“Chris Christie is neither a moderate nor a principled fiscal conservative. Under Christie, NJ has seen its already high property taxes go up, on average, almost 20%. Meanwhile, Christie has handed out over 2 billion dollars in business subsidies at the same time he's vetoed raising the minimum wage, the earned income tax credit, and has had his original education budget overturned by the courts for falling below the state's constitutional funding requirement. Courts had to step in again to stop him from seizing funds set aside for affordable housing as raids on dedicated funds have seen a rise under his leadership. Because of his 2016 presidential ambitions, Christie has ignored what the majority of New Jersey residents support on everything from marriage equality to women's health care funding.
Perhaps most cynically, however, Christie has cited fiscal concerns as justification for vetoing legislation for early voting and Sandy oversight, but has had no qualms in spending tax payer dollars on an extra set of elections and self-serving commercials that use 2 million dollars in federal funds that could have gone to storm victims.
“Given you find sarcasm so entertaining, I'll only point out that you seem to have neglected the distinction between what is possible and what is necessary. Is it possible that, among the 1.6 trillion in revenue, Obama has in mind middle-class tax increases? Sure. Is it necessary that in order to reach 1.6 trillion, given the other streams of revenue that are also available like eliminating deductions, loopholes, subsidies, and other tax breaks for giant corporations, Obama will HAVE to tax the middle class? No. In fact, it's not even likely.”
“My favorite part of your analysis is where you cite your sources. I also enjoyed the math you presented to both refute Mr. Krugman's claim that the GOP's proposed savings are one-fifth that of President Obamas as well as demonstrate how the middle-class must be impacted in order to reach the 1.6 trillion dollars. Kudos, Sir!”
jmc35741 on Dec 3, 2012 at 19:26:35
“Sarcastic liberals are amusing. I saw no reason to refute Krugman's call for higher taxes.
Multiple sources estimate 700 billion in increased revenues over 10 yrs if Bush tax cuts for those making over 250k are allowed to expire. Now simply subtract that amount from 1.6 trillion. That leaves 900 billion more in taxes for someone. Would one not assume that will be the middlle class?
President Obama's Mondale-esque call for higher taxes - ...
“Are you sincerely unaware that the economic recession began before Obama took office and that, as a result of the Senate requiring an unprecedented filibuster-proof majority to pass any legislation, there has been a continuance of the very policies responsible for the crisis?”
natureman44 on Aug 16, 2012 at 01:23:16
“The day the democrats took over was January 3rd 2007, the day democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since 1995.
For those saying it's "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and Congress. At the time the DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP the previous quarter was 3.5%
Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over House Financial Services Committee & Chris Dodd took over Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
Who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.
So when someone tries to blame Bush..
REMEMBER 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets come from Congress, the party that controlled Congress LEADING UP TO THE COLLAPSE WAS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.”
“Son of something, your argument would be legitimate if the non-commerce of the uninsured did not directly affect the price of healthcare for those participating. But, the non-commerce COMPELS a dramatic rise in prices, and subsequently access, in an area of commerce that constitutes 1/6th of our GDP- not to mention the impact on actual human lives. That is the difference.”
nelthroppesq on Apr 5, 2012 at 11:09:01
“Does non-participation oblige the government to force you to participate in order to lower the price. The Government could tax you in order for it to provide health care, but iot can't force you into the market. Can't you see this as beyond the pale? Can you see no limit to the power of government to compel the individual to buy a product. If I don't have a car, should I be compelled to buy car insurance so other car owners can pay less for their insurance?”
Son of Liberty 1765 on Apr 5, 2012 at 11:07:01
“You can say the same thing about the auto industry, the oil industry, the agriculture industry and just about any other industry. That is irrelevent to the Constitution, Mr. Comm unist.”
3x on Apr 5, 2012 at 10:50:42
“But the issue is whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate non-commerce, not whether it has an affect. It does, but if Congress has no power to do something about it, it can't.”
“I didn't say it wasn't the first downgrade. I listed the facts, as given by S&P, that resulted in the downgrade-- all of which were the results of the republican's "strategy". By no means do I consider Obama free of blame, however, his blame lies not in his policies, but in his inability to stand for them.”
“Not a fan of reading for context, are you? The claim is rated false not because there isn't evidence of fox news viewers being the least informed, but because " It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result". This doesn't mean, as the rest of the article goes on to explain, that there aren't many that do. They're are.
