Brian, about that tax break for corporate jets? It was originally passed to help the airplane industry recover post 9/11, and was reauthorized in 2009. I forget who was running the White House and Congress then.
And about the president’s claim that “every single observer . . . who’s not a politician says we can’t reduce our deficit in the scale or scope that we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything”?
Do you not realize that Bernake isn't agreeing with your position here?
Sure, we can end the deficit by cutting spending; it's a foolish question to even ask. But we would have to do things like cut the military budget by 50%. Things that will NEVER happen, under any administration or Congress, ever. So, to claim that this is possible, is like claiming that it's POSSIBLE that you could win the lottery; it sure is, but it's so highly unlikely, that only fools plan on it.
How about rewarding fiscal responsibilty at all levels of government? Currently if a government budget is $1,000 they must spend the $1,000 dollars or they will not get that same amount next year. There is no incentive for being fiscally responsible. Granted companies like mine make out in September (end of the fiscal year) because budget money must be spent so I receive a lot of frivolous orders. I would gladly not have the orders if it meant that the government was spending my money wisely.
And do YOU not realize that Bernanke’s failure to support an argument doesn’t make it wrong. Obama said 'nobody says you can balance the budget on cuts alone'. Bernanke is on camera admitting it can. He doesn’t agree with it, obviously, but he admits it can. The point is that Obama was wrong or lying in his assertion, not that Bernanke supports cutting only to balance the budget. Whether Bernanke supports it is irrelevant to the fact-check on Obama.
What you posit may be technically possible, but it's a realistic IMPOSSIBILITY. And you know that's true, so why are you even making this argument?
It's technically possible for one NBA team to defeat another one 140-0. But nobody predicts that will ever happen, because it's so extremely unlikely. Nobody says it WILL happen. You COULD spontaneously combust while writing your next post on NRO; but nobody is claiming that it will happen.
So, yeah. I don't think you're correct in the slightest.
What 'point?' You're flapping your gums, but not much else.
It's clear from the provided video that Bernake considered the question to be ridiculous - and that it has nothing to do with the prez presser today at all.
Perhaps the most absurd offering from the Comedian named Obama today, was his suggestion Libya concerns is "politics".
It is a revealing moment, as we know Mr. Obama was obviously playing politics with Iraq, GITMO, wire taps, the Patriot Act, drone assassinations, rendition, executive orders, signing statements, transparency, fiscal responsibility, partisan politics, etc.
Here, as with much of today's dishonest Obama offering, we see the projection of his own self hoisted on today's political focus. "FUSS" is what he offered, including his rejection prior of raising the 'DEBT Ceiling'. Obama reveals again he was just a lie, his entire offering prior to the Presidency was a calculated "fuss" for political gain.
His reference in demeaning Congress, equating the House and Senate with his young children is more Cater-esque hubris. Obama cannot help but blame others, passing responsibility for his part in the insane spending, while he childishly demeans them. This is only further setting up more political problems for him, just as he and Mrs. Clinton have so badly handled offering serious dialogue over their NON WAR in Libya. Congress has ego too, and today Obama further gave his fellow Party Members in the House and Senate reasons to through his disastrous offering under the bus.
Obama cannot help himself off of the Teleprompter. His ego, (lack of serious experience), makes his offering off of a prepared script a political nightmare. The Democratic Party is in deep trouble heading towards 2012. Keeping Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Reid unwilling to try to offer a Budget, with a failed standard bearer named Obama, who remains utterly dysfunctional, dishonest, demeaning. It is a recipe for further political loss.
Good news for the Nation and for the supporters of the GOP.
Yes, Mr. President, the depreciation allowance for corporate jets is EXACTLY what’s causing the mega debt crisis we are now facing. Thanks for tackling such tough issues for us.
Obama's focus on corporate jets to wage his latest round of class warfare brings to mind the famous yacht tax of 1990; a tax Democrats insisted be included in the Ombnibus bill that was primarily intended to make the first President Bush break his "read my lips" tax pledge.
The immediate result was a 50-percent decline in the amount of tax revenue collected from the yacht building industry along with the loss of 7,600 jobs associated with building and outfitting yachts. The lost jobs also cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue.
