WaPo has a REALLY STUPID graphic of which GOP presidential candidates 'voted for deficit'

[sailingaway]

First, it shows overlapping as if the overlaps applied to the candidate the circle is near -- no, it doesn't. (Ron only voted for Tax cuts, and never mind that they include that at all, as if they own the money you earn). Second it is just wrong (it doesn't mention votes for TARP or no child left behind or Medicare prescription coverage, for example, which were huge, and Ryan voted for all of them.) Third, it says that Bachmann voted for 'only wars' when she certainly voted for tax cuts, etc, and the Bush stimulus and homeland security expansion.

So why do I post it?

Because it doesn't allow comments.

Image doesn't post so you will have to click: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/outlook/votes-that-pushed-us-into-the-red/

[specsaregood]

That graphic is stupid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/outlook/votes-that-pushed-us-into-the-red/images/house-full.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/outlook/votes-that-pushed-us-into-the-red/images/senate-full.jpg

[sailingaway]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to specsaregood again.

[Bern]

F'ng Venn diagrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram), how do they work? /Insane Clown WaPo

[specsaregood]

F'ng Venn diagrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram), how do they work? /Insane Clown WaPo

Here, I think this diagram makes it self-explanatory:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/Yus0zHlZRok8vtzkoflUzUojo1_400.jpg

[acptulsa]

Same old disinformation techniques. We define not voting for tax increases as voting for defecits, and we tell you so--in paragraph 37. So, this isn't spin. We're too reputable a news organization for that. If you get a false impression because you just look at our flashy, colorful Venn graphic and don't read as far as paragraph 37, well, too damned bad. It doesn't make us dishonest, and nyah nyah you can't prove we were deliberately trying to be misleading... :rolleyes:

[musicmax]

I like the graphic in that:

(a) shows RP voting for tax cuts, voting against Obozo stimulus, voting against unpopular wars;

(b) shows Bachmann voting for unpopular wars;

(c) shows DeMint sharing RP's views, which may influence SC voters and indeed push DeMint further towards endorsing RP.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Typical Socialists/Marxist Hacks... they weight everything evenly, which is the flaw behind their phony graphics/charts.

How appropriate WAPO is in forgetting Obama's collectivist budget were to raise taxes on everyone, one way or another and the poorest class (10% Bracket) were to receive an increase to 15% or a 50% tax hike.

I despise these government false dichotomy duopoly rag print media manipulations and their propaganda.

[Aratus]

Here, I think this diagram makes it self-explanatory:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/Yus0zHlZRok8vtzkoflUzUojo1_400.jpg

^^^my ascii text driven response is that the above graphic is terribly clever ^^^

[Sam I am]

There is no politician or political commentator that I can remember who struck me as truly serious about going after both sides of the debt issue. NOT EVEN Ron Paul

[Anti Federalist]

There is no politician or political commentator that I can remember who struck me as truly serious about going after both sides of the debt issue. NOT EVEN Ron Paul

Wait...wut?

[pcosmar]

Wait...wut?

Awareness/Memory issues.

[sailingaway]

There is no politician or political commentator that I can remember who struck me as truly serious about going after both sides of the debt issue. NOT EVEN Ron Paul

Then you haven't been paying attention. You are new here, but the more you pay attention to what he does the MORE you see how serious he is on this point.

[Sam I am]

Wait...wut?

Ron Paul is not serious enough about the debt to raise revenue. He only goes after 1 side of the debt issue, like everyone else.

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul is not serious enough about the debt to raise revenue. He only goes after 1 side of the debt issue, like everyone else.

You mean steal more, not "raise revenue". you are correct dr. Paul does not want to steal more money in order to fund unconstitutional immoral government spending. There is only 1 side of the issue, the government spends too much. If it spends less then they will have no debt. Glad I could clear that up for you.

[fisharmor]

Ron Paul is not serious enough about the debt to raise revenue. He only goes after 1 side of the debt issue, like everyone else.

Back in 2008, he was stating that we could completely eliminate the federal income tax if we took spending levels back to where they were in the year 2000.
That is why he won't talk about raising taxes.

