means less hiring.
__________________
bolinp78 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-27-2010, 07:35 PM   #5
TMNT
Captain
 
Drives: 330ci ZHP
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA

Posts: 875
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bolinp78 View Post
Higher taxes for businesses means a higher price to the consumer, which means less demand.

So while tax cuts and hiring are not direct cause and effects, tax cuts put a business into the position where hiring makes more sense, while being taxed more fundamentally means less hiring.
It's not that simple. It's never that simple. Higher prices don't always equate to less demand. Economics 101 talks about this very subject.

It's called Price Elasticity. There are too many variables involved to make a blanket statement like that. You'll actually need to pump numbers in a formula then determine if PED>1 or PED<1, hell even PED=1.
TMNT is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 10:59 AM   #6
Couch
Colonel
 
Couch's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 335i
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Houston

Posts: 2,903
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2007 E92 335i  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to Couch
#7 is just ridiculous for anyone to believe. I don't care what side of the isle you're on.
Couch is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 03:10 PM   #7
11Series
.
 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

De-debunked

There is nothing mystical to figuring out that Bush racked up $1.4 Trillion in debt in his last year in office. The US Treasury publishes historical US debt numbers down to the penny right here:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

On Feb 20th 2009 when Bush turned over the office to Obama, here is the national debt:

01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

Go back 1 year in time to see how much the national debt was at the beginning of Bush's last year in office:

01/18/2008 9,188,640,287,930.39

The math is easy. In the last 12 months of Bush's term, the national debt went up by $1.4 Trillion dollars ($1,438,236,760,982.69 to be exact). Those are real numbers direct from the only place that counts, the people who handle our actual tax dollars.


Furthermore, if you look at just the last 6 months of Bush's last term in office (from July 20th 2008 to Jan 20th 2009) the national debt went from $9.5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion dollars. That is $1.1 Trillion in debt in Bush's last 6 months in office. That is what Bush left us with. A debt that was increasing at a rate of $1.1 Trillion dollars every 6 months.
11Series is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 05:28 PM   #8
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,183
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
There is nothing mystical to figuring out that Bush racked up $1.4 Trillion in debt in his last year in office. The US Treasury publishes historical US debt numbers down to the penny right here:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

On Feb 20th 2009 when Bush turned over the office to Obama, here is the national debt:

01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

Go back 1 year in time to see how much the national debt was at the beginning of Bush's last year in office:

01/18/2008 9,188,640,287,930.39

The math is easy. In the last 12 months of Bush's term, the national debt went up by $1.4 Trillion dollars ($1,438,236,760,982.69 to be exact). Those are real numbers direct from the only place that counts, the people who handle our actual tax dollars.


Furthermore, if you look at just the last 6 months of Bush's last term in office (from July 20th 2008 to Jan 20th 2009) the national debt went from $9.5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion dollars. That is $1.1 Trillion in debt in Bush's last 6 months in office. That is what Bush left us with. A debt that was increasing at a rate of $1.1 Trillion dollars every 6 months.
By this logic, Obama is increasing the debt by a rate nearly at $3.1 Trillion dollars every 21 months. With numbers that large you could essentially call that the same rate.

The difference is that Bush's 2 terms as a whole increased the debt by $4.9 Trillion. Also, Bush only increased the debt by $678 Billion in his first 2 years as opposed to $3.1 Trillion in Obama's first 21 months.

If you use these first 21 months to project spending over a full term we're looking at roughly $6.6 Trillion in 4 years. $1.7 Trillion more than W could muster in a full 8 years. God forbid Obama gets a second term, he'll more than double the national debt from when he took over.

I won't claim to be an expert on how our government works, but i'm guessing that the above matters little. I assume the president isn't simply stroking checks one after another. I would assume that many parts of the government are responsible for spending.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 05:50 PM   #9
fdsasdasdf
Captain
 
fdsasdasdf's Avatar
 
Drives: 330Ci ZHP 6sp
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC

Posts: 779
iTrader: (0)

#7? Really?

I find it insanely hard to believe that people who live above 65 live about the same number of years than before.

Life expectancy is determined by..gee, I dunno, how long you live? Google the Mean Value Theorem.
fdsasdasdf is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 06:31 PM   #10
11Series
.
 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Yes, Obama's post-Great Recession numbers are only slightly better than Bush's last 6 months in office. Here they are:

1/20/09-7/20/09 10,626,877,048,913.08 --> 11,601,270,694,948.64 =
.97 Trillion in 6 months. Just .1 Trillion less than Bush's last 6 months.

7/20/09-1/20/10 11,601,270,694,948.64 --> 12,327,380,804,696.82 =
.73 Trillion next 6 months. Just .4 Trillin less than Bush's last 6 months.

1/20/10-7/20/10 12,327,380,804,696.82 --> 13,245,998,461,216.30 =
.91 Trillion in 6 months. Just .2 Trillion less than Bush's last 6 months.


So you are right that Obama's post-Great Recession numbers have only been a slight improvement over Bush's post-Great Recession numbers.

I think the part that has you (confused) is where you are trying to average in Bush's 7 years of pre-Great Recession numbers with Bush's post-Great Recession numbers. That is like saying your house was only going down 10K in value, until you burned it down and it lost 200k in value. Your logic is that the that fire wasn't so bad because you are trying to average it over 8 years, and saying you only lost 33K per year.

At the end of Bush's term, the debt was increasing at a rate of 1.1 Trillion/6 mo. Economies follow the laws of Conservation of Momentum. And when Bush handed it over, it was on Fire (and not in the good way). The momentum in the last 6 months of the post-Great Recession era under Bush the debt accellerated until it hit 1.1T/6mo. Now under Obama it is slowing down to around .8T/6mo.

If Obama had been handed the same economy that Bush was handed when Bush came into office, this would mean Obama would have a surplus of about .3T/6mo going towards paying down the debt. But instead of being handed a surplus, Obama was handed an 1.1T/6mo debt.

Now, to tie this back to the original claim that it was Obama trippled the deficit. That clearly isn't true. Obama received a deficit that had ALREADY been blown up when he took office, and he's been working that number down ever since. The hard numbers are clear.




Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
By this logic, Obama is increasing the debt by a rate nearly at $3.1 Trillion dollars every 21 months. With numbers that large you could essentially call that the same rate.

The difference is that Bush's 2 terms as a whole increased the debt by $4.9 Trillion. Also, Bush only increased the debt by $678 Billion in his first 2 years as opposed to $3.1 Trillion in Obama's first 21 months.

If you use these first 21 months to project spending over a full term we're looking at roughly $6.6 Trillion in 4 years. $1.7 Trillion more than W could muster in a full 8 years. God forbid Obama gets a second term, he'll more than double the national debt from when he took over.

I won't claim to be an expert on how our government works, but i'm guessing that the above matters little. I assume the president isn't simply stroking checks one after another. I would assume that many parts of the government are responsible for spending.
11Series is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 09:04 PM   #11
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,183
iTrader: (0)

Pardon my ignorance, but I looked at the daily progression of the debt since O took office and I don't see it decreasing or working it down as you said. Sure it's gone down one day but only to increase again. Unless by that you mean to stop the bleeding. But yes tripling of the deficit is clearly not true.

If only it were as easy to search and find data on what all that was spent on as it is to see the numbers.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 09:34 PM   #12
11Series
.
 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

Posts: 668
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
Pardon my ignorance, but I looked at the daily progression of the debt since O took office and I don't see it decreasing or working it down as you said. Sure it's gone down one day but only to increase again. Unless by that you mean to stop the bleeding. But yes tripling of the deficit is clearly not true.

If only it were as easy to search and find data on what all that was spent on as it is to see the numbers.

I think what you are asking is when has the national debt gone down under Obama? It hasn't. It has done nothing but gone up. Except for a short time under Clinton, the national debt has only gone up since 1969. We have an entire generation of people who worked nearly their entire working careers NEVER paying for the full cost of their own government.

I do mean stopping the bleeding. Actually, slowing the bleeding, because we're still bleeding pretty bad. We went from bleeding at a rate of 1.1T/6mo to .97T to .73T to .91T. Only slightly better, but slowing the bleeding.

And like you said, even just "slightly better" clearly debunks the claims that Obama tripled the deficit.

Thanks for the chat. I think we're on the same page, or at least sharing the same facts. Now I'm going to go back to trying to figure out what BMW's statements about HPFP's will play out. Cheers.
11Series is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-28-2010, 10:50 PM   #13
BTM
Banned
 
Drives: A///MERICAN!!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A///MERICA!!!

Posts: 10,314
iTrader: (11)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMNT View Post
It's not that simple. It's never that simple. Higher prices don't always equate to less demand. Economics 101 talks about this very subject.

It's called Price Elasticity. There are too many variables involved to make a blanket statement like that. You'll actually need to pump numbers in a formula then determine if PED>1 or PED<1, hell even PED=1.
True. Correctly stated it should be "everything else held constant, increases in price decrease demand." But this is a very rudimentary interpretation.

You are referring to perfectly inelastic goods - meaning that the demand is the same no matter the price. Realistically, there are degrees of elasticity/inelasticity, so a tangible increase in price may lead to a tangible decrease in demand, and vice versa. Everything has a degree of elasticity (or lack thereof) and thus there is never a constant decrease in demand for a given increase in price.
BTM is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-29-2010, 11:02 AM   #14
gun6slinger9
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary Canada

Posts: 265
iTrader: (0)

This thread is fail
gun6slinger9 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-29-2010, 11:37 AM   #15
08rookie
Private First Class
 
08rookie's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: phila, pa

Posts: 123
iTrader: (0)

i think justin beiber should be president...
08rookie is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-29-2010, 07:32 PM   #16
scottwww
Brigadier General
 
scottwww's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

Posts: 4,759
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 08rookie View Post
i think justin beiber should be president...
Who is that? What party?
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter

offTopic - politics - ChoppedPhoto
scottwww is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-29-2010, 08:59 PM   #17
ghosthi32
Banned
 
Drives: Water camel
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: strait of hormuz

Posts: 2,516
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Who is that? What party?
ghosthi32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-29-2010, 09:00 PM   #18
BTM
Banned
 
Drives: A///MERICAN!!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A///MERICA!!!

Posts: 10,314
iTrader: (11)

Garage List
chat
BTM is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST