PDA

View Full Version : Some debate observations...



eg8r
10-03-2012, 08:21 PM
I will keep this pretty light on purpose since we all know how I feel about both candidates.
<ul> Romney has a bigger flag pin. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Obama has zero grey hairs in his eyebrows Romney is a bully with respect to the moderator Obama's smile is quite infectious. It also comes across as absolutely genuine Romney has done a good job defending himself point by point however sooner than later he needs to give more details on how he is going to do what he says. I know that is what sunk Obama but at least we had some semblance of what he was going to try and do. Obama is a great speaker (yeah yeah we already know that) The moderator cracked me up when Romney said he needed to talk about another point and the moderator said, "No we don't". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Then I saw Obama smile and it made it even funnier. The moderator cracked me up when Obama wanted to continue and said the moderator took 5 sec of his time for interrupting. Then after another minute or so of talking the moderator interrupted again to say the 5 sec were up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif [/list]
Apart from the actual subject matter (since we already discuss this ad naseum on the board) what else did you notice?

eg8r

hondo
10-03-2012, 09:33 PM
LOL! That was a good post, Ed. You said some of the very things I was thinking.

Stretch
10-03-2012, 10:34 PM
Ed, from up here it looked like Romney was better prepared and came out with more of a fighting spirit. Obama tended to ramble and it was hard to get the gist of allot of it. Lord knows Obama had all kinds of ammunition to throw Mitts way but he didn't use it. Not even one mention of 47%, flip flopping, nothing. It looked like he was playing not to loose instead of playing for the win. Although it pains me to say it, i give Mitt the nod on this one. Obama needs to grow a set before the next debate. St.

cushioncrawler
10-03-2012, 10:59 PM
I heard a bit near the end, and then i watched the ending.
I think that Romney looked and sounded like he iz the better guy to convince voters to line up for the KoolAid.
mac.

Qtec
10-04-2012, 01:34 AM
I haven't seen it all but Obama was not in attack mode like he should have been. Its painful to watch and infuriating. So many opportunities to swat Mitt down like a fly and he never used any of them. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
He should have walked on with a long list or Mitts lies and flip flops and shot him down every time he opened his mouth. Instead, he tried to talk off the cuff and be the nice guy.
Mittens did his usual, flip flop around and lie through his teeth...and he got away with it.

I agree with Chris M.

watch him flip out...LOL (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/chris-matthews-obama-debate_n_1937950.html)

Q

Qtec
10-04-2012, 01:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed, from up here it looked like Romney was better prepared and came out with more of a fighting spirit. Obama tended to ramble and it was hard to get the gist of allot of it. Lord knows Obama had all kinds of ammunition to throw Mitts way but he didn't use it. Not even one mention of 47%, flip flopping, nothing. It looked like he was playing not to loose instead of playing for the win. Although it pains me to say it, i give Mitt the nod on this one. Obama needs to grow a set before the next debate. St. </div></div>

Too true Stretch. Geez, at the very least he should have pinned Mittens down on his ever changing fairy dust tax plan and got some specifics, or not!

Although he did get with at least one good shot.

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/obama-zings-romney-are-you-keeping-your-plan)

Q

LWW
10-04-2012, 02:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't seen it all but Obama was not in attack mode like he should have been.

Q

</div></div>

Thanks for the honesty, you don't actually object to attack politics ... just to the opposition attacking back.

How lame.

Qtec
10-04-2012, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A major win for Romney by any measure. He was quick, aggressive and energetic, while Obama was rambling and defensive much of the time.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> The president may have wanted to seem above the fray, but instead he seemed beside the point,</span> and Romney seemed more than capable of stepping into his shoes. </div></div>

Just about right.

Q

Qtec
10-04-2012, 03:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't seen it all but Obama was not in attack mode like he should have been.

Q

</div></div>

Thanks for the honesty, you don't actually object to attack politics ... just to the opposition attacking back.

How lame. </div></div>

What's lame is that you don't understand English! A chess player can play defensive or be in attack mode. NOTHING to do with politics!

..but you DIDN'T know that.
Q

llotter
10-04-2012, 06:18 AM
It now should be obvious to everyone why The Moron won't release his academic records...he didn't study then and he doesn't study now.

sack316
10-04-2012, 08:04 AM
I think Leher got run over, that was one observation I had! I'm thinking Tony Reali (from Around the Horn) should moderate one... he has a mute button to use /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

But in all seriousness, I think Romney took the win last night (a much needed one for him as I feel Obama's campaign is doing a MUCH better job than camp Romney).

Romney seemed more prepared and focused... but in all fairness he doesn't have a country to run while preparing for these things, either.

Both candidates seemed to have a few key points/phrases/initiatives they wanted to hone in on, which is fine, but they tried to stick them in to any topic regardless of the question at hand. It got a bit redundant.

Obama played too nice. I don't think either was in attack mode, but Obama certainly could have thrown a few jabs at Romney to throw him off a bit and make him less comfortable. Romney just didn't appear shaken by very much, and that confidence helped him appear to be doing better IMHO.

Obama's personality shines through, even in some of the "weaker" looking moments. He is a VERY likable guy. I also think he does a good job of connecting... specifically in terms of when he talks about how he and Michelle were not necessarily well off, but were fortunate to have opportunities for themselves to allow them the chance to follow their dreams and aspirations. And now that they are successful, the way he includes himself when speaking of the privileged people and his tax plans. It just seems very genuine.

Neither candidate is fooling anyone with their budget/tax/revenues/deficit talks.

I don't recall any personal attacks, and I liked that. They did hash out some disagreement on policies and ideas and "facts" presented by the other, but as a whole on a personal level it seemed very respectful.

Just a few of my thoughts, and Ed loved your post!

Sack

LWW
10-04-2012, 08:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't seen it all but Obama was not in attack mode like he should have been.

Q

</div></div>

Thanks for the honesty, you don't actually object to attack politics ... just to the opposition attacking back.

How lame. </div></div>

What's lame is that you don't understand English! A chess player can play defensive or be in attack mode. NOTHING to do with politics!

..but you DIDN'T know that.
Q </div></div>

Obama and Romney were not in a chess match last night.

Now, shamelessly defend your messiah some more.

llotter
10-04-2012, 08:35 AM
The Moron has the stupid vote locked up and he's going for the idiot vote.

llotter
10-04-2012, 08:38 AM
According the CNN, 67% are racists.

Gayle in MD
10-04-2012, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed, from up here it looked like Romney was better prepared and came out with more of a fighting spirit. Obama tended to ramble and it was hard to get the gist of allot of it. Lord knows Obama had all kinds of ammunition to throw Mitts way but he didn't use it. Not even one mention of 47%, flip flopping, nothing. It looked like he was playing not to loose instead of playing for the win. Although it pains me to say it, i give Mitt the nod on this one. Obama needs to grow a set before the next debate. St. </div></div>

Too true Stretch. Geez, at the very least he should have pinned Mittens down on his ever changing fairy dust tax plan and got some specifics, or not!

Although he did get with at least one good shot.

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/obama-zings-romney-are-you-keeping-your-plan)

Q </div></div>

Romney was better prepared, but he was still the car salesman, and Obama was the President.

Romney gets B + on style, but he gets an E on substance and truthfulness.

Lying while enthusiastic, is still lying, and Mitt lied his A$$ off, as usual.

He proved again, that he thinks the rules don't apply to him, seems to be a rightie thingie, lol.

He ran rough shod over the moderator. Told the same lies he's been telling all along. Proved he doesn't care about average Americans, and proved that the only way he can do what he says he says he can do, given his five trillion dollar tax cuts and spending plans, is by destroying everything that helps the Middle Class families to get through until the economy is fully recovered.

He is still lying about how that would impact the deficit, and Some of us are smart enough to know that killing Big Bird won't cut it.

