US presidential election

[Valwin]

Romney wins Puerto Rico primary yay

 

[smile72]

All the votes are bullshit. Simply because you only have a choice of a few people who are all going to ruin America, maybe not in the same way, but equally. It's a government of lies with their secrets hidden in false information. How can you ever believe the news nowadays when on the new people just say stuff you have no proof of. A obvious example, Osama Bin Laden killed. They wont show his body, hardly anyone "saw" it. And then they say they threw it in the sea.

You may tell this to their faces, but they always have excuses of the laws they invented. "Why wont you show it on TV?" "Oh because people might find it horrible." Bullshit. People don't need to watch it if they always give them warnings before. They have everything their way, why would we want any one of them?... You don't have a clue what they might decide next.

Someone's extremely paranoid. Yeah,only one party will ruin the U.S. as they are anti women's and gay rights, they're always crying over religious freedoms. They believe tax cuts are the answer to everything and that all social programs are evil.

 

[smile72]

No matter what I say, you are up in arms about defending the democrats massive spending, you run your mouth it was all bushes fault, and bill Clinton is a fiscal god. I still see absolutely no answer on how to defeat the 211 trillion dollar deficit, you lack even an inclining of detail.

Obama's proposed budget reduces discretionary spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. For every dollar in revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year (ending Bush tax cuts) and from closing corporate loopholes, Obama's proposed budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year. Including legislation from 2011, Obama's policies trim the deficit by around $5 trillion. Much of that is getting rid of the Bush tax cuts. Those are pretty specific numbers, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Paul Ryan had a great plan, but no one is giving it a shot

Paul Ryan's plan destroys Medicare as we know it and will later cause seniors to pay thousands more a year for health care. It also raises taxes on the middle class and decreases taxes substantially on the very rich. Finally, the TPS projects that the changes in Medicare, Social Security, tax increases on the middle class, etc. probably won't offset the tax cuts for the rich and the debt will continue to increase. So no, Paul Ryan's plan is not viable.

He had no major plans to reduce balance the budget, he cut a little here and a little there. We had a balanced budget thanks to the republicans in congress, not because of what Clinton did. Even the uber liberal news paper SFGATE agrees states it was the republican's plan that paved the way to a balanced budget

Actually, no. The major reason for the balanced budget was the increased revenue from tax increases on the rich. Because these tax increases did not get a single Republican vote, it is fair to say that the balanced budget was due to Clinton and the Democrats.

What actually reduced the deficit was Clinton's budget passed with Democrat majorities. There was a Balanced Budget Act in 1997 that was bipartisan, but it really just cut spending and siphoned the savings to other things (capital gains tax cuts, etc). In fact, it contributed slightly more to the debt.

The new Clinton budget replaces the formal one he submitted in February that called for continued $200 billion deficits. The new plan adopts the keystone GOP goal of a balanced budget, but postpones the 2002 target date by three years

This is a misinterpretation of the data:

1993 - deficit $255 Billion
1994 - deficit $203 Billion
1995 - deficit $164 Billion
1996 - deficit $108 Billion
1997 - deficit $22 Billion
1998 - SURPLUS $69 Billion
1999 - SURPLUS $124 Billion
2000 - SURPLUS $236 Billion

As you can see, the deficit was steadily decreasing thanks to Clinton's tax increases on the rich. The only thing the Republicans had anything to do with was the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and it actually did nothing to lessen the deficit. While it decreased spending, it only moved money around to offset tax cuts included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Liberals who want to "spread the wealth around" will never help this great country in the long run, you only make things worse.

I can't respond to that unless you're more specific.

YES, wars cost money, but it doesn't help when you tack on amendments to defense bills

The fact that the spending bill was attached to the defense bill is not relevant in terms of war costs. Things are attached to defense bills all the time. A budget that dictated how things would be spent in the coming year was going to be attached to the defense bill regardless of who was doing it or what money was going to be spent on.

