• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President can't do math. Intentional?

Is Obama incompetent or lying?

  • Incompetent. He can't do math, or he is just relying on the CNBC report.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Intentional. Obama is lying and hoping no one notices he is off by $834.

    Votes: 3 50.0%
  • No, my math is wrong and you are going to prove it.

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • Total voters
    6

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
After Congress caved in to Harry Reid changing the payroll tax extension from a full year to two months, Barack Obama parroted a math error first reported on CNBC.com that this payroll tax extension would save the average American family $1,000. That is wrong. The Republican bill would have saved the average family $1,000, but the Reid bill they passed will only save the average family $166.

Obama said this on his facebook page:
[h=6]President Obama congratulates members of Congress for reaching an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut: "Because of this agreement, every working American will keep his or her tax cut—about $1,000 for the average family."[/h]In order for the average family to save $1,000, the average family would have to be making $25,000 a month. I don't make that kind of money. Maybe Obama does.

So here is the question. They are taking credit for the results of the Republican bill, even though they shot it down and passed the much more anemic Democrat bill. Incompetence or intentionality?
 
If the bill would not have been passed then the payroll tax would have increased by $1000 for families making $50,000 a year and it went up by $500 every $25,000 a year earned. Please excuse me if it's $25,00 a year and not $50,000.
 
You think the President actually said that or calculated those numbers?

He has a whole staff of people who do all his work for him - I doubt he has a clue about any of it.
 
After Congress caved in to Harry Reid changing the payroll tax extension from a full year to two months, Barack Obama parroted a math error first reported on CNBC.com that this payroll tax extension would save the average American family $1,000. That is wrong. The Republican bill would have saved the average family $1,000, but the Reid bill they passed will only save the average family $166.

Obama said this on his facebook page:
[h=6]President Obama congratulates members of Congress for reaching an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut: "Because of this agreement, every working American will keep his or her tax cut—about $1,000 for the average family."[/h]In order for the average family to save $1,000, the average family would have to be making $25,000 a month. I don't make that kind of money. Maybe Obama does.

So here is the question. They are taking credit for the results of the Republican bill, even though they shot it down and passed the much more anemic Democrat bill. Incompetence or intentionality?

This is the kind of thread that some republicans depend on to keep some of thier supporters from straying, I would say that the same 57% of registered republicans that thought that President Obama was not born in the UNted States would be the same group that thinks that President Obama would be talking about a 1000 dollar savings over two months and that same group would not bother to listen to or read a transcript of his speech. As I read the right wing chain e-mails I receive it is very apparent that the authors of these chain e-mails believe that old saying that if you throw enough s--t against the wall some of it will stick.

The President states that the payroll tax cut will mean 40.00 a week to a family with an income of 50,000 per year


Now, if you’re a family making about $50,000 a year, this is a tax cut that amounts to about $1,000 a year. That’s about 40 bucks out of every paycheck. It may be that there's some folks in the House who refuse to vote for this compromise because they don’t think that 40 bucks is a lot of money. But anyone who knows what it’s like to stretch a budget knows that at the end of the week, or the end of the month, $40 can make all the difference in the world

Why with all of the things we could have an honest debate about do you want to spend time on this dribble? Do you really think the conservative base is so ignorant that they will not see this for what it is? Or is it that you have a problem with reading or hearing or maybe you can't do simply multiplication and or division
 
You think the President actually said that or calculated those numbers?

He has a whole staff of people who do all his work for him - I doubt he has a clue about any of it.

Well, there are all those pictures of him working the calculator.
 
After Congress caved in to Harry Reid changing the payroll tax extension from a full year to two months, Barack Obama parroted a math error first reported on CNBC.com that this payroll tax extension would save the average American family $1,000. That is wrong. The Republican bill would have saved the average family $1,000, but the Reid bill they passed will only save the average family $166.

Obama said this on his facebook page:
President Obama congratulates members of Congress for reaching an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut: "Because of this agreement, every working American will keep his or her tax cut—about $1,000 for the average family."

In order for the average family to save $1,000, the average family would have to be making $25,000 a month. I don't make that kind of money. Maybe Obama does.

So here is the question. They are taking credit for the results of the Republican bill, even though they shot it down and passed the much more anemic Democrat bill. Incompetence or intentionality?

You can document these claims? Dunno, but I trust his random numbers more than your random numbers.
 
no vote
This problem has its roots in ignorance and fear.
 
After Congress caved in to Harry Reid changing the payroll tax extension from a full year to two months, Barack Obama parroted a math error first reported on CNBC.com that this payroll tax extension would save the average American family $1,000. That is wrong. The Republican bill would have saved the average family $1,000, but the Reid bill they passed will only save the average family $166.