If we had a free press we might expect reporters to revive that story and to interview some of the workers who build corporate jets about the threat posed to their future if Obama gets his way. If we had a free press....
This post totally misses the boat, and the video does more to support Obama's position than to disagree with it. Obama didn't mean you couldn't balance the budget if you eliminated medicare, social security, security spending, etc., which is all BB agrees to in the video. Duh. As anyone who's been following this debate understands, Obama's point is that you can't balance the budget AND avoid huge cuts to social security, security spending, medicaid and medicare UNLESS you raise taxes. WHICH IS TRUE. The reason Obama is debating this point is that the GOP is being dishonest by arguing that they can balance the budget without tax increases without making huge cuts to these popular programs. Simply put, the only politically viable solution to the budget problem is cuts plus tax increases, bc there is a real limit to the cuts that old people are going to accept to the Big 3, or that US public to national security.
I disagree with you. There is plenty evidence from economists that you can balance the budget w/o raising taxes. Let's be real. If the politicians decide either way, the budget WON'T be balanced in the next 5 years. People must understand whatever plan is put in place has to be structured to avoid what Greece is doing. Obamacare sure doesn't help keep healthcare costs under control just how our current system isnt fixed to help stem the costs. That is why to fix our problem EVERYTHING will have to be looked at for cuts (let's remember the Constitution talks about providing for Common Defense not social welfare). Our tax system needs to be replace with a fair or flat tax. Reduce the corporate income tax, repeal the death tax, and let companies bring their money from overseas to the US w/o having to be taxed like it currently is. Remember, removing tax cuts for the "rich" only brings in $70 billion/year. That won't do anything to solve our debt or current budget deficit.
As Hillary Clinton says, "cackle cackle"!
Did Obama really mention Trade Agreements?
You have to be kidding...
Corporate Jets?
Oh my, 'smart power' is dumb, period. Beyond ignorant, beyond insulting, simply a joke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you not realize that Bernake isn't agreeing with your position here?
Sure, we can end the deficit by cutting spending; it's a foolish question to even ask. But we would have to do things like cut the military budget by 50%. Things that will NEVER happen, under any administration or Congress, ever. So, to claim that this is possible, is like claiming that it's POSSIBLE that you could win the lottery; it sure is, but it's so highly unlikely, that only fools plan on it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about rewarding fiscal responsibilty at all levels of government? Currently if a government budget is $1,000 they must spend the $1,000 dollars or they will not get that same amount next year. There is no incentive for being fiscally responsible. Granted companies like mine make out in September (end of the fiscal year) because budget money must be spent so I receive a lot of frivolous orders. I would gladly not have the orders if it meant that the government was spending my money wisely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd do YOU not realize that Bernanke’s failure to support an argument doesn’t make it wrong. Obama said 'nobody says you can balance the budget on cuts alone'. Bernanke is on camera admitting it can. He doesn’t agree with it, obviously, but he admits it can. The point is that Obama was wrong or lying in his assertion, not that Bernanke supports cutting only to balance the budget. Whether Bernanke supports it is irrelevant to the fact-check on Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat you posit may be technically possible, but it's a realistic IMPOSSIBILITY. And you know that's true, so why are you even making this argument?
It's technically possible for one NBA team to defeat another one 140-0. But nobody predicts that will ever happen, because it's so extremely unlikely. Nobody says it WILL happen. You COULD spontaneously combust while writing your next post on NRO; but nobody is claiming that it will happen.
So, yeah. I don't think you're correct in the slightest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoint...whoooosh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat 'point?' You're flapping your gums, but not much else.
It's clear from the provided video that Bernake considered the question to be ridiculous - and that it has nothing to do with the prez presser today at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it foolish to expect a congress dominated by Democrats to make even token cuts in anything other than defense?
Obviously.
That doesn't mean that a cuts only plan is bad economics, it isn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps the most absurd offering from the Comedian named Obama today, was his suggestion Libya concerns is "politics".
It is a revealing moment, as we know Mr. Obama was obviously playing politics with Iraq, GITMO, wire taps, the Patriot Act, drone assassinations, rendition, executive orders, signing statements, transparency, fiscal responsibility, partisan politics, etc.
