Obama Should Treat "Math" Like A Four-Letter Word

Boston Herald ^ | October 5, 2012 | Michael Graham

[suspects]

“Governor... it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It’s — it’s math. It’s arithmetic.” — President Obama, during Wednesday’s debate

For Barack Obama “math” should be a four-letter word.

It’s gasp-inducing to watch the same politician who insisted Obamacare (cost: $2 trillion over the next 10 years and rising) “won’t add a single dime to the deficit — not one dime” — lecturing anyone on his math skills.

Of all the politicians in the modern era, the one who has the least credibility on the arithmetic front is Obama. Is there anyone else who has gotten so much math so wrong?

The Obama administration started with this word problem: If a president gets elected and spends a trillion dollars we don’t have, on government programs we can’t afford, then promises to spend trillions more on a brand-new government health-care program, how many net new jobs will he create?

The Obama answer: Millions. The actual answer? Zero.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are still fewer Americans working today than when Obama took office. Obama said, “Let me spend the stimulus and unemployment will never reach 8 percent.” He spent it, and unemployment has yet to come down to 8 percent.

The Obama policies — $90 billion blown on “green energy” while stopping the Keystone pipeline, for example — make no sense. But checking his math is third-grade stuff: Spend lots of new money, add $5 trillion in new debt, hire lots of new federal workers (a record number of whom earn more than $100,000), bail out lots of union members — but don’t even get the net jobs number back to zero.

This is the same Obama...

[P.O.E.]

The Obama answer: Millions. The actual answer? Zero.

The actual answer is in the "negative millions".

[EBH]

Recent conversation with liberals online...

Why broadening the tax base and providing tax relief increases government revenue?

When I presented the “simple math example” it left them speechless. As in ....that's how that works?

How many on FR have the wits to make the same presentation, simply. KISS with them.

This article is absolutely correct! Modern liberals that are still stuck with 0bama are either lazy or are unable to reason the question through. Forget that 0bama lies or telling them 0bama lies, literally draw it out for them using simply math. One thing I learned in retail, most people can't figure percentages or are too lazy. And we're expecting them to understand tax code, broadening the base, or revenue to the government! LOL.

Take a simple example of a $1,000 at the SEP 30% rate. And the need to hire one employee at $10.00 per hr. (15% tax rate) because the business grew by 25% for the past 6 months. How does lowering the SEP tax rate to actually generate more government revenue over the course of the month? A year? If all other business expenses remain the same. Then give them the scenario if the SEP was raised to 0bama’s 40%.

First thing that happened was one comment about losing $300.00 out of the income. LOL.

Second ‘quick’ observation was raising the tax stopped the business from being able to hire, but the government got revenue increased by $100.00 week.

Third ‘quick’ observation was the business could not keep growing without employees...because the money that should have gone to the employee...was now going to the government.

But...when the actual calculations were done by the end of the year the tax revenue under the tax relief scenario doubled and would likely triple the governments revenue. Plus those being employed would then come off the welfare system too. So, spending cuts can be made to the welfare system.

Joe Public doesn't understand this in most cases.