He will be destroying everything that would build a stronger base for our economy going forward, like investing in education, renewable energy, and re-building our infrastructure, for example.

We do not need to increase defnese spending.

Removing oversight and regulations that keep us safe, economically and environmentally, is not something that Americans are approving.

And cutting spending on everything that will aid our students, the old, the ill and the hungry, also not where most Americans are ideologically.

Every argument Mitt made was either a lie, or a scam, and he provided absolutely no details, so, same ol' same ol'.

He went out for Cheesecake before the debate?

He proved there is no difference between Bush on steroids, and Bush on Cheesecake.

He will get enough of a bump to keep the money rolling in from his wealthy contributors, but he also proved again, that he is a colossal flip-flopper, a con artist, a liar and a scammer, and while he put on the best showing, stylistically, he also highlighted his deceit becauuse he still did not explain specifically what programs he will destroy, tricky Mitsey.

However, those folks who don't like him, or as I like to think, have already seen through him, could read between the lines, and I don't think the President will lose his supporters.

Romney continues to make it clear that he wants to go back to the same Bush policies that have already failed, and that tells a whole lot of us that he would be another Repiglican disaster, as president.

Obama, is too afraid of looking like the angry black man. He needs to give to us, his base, more spunk in going after Romney's lies and scams.

I thought the president looked tired, and I felt bad for him, given everything he has had to deal with these last few weeks. I understand he had to cancel several practice sessions because of more pressing national issues, and that is probably why incumbants don't usually win the first debate, presidential duties can't be put on hold.

As for presentation, Mitt won the debate. He did not win on the policy issues, however, because the majority of people want taxes raised for the top one percent, and they do not want the Ryan/Romney voucher plan for Medicare.

The well informed know that if Republicans get their way, we will lose social Security, AND health coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, everything.

It will take several days before things settle enough to know if Mitt's energetic performance has changed enough minds to beat the president, but IMO, that won't happen.

I don't think women, or Hispanics, are going to vote for Romney, and I don't think any bump he gets, will be enough for him to win the election, unless the president fails to show up for the next two debates with some energy and spunk! I think President Obama will do that. He is just as competative as Romney, and he will be so angry at himself, after his poor showing, stylistically, you can bet he will be on his game for the next debate.

Also, I noticed that even the camera angles worked against the president. The setting put Romney in front of the bright blue background, and made the President look like he was shoved off to the right side of the stage, with a dark gloomy background behind him.

I've already called the White House about that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

As for me, I am going to get stinking drunk tonight! The President could have put him away, last night! He failed to do that.

Gayle is not happy today, that will surely be the cherry on the cake for some around here....but it is what it is.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

hondo
10-04-2012, 09:39 AM
LOL! Have one for me, Gayle. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
10-04-2012, 09:43 AM
I will, friend.

And then, that will only leave just one drink for me.


These days, two drinks and I'm sloushed!

llotter
10-04-2012, 10:02 AM
I was hoping you might list a few of the lies that Romney told so I could check them out. He did call out The Moron on some of the lies he told, however.

Gayle in MD
10-04-2012, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was hoping you might list a few of the lies that Romney told so I could check them out. He did call out The Moron on some of the lies he hold, however. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tonight’s presidential debate will feature plenty of talk about the economy, healthcare and the role of government, but if it’s anything like every other political event ever anywhere, it will also feature plenty of exaggerations, mistruths and outright lies. We’ll be calling them out real-time and bring you the, you know, facts, so refresh this page often to stay up-to-date.

10:45 — Big Bird is tiny: Mitt Romney says he’d help bring down the deficit by cutting PBS and “Big Bird.” PBS receives about $445 million from the federal government, which represents about .01 percent of the federal budget.

10:20 — Romney left his heart in Zurich: Romney tells Obama, “The place you put your money is a pretty good indication of where your heart is.” The obvious rejoinder, ready-made for a DNC attack ad, is that Romney’s heart must be in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or Switzerland, where Romney has put his money.

10:10 — “The same fucking bill”: Romney says his healthcare plan in Massachusetts is very different from Obamacare. The guy who designed both the plans calls them “the same fucking bill.”

10:00 — Romney sees death panels: Romney comes dangerously close to invoking death panels, saying Obamacare has “a board that will tell people what kind of treatment they’re going to get.” He’s referring to IPAB, a board of doctors, hospital officials and government officials who try to find best practices to reduce the cost of Medicare (and only Medicare — no one else’s healthcare — which is already a government plan). IPAB does not decide on individual cases, is subject to congressional oversight and is legally prohibited from rationing care. In August, Paul Ryan told Florida seniors Obamacare has a “rationing board.”

9:45 — Obamacare still doesn’t cut Medicare: Romney revived one of the most repeated falsehoods of the campaign – that Obamacare cut over $700 billion from Medicare. It’s not true, and Paul Ryan’s budget included the same cuts; Ryan and almost every other Republican in the House voted for them. Obamacare did cut funds from Medicare, but from providers, not beneficiaries. The actuaries in charge of the program say the savings will actually extend the life of the program and experts say the cuts won’t affect benefits.

9:40 — NFIB fib: Romney uses as a cudgel against Obama’s tax plan a study from the National Federation of Independent Business. The NFIB sounds like an anodyne business group, but like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce it is actually a very partisan Republican group funded mostly by large corporations, not small businesses.

9:35 — Some small businesses not so small: Romney says Obama wants to raise taxes on “small businesses” by letting the Bush tax cuts on the top tier of income expire. Indeed, many small businesses pay taxes as if they’re individuals via companies called S-corporations. Many of these small business are mom-and-pop stores, home businesses, doctors offices, etc. – real small businesses. But some large privately held large corporations classify themselves as S-corps for tax purposes. For example, one “small business” registered this way: Koch Industries, the country’s second-largest privately held corporation.

9:20 — Romney’s curious studies: Responding to Obama’s waving around the Tax Policy Center Study, Romney said there are five other studies that show he’s right. The problem with this is some aren’t studies (Wall Street Journal Op-Eds are not studies) and others are by economists advising his campaign.

9:15 – Romney still can’t explain his tax plan: One of Mitt Romney’s core economic policies is a 20 percent tax cut for all Americans, which economists estimate will cost about $5 trillion over 10 years. Nonetheless, tonight Romney said,“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut.” What he means is that the net cost of his plan will be zero because he’ll find ways to raise $5 trillion to make up for lost revenue by closing loopholes and expanding the tax base. He wants “no tax cut that adds to the deficit,” as he said tonight. The problem with this is he won’t say how. In a much-cited study, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that there’s no way this is possible without significantly raising taxes on the middle class, which Romney also says he’s not going to do.

The Romney campaign has disputed that study and others that came to similar conclusions, but has so far refused to offer details as to how they would pay for the tax cut. Paul Ryan said Sunday that it would take too long to explain the math. Romney came a little closer last night by saying he would cap deductions rich people could take by $17,000, but it’s still unclear that this would be enough to cover the cost of his plan.

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. </div></div>

http://www.salon.com

llotter
10-04-2012, 12:19 PM
I read these through quite closely but couldn't put my finger on a lie. Could you be so kind as to identify one or two?

eg8r
10-04-2012, 01:24 PM
I think Obama played the strategy his team has set up for him. While I don't necessarily know what that strategy I don't really think he came in unprepared. For some reason he felt a bit calculated to me. He was allowing Romney to speak and it sort of seemed like he was either waiting for Romney to screw up or he was hoping to get some more sound bites that he could use for commercials or on the campaign trail to attack where Romney is able to defend himself.

eg8r

eg8r
10-04-2012, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Too true Stretch. Geez, at the very least he should have pinned Mittens down on his ever changing fairy dust tax plan and got some specifics, or not!</div></div>There were not going to be any specifics. 2 or 3 times Obama tried to get that dig in and blatantly called Romney out for being vague but Romney followed his team's strategy and ignored the jibes.

eg8r

eg8r
10-04-2012, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Removing oversight and regulations that keep us safe, economically and environmentally, is not something that Americans are approving. </div></div>I thought he was quite clear that he had no intention of just wiping out regulation. He said more than once that regulation was required but he would remove those items that had ill effects. He also implied that he would leave in what is working and modify what wasn't.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, I noticed that even the camera angles worked against the president. The setting put Romney in front of the bright blue background, and made the President look like he was shoved off to the right side of the stage, with a dark gloomy background behind him.