[Sam I am]

Unless Ron Paul plans to bypass congress in the way he hates so much, reducing the deficit to 0 simply WILL NOT HAPPEN unless he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, and then some.

Clinging onto some zero-tax policy while watching the country go deeper and deeper in debt is NOT what I call serious about the debt.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Unless Ron Paul plans to bypass congress in the way he hates so much, reducing the deficit to 0 simply WILL NOT HAPPEN unless he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, and then some.

Clinging onto some zero-tax policy while watching the country go deeper and deeper in debt is NOT what I call serious about the debt.

He's not going to steal any more money from any taxpayer under any circumstances. He's too ideologically principled to do that.

[specsaregood]

Unless Ron Paul plans to bypass congress in the way he hates so much, reducing the deficit to 0 simply WILL NOT HAPPEN unless he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, and then some.

Clinging onto some zero-tax policy while watching the country go deeper and deeper in debt is NOT what I call serious about the debt.

Not not being serious about the debt is not addressing spending, that is what he addresses. If you give the govt MORE money, they will just SPEND more money. IT is a parasite with an insatiable appetite.

[TCE]

Unless Ron Paul plans to bypass congress in the way he hates so much, reducing the deficit to 0 simply WILL NOT HAPPEN unless he lets the Bush tax cuts expire, and then some.

Clinging onto some zero-tax policy while watching the country go deeper and deeper in debt is NOT what I call serious about the debt.

Even if Congress refuses to work with him at all on anything, and they won't because they need to pass a budget, Dr. Paul can:

1. Refuse to pay the $1.6 trillion owed to the Fed and dare them to do something about it. There is a big interest payment gone.

2. Use an Executive Order to bring all of the troops home, saving billions.

3. Direct his Department of Justice to end the War on Drugs.

4. Appoint people to all departments he wants to abolish that will see to it that said departments are ended.

The list goes on. There's no reason to increase revenue when you have a spending problem. If the government taxes more, they'll spend more. It's not as if they're going to use the new money to pay off the debt.

[Sam I am]

Our debt is about 1.4 trillion dollars


Even if Congress refuses to work with him at all on anything, and they won't because they need to pass a budget, Dr. Paul can:

1. Refuse to pay the $1.6 trillion owed to the Fed and dare them to do something about it. There is a big interest payment gone.


Since that's about a tenth of the total debt, let's say that reduces the annual defect by about a tenth also.

1.24 trillion left to go



2. Use an Executive Order to bring all of the troops home, saving billions.


300 billion per year, and I'll throw in an extra 100 billion as a reduction to other occupations around the world

840 billion left to go


3. Direct his Department of Justice to end the War on Drugs.


Highest figure I've seen on that was about 30 billion, according to http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock it's a little less

810 billion left



4. Appoint people to all departments he wants to abolish that will see to it that said departments are ended.

The list goes on. There's no reason to increase revenue when you have a spending problem. If the government taxes more, they'll spend more. It's not as if they're going to use the new money to pay off the debt.

easier said than done, but let's cut 400 billion, more than half of non-military discretionary spending.

you have 410 billion left, and that's with more than any president can realistically cut over the course of their term. meanwhile the debt and interest on the debt continues to grow.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, and you're still not quite there yet.

[Bern]

Our debt is about 1.4 trillion dollars


1. Refuse to pay the $1.6 trillion owed to the Fed ...Since that's about a tenth of the total debt,

lol wut?

[sailingaway]

Our debt is about 1.4 trillion dollars



Since that's about a tenth of the total debt, let's say that reduces the annual defect by about a tenth also.

1.24 trillion left to go



300 billion per year, and I'll throw in an extra 100 billion as a reduction to other occupations around the world

840 billion left to go


Highest figure I've seen on that was about 30 billion, according to http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock it's a little less

810 billion left



easier said than done, but let's cut 400 billion, more than half of non-military discretionary spending.

you have 410 billion left, and that's with more than any president can realistically cut over the course of their term. meanwhile the debt and interest on the debt continues to grow.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, and you're still not quite there yet.

Rand submitted a plan to cut $500 billion in one year, why not start with that? Then add the military cuts, which weren't in that etc