It's the difference between saying "every person who smokes cigarettes will get cancer" and "cigarettes are associated with a higher risk of cancer." The first claim is obviously false as there are cases of people smoking and living until 100. This is analogous to Fox News viewers being informed *despite* their watching of fox news. However, what you linked to does state, quite clearly, that watching fox news is correlated to an increase of being misinformed. Like this gem regarding the war, "Fox clearly did the worst among the major news outlets". In fact, the article you link to goes on to say that a study completed in 2003 that came to the same result "strikes us as pretty solid"
Lastly, None of this has anything to do with Soros, and I'm not the one who relied on poll-tested sound bites and copy and past to make my point. Who's the mindless bot now?”
“Irrelevance is posting a statistic that has no bearing on the validity of the study, the institution that carried it out, or the people who authored it. It's also a pretty standard-issue fallacy that anyone who's taken a 100 level college course should be able to avoid.
The University of Maryland is ranked 18 on the list of the top 100 public universities; A ranking that is determined by the quality of it's faculty and research. Ironic that a fox news viewer intent on defending the informedness of the audience would make such a glaring, uninformed, error.”
“What reflects poorly is your thorough misunderstanding of how academia works, but I guess that's to be expected given your reliance on fallacies instead of reasoning. University of Maryland comes in at #18 on the list of the top 100 public colleges. That's a credit to its faculty, ie. the people responsible for this study. It's party school designation is a credit to its students, ie. people entirely separate from those responsible for the study. (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public)
With that said, it's no surprise you neglected to back your claims regarding the health care law. Only in fantasy land is the nebulous quantity of "most economists" superior to the CBO's projections. Which, by the way, put a 230 billion price tag for repealing a law that is in no way responsible for the magnitude of the deficit problem but credits it with saving 1.3 trillion and insuring 95% of the population. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027568-503544.html)
“You've merely restated what you originally wrote while still failing to address how or why British law would supersede American law governing the birth of a child on American soil to an American mother.”
“Please explain why and how British law should/would/could supersede American Law when it comes to the citizenship of child born on American soil, in an American hospital, to an American-born mother?”
jeff90125 on Aug 6, 2011 at 18:45:25
“British law covered Barack Obama Sr. He was NOT a U.S. Citizen and never even intended to be. That makes Little Barack a British Subject according to British Law. he may be a Citizen by birth but that would be a dual citizen. Can a dual citizen be a natural born citizen? I don't know.
I do know that one of the purposes of the natural born citizen clause was to prevent any foreign influence or loyalty in the commander in chief. A dual citizen at birth would certainly have dual loyalties.
You also mentioned his american born mother. Would it have made a difference if his father was American born but his mother was not?”
“The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having Students Who Study The Least and being the Best Party School. Ouch.... It ranks 56th nationally. Can we cite irrelevance more?”
rukiskidd on Aug 6, 2011 at 19:04:24
“University of Maryland? A school whose students study the least and rank is abysmal ;) Nice try!!! While I can see some of those questions as being legitimate the vast majority are unproven to be fact or fiction.
–Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
–The economy is getting worse (26 points)
I would argue both of those questions are largely unanswerable and if any answer is more likely it is not the one the study believed to be true. Either way you should not link studies from party schools ;) It reflects upon you.”
“For starters, an argument from popularity is a noted fallacy. Secondly, the official S&P report cites republican intransigence and political brinkmanship as one of the major factors for the downgrade. Another major factor was the lack of entitlement reform, which was put on the table by Obama but walked away from by the Republicans. Another major factor was the lack of addressing the real problem of insufficient revenues. Again, the republicans refused to agree to so much as the closing of tax loop-holes as a condition to any deal, let alone address the Bush tax cuts which have, to date, cost the US taxpayers 3.2 Trillion dollars
So please, if you're going to do me the honor of a response, spare the straw men and address the facts.”
kellehergibs on Aug 7, 2011 at 00:51:42
“they should get rid of the tax loop holes, but no this is the 1st credit down grade in US history, sorry that is the fact unless u know of a prior downgrade?”
“Is it because Donald Trump's companies have had to file bankruptcy four times that you think his prescription for an American default is a good idea? Or, are you just partial to business practices that are antithetical to netting profits?”