Obama said this on his facebook page:
[h=6]President Obama congratulates members of Congress for reaching an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut: "Because of this agreement, every working American will keep his or her tax cut—about $1,000 for the average family."[/h]In order for the average family to save $1,000, the average family would have to be making $25,000 a month. I don't make that kind of money. Maybe Obama does.

So here is the question. They are taking credit for the results of the Republican bill, even though they shot it down and passed the much more anemic Democrat bill. Incompetence or intentionality?
It was an intentional lie. If BO's mouth is open, he's lying about something. The $1,000 savings was based on the payroll tax being lowered for an entire year........all that is being passed is a two month extension. As usual, the drive-by media and the liberal tools will cover The Chosen One by perpetuating his dishonesty. The first affirmative action president can not be allowed to fail.
 
it doesnt matter....if they are not going to make it permanant they need let it expire because it is nothing more than a political tool anyway,......let people get used to and extra $40 a month in their paycheck and then dangle the threat of losing it during an election year..............however, they better not start complaining that FICA is in trouble (or in deeper trouble) because it is underfunded due to 2 -3 years of payroll tax cuts
 
After Congress caved in to Harry Reid changing the payroll tax extension from a full year to two months, Barack Obama parroted a math error first reported on CNBC.com that this payroll tax extension would save the average American family $1,000. That is wrong. The Republican bill would have saved the average family $1,000, but the Reid bill they passed will only save the average family $166.

Obama said this on his facebook page:
[h=6]President Obama congratulates members of Congress for reaching an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut: "Because of this agreement, every working American will keep his or her tax cut—about $1,000 for the average family."[/h]In order for the average family to save $1,000, the average family would have to be making $25,000 a month. I don't make that kind of money. Maybe Obama does.

So here is the question. They are taking credit for the results of the Republican bill, even though they shot it down and passed the much more anemic Democrat bill. Incompetence or intentionality?

They are extrapolating it out to an year. Obviously they expect negotiations to pass a year long extension. This is thread is dumb and a waste of time.
 
After Congress caved in to Harry Reid changing the payroll tax extension from a full year to two months, Barack Obama parroted a math error first reported on CNBC.com that this payroll tax extension would save the average American family $1,000. That is wrong. The Republican bill would have saved the average family $1,000, but the Reid bill they passed will only save the average family $166.

Obama said this on his facebook page:
[h=6]President Obama congratulates members of Congress for reaching an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut: "Because of this agreement, every working American will keep his or her tax cut—about $1,000 for the average family."[/h]In order for the average family to save $1,000, the average family would have to be making $25,000 a month. I don't make that kind of money. Maybe Obama does.

So here is the question. They are taking credit for the results of the Republican bill, even though they shot it down and passed the much more anemic Democrat bill. Incompetence or intentionality?

I despise Obama; but he wasn't claiming to be saving the people more than republicans. And I believe he made the statements with the clear assumption that they were going to extend it for the year (speaking in annualized figures). But most importantly, the president makes $400k/yr or $33,333.33/mo. (a side note to plug Ron Paul: Ron Paul has agreed to take about the average salary of the American worker for being president: $39,336 per Paulonomics: Ron Paul)

To Red's point of Friday's random numbers: they weren't random. In order for you to save $1,000 as 2% tax savings over two months, you have to divide $1000/.02=$50,000 total income over two months or $25k/mo. Not so random.
 
it doesnt matter....if they are not going to make it permanant they need let it expire because it is nothing more than a political tool anyway,......let people get used to and extra $40 a month in their paycheck and then dangle the threat of losing it during an election year..............however, they better not start complaining that FICA is in trouble (or in deeper trouble) because it is underfunded due to 2 -3 years of payroll tax cuts
Nobody seems to care anymore about doing the right thing. The Country is addicted to deficit spending. The future generations will experience considerably less growth in GDP as their earnings are sucked up servicing the trillions of new debt and exploding SS liabilities.

You are correct, this isn't a tax cut. All this is is an underfunding of retirement plans. Brilliant.
 
Nobody seems to care anymore about doing the right thing. The Country is addicted to deficit spending. The future generations will experience considerably less growth in GDP as their earnings are sucked up servicing the trillions of new debt and exploding SS liabilities.

You are correct, this isn't a tax cut. All this is is an underfunding of retirement plans. Brilliant.

This 'tax-cut' isn't reducing the SSI pool of income. SSI is taking the same amount from the treasury as ever before. The funds just aren't being delivered to the treasury. In other words: we're simply increasing our debt. Not underfunding retirement plans. I know it sounds like semantics, but you have to know the accounting so that the other side can't simply prove you wrong through your own ignorance. The truth is actually much worse than underfunding the retirement program. It comes back to overspending.
 
They are extrapolating it out to an year. Obviously they expect negotiations to pass a year long extension. This is thread is dumb and a waste of time.

Maybe, maybe not if you consider that not to long ago 57% of registered chain e-mail reading republican voters thought that President Obama was not born in America. I always wondered if they really believed that or if they just wanted to perpetuate another rumor or maybe they did not believe that the RNC has the resources and ability to determine whether a presidental candidate was born in the USA
 
This 'tax-cut' isn't reducing the SSI pool of income. SSI is taking the same amount from the treasury as ever before. The funds just aren't being delivered to the treasury. In other words: we're simply increasing our debt. Not underfunding retirement plans. I know it sounds like semantics, but you have to know the accounting so that the other side can't simply prove you wrong through your own ignorance. The truth is actually much worse than underfunding the retirement program. It comes back to overspending.
Borrowing money to pay current liabilities is underfunding an obligation......period. If I borrowed money to make a 401k contribution I have underfunded my account since I have a net zero increase in my overall net worth. This isn't semantics, it's reality.
 
Borrowing money to pay current liabilities is underfunding an obligation......period. If I borrowed money to make a 401k contribution I have underfunded my account since I have a net zero increase in my overall net worth. This isn't semantics, it's reality.

But it was okay to borrow when President Bush borrowed money from China to finance HIS war on Iraq, oh I forgot that debt went away when he left office or did it?
 
You can document these claims? Dunno, but I trust his random numbers more than your random numbers.

May I ask what obama has done to earn your trust? His bogus numbers are put out there precisely for people like you, people who blindly follow without question. Sad part is how many people like you there are, don't dare do the math yourself, don't ever question your so called leader just follow him over the cliff like a lemming.
 
But it was okay to borrow when President Bush borrowed money from China to finance HIS war on Iraq, oh I forgot that debt went away when he left office or did it?

Let's pretend that I'm a Bush supporter (which I am NOT. He is at the top of the list for doing the most damage to the GOP in history - that party needs to be reformatted NOW). So pretending I'm a typical repub "YEAH! IRAQ WAR! LET'S DO STUFF! 9/11 rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb " Does that make the decisions Obama is making more justified? I just don't see where you could possibly be coming from in pointing out Bush's flaws to justify Obama's. Pretty weak.
 
You think the President actually said that or calculated those numbers?

He has a whole staff of people who do all his work for him - I doubt he has a clue about any of it.
"The buck stops here!"

Oh, wait, that was Harry Truman. Today's political motto seems to be, "Pass the buckl!".
 
But it was okay to borrow when President Bush borrowed money from China to finance HIS war on Iraq, oh I forgot that debt went away when he left office or did it?

Who said it was OK? You must be talking about yourself.
 
Wait, now conservatives are bashing Obama for supporting a tax cut?

Just ****ing kill me now.
 
Let's pretend that I'm a Bush supporter (which I am NOT. He is at the top of the list for doing the most damage to the GOP in history - that party needs to be reformatted NOW). So pretending I'm a typical repub "YEAH! IRAQ WAR! LET'S DO STUFF! 9/11 rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb " Does that make the decisions Obama is making more justified? I just don't see where you could possibly be coming from in pointing out Bush's flaws to justify Obama's. Pretty weak.

Lets see the money that President Bush borrowed from a foriegn country that we are presently engaged in an economic war with is certainly less justified then the money that President Obama wants to help the middle class and the working poor in America with. In answer to your partisan question yes it makes President Obama's decision more justified
 
Borrowing money to pay current liabilities is underfunding an obligation......period. If I borrowed money to make a 401k contribution I have underfunded my account since I have a net zero increase in my overall net worth. This isn't semantics, it's reality.
Convoluted and strange reasoning...make no sense..
If a man borrows money to make a 401k contribution, its good economic sense IF the cost and interest rate makes this feasible...and of course, the payback must be considered... In realty, the overall gain would be in pennys, not worth it, in my book...But, on a large scale, dollars replace pennys.
 
Everyone knows after hundreds of reports on radio, TV, etc., that the $1,000 increase in tax was based on an annual rate. And, it's expected to be extended for at least a full year as this bill was just a bridge to further negotiations. Where have you been? Are you incompetent or lying in the choices you presented?
 
Last edited:
May I ask what obama has done to earn your trust? His bogus numbers are put out there precisely for people like you, people who blindly follow without question. Sad part is how many people like you there are, don't dare do the math yourself, don't ever question your so called leader just follow him over the cliff like a lemming.

I am going to show you how logic works: I stated I trusted Obama's numbers more than some random person on the internet. This is somewhat entirely different from following blindly. In fact it is the opposite. I questioned the numbers, and did not accept either person's without verification. What is really and actually sad is people who base their belief on what they want to be true, instead of questioning things.
 
Back
Top Bottom