The fact that Bush massively increased spending on things like the wars and decreased revenue with massive tax cuts was the worst thing anyone could do to the debt. Democrats were very much against that. It is obvious that the Democrats are the ones who are fiscally responsible, not the Republicans. Likewise, the bill you are referring to increased spending by about $16 billion. I agree with you that spending did not need to be increased, but consider both that $16 billion is insignificant compared to the major causes of our deficit (Bush tax cuts, for one) and that Obama actually proposed spending cuts that were not implemented in that particular spending amendment.

The point about the housing market is, I know you didn't say that but it's the mindset I was getting at, WE TRIED TO WARN THE NATION, but no one gave a shit until it happened.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Even if one's interpretation of the video is correct, it is dated 2003. If Republicans knew what was to come, Bush and the Republican majorities chose to do nothing about it. Democrats had no power during that time. If you want to argue that your interpretation of the video is accurate, the Republicans are responsible for the housing crisis. However, I still say that it is neither party's fault.

@#5, I was just stating the obvious fact, it cost's just as much now as it did then, even bin laden said that there was a war in iraq between the terrorist and the united states, Do I like the way our soldiers had to fight with hands tied behind them? No, but it's a larger scale, we do not know everything, we are not high level operatives in the cia, and we do not have the right to call these things, if you are going to help someone out, great! It helps if we actually know WHAT THE MISSION IS! When is the last time that the mission in Afghanistan was stated? We are just "over yonder" We do not have an explicit idea what the mission is, and it looks like we are getting out even earlier now, so you can't blame the war much longer.

It has been confirmed that the reasons for the Iraq War in the first place were lies. Likewise, the increased spending combined with the decreased revenue put us in the debt situation we're in now. You talk about World War II like there's some kind of parallel, but there isn't. Even ignoring that World War II was unavoidable, steps (taxes, bonds, etc) were taken to at least help reduce the debt incurred from World War II. The Iraq War was unnecessary, unpopular, based on lies, and unpaid for.

I probably know more about carl marx than you ever did, fun fact! The lazy bastard refused to work, and let his child starve to death, because he didn't want to work. Horrible human being, horrible indeed! Communism is mass unionism, we have a mass union problem in our country right now... sound familiar? We need more union busting!

To say you know more about Carl Marx than I do is a bold and unsubstantiated claim. I made that comment that you might not know what communism is because you compared the stimulus (something that helped the economy and was the biggest tax break for the middle class in history) to communism. The stimulus is something that metaphorically jump-started the economy. That's the opposite of communism. Unless you're against tax breaks, for starters, and think they're communism, I was fair in my assessment that you weren't entirely sure what you were talking about.

As for your view on labor unions... what? Could you explain how that's relevant to any part of our discussion? I might honestly have missed your point. Regardless, labor unions allow the ability to collectively bargain, make sure workers and being treated fairly, etc. Labor unions are very much a civil rights issues, as evidenced by the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was highly supportive of labor unions. Some conservatives like to argue that labor unions contribute massively to, for example, state debt. However, the busting of labor unions all over the states by Republicans has not helped the budget in any of those states. On the contrary, most of these Republican-controlled states are just cutting taxes for the rich and not balancing their budgets. Sound familiar? It should.

As for all this talk about English as an official language in the United States, it seems like a silly debate. I honestly understand peoples' fears that they won't be able to understand something that's going on because the business is being conducted in a language other in English, however racist those fears might be. But I'm a linguist, and one needs to keep in mind that languages are in a constant state of change. What we define as English now might not be English tomorrow. And where do we draw the line? Do we make it so official business conducted in the capitals cannot be conducted in, for example, AAVE? There are two vowel shifts happening in America, and some linguists believe that different parts of the United States won't, verbally, be mutually intelligible in the future. Are we going to make laws specifying what kind of English should be spoken then? It's my opinion that vaguely defining English as an official language is just tying our hands behind our backs in the future.

Thank you,Lacius finally someone says it. Paul Ryan's plan destroys Medicare and only increases the debt. And of course, we only had a surplus by raising taxes.

If you are just going to sit there and continuously defend and not provide any fact's whatsoever I am not going to sit here and attempt to correct you over and over again, much like my sessions with bluestar who also lacked sources I will not stay up until 3 in the morning researching and providing links to documentation. I have school to worry about, I don't have time to screw around arguing with a fool who wishes to deflect deflect deflect.