</div></div>This is definitely the type of things I was hoping to read in this thread. I did not notice but will look at some youtube videos to check it out.

eg8r

eg8r
10-04-2012, 01:57 PM
llotter asked for a list of lies, that is not what gayle provided.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tonight’s presidential debate will feature plenty of talk about the economy, healthcare and the role of government, but if it’s anything like every other political event ever anywhere, it will also feature plenty of exaggerations, mistruths and outright lies. We’ll be calling them out real-time and bring you the, you know, facts, so refresh this page often to stay up-to-date.

10:45 — Big Bird is tiny: Mitt Romney says he’d help bring down the deficit by cutting PBS and “Big Bird.” PBS receives about $445 million from the federal government, which represents about .01 percent of the federal budget. <span style="color: #FF0000">If $1 is removed from spending moved towards paying down the deficit then there is no lie. In this example $445 million paid directly towards debt on top of what we might already be paying would definitely help to pay down the deficit. It won't do it single-handedly but Romney never implied that did he. This item clearly was not a lie.</span>

10:20 — Romney left his heart in Zurich: Romney tells Obama, “The place you put your money is a pretty good indication of where your heart is.” The obvious rejoinder, ready-made for a DNC attack ad, is that Romney’s heart must be in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or Switzerland, where Romney has put his money. <span style="color: #FF0000">There clearly is no lie here unless you disagree that the place where you keep you money is where your heart is.</span>

10:10 — “The same fucking bill”: Romney says his healthcare plan in Massachusetts is very different from Obamacare. The guy who designed both the plans calls them “the same fucking bill.” <span style="color: #FF0000">I am at a toss up here because I haven't paid much attention to
Romneycare. Does Romneycare also have the board that Obamacare has? Seriously if there is one difference then technically there is no lie here.</span>

10:00 — Romney sees death panels: Romney comes dangerously close to invoking death panels, saying Obamacare has “a board that will tell people what kind of treatment they’re going to get.” He’s referring to IPAB, a board of doctors, hospital officials and government officials who try to find best practices to reduce the cost of Medicare (and only Medicare — no one else’s healthcare — which is already a government plan). IPAB does not decide on individual cases, is subject to congressional oversight and is legally prohibited from rationing care. In August, Paul Ryan told Florida seniors Obamacare has a “rationing board.” <span style="color: #FF0000">I can go with this one for the time being. I work in an environment that is constantly running kaizens and looking for best practices. It has been a large part of my career for the past 14 years. I see people who were for it in the beginning see unintended outcomes that cause them to change their position at that point. Obama did have a chance to nip this in the bud but he did not attack it very aggressively.</span>

9:45 — Obamacare still doesn’t cut Medicare: Romney revived one of the most repeated falsehoods of the campaign – that Obamacare cut over $700 billion from Medicare. It’s not true, and Paul Ryan’s budget included the same cuts; Ryan and almost every other Republican in the House voted for them. Obamacare did cut funds from Medicare, but from providers, not beneficiaries. The actuaries in charge of the program say the savings will actually extend the life of the program and experts say the cuts won’t affect benefits. <span style="color: #FF0000">How can this be untrue as your author says so but then says it is a cut in Medicare when Paul Ryan was for it? If it was a cut when Ryan backed it then it is a cut when Obama backs it. I don't remember Romney being any more specific about the cut so the author of this piece you have quoted is taking liberties as to what he think Romney meant but that is a falsehood of the author not Romney. Obama did cut the money. </span>

9:40 — NFIB fib: Romney uses as a cudgel against Obama’s tax plan a study from the National Federation of Independent Business. The NFIB sounds like an anodyne business group, but like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce it is actually a very partisan Republican group funded mostly by large corporations, not small businesses. <span style="color: #FF0000"> This explanation does not descrive how this is a lie or not. </span>

9:35 — Some small businesses not so small: Romney says Obama wants to raise taxes on “small businesses” by letting the Bush tax cuts on the top tier of income expire. Indeed, many small businesses pay taxes as if they’re individuals via companies called S-corporations. Many of these small business are mom-and-pop stores, home businesses, doctors offices, etc. – real small businesses. But some large privately held large corporations classify themselves as S-corps for tax purposes. For example, one “small business” registered this way: Koch Industries, the country’s second-largest privately held corporation. <span style="color: #FF0000">Again this in no way describes what Romney said to be a lie. Obama called out Trump but Romney explained there are other people besides Trump.</span>

9:20 — Romney’s curious studies: Responding to Obama’s waving around the Tax Policy Center Study, Romney said there are five other studies that show he’s right. The problem with this is some aren’t studies (Wall Street Journal Op-Eds are not studies) and others are by economists advising his campaign. <span style="color: #FF0000">Did Romnney list these studies last night? What was the actual lie?</span>

9:15 – Romney still can’t explain his tax plan: One of Mitt Romney’s core economic policies is a 20 percent tax cut for all Americans, which economists estimate will cost about $5 trillion over 10 years. Nonetheless, tonight Romney said,“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut.” What he means is that the net cost of his plan will be zero because he’ll find ways to raise $5 trillion to make up for lost revenue by closing loopholes and expanding the tax base. He wants “no tax cut that adds to the deficit,” as he said tonight. The problem with this is he won’t say how. In a much-cited study, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that there’s no way this is possible without significantly raising taxes on the middle class, which Romney also says he’s not going to do. <span style="color: #FF0000">There was absolutely no lie here. Romney was quite clear in saying that there would be no tax cuts if they cost the taxpayer any money. He has been extremely vague but that cannot be considered a lie.</span>

The Romney campaign has disputed that study and others that came to similar conclusions, but has so far refused to offer details as to how they would pay for the tax cut. Paul Ryan said Sunday that it would take too long to explain the math. Romney came a little closer last night by saying he would cap deductions rich people could take by $17,000, but it’s still unclear that this would be enough to cover the cost of his plan.

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. </div></div>If this is truly what you consider a defense of your proclamation that Romney "lied" then you might want to look up the definiton for lying.

eg8r

LWW
10-04-2012, 04:11 PM
To some ... whether or not something is a lie is wholly dependent on whether or not the party tells them that it is a lie.

DiabloViejo
10-04-2012, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To some ... whether or not something is a lie is wholly dependent on whether or not the party tells them that it is a lie. </div></div>

Congratulations, you've just described yourself to a t! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
10-04-2012, 05:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To some ... whether or not something is a lie is wholly dependent on whether or not the party tells them that it is a lie. </div></div>

Congratulations, you've just described yourself to a t! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

That explains why I disagree with both major parties and you obediently parrot whatever the demokrooks tell you to.

eg8r
10-04-2012, 07:07 PM
Based on gaylio's post he also described her and you.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
10-04-2012, 08:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To some ... whether or not something is a lie is wholly dependent on whether or not the party tells them that it is a lie. </div></div>

Congratulations, you've just described yourself to a t! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

That explains why I disagree with both major parties and you obediently parrot whatever the demokrooks tell you to. </div></div>

Oh please stop the bullsh*t! You and I both know that you are just a right wing troll. And we both know you will, be voting straight Republican. Grow a set and tell the damned truth for once in your rotten hate filled degenerate life. Better yet, do us all a favor and go play on a busy highway.

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 11:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According the CNN, 67% are racists. </div></div>

It is bizarre that the sample of this poll was 100% white, 50+ years old, and living in the south.

You might think that is a joke. It's a fact, jack.

about page 8 (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf)

Qtec
10-04-2012, 11:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Three of his lies Wednesday in Denver:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>• Romney said: “About half of [the clean energy companies that] have been invested in [by the government] have gone out of business.”

Not even close.</span> Most companies invested in are succeeding. A handful have failed. The default rate on the Department of Energy's $16.1 billion energy loan guarantee program, according to Bloomberg, is at worst, about 3.6 percent. But that is only if none of the guarantee could be recovered from the failed companies. Greg Kats, who worked at the Energy Department from 1994 to 2000, including five years as the department’s director of financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy, said the defaults might rise to as much as five percent, but “I do not see a scenario in which the default rate gets out of single digits.” Michael Grunwald, a Time reporter who wrote the book on the stimulus, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, said Team Romney has told him that the candidate misspoke and didn't mean to say "half." Uh-huh. Grunwald puts the default loss at from around one to two percent.

•<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Romney said: “In one year, you provided $90 billion in tax breaks to green energy.” He also laid this against $2.8 billion in breaks to the fossil fuel industry, the implication being that the Obama administration had provided 30 times as many breaks for green energy as oil and gas have received.

False.</span> During Obama's entire term of office, not a single year, the government investment for public transit, energy-efficiency measures like better insulation for homeowners, demonstration projects (including for "clean coal"), renewable research and development projects, competitive prizes and similar projects have amounted to $90 billion. Some $5 billion went to clean up old nuclear power sites. Most of this spending did not come in the form of tax breaks.

Double Bottom Line Venture Capital reported that for the period 1918-2009, oil and gas received $446.9 billion in subsidies. The nuclear industry took in $185.7 billion from 1947 to 2009. Up until 2009, the renewable energy sector, excluding biofuels, had received $5.9 billion, DBL concluded.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>• Romney said: “All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land.”

False.</span>

A Congressional Research Service report, U.S. Crude Oil Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas, found that oil drilling on federal lands has risen under Obama when compared to 2007. As is often pointed out in these discussions, the industry that keeps demanding more access to public land is currently sitting on 7,000 approved drilling permits that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

Whether you call them Pants-on-Fire or Pinocchios or Flat-out Falsehoods, Romney operates no differently in the energy arena than when he's talking about anything else. If he's talking, he's lying. </div></div>

That,s just for starters! It would be easier and save time to name the things he said that were true!


Q

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 11:55 PM
He said his alternate plan to Obamacare had a pre-existing condition coverage. His campaign clarified that's not so, after the debate.

He said 5 or 6 studies backed his economic plan. They do not. They are not on his plan, and the authors deny his claim.

He said Obama spent in one year 50 years worth of oil subsidies for green projects. The first order estimate math? Dividing 90 B by 4 B would make it 22.5 years, making the figure he claims 225% the real number of years, if that were true. But 26 B of that bill went to other energy areas, not green projects. So 64 B divided by 4 B is 16 years. But the 64 B was for 3 years, making an average of 21.3 B 'in one year.' That's barely over 5 years, not 50 years. His number was close to a 1,000% exaggeration.

He said Obama doubled the deficit. Not true. The deficit was already projected at 1.2 T before he did a thing-- it ended up at 1.4 T that year and has declined each year after.

His Romney care has a panel similar to the IPB, but more powerful, including the ability to directly stop medical procedures and care.

Qtec
10-05-2012, 01:05 AM
So how many lies are we up to now? How many lies can a person tell in 35 minutes?

Maybe Mittens just broke the record. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

Gayle in MD
10-05-2012, 04:51 AM
The independent non partisan fact check organizations, newspapers, cable fact checkers combined have the total up around 27 lies, in about thirty minutes.

G.

eg8r
10-05-2012, 08:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He said 5 or 6 studies backed his economic plan. They do not. They are not on his plan, and the authors deny his claim.</div></div>Which 5 or 6 did he mention? I don't recall him stating which he was referring to during the debate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His Romney care has a panel similar to the IPB, but more powerful, including the ability to directly stop medical procedures and care. </div></div>I can't remember if he said Romneycare did not have the panel but if it is similar then that implies NOT the same bill as gaylio wanted us to think.

eg8r

eg8r
10-05-2012, 09:06 AM
Provided what you quoted earlier plenty of those really are not lies at all.

eg8r

LWW
10-05-2012, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Provided what you quoted earlier plenty of those really are not lies at all.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style="color: #6666CC">IF DEAR LEADER BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SAYS THEY ARE LIES THEN THEY ARE LIES!</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">BUSH LIED!</span>

<span style="color: #FFCC33">ROMNEY LIED!</span>

<span style="color: #666600">CHENEY LIED!</span>

<span style="color: #663366">RUMSFELD LIED!</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">PALIN LIED!</span>

<span style="color: #FF6666">CLINTON NEVER LIED!</span>

<span style="color: #000099">OBAMA NEVER LIED!</span>

<span style="color: #003300">WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?</span>

<span style="color: #330033">DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT OBAMA RULES BY DIVINE RIGHT?</span>

<span style="color: #FF6666">YOU MUST BE A RETHUGLICAN HOMOPHOBIC, XENOPHOBIC, MYOGYNIST, RACIST, SEXIST, HOMICIDAL, SUICIDAL, GENOCIDAL JACK BOOTED FASCIST!</span></span>

Soflasnapper
10-05-2012, 03:23 PM
Which 5 or 6 did he mention? I don't recall him stating which he was referring to during the debate.

It's true he (again) wasn't specific.

However, his campaign has been, in the past, as to this claim. By repeating something his campaign has claimed, he must mean the ones they provided upon query on that matter.

if it is similar then that implies NOT the same bill as gaylio wanted us to think

That point works worse for Romney. Because although the IPB is forbidden by its enacting law to ration care, or limit procedures on a cost basis, Romney's version has those exact powers, which he falsely claimed was true of the IPB.

See how that works?

Soflasnapper
10-05-2012, 03:24 PM
Nice rainbow color usage. It suits you well.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2012, 11:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read these through quite closely but couldn't put my finger on a lie. Could you be so kind as to identify one or two? </div></div>



Mitt Romney made numerous bogus claims in the Oct. 3 debate about the $90 billion in grants, guaranteed loans and tax breaks for energy projects in the stimulus bill:


Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was two.
He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.” But only $21 billion went for renewable energy projects, “such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels,” according to a White House document cited by the Romney campaign. The spending also included $18 billion for transit projects and $10 billion to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.
He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion. By his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth. But it’s even less than that. The administration estimates that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would raise about $3.9 billion a year (23 years’ worth). The industry itself says the administration would increase its taxes by $8.5 billion a year (10.5 years’ worth).
He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs … that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loan guarantees, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loan guarantees.Putting $90 Billion ‘Into Wind and Solar’?

The $831 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — better known as the stimulus — has long been derided by Republicans as wasteful. A favorite target is the clean-energy programs — particularly the $535 million invested in Solyndra, a California solar company that*announced in August 2011 that it would file for bankruptcy.

Romney repeatedly made references in the Oct. 3 debate in Colorado to the $90 billion contained in the stimulus for energy projects. He claimed, falsely, at one point that Obama had “put $90 billion … into solar and wind.”

Romney: But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?


We asked the Romney campaign about the $90 billion, and it referred us to a July 14, 2010, administration report on the economic impact of the stimulus. But that report said only about $21 billion went “for Renewable Generation, such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels.”

The seven other sub-categories of “clean-energy” projects identified in the report were:
$29 billion for energy efficiency, including $5 billion for the weatherization of low-income homes;
$10 billion to modernize the nation’s electric grid;
$6 billion for domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries and other components of alternative vehicles and fuel technology;
$18 billion for transit projects, including high-speed rail;
$3 billion for researching and developing clean-coal technology;
$3 billion for job training;
$2 billion in manufacturing tax credits.
So, clearly, the $90 billion wasn’t just for wind and solar projects.
We note, too, that Romney said during the debate that he likes “clean coal,” which got $3 billion from the stimulus.
“And, by the way, I like coal,” Romney said, “I’m going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal.”
‘Winners and Losers’
As part of his statement we cited above, Romney criticized Obama for wasting money on Solyndra and other wind and solar projects — saying “you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers.” He expanded on that by falsely saying that “about half” of the companies that received federal help “have gone out of business.” He also made a bogus claim about how many teachers could have been hired with the $90 billion.

Romney: But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into — into green jobs. And I — look, I’m all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have — that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion.
And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.

We were surprised by the claim that “about half” of the companies went out of business. As we have written before, an independent review of the Department of Energy loan and loan guarantee programs found that the failure rate was lower than Congress had expected.
When we asked the Romney campaign for information on this claim, we were told that it refers only to companies that received so-called section 1705 loans — a program created by the stimulus. A second program — the so-called section 1703 loan program — was created under the Bush administration, but loans were approved by the current administration.


Also, Romney counted only section 1705 loan guarantees approved in the Obama administration’s first two years — ignoring the past two years.
Romney did not say any of that during the debate.
By limiting his scope to just the first two years of the program, Romney arrives at seven companies and three of them — including Solyndra — have filed for bankruptcy protection. The others were Beacon Power, which received a loan guarantee of $43 million, and Abound Solar, which was approved for a $400 million loan but borrowed only $70 million against that. So, combined the three companies were approved for a total of $978 million in U.S.-backed loans and borrowed $648 million of that.
But there were a total of 26 companies that received approval for $16 billion in loan guarantees under the section 1705 program. So, 11.5 percent of the companies — not half — have filed for bankruptcy. And those companies were approved for a little more than 6 percent of the $16 billion in total loan guarantees.Two other companies were awarded a total of $10.3 billion in loan guarantees by the Obama administration under the section 1703 program. So, if you count them, the bankruptcy rate would fall to under 11 percent, and the money at risk drops to about 4 percent.
The money loaned to Solyndra is largely lost, and it is unclear how much if any the U.S. will recover of the $70 million borrowed by Abound. However, as we wrote before, the government expects to recover as much as 70 percent of the $43 million it guaranteed to Beacon Power.
Also, as part of that same statement above, Romney said that the $90 billion “would have hired 2 million teachers.” (That means the teachers would receive a total compensation of $45,000 — including benefits, and are hired for only one year. The median pay for elementary teachers is about $51,000.)
But here’s the problem with Romney’s math: The $90 billion isn’t all grant money. Some of it is in the form of loan guarantees, which are loans obtained through private financing but guaranteed by the government in the event the borrower defaults.
You can’t pay teachers in loan guarantees.
There is a cost to the government for guaranteeing loans, as the Romney campaign was quick to note. But it is only a fraction of the value of each loan.

Clean Energy vs. Oil and Gas
Romney made three false claims in this single statement:


Romney: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

First, the $90 billion was not given out “in one year.” The administration document cited by the Romney campaign said it was over two years: “$7 billion through the end of the second quarter of 2009 to $86 billion through the end of the second quarter of 2010.”
Second, he compares the “breaks to the green energy world” ($90 billion) with “what oil and gas receives” (which he put at $2.8 billion). This is problematic on a couple of levels.

Let’s set aside the fact that the “breaks” are not comparable — the clean-energy “breaks” included money for infrastructure projects, such as rail and the electrical grid — and look at his math. Fifty years of $2.8 billion would be $140 billion, not $90 billion (and that’s unadjusted for inflation). It would be more like 32 years. So, he’s wrong by his own accounting.

But also the $2.8 billion is a low estimate for how much the oil and gas industry receives in tax breaks.

The Obama administration in its proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 estimates that eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuels would raise $38.6 billion over 10 years, or about $3.9 billion a year, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis of the administration’s tax proposals for the industry. The industry itself says that the administration’s proposals would cost it $85 billion over 10 years, or $8.5 billion a year.
Clearly, the $90 billion would cover far less than 50 years’ worth of tax breaks by anyone’s account, including Romney’s.
In summary, Romney said a lot about the $90 billion in stimulus spending on clean energy — and very little of it was accurate.
– Eugene Kiely


The Impossible Plan

However, Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.

Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet.


Romney: My number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. … I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans. … I will lower taxes on middle-income families.


But he didn’t say how he’d pull off all those things at once.‘Six Other Studies’When the president referred to the Tax Policy Center’s criticisms, Romney claimed it was contradicted by several others.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Romney: There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.
That’s not quite true, as we previously reported when the count was at five. We found that two of those “studies” were blog items by Romney backers, and none was nonpartisan.The only one of those “studies” by someone not advising Romney was done by Harvey Rosen, a Princeton economics professor who once served as chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.Rosen concluded that Romney could pull off his tax plan without losing revenue assuming an extra 3 percent “growth effect” to the economy resulting from Romney’s rate cuts. That’s an extremely aggressive assumption, and in conflict with recent experience. Despite Bush’s large tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, for example, real GDP grew by 3 percent or more for only two of his eight years in office. The average of the year-to-year changes was just over 2 percent.Furthermore, Bush’s cuts reduced the total tax burden on the economy because they were not offset by base-broadening measures. In theory, at least, Romney’s revenue-neutral rate cuts would have even less of a stimulative effect than Bush’s cuts did.</span>

The growth in employer-sponsored family premiums has fluctuated in recent years. It went up just 4 percent from 2011 to 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, but it increased 9 percent the year before, a big jump from the mere 3 percent increase between 2009 and 2010. Clearly the growth rate over the last two years isn’t a 50-year low — it was sitting around 5 percent from 2007 to 2009. However, the growth of health care costs is at a 50-year low for the past two years.

President Bill Clinton used this statistic, correctly, in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, also implying that the federal health care law deserved credit. But as we said then, most of the law hasn’t even been implemented yet. And experts say it’s the sluggish economy that’s mainly responsible for the slower rate of spending. As the Washington Post reported, experts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that many lost employer-sponsored insurance when they lost their jobs, and other individuals chose to “forgo health-care services they could not afford.”

The New York Times quoted experts saying that consumers’ and medical professionals’ behavior could be changing in anticipation of the law, but it was still the economy that was the leading factor.

As for that increase in health care premiums, experts told us the federal health care law has had a limited impact on those, too, but the impact was to increase costs. They said the law was responsible for a 1 percent to 3 percent increase last year because of more generous coverage requirements.

Treatment Denied?

Romney repeatedly claimed that a new government board was “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. It could make some binding recommendations about such things as what drugs or medical devices would be paid for by Medicare, but it has no legal power to dictate treatment or ration care.

The board is a 15-member panel that’s tasked with finding ways to slow the growth of Medicare spending. So, its work concerns Medicare, not everyone seeking health care. And, according to the law, the board can’t touch treatments or otherwise “ration” care, or restrict benefits.

What’s officially called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of appointed health care experts, medical professionals, and consumer representatives, would make binding recommendations to reduce the growth of spending. Congress could override them with a three-fifths majority in each house.

An analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation determined that the IPAB was limited to finding savings from “Medicare Advantage, the Part D prescription drug program, skilled nursing facility, home health, dialysis, ambulance and ambulatory surgical center services, and durable medical equipment.”

5 Million Jobs?

Obama claimed that “over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created.”

Obama’s figure is nearly half a million jobs short, according to current Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. But he’s including in his count a preliminary revision of jobs figures that BLS will not finalize until next year.

The current BLS numbers are based on monthly surveys of businesses and government entities and count how many workers are on the payroll. Those figures*show that the number of private-sector jobs grew by 4.63 million between February 2010 and August of this year.

But BLS often revises those figures. Each year, the agency looks over companies’ tax records in an effort to get a more accurate number, a process that takes several months. In late September, BLS released a preliminary estimate for its revised numbers, adding 453,000 private-sector jobs to its count for the time period between April 2011 and March 2012. BLS will release its final numbers in February.

The addition of the preliminary estimate brings the number of private-sectors jobs to more than 5 million.

Obama ‘Doubled’ Deficit?


Romney: The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it. Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years.


It’s not true that Obama “doubled” the deficit. He inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and deficits have remained at or above that level, as Romney said, every year since then. Romney is right, however, that Obama has not kept his promise to cut the deficit in half.Here’s the budget history in brief: The 2009 fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2008, when George W. Bush was president, and ended Sept. 30, 2009 with Obama as president. By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had already estimated that the federal government would end fiscal 2009 with a $1.2 trillion deficit because of higher spending and lower revenues.Obama added to the 2009 deficit, but not by much. We found that Obama was responsible at most for an additional $203 billion. The government ended $1.4 trillion in the red that year. The deficits were about $1.3 trillion each year for the next two years, and this fiscal year just ended with a shortfall of nearly $1.2 trillion.So, Obama didn’t double the deficits. But the president did pledge to cut them in half by the end of his first term during his State of the Union address on Feb. 24, 2009. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the president’s latest budget plan doesn’t show the deficit being cut in half until 2014.Same Rates as Under Clinton?Obama repeated a favorite talking point, saying that his tax plan would return rates for the wealthy back to where they were during economically prosperous times under President Bill Clinton. But those making over $250,000 a year would actually pay more than they did under Clinton due to new taxes imposed on upper-income people to pay for the health care law.
Obama: But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.
Obama is referring to his plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for higher-income taxpayers. The top federal income-tax rate would be allowed to rise from the current 35 percent to 39.6 percent, which was the rate that prevailed after Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, and before Bush’s tax cuts. The next-highest rate would go back to the Clinton-era 36 percent, starting with family income over $250,000 (or $200,000 for singles), up from the Bush rate of 33 percent.But Obama did not account for the new taxes on those same upper-income taxpayers included in his Affordable Care Act. Starting next year, there will be a new 3.8 percent tax on “unearned” net investment income — such as capital gains from the sale of stocks or real estate, dividends, interest income, annuities, rents and royalties. Also starting Jan. 1 is a new 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge on top of the current Medicare payroll tax. Both taxes apply to taxable compensation that exceeds $200,000 for singles, or $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Those two taxes combined are projected to bring in nearly $210 billion over the next seven years, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.Income LossAs he has done a number of times recently, Romney inflated the loss of income for middle-income Americans under Obama.
Romney: Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.
Romney didn’t clarify whether he was talking about household or family income, but either way, the number is inflated.The latest figures from the Census Bureau for 2011 show that real household income (inflation-adjusted) fell by $2,492 during Obama’s first three years in office. Real family income (again, inflation-adjusted) fell by $3,290.There’s also some reason to think the income decline bottomed out a year ago. Sentier Research, which Romney has in the past cited as his source, says in its latest report — issued Sept. 10, that household income rose in the year since September 2011, when Sentier’s Seasonally Adjusted Household Income Index hit its lowest point. (See Figure 1, Page 10.)As part of the same riff on the hardships facing middle-income Americans, Romney also noted that “gasoline prices have doubled under the president.” That’s true, but as we have noted before, the price of gasoline was unusually low when Obama took office due to the recession and financial crisis.The average price for regular gasoline was $3.80 last week, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a bit more than double the $1.84 average the week Obama took office. But the average exceeded $4 a gallon for seven weeks during the summer of 2008, and it has never reached $4 under Obama.

20 Million ‘Lose Their Insurance’?

Romney said “the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year.” The Congressional Budget Office said that may happen under a very pessimistic scenario. But the agency said it is more likely that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people, on net, would obtain health insurance from their employer under the law. The CBO also said that it was possible that more people would be covered by employers, not fewer, under a more optimistic scenario.

What’s more, these individuals wouldn’t necessarily “lose … insurance” entirely. Many would qualify for federal subsidies to buy policies offered through the new state exchanges established by the law, or qualify for Medicaid.


23 Million ‘Out of Work’?

Romney overstated the number of unemployed Americans when he said that there were “23 million people out of work.” There were 12.5 million unemployed Americans in August, the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Romney meant to refer to the unemployed, plus those working part-time who want full-time work (8 million) and those who are considered “marginally attached” to the labor force because they have not looked for work in the past four weeks (2.6 million). All of that adds up to 23.1 million. Romney got his talking point closer to the truth when he said, “We’ve got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country.” But he still left out the 8 million who are working part-time for economic reasons.

Jobless Grads

Romney said that “50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work.” That’s not correct. Romney is likely referring to an analysis of government data conducted for the Associated Press that found that — in 2011 — 53.6 percent of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 were unemployed or underemployed that year. But it’s not correct to say that a person who is underemployed — meaning that they have a part-time job, or a job for which they were overqualified — can’t find work. It’s also a figure that applies to last year, not “this year” as Romney said.

Romney continued to repeat his misleading claim that Obama’s Affordable Care Act “cut Medicare $716 billion for current recipients.” That’s a reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years, not a $716 billion slashing of the current budget.

$716 Billion, Again

Romney went on to say, “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare.” But the fact is, the money isn’t being taken away from Medicare. Instead, Medicare would spend it, but over a longer period of time than was expected before the health care law. The law extends the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund.

As we’ve explained before, most of this reduction in spending comes in Medicare Part A, or hospital coverage, through a reduction in the growth of payments to hospitals. Medicare payroll taxes, which fund Part A, are either immediately spent by Medicare as they come in, or they’re put in a trust fund. Medicare gets a bond for that tax money from Treasury. And any time Medicare wants to cash in that bond, it can. Treasury has to pay it — even if Treasury already spent the original money on something else.

Cutting the growth of Medicare spending is a good thing — without these $716 billion cuts, Part A’s trust fund is expected to be depleted in 2016. But with them, that date is pushed back to 2024. At that point, Medicare’s payroll tax revenue would only be enough to cover 87 percent of benefits.

That’s if the reductions in spending growth are actually instituted as the law envisions. Medicare’s actuaries are skeptical. They have said that many experts believe the “price constraints would become unworkable and that Congress would likely override them.”

Romney said: “Some 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes say they won’t take any more Medicare patients under that scenario.” That’s close to what Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, said in congressional testimony in January 2011. Foster said that his office’s economic simulations “suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.” He added: “Although this policy could be monitored over time to avoid such an outcome, changes would likely result in smaller actual savings than described here for these provisions.”– by Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Ben Finley






Q: Has President Barack Obama signed 900 executive orders, some of which create martial law?
A: No. Obama’s executive orders do not create martial law. And so far he has signed 139 executive orders — not 900.



FULL QUESTION
I am submitting the email below for analysis by your great organization. Thank you for providing a reliable and accurate fact checking website.

A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders
JUNE 15, 2012 BY LAURIE ROTH
There have been over 900 Executive Orders put forth from Obama, and he is not even through his first term yet. He is creating a martial law ‘Disney Land’ of control covering everything imaginable. Some of the executive orders he has signed recently have been exposed thanks to ‘Friends of Conservative Action Alerts.’ They have compiled a choice list of ‘Emergency Powers, Martial law executive orders’: Get your headache medication out while you still can without a prescription.

Click to expand/collapse the full text ? expand(document.getElementById('eet1833725557'));e xpand(document.getElementById('eetlink1833725557') )

* Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
* Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
* Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
* Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
* Executive Order 11001 allows the government to take over all health education and welfare functions.
* Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
* Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
* Executive Order 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
* Executive Order 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
* Executive Order 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issues over a fifteen-year period.
* Executive Order 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
* Executive Order 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
* Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=45818
It would appear that Obama is planning for the total control and takeover of America via Martial Law. Food, energy, transportation, work, banking, and health. He has it covered.
While Obama is busy pulling executive orders out of the sky to control everything inside our country, he has been issuing executive orders to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our Constitution.





__________________________________________________ __________________
Is this email accurate in stating that Obama signed the below mentioned executive order that gives the right and power to the president to impose a government takeover in a time of relative peace?

WARNING FROM TEXAS CONGRESSWOMAN KAY GRANGER…
An Executive Order You Should Know About
KayGranger
Dear Friend,
With all that is going in Washington these days some things don’t make the news the way they should. Fourteen days ago President Obama issued an Executive Order that you should know about.
This order gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy – in the name of national security – in times of national emergency.
? Click to expand/collapse the full text ? expand(document.getElementById('eet1118821600'));e xpand(document.getElementById('eetlink1118821600') )

This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas – even farm equipment – can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of “national defense.” There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.
By issuing this as an Executive Order the President puts the federal government above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen.
As President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders. And while similar orders have been made before by presidents from Eisenhower and Reagan to Clinton and George Bush – it has never been done to this extent.
It is still unclear why this order was signed now, and what the consequences are for our nation – especially during times of peace. This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.
I want you to know I am following this very closely. If you would like to read the order for yourself please click:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi...es-preparedness (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness)
Sincerely,
Kay Granger
Member of Congress




FULL ANSWER
We’ve received several emails that claim Obama is using his executive powers to create martial law. They’re not true.
The email that states Obama has issued 900 executive orders and lists orders that previous presidents signed. The email also inaccurately describes those orders.
Another viral email cuts and pastes a constitutional.....:

http://www.factcheck.org

Qtec
10-07-2012, 04:23 AM
We should start another thread. "What ,if anything, did Mittens say that was true?


Q

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 10:11 AM
He mentioned that regulation were necessary for markets to function. That was true, although his adherence to that truism is in doubt, given what he's said about regulation on the campaign trail.

He said good education was critical, and didn't think cutting education was smart. Ok, but his plan to reduce discretionary spending to whatever very low figure of gdp he plans (lower than anytime in a century, probably) means that with the prior areas he said he will not cut, 30% across the board cuts in the rest (including education, presumably). If not including education, and he'll put that on the protected budget area list of his, then of course, MORE than 30% across the board cuts for the rest. And of course his famous comment about Obama's ideas for more teachers and firefighters, coming out against that: 'Didn't he [Obama] learn the lesson of Wisconsin?'

LWW
10-07-2012, 10:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We should start another thread. "What ,if anything, did Mittens say that was true?


Q </div></div>

Dear leader promised to halve the deficit on his watch ... but doubled it.

Dear leader promised to lower unemoloyment on his watch ... but it increased.

Dear leader promised to launch a post partisan era ... yet partsanship is orse than ever.

I could go on.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 10:26 AM
Dear leader promised to halve the deficit on his watch ... but doubled it.

No, sorry. That's one of the lies, by independent assessment. For obvious reasons (FY 2009 started Oct. 2008, and was already scored at a $1.2 trillion deficit by CBO before he even took office.)

eg8r
10-07-2012, 02:52 PM
He is not a leader, he doesn't believe in change. He is a failure. You forgot his promises to the latinos but they called him out on it so no problem. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2012, 02:53 PM
Did he halve the deficit or not?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 04:39 PM
He neither cut it in half (Romney was right about the promise and the failure to deliver on it), nor doubled it (Romney lied about that part).

I'm unaware that any definition of lying says a lie isn't one, if it's preceded by a true statement.

eg8r
10-07-2012, 04:48 PM
I don't care if lww was wrong, he isn't running for president. Romney was correct and Obama this is yet another example of Obama the Failure.

eg8r

Qtec
10-07-2012, 05:12 PM
Why do you ignore the constant stream of lies coming from Romney?
Do you want a serial liar like Mittens as POTUS?

Based on the evidence, there is no proof that what Mittens says he is going to do will actually happen. The chances are that Mittens may have another agenda.


He can always say that during the election he was never specific about anything!

Q

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 05:39 PM
I'm talking about Romney, not Larry.

Romney stated a fact, and then lied.

Why not just admit that, instead of pivoting to a characterization of Obama?

Qtec
10-07-2012, 05:43 PM
That's what he does, avoid the question and the facts,

Q

Qtec
10-07-2012, 05:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did he halve the deficit or not?

eg8r </div></div>

Did he half<span style='font-size: 23pt'> the DEFICIT that Bush and the Republicans left him?</span>

No.

Q

eg8r
10-07-2012, 05:48 PM
Yes dillhole, he never agreed to halve the deficit he created. But then again since you brought it up, has he halved the deficit that he created? No you idiot. He hasn't halved anything.

eg8r

Qtec
10-07-2012, 05:48 PM
Bush inherited a balanced budget and a projected surplus that would pay off the TOTAL Nat Debt in 10 years!
YES...NO DEBT! ZERO.

What did Obama get?

Now the same people who made the mess say they can fix it by continuing the same policies! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Q

eg8r
10-07-2012, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush inherited a balanced budget and a projected surplus that would pay off the TOTAL Nat Debt in 10 years!
YES...NO DEBT! ZERO.</div></div>There is a reason why no one ever talked about that projection? It was false. It was static. It did not allow anything changes. I think sofla has even admitted here on the board it was flawed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now the same people who made the mess say they can fix it by continuing the same policies! </div></div>Which policies are those?

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2012, 05:53 PM
I am fine with that, I really don't care. What is more important is that Obama did not follow through. He is a failure and the examples just keep piling up. The economy is not getting any better at a rate quick enough to think if we continue Obama's policy somehow everything will change we will start paying off debt?

Be honest now...If Obama raises taxes on the wealthy for a certain % and he says that will raise revenue a certain $ amount how truthful do you think he is being? How much money do you think he is calculating will walk off our shores into offshore accounts?

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2012, 05:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you ignore the constant stream of lies coming from Romney?</div></div>Actually I have successfully defended plenty of the things you incorrectly call a lie.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you want a serial liar like Mittens as POTUS?</div></div>At this point are you seriously this freaking stupid? How many times do I have to say I will not vote for Romney before it sinks through the cement between your ears?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Based on the evidence, there is no proof that what Mittens says he is going to do will actually happen.</div></div>Actually at this point in time there is no evidence that any research has gone into what he says he will do. This was proven in the debate when Obama made the lie about $5 trillion and was told he was flat out wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He can always say that during the election he was never specific about anything!</div></div>Yep. Just like Obama has always said he is not to blame for anything. If Obama is elected again do you think he will blame himself for the crappy economy he left himself? Remember he promised much lower debt, much lower unemployment, etc. He has failed everything.

eg8r

Qtec
10-07-2012, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes dillhole, he never agreed to halve the deficit he created. But then again since you brought it up, has he halved the deficit that he created? No you idiot. He hasn't halved anything.

eg8r </div></div>

This has been explained to you MANY times but you refuse to accept the facts.
Obama didn't create the deficit, Bush and the Republicans did.
Obama didn't lose 800,000 jobs in the month he took office, Bush and the Republicans did.

Under Obama, the deficit has gone down.

Q

Qtec
10-07-2012, 06:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually at this point in time there is no evidence that any research has gone into what he says he will do. This was proven in the debate when Obama made the lie about $5 trillion and was told he was flat out wrong. </div></div>

No it wasn't, Mittens CLAIMED this, ie did not explain in detail. A claim is not proof.

What Obama should have asked is this,

"If you cut 20% across the board, how much do you have to claw back in deductions and loopholes to make it revenue neutral?"?

Mittens doesn't have an answer.

Q

e

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 06:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes dillhole, he never agreed to halve the deficit he created. But then again since you brought it up, has he halved the deficit that he created? No you idiot. He hasn't halved anything.

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, yes, it can be argued he cut the deficit he added by (more than) half. A silly thing to brag about and no one has, but he did do that.

Simple story. FY 2009 was scored at $1.2 T before he took office 4 months and 3 weeks after it began.

That year the deficit finished about $1.4 T. So he added about $200 B. This year we're talking about $1.1 T, $300 B less. 300/200 is 150%, and 150% &gt; 50%.

Just a technical argument meaning approximately nothing, but you did ask.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 06:35 PM
If Obama raises taxes on the wealthy for a certain % and he says that will raise revenue a certain $ amount how truthful do you think he is being? How much money do you think he is calculating will walk off our shores into offshore accounts?

Businesses may open a post office drop box in the Caymans or wherever and pretend they've relocated, and avoid paying US taxes on their profits, but that tactic isn't as readily available to individuals. And he's not talking about raising corporate rates. He said at the debate that the corporate rate is probably too high already. (I disagree, since the nominal rate is higher than the effective tax rate. We have a high nominal rate, but a far lower effective rate of corporate taxation.)

Salary or wage income just isn't easily amenable to this off-shoring, and certainly not without corporate structures. If you DID take all your income into an overseas vehicle, you'd still have to pay yourself, and then you're subject to taxation on what that pay is.

Unless you're talking about literal expatriation of the persons, and dropping citizenship. Even doing that, there are a couple of years you still pay US taxes.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 06:42 PM
There is a reason why no one ever talked about that projection?

Bush did, as the original reason for his tax rate cut. We were being over-charged, and it was our money, he said.

Badly misusing the projection, he claimed the astonishing-- we could easily afford his tax rate cut, never have a surplus less than the SS surplus (keeping the solemn lockbox concept), STILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT (with the remaining surplus amounts), while keeping a $1 trillion rainy day fund in reserve in case anything went wrong.

You want to talk about over-promising? Exhibit A.

Later, he claimed to have cautioned that all of that could only happen absent a war, a recession, or a national crisis, and then made his joke: 'little did I know I would hit the trifecta!'

However, he never did say that. That was what Al Gore had said.

hondo
10-07-2012, 09:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes dillhole,

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 195.
And I'm not shadowposting. I only point out the namecalling.

hondo
10-07-2012, 09:16 PM
"At this point are you seriously this freaking stupid?"

eg8r


exhibit 198

hondo
10-07-2012, 09:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes dillhole, he never agreed to halve the deficit he created. But then again since you brought it up, has he halved the deficit that he created? No you idiot. He hasn't halved anything.

eg8r </div></div>

You ever notice, Christian, that most of the people you call names, Hondo, Q, Sofla, NEVER call you names.

LWW
10-08-2012, 04:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did he halve the deficit or not?

eg8r </div></div>

Did he half<span style='font-size: 23pt'> the DEFICIT that Bush and the Republicans left him?</span>

No.

Q </div></div>

Actually it was Bush and a demokrook kontrolled kongress of which Obama was a key member.

LWW
10-08-2012, 04:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes dillhole, he never agreed to halve the deficit he created. But then again since you brought it up, has he halved the deficit that he created? No you idiot. He hasn't halved anything.

eg8r </div></div>

You ever notice, Christian, that most of the people you call names, Hondo, Q, Sofla, NEVER call you names. </div></div>

That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen you post.

Gayle in MD
10-08-2012, 05:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's what he does, avoid the question and the facts,

Q </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'> ALWAYS! </span>

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 05:54 AM
Actually it was Bush and a demokrook kontrolled kongress of which Obama was a key member.

Of which Obama was a JUNIOR SENATOR with zero seniority.

The rest of your point is invalid as well. How many times have you ducked explaining what the '07-'08 Congress DID exactly to say that's when it turned?

If you want to say they did not overturn the unpaid Medicare D plan, or stop the two wars, or overturn the two tax cuts, that is all true. But neither did they pass them originally. All those things had been put in place prior. As laws. Under the wholly controlled GOP government.

So what did they do of a magnitude anywhere near the total impact of those very large revenue drains?

Often asked of you, never answered. So then you repeat the claim you never care to defend.

eg8r
10-08-2012, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of which Obama was a JUNIOR SENATOR with zero seniority.</div></div>Doesn't matter. His vote is equal with the rest of the senators. Everyone gets one vote. Now if you want to make the case that he voted present more often than yes or no, then I agree he was pretty much just a senator in name.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to say they did not overturn the unpaid Medicare D plan, or stop the two wars, or overturn the two tax cuts, that is all true. But neither did they pass them originally. All those things had been put in place prior. As laws. Under the wholly controlled GOP government.
</div></div>LOL, what is hilarious is when we talk about Obama's failures all you can say is it is Congress fault. Yet when we talk about failures during Bush term and it is a Dem controlled Congress all you can say is it is Bush's fault. You flip flop as much as Kerry and Romney combined.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:02 AM
LOL, so you agree it was all flawed. That was all you needed to say. Obama did not do what he said he would do.

When will the left actually man up and just admit Obama failed them. You can vote for him and say maybe his second term will be better, that is fine but at least man up and admit the first go around was a failure.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:03 AM
LOL, sorry honduh but either your reading sucks or your memory sucks.

Again, yet another example of honduh offering nothing to add to the discussion however he does hypocritically find a way to shadowpost yet again.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:04 AM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:05 AM
LOL, he hasn't halved anything but thanks for playing along.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:06 AM
LOL, it has been explained to you many times before, he said he would halve it and he hasn't. Failure.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:08 AM
So you think the numbers will just flow in like the projections state? Even though all the other projections continue to be far off base?

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 08:11 AM
Obama lied about the $5 Trillion. It is obvious he hasn't done any research. I can admit that is because Romney is vague and that is his fault but the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to research something that is not clear and then the result as it is some type of fact.

eg8r

LWW
10-08-2012, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama lied about the $5 Trillion. It is obvious he hasn't done any research. I can admit that is because Romney is vague and that is his fault but the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to research something that is not clear and then the result as it is some type of fact.

eg8r </div></div>

Obama's own campaign has admitted the $5T is a lie.

hondo
10-08-2012, 01:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, sorry honduh but either your reading sucks or your memory sucks.

Again, yet another example of honduh offering nothing to add to the discussion however he does hypocritically find a way to shadowpost yet again.

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 221. Where does it end?

eg8r
10-08-2012, 01:19 PM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

hondo
10-08-2012, 01:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r </div></div>

Sure thing, " Christian." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
10-08-2012, 02:37 PM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

hondo
10-21-2012, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes dillhole,

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 195.
And I'm not shadowposting. I only point out the namecalling. </div></div>

Bump.

hondo
10-21-2012, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"At this point are you seriously this freaking stupid?"

eg8r


exhibit 198 </div></div>

Bump.

Soflasnapper
10-21-2012, 02:21 PM
Obama's own campaign has admitted the $5T is a lie.

No it/they/she didn't.

While it may perhaps end up less (and that was the admission, not that anyone lied about anything), net of what are huge constructive tax increases, the effect of the across the board 20% tax rate cut is an approximate $5 trillion less revenues. Until and unless the makeup tax increases are specified, that is all that we know about the Romney plan.

Now, if you want to say it was ONLY a $4.8 trillion figure in tax cuts, which will be offset by a titanic increase of taxes by $4.8 trillions, which with a net tax effect of $0.00 will boost the economy to fantastic growth, please fully adopt the Romney position so far as I've described it.