Here, as with much of today's dishonest Obama offering, we see the projection of his own self hoisted on today's political focus. "FUSS" is what he offered, including his rejection prior of raising the 'DEBT Ceiling'. Obama reveals again he was just a lie, his entire offering prior to the Presidency was a calculated "fuss" for political gain.
His reference in demeaning Congress, equating the House and Senate with his young children is more Cater-esque hubris. Obama cannot help but blame others, passing responsibility for his part in the insane spending, while he childishly demeans them. This is only further setting up more political problems for him, just as he and Mrs. Clinton have so badly handled offering serious dialogue over their NON WAR in Libya. Congress has ego too, and today Obama further gave his fellow Party Members in the House and Senate reasons to through his disastrous offering under the bus.
Obama cannot help himself off of the Teleprompter. His ego, (lack of serious experience), makes his offering off of a prepared script a political nightmare. The Democratic Party is in deep trouble heading towards 2012. Keeping Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Reid unwilling to try to offer a Budget, with a failed standard bearer named Obama, who remains utterly dysfunctional, dishonest, demeaning. It is a recipe for further political loss.
Good news for the Nation and for the supporters of the GOP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice derisive little snarklet from Gerry Connolly at the end, there. Almost as nice as Bernanke's "Can you believe this guy?" expression.
I would've loved to see Bernanke respond, totally deadpan, "Yes, Mr. Connolly... ...it is indeed nice to be an economist."
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes for congressional representation today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut Michelle Bachmann is the flake.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Mr. President, the depreciation allowance for corporate jets is EXACTLY what’s causing the mega debt crisis we are now facing. Thanks for tackling such tough issues for us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's really funny, is that the stimulus package included incentives for buying corporate jets.
Now, barely two years later, owning corporate jets is a bad thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's focus on corporate jets to wage his latest round of class warfare brings to mind the famous yacht tax of 1990; a tax Democrats insisted be included in the Ombnibus bill that was primarily intended to make the first President Bush break his "read my lips" tax pledge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe immediate result was a 50-percent decline in the amount of tax revenue collected from the yacht building industry along with the loss of 7,600 jobs associated with building and outfitting yachts. The lost jobs also cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue.
If we had a free press we might expect reporters to revive that story and to interview some of the workers who build corporate jets about the threat posed to their future if Obama gets his way. If we had a free press....
Stimulating private jets:
External Link
Perhaps his daughters should do his homework for him while he golfs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis post totally misses the boat, and the video does more to support Obama's position than to disagree with it. Obama didn't mean you couldn't balance the budget if you eliminated medicare, social security, security spending, etc., which is all BB agrees to in the video. Duh. As anyone who's been following this debate understands, Obama's point is that you can't balance the budget AND avoid huge cuts to social security, security spending, medicaid and medicare UNLESS you raise taxes. WHICH IS TRUE. The reason Obama is debating this point is that the GOP is being dishonest by arguing that they can balance the budget without tax increases without making huge cuts to these popular programs. Simply put, the only politically viable solution to the budget problem is cuts plus tax increases, bc there is a real limit to the cuts that old people are going to accept to the Big 3, or that US public to national security.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProblem is, not one dime of any tax increase will be used to lower the debt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe all know this.
I disagree with you. There is plenty evidence from economists that you can balance the budget w/o raising taxes. Let's be real. If the politicians decide either way, the budget WON'T be balanced in the next 5 years. People must understand whatever plan is put in place has to be structured to avoid what Greece is doing. Obamacare sure doesn't help keep healthcare costs under control just how our current system isnt fixed to help stem the costs. That is why to fix our problem EVERYTHING will have to be looked at for cuts (let's remember the Constitution talks about providing for Common Defense not social welfare). Our tax system needs to be replace with a fair or flat tax. Reduce the corporate income tax, repeal the death tax, and let companies bring their money from overseas to the US w/o having to be taxed like it currently is. Remember, removing tax cuts for the "rich" only brings in $70 billion/year. That won't do anything to solve our debt or current budget deficit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse