And I'm being serious. This is not partisan politics. This is a gapping error that should prove to people why the left shouldn't be in charge. Sadly most people are too stupid to see it.
Do you see what I see? (from an Ad on Zero Hedge)
Monday, August 13, 2012
I Spy With My Little Eye
...something that really does prove the Obama administration and its supporters are not just really bad economists, but they should never be elected.
And I'm being serious. This is not partisan politics. This is a gapping error that should prove to people why the left shouldn't be in charge. Sadly most people are too stupid to see it.
Do you see what I see? (from an Ad on Zero Hedge)
And I'm being serious. This is not partisan politics. This is a gapping error that should prove to people why the left shouldn't be in charge. Sadly most people are too stupid to see it.
Do you see what I see? (from an Ad on Zero Hedge)
Math is hard.
ReplyDeleteWell first thing, as bad as our deficit is, it isn't 4 trillion dollars. I'm sure they mean't debt not deficit, though of course that would be a bald face lie, though at the same time they could simply not know the difference. Either way it doesn't leave a good feeling in my stomach.
ReplyDelete"Deficit reduced by $4 trillion"...isn't the deficit ~$1.3trillion?...does a $4 trillion reduction mean bringing it to a $2.7 trillion surplus? Perhaps he means the debt will be reduced by $4 trillion...and by "reduced" does he mean he promises to increase it $4 trillion less than it would otherwise be increased.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to differentiate between the national debt, and the yearly deficit?
ReplyDeleteAnd there will be people who fall for that ad.
ReplyDeleteHe's assuming that a change in tax rates won't be accompanied by a change in behavior (much like every tax plan seems to do)?
ReplyDeleteTell a lie long enough and the sheeple will believe it.
ReplyDeleteSince the annual deficit obviously isn't $4 trillion, I assumed the ad meant that is the amount by Obama claims the deficit would be reduced over some period of time (e.g., the deficit would be reduced by an average of $400 billion each year over 10 years for a total reduction of $4 trillion over 10 years).
ReplyDeleteIt stems from people talking about the summation of deficits over every changing time lines. $4 Trillion over 10 years is a whole lot different then $4 Trillion over 1.
ReplyDeleteAnd it doesn't change the fact that as long as your running deficits you're increasing the debt.
The democratic party is actually a cult !!
ReplyDeleteIf I can reduce the yearly budget by $0.01 in 2012 dollars, do I get to integrate the resulting nominal $ from now to the end of time and claim that I've reduced the budget by Infinity?
ReplyDeleteOf course he's reducing the 10 year total deficit by $4 trillion when compared with the baseline growth that projects an annual $2 trillion deficit so in real numbers the annual deficit will be bigger then currently.
ReplyDeleteIf he taxed 100% of all income for everyone making a million or more it wouldn't equal 4 trillion, not over one year, and you can be damn sure that there will be NO millionaires in year two because what fool would keep working that hard knowing it was all going to be taken away. There would be no more rich to tax. Socialists live in a fantasy land of endless money to take and redistribute.
ReplyDeleteI didn't make it past millionaires pay their fair share. Class warfare is powerful for liberals. It's disgusting.
ReplyDeleteIt just means that he hasn't unveiled his spending plan that WOULD raise the deficit to $4 trillion IF he can't have more of other people's money.
ReplyDeleteSome people forget to carry the 1.
ReplyDeleteThey apparently forgot to carry the minus.
Hey, Obama is no liar. Take it as face value; this is an admission that the deficit really is 4 trillion, and up to now they have been fudging.
ReplyDelete