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.
The numbers I have provided are accurate. If you have data that contradicts it, feel free to post it. But these are very specific numbers with little room for interpretation. Your claim that the graphs say what they were paid to say is baseless. Likewise, the CBO is nonpartisan and concurs with these numbers. The following is from the CBO and is just the difference in the debt focusing only on one variable (the Bush tax cuts):
I'm happy to argue the debt and the deficit (and the effect each of the candidates for president would have on them), but please, if you're going to question the numbers, provide some evidence. Until you do, these charts by the CBO and CBPP can be considered accurate. You're basically saying "the CBPP has an agenda so they can't be right." Your logic is flawed, especially in the absence of contradictory evidence. You argue there's a bias and that the data provided by the CBPP
is misleading, but this argument against the CBPP's assement has proven to be false (it argues that the projections through 2011 were flawed due to things like failing to include the effects the tax cuts would have on the economy [which no reputable economist thought would occur]), and we can see that the CBPP projections through 2011 were accurate. Here's more data (CBO, etc):
But I keep coming back to counter Lacius because I've been a democrat for probably longer than he's been alive
Looking at this thread objectively, you don't appear to be doing a very good job countering me. No offense intended. And I don't see how our ages are relevant.
and I do not like the hard-left socialist turn the party has taken recently. On the last page Lacius said, "The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist." I can tell you, having the benefit of being around for the 70's, 80's, and 90's, that this is absolutely not true. It is the leadership of the democratic party whose ideology has shifted dramatically, and many democrats over 40y.o. these days are only voting democrat for local and state candidates because they do not support the national party's (DNC) platform.
I'm not going to argue that the Democratic party has remained constant over the years, but I get the feeling you don't know exactly what it means to be socialist, because the Democrats are not. If you could provide some evidence, that would help me understand your thinking. As for the Republicans, it is quite apparent. We're talking about birth control as an issue again, the Tea Party specifically focused on replacing moderates with conservatives in the 2010 elections, etc. Issues like amnesty for illegal immigration, cap and trade, individual mandates, etc. were all Republican ideas originally. Now they have taken a hard-right turn. Even Reagan likely
would be too liberal by today's standards for Republicans.
Discredit, discredit ,discredit, is that all you people can do?
The information you are providing is not credible. Likewise, the burden of proof is on you to show that Obama was not born in the United States. All you have shown is that any generic birth certificate can be edited using Adobe software in 2012. Why, specifically, is Obama's birth certificate a fake? Also, to what end? Did his family decide they would run him in a presidential election so they planted newspaper birth announcements, etc. when he was a baby? Let's just say there's a reason why all your conspiracy evidence is limited to shady conspiracy websites and YouTube. Even your precious Fox News
thinks this debate is pointless.
I've been right before, and I know I am right now. Mock me all you want, I know the truth, and will continue to sing it until the day I die.
Can you prove it, let alone support it? This kind of statement shows me that you live in a bubble of your own facts. It does not matter how much evidence is shown to you. You will continue shouting "Obama wasn't born in the United States" despite the evidence, which means you are an illogical person.