Carly Fiorina Brings The Same Economics That Nearly Doomed HP To The CA-Sen Race
Tweet
Carly claims that tax cuts for the rich will pay for themselves. Except they don’t.
Republicans: In favor of deficits as long as we help rich people get filthy rich.
20 Responses to “Carly Fiorina Brings The Same Economics That Nearly Doomed HP To The CA-Sen Race”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Just because they didn’t pay for themselves when chickengeorge bush cut them doesn’t mean they won’t this time.
Anybody who uses that discredited graphic from the CBPP is immediately dismissible. Oliver tried, once. And even he knew it was garbage when he posted it.
Anybody who uses that discredited graphic from the CBPP is immediately dismissible.
One might say the same for commenters who declare that a document is “discredited” without saying who discredited it and how.
I call.
Hey, are you the same Savefarris from the mlb message board?
*. The graph includes the cost of extending the tax cuts for 2011-2019, even though noone thinks that will happen, without including any subsequent growth arriving from said tax cuts.
* and if they were extended, they’d be the Obama tax cuts, not the Bush tax cuts.
*. The graph assumes that our current contingent of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue in perpetuity.
*. Fannie and Freddie won’t cost us a dime for the rest of time.
* The graph says the economy won’t recover for the next decade. (okay, that ones true the longer Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s remain in their respective positions).
I don’t know that I’ve ever posted that graphic. Even if I have, I’ve never been “called” by any right wing commenters because you guys insist in playing in unreality.
There’s nothing hypocritical about the way Farris judges things as credible or not whatsoever.
Are you trying to be funny? That’s your idea of “discredited”?
*. The graph includes the cost of extending the tax cuts for 2011-2019, even though noone thinks that will happen, without including any subsequent growth arriving from said tax cuts.
As a technical matter, you’re correct. Of course, if you make this claim, you can’t turn right around and declare, “Obama is giving us deficits as far as the eye can see!” If “no one thinks” the tax rates will be extended, then deficits are going to shrink nicely starting next year, yes?
* and if they were extended, they’d be the Obama tax cuts, not the Bush tax cuts.
You do like to have it both ways, don’t you? If the tax rates expire, conservatives call it a tax increase. If the tax rates are extended, Bush gets credit for lower taxes and Obama takes the blame for the resulting deficit. There are a number of names for that sort of argumentation, none flattering.
*. The graph assumes that our current contingent of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue in perpetuity.
Very well. Let’s take that part out. Now the Bush tax cuts are an even larger part of the projected deficit. Good work, Farris!
*. Fannie and Freddie won’t cost us a dime for the rest of time.
And the CBPP should have projected what? Costs of a gazillion billion dollars? Here’s a clue: Pointing out that someone has not embraced your pet biases is not the same thing as “discrediting.”
* The graph says the economy won’t recover for the next decade. (okay, that ones true the longer Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s remain in their respective positions).
Really? It says that? Show me where.
Gee, haven’t posted on MLB since … 2004?!? I used to be real active over there during the labor negotiations (where, ironically enough, I was taking the union’s side!). but I just kinda lost interst for some reason. It’s real hard to stay engaged when the closest professional team is 300 miles away.
Why do you side with the union in this case if you normally side with the businesses? For me, it’s more of the opposite!
Republican voters think they’ll be rich someday if they pray hard enough
they’ll be rich someday if they pray prey hard enough
Fixed that for yah.
“then deficits are going to shrink nicely starting next year, yes?”
I’ll hold you to that. And Obama to “What I’ve proposed is a net spending cut.”
“And the CBPP should have projected what? Costs of a gazillion billion dollars?”
How about use available data?: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126168307200704747.html)
“Really? It says that? Show me where.”
Look at the dark blue portion labeled “Economic Downturn”. Do you see it getting significantly smaller between now and 2020? Based upon THEIR OWN PROJECTION, the recession will last at least another 10 years.
Thank you for admitting that you were being dishonest about the tax cuts, Farris. There may be hope for you yet.
Let’s check how the “Alinsky-ize Carly” strategy is working:
(http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d525bd62-80d2-4884-86a1-8c48ad920150)
As Oliver would say, BoxerBoom!
Virginia. New Jersey. Massachusettes. California. Who’s next?
So in a Republicans mind, tax cuts for the rich are ok but extension benefits for the unemployed is simply unconscionable. :/
You left out NY-23. Why?
ny-23 never happened just like the bush years.
BTW, Rassmussen has Boxer up over Fiorina, so the CA voters seem to know who is being sensible on the issue of economics here.
BTW, Rassmussen
You could have stopped right there.