Btw, Germany, France, the United kingdom Spain, Portugal and countless others must be "racist" for having an 'official language', everything was written in the native tongue and still is. So why should the united states be any different? <--- That's a rhetorical question, It doesn't warrant a response.

@[member='KarL'], who really gives a damn how it's spelled? I just jumped to the way I am used to spelling/typing that name, give me a break from the nit picking for damn sake.

That's different, those are not nations created by immigrants.
Here you go

According to Henry Aaron, one of two economists who coined the term "premium support" in response to criticisms of health care vouchers, states that the Republican plan for Medicare uses vouchers, not “premium support”. The defining attribute of the plans that Aaron christened “premium support” was that governmental financial support would rise with average health care costs. The Republican plan instead, has this support rising with the consumer price index (general inflation). This difference is crucial to understanding the Republican proposal—the cost of health care is rising much faster than the consumer price index. The Republican voucher plan is virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate over time. Beneficiaries will need to pay for the increases in health care costs due to inflation –- that how the Republican plan saves money.


The vouchers would rise in value with the consumer price index (general inflation), but as medical expenses have been rising much faster than the consumer price index, the value of the government subsidy would erode over time. When the program begins in 2022, the typical 65-year old would be responsible for about 25% of the cost of their healthcare, which is consistent with Medicare as it exists today. However, the share paid out-of-pocket by this typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under the Republican plan, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.

http://en.wikipedia....edicaid_reforms

 

[gshock]

(few days ago in Wash DC)

I'd vote Obama, but I'd still sooner make changes to my lifestyle then wait for the rest of the country to make changes for everybody first.

( No matter who was president. )

If gas prices go up consider getting some cheap solar PV cells to help offset the cost of fuels and grid dependency.

Fossil fuels as a finite resource are going to continue to be expensive no matter who's sitting in the president's seat in the near future.

Not everything is the federal goverments fault.

That's the problem you're from England therefore you haven't heard any Fox News or Conservative Talk Radio (such as Rush Limbaugh). (No this is not an insult, people who are not from Aamerica often don't understand why Obama has such low ratings).

( I'm not sure if you're joking or not but here Fox News is ridiculed frequently and is considered about as credible as news stand tabloids. Just saying. )

I've got to say Karl Marx's work is a brilliant yet difficult read. Easily one of the most important people to have ever lived.

Which of his ideas would that be. Out of curiosity.

 

[smile72]

(few days ago in Wash DC)

I'd vote Obama, but I'd still sooner make changes to my lifestyle then wait for the rest of the country to make changes for everybody first.

( No matter who was president. )

If gas prices go up consider getting some cheap solar PV cells to help offset the cost of fuels and grid dependency.

Fossil fuels as a finite resource are going to continue to be expensive no matter who's sitting in the president's seat in the near future.

Not everything is the federal goverments fault.

That's the problem you're from England therefore you haven't heard any Fox News or Conservative Talk Radio (such as Rush Limbaugh). (No this is not an insult, people who are not from Aamerica often don't understand why Obama has such low ratings).

( I'm not sure if you're joking or not but here Fox News is ridiculed frequently and is considered about as credible as news stand tabloids. Just saying. )

I've got to say Karl Marx's work is a brilliant yet difficult read. Easily one of the most important people to have ever lived.

Which of his ideas would that be. Out of curiosity.

Not to the Conservatives. To the Conservatives Fox News is completely factual.

 

[Hanafuda]

Not to the Conservatives. To the Conservatives Fox News is completely factual.

Fox News obviously has its bias, but how does this make it any different from any other "news" outlet?? MSNBC, the New York Times ... obviously just as biased but to the opposite pole. There isn't much journalism going on these days that isn't pushing one direction or the other. Even places you might go where there isn't really a (D) or (R) spin, such as reason.com, still have their libertarian agenda pushing their idea of what is "news."

Basically, you either avoid all media and choose to stay uninformed, or you soak it all up from all sides and try to discern the likely truth by remembering all political "news" is really a sales pitch. If you only listen to one set of cheerleaders you're intentionally uninterested in the truth.

FWIW, I don't even watch any English-speaking television anymore, with the exception some college football in the fall. My family sits down to a couple hours of japanese tv every night, but that's it. I get my "news", such that it is, from visiting a variety of news sites and blogs, some conservative and some liberal.

 

[smile72]

Not to the Conservatives. To the Conservatives Fox News is completely factual.

Fox News obviously has its bias, but how does this make it any different from any other "news" outlet?? MSNBC, the New York Times ... obviously just as biased but to the opposite pole. There isn't much journalism going on these days that isn't pushing one direction or the other. Even places you might go where there isn't really a (D) or ® spin, such as reason.com, still have their libertarian agenda pushing their idea of what is "news."

Basically, you either avoid all media and choose to stay uninformed, or you soak it all up from all sides and try to discern the likely truth by remembering all political "news" is really a sales pitch. If you only listen to one set of cheerleaders you're intentionally uninterested in the truth.

FWIW, I don't even watch any English-speaking television anymore, with the exception some college football in the fall. My family sits down to a couple hours of japanese tv every night, but that's it. I get my "news", such that it is, from visiting a variety of news sites and blogs, some conservative and some liberal.

The difference is MSNBC doesn't aim to lie. Any person with a brain who has seen Fox News realizes the difference.

 

[Hanafuda]

Not to the Conservatives. To the Conservatives Fox News is completely factual.

Fox News obviously has its bias, but how does this make it any different from any other "news" outlet?? MSNBC, the New York Times ... obviously just as biased but to the opposite pole. There isn't much journalism going on these days that isn't pushing one direction or the other. Even places you might go where there isn't really a (D) or ® spin, such as reason.com, still have their libertarian agenda pushing their idea of what is "news."

Basically, you either avoid all media and choose to stay uninformed, or you soak it all up from all sides and try to discern the likely truth by remembering all political "news" is really a sales pitch. If you only listen to one set of cheerleaders you're intentionally uninterested in the truth.

FWIW, I don't even watch any English-speaking television anymore, with the exception some college football in the fall. My family sits down to a couple hours of japanese tv every night, but that's it. I get my "news", such that it is, from visiting a variety of news sites and blogs, some conservative and some liberal.

The difference is MSNBC doesn't aim to lie. Any person with a brain who has seen Fox News realizes the difference.

I have a brain. I'm saying they all lie.

 

[Lacius]

I have a brain. I'm saying they all lie.

I'm not saying you won't find a mistake here and there from other networks like MSNBC, but Fox News consistently lies and misrepresents the facts. This is why seven studies have consistently found that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed. Canada has a law that prohibits its broadcasts from blatantly lying and deceiving viewers, and it was enough to keep Fox News out of Canada, at least for a time (I don't know how the matter was resolved or if it ever was). You can argue that all networks lie to some degree, but there is no way that other networks like MSNBC are even close to the level of Fox News.

Fox News controversies

In the interest of fairness, there's an MSNBC controversies page as well, but you'll notice that it pales in comparison.

Regardless of how detrimental Fox News arguably is to society, I feel there has yet to be sufficient evidence provided that supports the idea that any of the Republicans are viable candidates for president of the United States. Republican policies are largely out-of-touch and illogical, and when it comes to conspiracy theories that Obama is a socialist-communist-Muslim-foreigner-atheist, Fox News hasn't helped.

 

[Hanafuda]

I have a brain. I'm saying they all lie.

I'm not saying you won't find a mistake here and there from other networks like MSNBC, but Fox News consistently lies and misrepresents the facts. This is why seven studies have consistently found that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed. Canada has a law that prohibits its broadcasts from blatantly lying and deceiving viewers, and it was enough to keep Fox News out of Canada, at least for a time (I don't know how the matter was resolved or if it ever was). You can argue that all networks lie to some degree, but there is no way that other networks like MSNBC are even close to the level of Fox News.

Fox News controversies

In the interest of fairness, there's an MSNBC controversies page as well, but you'll notice that it pales in comparison.

Regardless of how detrimental Fox News arguably is to society, I feel there has yet to be sufficient evidence provided that supports the idea that any of the Republicans are viable candidates for president of the United States. Republican policies are largely out-of-touch and illogical, and when it comes to conspiracy theories that Obama is a socialist-communist-Muslim-foreigner-atheist, Fox News hasn't helped.

I said all media outlets have their slant. You're admitting that, but arguing over to what degree. You can compare Foxnews to MSNBC wikipedia 'controversy' websites one-on-one if you like, but that omits (whether wikipedia has such pages for them or not) ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, HLN, plus the print media, i.e. NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, etc, not to mention the services such as AP and Reuters. The majority of 'mainstream' journalists working out there are reporting from a liberal bias - are you going to honestly deny that? Most recently the exposure of "journo-list" provided hard evidence of an organized narrative, but it should be apparent just from being exposed to it if your eyes are open.

I'm not disagreeing with you that Fox is feeding people twisted news. I'm just saying, if you think there's isn't an equal but opposite twist being applied to current events at other media outlets, you're not an objective consumer of information.

 

[Lacius]

I said all media outlets have their slant. You're admitting that, but arguing over to what degree. You can compare Foxnews to MSNBC wikipedia 'controversy' websites one-on-one if you like, but that omits (whether wikipedia has such pages for them or not) ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, HLN, plus the print media, i.e. NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, etc, not to mention the services such as AP and Reuters. The majority of 'mainstream' journalists working out there are reporting from a liberal bias - are you going to honestly deny that?

While journalists might be disproportionately liberal, there is no real evidence supporting your claim that the majority of reporting has a liberal bias. And just playing devil's advocate for a second, who is to say that reporting from a liberal bias is inherently bad as long as the reporting remains ethical? I'd like to know what you think it means to report from a liberal bias.

I'm not disagreeing with you that Fox is feeding people twisted news. I'm just saying, if you think there's isn't an equal but opposite twist being applied to current events at other media outlets, you're not an objective consumer of information.

Facts are facts regardless of how they're reported and the commentary that is included. Fox News reports in a way that distorts the facts so they are no longer facts. To say that Fox News is equal with any of the other media outlets is not looking at it from an objective point of view. Fox News claims to be unbiased and report the facts. It is neither of those things. Other media outlets report the facts, often times as objectively as possible. MSNBC doesn't claim to be impartial, and even if they did, calling out the Republicans on, for example, hypocrisy isn't a liberal bias; it's reporting facts that just happen to cast the Republicans in a negative light. MSNBC pundits like Rachel Maddow often times offer commentary that expresses a point-of-view and makes some kind of argument based on the facts. Biases or not, it doesn't become morally objectionable until one's trying to deceive the audience, and Fox News is the only news outlet that consistently does this with the distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, and it's probably because the facts are not on its side.

 

[Hanafuda]

While journalists might be disproportionately liberal, there is no real evidence supporting your claim that the majority of reporting has a liberal bias.

res ipsa loquitur, dude.

 

[Lacius]

While journalists might be disproportionately liberal, there is no real evidence supporting your claim that the majority of reporting has a liberal bias.

res ipsa loquitur, dude.

First of all, journalists might be disproportionately liberal. I'm not prepared to make that claim, and there's conflicting evidence.

Second, because a journalist might be left-leaning does not mean that his or her reporting will reflect his or her political ideology (but I'm not saying it never does either). There are many factors to consider, such as the fact that journalists often times try to report as objectively as possible, have network higher-ups that influence what's reported and how it's reported, etc. In fact, one could successfully argue that the media owners are the ones with agendas, and those agendas (corporate interests, etc) are often times right-leaning.

Third, I would argue that many news outlets (excluding Fox News, of course) often times report the facts as objectively as possible (ex. "conservatives are angry because of X. Liberals are angry because of Y"). The whole "liberal media" concept, to me, appears to be the right's defense when they're portrayed negatively and called out on their hypocrisy. For example, the famous Katie Couric interview of Sarah Palin. Do you think Katie let her political ideology dictate how she interviewed Palin? While Palin and Fox News would have you believe Palin's poor interview was because of the liberal media, most people, including McCain's campaign staff, agree that it was a fair interview without any bias; Palin just happened to give a really poor interview. Conservatives cannot call "foul" just because the facts are against them or they say something stupid. One could argue that the liberal media debate is only an issue because conservatives say a lot of stupid things, and what you call a "liberal bias" might be closer to common sense than a "conservative bias."

 

[The Catboy]

You know, being a guy who has actually lived under Mitt Romney's rule, I can say without a doubt he sucks. He only supported half of Massachusetts and that was the East half. If you lived in the Western half, you were screwed. Being that I lived there for 20 years, I watched ti go from a great place with lots of business, to a mess run down with slumlords, no jobs, and just dead. His systems only helped the rich and big cities, but dragged down the little man big time.
Santorum and Ginrich are both right-wing extremist that will drag our country into the dark ages if they are put into office. Personally I don't want to be treated like criminal over the minor part of my life.

 

[Lacius]

Santorum and Ginrich are both right-wing extremist that will drag our country into the dark ages if they are put into office. Personally I don't want to be treated like criminal over the minor part of my life.

The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist. He supports personhood amendments, which could arguably outlaw contraception in the form of the pill, and he has signed NOM's 2012 presidential pledge, which includes constitutionally banning gay marriage and appointing a "presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters."

 

[Advi]

I think Santorum's infamy as an extremely evangelical and homophobic prick has actually helped him a bit by distracting people from the fact that he's also blatantly politically corrupt and self-serving.

 

[smile72]

I think Santorum's infamy as an extremely evangelical and homophobic prick has actually helped him a bit by distracting people from the fact that he's also blatantly politically corrupt and self-serving.

You are correct. Southern "Christian" Americans will get over that stuff as long as their candidate hates gays and abortion.

 

[TLSS_N]

If you are just going to sit there and continuously defend and not provide any fact's whatsoever I am not going to sit here and attempt to correct you over and over again, much like my sessions with bluestar who also lacked sources I will not stay up until 3 in the morning researching and providing links to documentation. I have school to worry about, I don't have time to screw around arguing with a fool who wishes to deflect deflect deflect.

You're getting a little personal, don't you think?

Regardless, I've posted very specific facts and numbers. Saying otherwise is not going to change that. If you do end up wanting to continue our discussion, I recommend you start by posting evidence that Obama does not have a deficit-reduction plan or that any of the major Republican candidates won't worsen the deficit, for starters.

If you have a problem with any of the data I've provided, please say so and counter it with your own. Otherwise, I feel my points are extremely valid.

You have NOT provided facts, you've pulled numbers out of thin air, where as I actually PROVIDE both left and right leaning sources to back up my arguments. for example here is another one! TITLE: National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush via cbs.com, you are so full of bullshit it isn't even funny. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT, PROVIDE FACTUAL DATA EVEN IF IT IS BIASED.

 

[Lacius]

You have NOT provided facts, you've pulled numbers out of thin air, where as I actually PROVIDE both left and right leaning sources to back up my arguments. for example here is another one! TITLE: National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush via cbs.com, you are so full of bullshit it isn't even funny. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT, PROVIDE FACTUAL DATA EVEN IF IT IS BIASED.

You're right that the debt has gone up under Obama, but as you can see from the following, the debt is largely caused by Bush policies still in place, specifically the Bush tax cuts, and Obama plans on letting them expire as a part of his deficit-reduction plan. The light blue portions are Obama's contributions, and they're largely economic recovery measures (stimulus, etc). The major Republican candidates for president would increase the tax cuts for the rich and worsen the deficit. Sorry dude, but facts are facts.

edit: @[member='smile'], wow wikipedia really? Is this the same wikipedia article that stil list's obama's fraudulent birth certificate as a conspiracy theory? Check out the second link in my signature, alternatively watch this
*snip*

The Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory has been disproved. The original documents (every form you could possibly ask for, and from before Adobe Illustrator [that made me lol]) are a matter of public record, there are birth announcements in newspapers, etc. The burden of proof is on you and other conspiracy theorists to provide a shred of tangible evidence that Obama was not born in the United States. You say I don't support my arguments with evidence (even though I have been posting links early in the thread, such as the charts above, and thought I didn't have to keep posting them), but I guess I should have expected hypocrisy.

 

[Hanafuda]

Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.