• 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
conservativeguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

And, if he is lying, the right wing media will be all over it. So assuming that he was lying and trying to get away with it when he knows he can't is absurd. He's not that stupid.
 
friday said:
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?
Click to expand...

fredmertz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are both working from a false assumption. Obama does not mention the time period for which he is figuring the tax cut. He is using the figure which he has been using all along to describe it, which is about 1000 a year, which some one making 50k a year will in fact save. Since Obama mentioned families, that is a roughly correct figure.
 
conservativeguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

But SS isn't like a 401k at all. It's not savings. It's more like insurance.
 
Redress said:
Actually, you are both working from a false assumption. Obama does not mention the time period for which he is figuring the tax cut. He is using the figure which he has been using all along to describe it, which is about 1000 a year, which some one making 50k a year will in fact save. Since Obama mentioned families, that is a roughly correct figure.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the figure wasn't correct: I was just concluding the assumption he must have been making if the savings were $1k/yr (which he has state previously, so it wasn't a huge leap). I think he's spot on in his estimate and that it wasn't random.

EarlzP said:
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
Click to expand...

This is absurd. If I go out and kill an innocent person w/ no history of crime and then you go out and kill a convenience store robber, you cannot claim to be justified in your action simply because I've done something even worse. Your logic is extremely faulty here.
 
EarlzP said:
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

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
Click to expand...

It is dishonesty. He said it will save the average family $1,000 a year and all his drone followers on his facebook page were writing loving thank you comments about what they are going to do with that $1,000. I'm sorry, $1,000 was the Boehner bill that Democrats shut down. He lied, or he is stupid. Pick one.
 
Redress said:
Actually, you are both working from a false assumption. Obama does not mention the time period for which he is figuring the tax cut. He is using the figure which he has been using all along to describe it, which is about 1000 a year, which some one making 50k a year will in fact save. Since Obama mentioned families, that is a roughly correct figure.
Click to expand...

It is NOT $1,000 a year for the average family any more than the Making Work Pay one time credit of $800 was $292,000 a year. The average family does not make $50,000 every two months. If he wanted to be able to announce that it would save the average American family $1,000 a year, he should have passed the Boehner extension that lasted a year.
 
friday said:
It is NOT $1,000 a year for the average family any more than the Making Work Pay one time credit of $800 was $292,000 a year. The average family does not make $50,000 every two months. If he wanted to be able to announce that it would save the average American family $1,000 a year, he should have passed the Boehner extension that lasted a year.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure obama can pass a bill.
 
friday said:
It is dishonesty. He said it will save the average family $1,000 a year and all his drone followers on his facebook page were writing loving thank you comments about what they are going to do with that $1,000. I'm sorry, $1,000 was the Boehner bill that Democrats shut down. He lied, or he is stupid. Pick one.
Click to expand...

your post is total bs. people UNDERSTAND what obama meant, why don't you? the concept too difficult?
 
liblady said:
your post is total bs. people UNDERSTAND what obama meant, why don't you? the concept too difficult?
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that when Obama told everyone that the average family would get $1,000 a year from this two month extension and all his followers on facebook started sending him lovecomments about the bills they were going to pay with that $1,000 that they actually knew he meant "I screwed you out of $1,000 a year and am only giving you two months of the payroll tax break"? Sorry, I'm not as gullible as your average Obama follower.
 
fredmertz said:
I didn't say the figure wasn't correct: I was just concluding the assumption he must have been making if the savings were $1k/yr (which he has state previously, so it wasn't a huge leap). I think he's spot on in his estimate and that it wasn't random.



This is absurd. If I go out and kill an innocent person w/ no history of crime and then you go out and kill a convenience store robber, you cannot claim to be justified in your action simply because I've done something even worse. Your logic is extremely faulty here.
Click to expand...

You are really stretching here who the ---- is talking about killing someone? Your attempt at logic is pitiful
 
friday said:
So you're telling me that when Obama told everyone that the average family would get $1,000 a year from this two month extension and all his followers on facebook started sending him lovecomments about the bills they were going to pay with that $1,000 that they actually knew he meant "I screwed you out of $1,000 a year and am only giving you two months of the payroll tax break"? Sorry, I'm not as gullible as your average Obama follower.
Click to expand...

Nice spin.
 
friday said:
It is dishonesty. He said it will save the average family $1,000 a year and all his drone followers on his facebook page were writing loving thank you comments about what they are going to do with that $1,000. I'm sorry, $1,000 was the Boehner bill that Democrats shut down. He lied, or he is stupid. Pick one.
Click to expand...

You cherry picked his speech or maybe you have selected reading or hearing impairments, you pick one
 
conservativeguy said:
Who said it was OK? You must be talking about yourself.
Click to expand...

Look you may want to sweep the Bush legacy away like dog s--t but the effects of his poor leadership will be around for years to come and I am going to remind you of it every chance I get. I don't buy the BS talking points the republican far right is trying to sell.
 
EarlzP said:
You are really stretching here who the ---- is talking about killing someone? Your attempt at logic is pitiful
Click to expand...

same logic. different scenario. It's to show that the logic itself is faulty. Your idea is that on a scale of 1-10 of bad acts, Bush was 10. Obama is 9.9 (which is itself arguable). So what Obama does is justifiable because Bush was worse. It's absurd.
 
EarlzP said:
You cherry picked his speech or maybe you have selected reading or hearing impairments, you pick one
Click to expand...

Are you denying that he said this payroll tax cut extension would mean $1,000 per year for the average family? That's what he put on his facebook page, so maybe you are accusing him of cherrypicking? Hmmm.
 
fredmertz said:
same logic. different scenario. It's to show that the logic itself is faulty. Your idea is that on a scale of 1-10 of bad acts, Bush was 10. Obama is 9.9 (which is itself arguable). So what Obama does is justifiable because Bush was worse. It's absurd.
Click to expand...

Your putting words in my mouth, show me where I said and I quote from your reply
Your idea is that on a scale of 1-10 of bad acts, Bush was 10. Obama is 9.9
Click to expand...
Now quote for me where I said that on a scale of 1-10 Bush is a 10 and Obama is a 9.9.

President Bush belongs in jail for misleading the people of the United States about the war in Iraq and should be remembered as the most inept President to ever hold the office of the Presidency for his total lack of knowledge about the American economy while he was in office
 
friday said:
Are you denying that he said this payroll tax cut extension would mean $1,000 per year for the average family? That's what he put on his facebook page, so maybe you are accusing him of cherrypicking? Hmmm.
Click to expand...

The only people you can BS are the 57% of the registered republican voters who thought President Obama was not born in the USA, You are so slick that anyone with an ounce of sense that can read and hear won't see right through you
 
EarlzP said:
The only people you can BS are the 57% of the registered republican voters who thought President Obama was not born in the USA, You are so slick that anyone with an ounce of sense that can read and hear won't see right through you
Click to expand...

LOL, I'm not the one promising families that $160 will turn into $1,000. Who's slick?
 
EarlzP said:
Your putting words in my mouth, show me where I said and I quote from your reply Now quote for me where I said that on a scale of 1-10 Bush is a 10 and Obama is a 9.9.

President Bush belongs in jail for misleading the people of the United States about the war in Iraq and should be remembered as the most inept President to ever hold the office of the Presidency for his total lack of knowledge about the American economy while he was in office
Click to expand...

I wasn't quoting you nor did I claim to be. I was representing what I thought your idea was in clearer terms so that you could see how absurd it was or so that you could clarify it for me. Instead you just make false accusations that I'm quoting you.

Looking back on the conversation to give you actual quotes though, I believe their was a misunderstanding:


Me: "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: "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"

You see... I believe you mean "more justified than Bush" instead of agreeing with me that he's 'more justified' [than he would have been if Bush hadn't been so bad]. That's not at all what I was saying. I could care less how he is relative to Bush. Because I don't like either of them. I meant exactly what I said. How is pointing out Bush's flaws justify Obama? the answer is obviously that it doesn't. You were simply arguing that Bush was worse, which is irrelevant. Now that I understand where you're coming from, speaking relative to Bush, I'd be happy to argue that point as well. If the the bar we give our future presidents is: be better than Bush, this country is already in hell.
 
fredmertz said:
I wasn't quoting you nor did I claim to be. I was representing what I thought your idea was in clearer terms so that you could see how absurd it was or so that you could clarify it for me. Instead you just make false accusations that I'm quoting you.

Looking back on the conversation to give you actual quotes though, I believe their was a misunderstanding:


Me: "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: "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"

You see... I believe you mean "more justified than Bush" instead of agreeing with me that he's 'more justified' [than he would have been if Bush hadn't been so bad]. That's not at all what I was saying. I could care less how he is relative to Bush. Because I don't like either of them. I meant exactly what I said. How is pointing out Bush's flaws justify Obama? the answer is obviously that it doesn't. You were simply arguing that Bush was worse, which is irrelevant. Now that I understand where you're coming from, speaking relative to Bush, I'd be happy to argue that point as well. If the the bar we give our future presidents is: be better than Bush, this country is already in hell.
Click to expand...

Bushes impact on America is irrelevent in your opinion, to me President Obama has no need to justify his desire to help the working middle class and poor. Now you may have a clearer idea of where I am coming from
 
EarlzP said:
Bushes impact on America is irrelevent in your opinion, to me President Obama has no need to justify his desire to help the working middle class and poor. Now you may have a clearer idea of where I am coming from
Click to expand...

Earlz, I believe you are being intentional now (or at least I hope so). Must I spell out W-O-R-D for word every point? Bush's* impact on America is irrelevant* when assessing OBAMA. You're argument that Bush was worse is irrelevant *TO THE DEBATE*
 
friday said:
It is NOT $1,000 a year for the average family any more than the Making Work Pay one time credit of $800 was $292,000 a year. The average family does not make $50,000 every two months. If he wanted to be able to announce that it would save the average American family $1,000 a year, he should have passed the Boehner extension that lasted a year.
Click to expand...

He was referring to savings per year. He has been saying the exact same thing since this started, and before when touting the tax cut. The fact you cannot see that is your fault, not his.
 
Redress said:
He was referring to savings per year. He has been saying the exact same thing since this started, and before when touting the tax cut. The fact you cannot see that is your fault, not his.
Click to expand...

The tax cut doesn't last a year. So he is wrong. It doesn't save $1,000 a year, it doesn't save $10,000 a decade. It saves $160. Saying that it saves $1,000 a year for the average family is a scheister accounting lie. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
 
friday said:
The tax cut doesn't last a year. So he is wrong. It doesn't save $1,000 a year, it doesn't save $10,000 a decade. It saves $160. Saying that it saves $1,000 a year for the average family is a scheister accounting lie. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

And yet he was still talking about the savings per year. Sorry you cannot see that, but your desire to criticize is overriding your sense to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom