Romney told 27 myths in 38 minutes

[gabosaurus]

Anyone want to take issue with any of these? I would be interested.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?paging=off

[red states rule]

Wow, talk about an objective source

So much for Gabby telling us sh has not made up her mind on who she is going to vote for




Igor Volsky is the Deputy Editor of ThinkProgress.org. Igor is co-author of Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform (http://www.amazon.com/Howard-Dean%C2%92s-Prescription-Healthcare-Reform/dp/1603582282/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248730880&sr=1-1) and has appeared on MSNBC, CNN, Fox Business, Fox News, and CNBC television, and has been a guest on many radio shows. In 2011, Forbes named Igor one of their top 30 under 30 in Law & Policy. Igor grew up in Russia, Israel and New Jersey and graduated from Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York. He was previously the Health and LGBT editor at ThinkProgress

[SassyLady]

Anyone want to take issue with any of these? I would be interested.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?paging=off

Do you agree with all of them, Gabby?

[red states rule]

Do you agree with all of them, Gabby?

I thought Gabby said she did not watch the debate, so she is letting others do her research for her

[SassyLady]

I'll start with this one...


2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.


I believe Romney's plan to create millions of jobs will bring in the revenue needed to offset the reductions.

Do you take issue with this?

PS ... if people aren't working, there is no other tax base other than the wealthy. Put people back to work and there will be more revenue.

[KarlMarx]

As far as energy independence goes, we certainly need to develop our domestic resources. Looking at Iran and the situation there, a war would threaten to close off the Straits of Hormuz through which a large percentage of oil shipping goes through. But that won't be enough. We will need to build oil refineries here at home. It's currently not a matter of supply, it's a matter of refinery capacity. We haven't built an oil refinery since 1976.

The concept of lowering tax rates is something that is lost on liberals. They can't seem to understand that lowering tax rates causes an increase of revenues to the government because it encourages increased economic activity, which is in itself taxable and thus generates tax revenue.

What's further lost on liberals is the idea that by raising taxes on corporations and the rich (who are themselves business owners) only hurts the Middle Class since the cost of tax increases are passed along to the Middle Class in the form of increased costs of goods and services.

My prediction.... if Romney wins on November 6 you should expect to see a rally in the stock market beginning November 7... I'm going to go so far as saying that a jump in the DJIA of 100 points will not be out of the question (and I think I'm being conservative).

[gabosaurus]

As far as energy independence goes, we certainly need to develop our domestic resources. Looking at Iran and the situation there, a war would threaten to close off the Straits of Hormuz through which a large percentage of oil shipping goes through. But that won't be enough. We will need to build oil refineries here at home. It's currently not a matter of supply, it's a matter of refinery capacity. We haven't built an oil refinery since 1976.

Big Oil wants to produce more oil so they can sell more oil to China and Japan, which pay much more and yield a larger profit. Added drilling and refining will not lead to lower prices at home. It never has.



The concept of lowering tax rates is something that is lost on liberals. They can't seem to understand that lowering tax rates causes an increase of revenues to the government because it encourages increased economic activity, which is in itself taxable and thus generates tax revenue.
What's further lost on liberals is the idea that by raising taxes on corporations and the rich (who are themselves business owners) only hurts the Middle Class since the cost of tax increases are passed along to the Middle Class in the form of increased costs of goods and services.

This has never been true in the past and will not come true in the future. Lowering the tax rate on larger businesses simply means larger dividends to execs and shareholders. Big Oil and larger companies have enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies for years. Prices have continued to rise.
Republicans want to lower taxes for the wealthy because the wealthy respond with money in their pockets.

[fj1200]

Big Oil wants to produce more oil so they can sell more oil to China and Japan, which pay much more and yield a larger profit. Added drilling and refining will not lead to lower prices at home. It never has.

Sweet!


This has never been true in the past and will not come true in the future. Lowering the tax rate on larger businesses simply means larger dividends to execs and shareholders. Big Oil and larger companies have enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies for years. Prices have continued to rise.

Incorrect, one of the major beneficiaries of a DOMESTIC corporate tax is FOREIGN labor. Besides, tax revenues are not a function of tax rates.


Republicans want to lower taxes for the wealthy because the wealthy respond with money in their pockets.

Also incorrect.

Nice talking point list though. :thumb:

[Trigg]

Anyone want to take issue with any of these? I would be interested.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?paging=off


Both candidates got things wrong.


http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/world/debate-fact-check-obama-romney-spun-some-one-sided-stories-in-denver-presidential-debate


Here is a BIG example of a MYTH obama told. I have issues with twisting the truth and lying, Obama doesn't seem to mind though.



He went on to say: "Right now, you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue."



Obama was incredulous about that claim during a rally Thursday in Denver. "Never heard of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas?" Obama told the crowd. He claimed the "real Mitt Romney" invested in "pioneers of outsourcing," suggesting he should know about the deduction.


the deduction is written into the tax code pertaining to any cost companies face in the course of doing business. That means a company can claim the deduction whether it's moving operations to Bangalore or Boston, to Kuala Lumpur or Kansas City.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/#ixzz28Rx5lCWB

[fj1200]

Anyone want to take issue with any of these?

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?paging=off

They excused one set of "myths" with another set myths.

Example:


11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/report/2012/07/16/11935/romneys-new-tax-incentive-for-outsourcing-u-s-jobs/).

The US is the only major country without a territorial tax system. We already allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without being taxed, the tax code keeps those profits from coming back by only taxing them onshore.


All other G‐7 countries and most other OECD countries have adopted “territorial”
tax systems that largely exempt these active earnings from home country taxation.
http://businessroundtable.org/uploads/studies-reports/downloads/Taxing_American_Corporations_in_the_Global_Marketp lace.pdf


I would be interested.

Doubtful.

[Robert A Whit]

I'll start with this one...




I believe Romney's plan to create millions of jobs will bring in the revenue needed to offset the reductions.

Do you take issue with this?

PS ... if people aren't working, there is no other tax base other than the wealthy. Put people back to work and there will be more revenue.

I enjoy that funny math DC uses. Only they claim money is spent when the span of time is into the distant future and future congress and presidents have plenty of chances to change the path. Obama is spending today, not in ten year, but today, enormous trillions of dollars.

Does Obama want to admit his ten year into the future deficits will add up to .... oh let's see and try to do the math being conservative ...

10 yrs @ at least 1 trillion per year ... well that is another 10 trillion dollars in public debt. He can shove us to around 27 trillion and not take a deep breath.

Romney plans to seriously slow down this enormous problem and see if he can reverse that path to doom.

I don't know how many of you understand how it works, but let me give a short explanation.

Goverment has always paid back money borrowed two ways. First they pay it back. LMAO

Second, inflation pays it back. And who controls inflation? Most often the full blame for inflation falls on the Feds. Top to bottom, the Feds have the means to control inflation.

So, today YOU borrow from China. Tomorrow your kids get the shaft. They will pay staggering sums to pay off the Obama bills.

Kinds of gives you a warm glow doesn't it?

[Robert A Whit]

Big Oil wants to produce more oil so they can sell more oil to China and Japan, which pay much more and yield a larger profit. Added drilling and refining will not lead to lower prices at home. It never has.


This has never been true in the past and will not come true in the future. Lowering the tax rate on larger businesses simply means larger dividends to execs and shareholders. Big Oil and larger companies have enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies for years. Prices have continued to rise.
Republicans want to lower taxes for the wealthy because the wealthy respond with money in their pockets.

I believe all of us want to read your proof that our domestic producers ship USA oil to China or to Japan.

Canada is our largest supplier of crude. Yet I never hear left wingers claim Canada ships oil to China or Japan. Actually, dividends would be soaring today given so many business operations have churned lots of cash on hand or they would today pay execs skyrocketing incomes.

Obama uses trickle down economics. Actually study his stimulus. The cash he spent went directly to the rich. Yet he mocks them trickling it down.

[aboutime]

Anyone want to take issue with any of these? I would be interested.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?paging=off



gabby. Good thing for you. Today is Friday, and your pre-school Economics day-care center supervisor let you go early.

You could have saved us, and yourself so much of our laughter if only you had just admitted...HOW MUCH you hate Romney, and will just pretend to vote for Obama in November. Since Being Underage, immature, and unqualified will never get you into the place to vote.

[DragonStryk72]

You know what, here you go, just for you:

“[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration.

You mean he's gonna get us to energy independence without fucking around with a bunch of extra steps? Did he ever speak against the fuel efficiency standards? The answer to the latter is no. So where's the myth? Oh, wait, there isn't one, so point number is just complete bullshit. Article's off to a great start there.


“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

Now we get to evidence against Obama, not Romney. If people had listened any of the 10 times he explained what he was doing, we wouldn't be having a discussion about this point. Obama is either incompetent, or he's just trying to twist Romney's words on this one. I'm going to bold and this next bit so it sinks in:By lowering the taxes significantly, businesses will be able to hire on more people. By getting rid of the insane loopholes in the tax code, we will keep the same income. THERE IS ABSOLUTE NO PLAN ON THE TABLE TO CUT REVENUE BY $5T DOLLARS. TO CONTINUE TO SAY THAT SUCH EXISTS IS MANIPULATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SO that's two, both of which seem to actually cast the writers of the article in a horrible light, as they purposely take out of context, or wasn't actually even a myth. Wonderful unbiased article you found here, gabs.


“My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

If the five trillion dollar tax cut actually existed like they're trying to make it look like, this would likely be true. But it's not the truth, so this fails thanks to simply, And before you look at the "There are not enough deductions" point, look at the "primarily benefit rich people" part. Romney never said, not one time, that he was only going to decrease the deductions for rich people, so that isn't a myth, and is proof of nothing.


my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/01/620561/tpc-romney-study-taxes/), Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/mitt-romney-floats-17000-limit-on-tax-deductions.php).

Well, my rebuttal to point 2 and 3 pretty much kill this before we get going, but here we go: By lower taxes across the board, he is allowing small businesses and individual to retain more of their money on hand throughout, since it won't go into the repository of funds til tax season. By getting rid of deductions and tax loopholes, he keeps from bringing down the revenue stream. Another side benefit of simplifying, is that it will also decrease the overhead of maintaining the government.


I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/10/819411/romney-tax-studies-five/) that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

Yes, and those studies were purposely. Purposely, because they directly denied that was contrary to their finding. See my previous points on the removal of deductions and loopholes for my evidence on this point.


“I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study (http://www.aei.org/files/2012/10/01/-a-simple-measure-of-the-distributional-burden-of-debt-accumulation_210316287852.pdf) from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/03/953041/romney-debunk-middle-class/) that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

First off, that's not what Romney was talking to start with. Romney was lampooning studies, such as the reference in the prior point to this, as this was the next sentence. Next, I suppose the obvious is this: The underlined portions in no way remove the point of the $3000-$4000 tax hike on middle-income families. The tax money that is used to service the debt does so after it is collected. Obama refuted none of that, so apparently, one of the candidates does want to raise taxes on the middle class, just not the one they're talking about in this article.


“And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/10/514032/speaker-boehner-small-business-lies/) of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/03/636501/boushey-small-business-tax-cuts/) who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased

How many is "Far Less than Half"? Let's think about that number for a minute: We have 300,000,000+ people in the US, so 1% is about 3,000,000+, so Less than half is still over 1,000,000 people.

Next.... This point in absolutely no way addresses the quote they're using here, so how can they even call it a myth? What he was speaking to was that, by lowering the individual tax rate, that businesses would have to pay fewer taxes per employee across the board, and thus be able to take on more employes, getting more people back to work, and paying in taxes.

As to job creation: I want you to go Scholastic and have them tell you that J.K. Rowling had no impact on their job creation. When they stop crying with laughter, you'll have your answer.


“Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower (http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/04/03/document_gw_01.pdf): Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on7,000 approved permits (http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/Final-Report.pdf) to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

Oil production is different than getting the permission to do so. Product can increase without new facilities, especially when you figure in technology, and the workforce improving at their individual jobs. The permits that are referred are "approved", but this is another those runs where, well, they're just purposely avoiding the whole story. With the EPA having and untoward degree of power, a permit can be "approved" without them actually being able to explore or develop the land.

The article is using something close to the "Chewbacca defense". It talks about the production, but doesn't mention the numbers on granted permits per annum, which are completely different things. It also does not tell you how many of the 7,000 approved permits are for exploration and drilling on private vs. public land. Notably, it does not do this for oil production either.


“The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/iowa-debate-fact-check/). Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

Ahem, this one's gonna be quick: The public debt is not the national debt. The article needs to learn the difference between the two.


“That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/national-federation-independent-businesses), doesn’t analyze (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/17/fact-check-industry-financed-study-gets-president-s-tax-cuts-wrong) what Obama has actually proposed.

Funny, but it seems that Obama's study groups all seem to skipping over what Romney said as well. Oops. As to the veracity, note the article doesn't mention how they analyzed it, or didn't, they just say they didn't analyze all of it.

ROFL, oh my god, the Fact-Check is from Obama's guys, a completely and obviously biased source.


“What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/report/2012/07/16/11935/romneys-new-tax-incentive-for-outsourcing-u-s-jobs/).

Okay, admittedly I had to look up the territorial tax system. So this is the official point as made in Romney's own tax plan:


Transition to a “Territorial” Tax System
As president, Mitt Romney will also act immediately to alter those of our tax laws that encourage American multinational companies to park their profits
permanently overseas. The United States currently operates under what is known as a “worldwide” tax system, meaning that business income is taxed at the U.S. rate regardless of whether the income is earned within American borders or overseas. Under this collection method, American companies pay the corporate tax in the host country, and when profits are repatriated back to the United States, the company pays the difference between what was paid to the host country and what would have been owed under the U.S. rate. Given our higher rates, the effect of this is to penalize those U.S. corporations that bring their foreign profits home to invest in the United States. It is a deeply irrational system that benefits the rest of the world at our expense. It needs to be changed.

Other nations have noted the competitive disadvantage inherent in a worldwide tax system, resulting in a gradual movement of countries converting
from a worldwide to a “territorial” system, in which income is taxed only in the country where it is earned. Of the 34 OECD member nations, 26 have either a full territorial system or something very close to it. Alone at the top, the United States is now the only country in the OECD that adheres to the worldwide system while imposing a corporate tax rate above 30 percent.

Romney supports the recommendation of the Bowles-Simpson Commission to make the switch to a territorial system. This would enhance the ability of our
corporations to compete around the world and would end the perverse incentives that keep companies from repatriating profits to the United States. Domestic companies that can compete vigorously abroad are in a better position to grow and create jobs at home. Complex technical issues will arise during the transition:

amendments to the tax code need to be crafted in a way that does not encourage corporations to game the system and export jobs or to move their U.S. headquarters abroad. With proper draftsmanship, these potential hazards can be overcome. A territorial system must be designed to encourage the creation of jobs in the United States, not to outsource them. A Romney administration will begin work on the transition to a territorial system on day one. As much as $1 trillion, that could be invested in the United States, is at stake. It is past time to eliminate tax laws that place American firms at a competitive disadvantage, decrease revenue, and diminish corporate investment in America.

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf

Okay, so basically the current tax model discourages corporations from staying or returning to America, while at the same time hitting them with the second highest business taxes in the entire world, and our people treat them like Captain Planet villains.... Gee, can't imagine why Romney would want to change that, cause you know that old saying "You can't more flies with vinegar than you do with honey."

The territorial tax system basically makes it so that companies stop taking double hits on taxes, and with the lower corporate, business, and personal taxes as a combined force at home, we will lure back the companies that have left, while retaining the companies we have now. Clearly the examiners somehow missed all of that.


“I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/08/363892/romneys-medicaid-proposal-falls-in-line-with-ryans-plan-beneficiaries-could-face-limited-access-to-care/) of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found.

Yeah, that would be an issue... if he hadn't by that point already addressed bringing down the costs of health care, which are businesses with employees, and would thus be effected by the across the board tax cuts, amongst his other methods of bringing down the cost of health care.and notice this little gem "Than current federal spending", not "than the budget would actually require", just lower than what we're paying now. And really, the states would have to start prioritizing their spending, but also get the ability make Medicaid work to their needs? Oh the humanity.


13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/) under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/15/693731/how-mitt-romney-would-quickly-bankrupt-medicare/), but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

So, let me get this straight: the 716 is a real number, it's not being disputed, and both sides are getting that 716 the same way. Clearly the author needs to work out what a MYTH is. This is a simple difference of priorities. With a lower debt, and tax cuts FOR EVERYONE, NOT SIMPLY THE RICH, the cost of medical care will go down anyway.


“What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/healthcare/report/2012/08/24/33915/increased-costs-during-retirement-under-the-romney-ryan-medicare-plan/): 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

...Sweet baby Jesus, you do get that beneficiaries are the people on medicare, right? 1) Obamacare isn't operating currently, so nobody's receiving anything from it one way or the other, 2) is lampooned by 3, since the beneficiaries would be receiving funds, and 3) See my opening sentence to this.


“Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/24/739271/seniors-will-pay-60000-more-for-medicare-under-romneyryans-plan-report-finds/), even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.

Again, the whole run of "Let's pretend really, really hard that Romney didn't clearly and repeatedly address bringing health care costs down."


“And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/992671#.UG17403A8oM) the Ryan/Wyden approach — which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.

Um, he didn't say he supported them, he addressed where they came from. So wait, is he for premium support or against it according to you? It's certainly not both, so which of the last two points is the author just flatly lying about?


“Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/15/694591/romney-deregulate-wall-street/) of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-22/mf-global-probe-said-to-weigh-illegal-use-of-funds-for-margin.html) to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

So then the author is in agreement with Romney that we don't need to get rid of all regulation. Some parts is the key, because anyone who is honest with themselves knows that no bill is 100% bad. As an analogy: My buddy Tisdale's car had a really great sound system, and comfy seat. However, the alignment and shocks were shot, you couldn't run the AC and the stereo at the same time, the bumper was held on with shoelaces, and it drifted right. We still had to replace the whole car, but we transferred the sound system over.

Obama even admitted that Romney's plan including some sections of Dodd-Frank, so no, this isn't a myth.


“But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/04/21/173907/ryan-tbtf-banks-video/). If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers (http://www.thenation.com/article/167083/ryan-budget-takes-aim-resolution-authority) from having to pony up for a bailout.

So, basically, the big banks get to break anti-trust laws left and right, while regional and small banks are allowed to just fail. Oh yeah, no abuse there at all. Again, this is not a myth, learn what they word means.


“And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/05/511486/obamacare-is-a-major-tax-cut-for-middle-class-families/) to make health care more affordable.

Oh joy, more convolution to the tax code. The price still goes up, AND we get to throw on some more deductibles that require more IRS to oversee. Someone though, that's gonna help us get out of debt.


“t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority.

So.. Romney was exactly correct, and only the worst possible decisions of said panel have any real chance of being stopped, since a Super Majority is required.


“Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/%E2%80%9Dhttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/13/318103/cbo-director-health-reform-wont-lead-large-numbers-of-employers-to-drop-coverage/%E2%80%9D) or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.

It doesn't expand coverage, so that's a myth (the correct use of the word). It MANDATES buying health insurance. What about the employers who are going to opt out? Oh, did we not want to talk about that? Only 3 million... horsehit, that group has undersold every damned drop coming down the pike to make it seem like things will be better.


“I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/26/romneycare__a_revolution_that_basically_worked/?page=4).

Funding that he isn't talking about cutting..... so... uh... where's the myth again?


“It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act[I] incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.

Yes they did. Not liking it doesn't change that, and the author manages to destroy his own argument in consecutive sentences. So which is it? Did they put forth a plan or not?


“Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/12/498156/romney-confirms-he-will-deny-insurance-to-millions-with-pre-existing-conditions-if-obamacare-is-struck-down/) would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

Okay, and? If you aren't insured, and it's a pre-existing condition, for one, you're an idiot for dumping whatever health care you had. If you quit, or you get fired, you can continue health care coverage by law. As well, if it's a pre-existing condition, then you arek knowingly screwing over the insurance company, so yes, they should have at least a modicum of ability to recoup losses from you. Should you be in an emergency to where you don't have the funds, that's why we have Medicare.


“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.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/factchecking-the-first-presidential-debate-of-2012/2012/10/04/9d47934e-0d66-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_blog.html) of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”

...So it's not a myth, and you just explained why it isn't a myth. Um, thanks?


“I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], 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.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/12/06/media-ignore-report-undermining-their-solyndra/184694) of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”

LMAO, oh my God, :laugh2:, that's the defense? Oh... well, almost 10 months ago it was only 3, and hey, it's only $6M, so it' not like we could have done anything with that money anyway.... like fix medicare, medicaid, and welfare...


“If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger.

Um... so again, dramatic cuts to our military are on Obama's plate, and Romney's against them. Ryan may not be, but Ryan isn't Romney, they don't have group mind think, so last I checked, it's still okay to disagree with one another.

Okay, so in closing, the myths weren't myths, and the author clearly needs to go back to school and learn the meaning of the term. Whether or not I agree with Romney changes nothing about the "facts" presented in this article. When they weren't just out and out wrong, they twisted or ignored statments, and did so in a very open manner.

[KarlMarx]

Big Oil wants to produce more oil so they can sell more oil to China and Japan, which pay much more and yield a larger profit. Added drilling and refining will not lead to lower prices at home. It never has.

And your answer to that is? Wind power? Rubber band powered cars? Face it. Our economy runs on fossil fuels.

How about that $5 and $6 a gallon gasoline there in your neck of the woods? The reason? Refineries were shut down for various reason... the result? A spike in gas prices and shortages. Saying that refineries don't matter is simply not true.



This has never been true in the past and will not come true in the future. Lowering the tax rate on larger businesses simply means larger dividends to execs and shareholders. Big Oil and larger companies have enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies for years. Prices have continued to rise.
Republicans want to lower taxes for the wealthy because the wealthy respond with money in their pockets.
Yes, it is true and has been true in the past. There was a reduction in taxes in the 1980s, the result was a boom in the economy. A reduction in the capital gains tax rate in the mid 1990s was a factor in the economic boom of that time. The Bush tax cuts helped fuel the economic boom of a few years ago. Whenever tax rates are lowered, the economy improves.
.

[DragonStryk72]

And your answer to that is? Wind power? Rubber band powered cars? Face it. Our economy runs on fossil fuels.
Actually, they're getting to the point where we can produce synthetic gasoline. I was watching a thing about it on The Colbert Report.

How about that $5 and $6 a gallon gasoline there in your neck of the woods? The reason? Refineries were shut down for various reason... the result? A spike in gas prices and shortages. Saying that refineries don't matter is simply not true.
And they certainly matter for the thousands they employ, and the towns where they're the central buoy of the economy


Yes, it is true and has been true in the past. There was a reduction in taxes in the 1980s, the result was a boom in the economy. A reduction in the capital gains tax rate in the mid 1990s was a factor in the economic boom of that time. The Bush tax cuts helped fuel the economic boom of a few years ago. Whenever tax rates are lowered, the economy improves.
.

Well, a simple reduction of taxes right now wouldn't work, because we've been complicating the tax code for the past 15-20 years, so it vitally needs those deductions and such to uncomplicate the system.

[red states rule]

Well, a simple reduction of taxes right now wouldn't work, because we've been complicating the tax code for the past 15-20 years, so it vitally needs those deductions and such to uncomplicate the system.



uncomplicate the system? Hell the IRS does not even understand the tax code and tells you when you call in to ask questions; they are not responsible for any incorrect info you are given

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You know what, here you go, just for you:


You mean he's gonna get us to energy independence without fucking around with a bunch of extra steps? Did he ever speak against the fuel efficiency standards? The answer to the latter is no. So where's the myth? Oh, wait, there isn't one, so point number is just complete bullshit. Article's off to a great start there.



Now we get to evidence against Obama, not Romney. If people had listened any of the 10 times he explained what he was doing, we wouldn't be having a discussion about this point. Obama is either incompetent, or he's just trying to twist Romney's words on this one. I'm going to bold and this next bit so it sinks in:By lowering the taxes significantly, businesses will be able to hire on more people. By getting rid of the insane loopholes in the tax code, we will keep the same income. THERE IS ABSOLUTE NO PLAN ON THE TABLE TO CUT REVENUE BY $5T DOLLARS. TO CONTINUE TO SAY THAT SUCH EXISTS IS MANIPULATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SO that's two, both of which seem to actually cast the writers of the article in a horrible light, as they purposely take out of context, or wasn't actually even a myth. Wonderful unbiased article you found here, gabs.



If the five trillion dollar tax cut actually existed like they're trying to make it look like, this would likely be true. But it's not the truth, so this fails thanks to simply, And before you look at the "There are not enough deductions" point, look at the "primarily benefit rich people" part. Romney never said, not one time, that he was only going to decrease the deductions for rich people, so that isn't a myth, and is proof of nothing.



Well, my rebuttal to point 2 and 3 pretty much kill this before we get going, but here we go: By lower taxes across the board, he is allowing small businesses and individual to retain more of their money on hand throughout, since it won't go into the repository of funds til tax season. By getting rid of deductions and tax loopholes, he keeps from bringing down the revenue stream. Another side benefit of simplifying, is that it will also decrease the overhead of maintaining the government.



Yes, and those studies were purposely. Purposely, because they directly denied that was contrary to their finding. See my previous points on the removal of deductions and loopholes for my evidence on this point.



First off, that's not what Romney was talking to start with. Romney was lampooning studies, such as the reference in the prior point to this, as this was the next sentence. Next, I suppose the obvious is this: The underlined portions in no way remove the point of the $3000-$4000 tax hike on middle-income families. The tax money that is used to service the debt does so after it is collected. Obama refuted none of that, so apparently, one of the candidates does want to raise taxes on the middle class, just not the one they're talking about in this article.



How many is "Far Less than Half"? Let's think about that number for a minute: We have 300,000,000+ people in the US, so 1% is about 3,000,000+, so Less than half is still over 1,000,000 people.

Next.... This point in absolutely no way addresses the quote they're using here, so how can they even call it a myth? What he was speaking to was that, by lowering the individual tax rate, that businesses would have to pay fewer taxes per employee across the board, and thus be able to take on more employes, getting more people back to work, and paying in taxes.

As to job creation: I want you to go Scholastic and have them tell you that J.K. Rowling had no impact on their job creation. When they stop crying with laughter, you'll have your answer.



Oil production is different than getting the permission to do so. Product can increase without new facilities, especially when you figure in technology, and the workforce improving at their individual jobs. The permits that are referred are "approved", but this is another those runs where, well, they're just purposely avoiding the whole story. With the EPA having and untoward degree of power, a permit can be "approved" without them actually being able to explore or develop the land.

The article is using something close to the "Chewbacca defense". It talks about the production, but doesn't mention the numbers on granted permits per annum, which are completely different things. It also does not tell you how many of the 7,000 approved permits are for exploration and drilling on private vs. public land. Notably, it does not do this for oil production either.



Ahem, this one's gonna be quick: The public debt is not the national debt. The article needs to learn the difference between the two.



Funny, but it seems that Obama's study groups all seem to skipping over what Romney said as well. Oops. As to the veracity, note the article doesn't mention how they analyzed it, or didn't, they just say they didn't analyze all of it.

ROFL, oh my god, the Fact-Check is from Obama's guys, a completely and obviously biased source.



Okay, admittedly I had to look up the territorial tax system. So this is the official point as made in Romney's own tax plan:



Okay, so basically the current tax model discourages corporations from staying or returning to America, while at the same time hitting them with the second highest business taxes in the entire world, and our people treat them like Captain Planet villains.... Gee, can't imagine why Romney would want to change that, cause you know that old saying "You can't more flies with vinegar than you do with honey."

The territorial tax system basically makes it so that companies stop taking double hits on taxes, and with the lower corporate, business, and personal taxes as a combined force at home, we will lure back the companies that have left, while retaining the companies we have now. Clearly the examiners somehow missed all of that.



Yeah, that would be an issue... if he hadn't by that point already addressed bringing down the costs of health care, which are businesses with employees, and would thus be effected by the across the board tax cuts, amongst his other methods of bringing down the cost of health care.and notice this little gem "Than current federal spending", not "than the budget would actually require", just lower than what we're paying now. And really, the states would have to start prioritizing their spending, but also get the ability make Medicaid work to their needs? Oh the humanity.



So, let me get this straight: the 716 is a real number, it's not being disputed, and both sides are getting that 716 the same way. Clearly the author needs to work out what a MYTH is. This is a simple difference of priorities. With a lower debt, and tax cuts FOR EVERYONE, NOT SIMPLY THE RICH, the cost of medical care will go down anyway.



...Sweet baby Jesus, you do get that beneficiaries are the people on medicare, right? 1) Obamacare isn't operating currently, so nobody's receiving anything from it one way or the other, 2) is lampooned by 3, since the beneficiaries would be receiving funds, and 3) See my opening sentence to this.



Again, the whole run of "Let's pretend really, really hard that Romney didn't clearly and repeatedly address bringing health care costs down."



Um, he didn't say he supported them, he addressed where they came from. So wait, is he for premium support or against it according to you? It's certainly not both, so which of the last two points is the author just flatly lying about?



So then the author is in agreement with Romney that we don't need to get rid of all regulation. Some parts is the key, because anyone who is honest with themselves knows that no bill is 100% bad. As an analogy: My buddy Tisdale's car had a really great sound system, and comfy seat. However, the alignment and shocks were shot, you couldn't run the AC and the stereo at the same time, the bumper was held on with shoelaces, and it drifted right. We still had to replace the whole car, but we transferred the sound system over.

Obama even admitted that Romney's plan including some sections of Dodd-Frank, so no, this isn't a myth.



So, basically, the big banks get to break anti-trust laws left and right, while regional and small banks are allowed to just fail. Oh yeah, no abuse there at all. Again, this is not a myth, learn what they word means.



Oh joy, more convolution to the tax code. The price still goes up, AND we get to throw on some more deductibles that require more IRS to oversee. Someone though, that's gonna help us get out of debt.



So.. Romney was exactly correct, and only the worst possible decisions of said panel have any real chance of being stopped, since a Super Majority is required.



It doesn't expand coverage, so that's a myth (the correct use of the word). It MANDATES buying health insurance. What about the employers who are going to opt out? Oh, did we not want to talk about that? Only 3 million... horsehit, that group has undersold every damned drop coming down the pike to make it seem like things will be better.



Funding that he isn't talking about cutting..... so... uh... where's the myth again?



Yes they did. Not liking it doesn't change that, and the author manages to destroy his own argument in consecutive sentences. So which is it? Did they put forth a plan or not?



Okay, and? If you aren't insured, and it's a pre-existing condition, for one, you're an idiot for dumping whatever health care you had. If you quit, or you get fired, you can continue health care coverage by law. As well, if it's a pre-existing condition, then you arek knowingly screwing over the insurance company, so yes, they should have at least a modicum of ability to recoup losses from you. Should you be in an emergency to where you don't have the funds, that's why we have Medicare.



...So it's not a myth, and you just explained why it isn't a myth. Um, thanks?



LMAO, oh my God, :laugh2:, that's the defense? Oh... well, almost 10 months ago it was only 3, and hey, it's only $6M, so it' not like we could have done anything with that money anyway.... like fix medicare, medicaid, and welfare...



Um... so again, dramatic cuts to our military are on Obama's plate, and Romney's against them. Ryan may not be, but Ryan isn't Romney, they don't have group mind think, so last I checked, it's still okay to disagree with one another.

Okay, so in closing, the myths weren't myths, and the author clearly needs to go back to school and learn the meaning of the term. Whether or not I agree with Romney changes nothing about the "facts" presented in this article. When they weren't just out and out wrong, they twisted or ignored statments, and did so in a very open manner.

Freaking A- reasoning.. nice refutation of obama/dem /lib propaganda.. -Tyr

[red states rule]

I got this in an email and it sums up the tax situation perfectly


Income Tax Filing StrategyTo: Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury Washington, DC 20001

Enclosed is my 2003 Form 1040, together with payment. Please take note of the attached article from USA Today archives. In the article, you will note that the Pentagon paid $171.50 each for hammers and NASA paid $600.00 each for toilet seats.

Please find enclosed in this package four toilet seats (value $2,400.00) and six hammers (value $1,029.00). This is in payment for my total tax due of $3,429.00.

Out of a sense of patriotic duty, and to assist in the political purification of our government, I am also enclosing a 1.5 inch Phillips head screw, for which HUD duly recorded and approved a purchase value of $22.00, as my contribution to fulfill the Presidential Election Fund option on Form 1040.

It has been a pleasure to pay my taxes this year, and I look forward to paying them again next year in accordance with officially established government values.

Sincerely,

Another satisfied taxpayer

[NightTrain]

Added drilling and refining will not lead to lower prices at home. It never has.


This has to be the single most stupid thing you have ever posted, and that says a great deal.


Are you completely fucking insane?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I got this in an email and it sums up the tax situation perfectly


Income Tax Filing StrategyTo: Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury Washington, DC 20001

Enclosed is my 2003 Form 1040, together with payment. Please take note of the attached article from USA Today archives. In the article, you will note that the Pentagon paid $171.50 each for hammers and NASA paid $600.00 each for toilet seats.

Please find enclosed in this package four toilet seats (value $2,400.00) and six hammers (value $1,029.00). This is in payment for my total tax due of $3,429.00.

Out of a sense of patriotic duty, and to assist in the political purification of our government, I am also enclosing a 1.5 inch Phillips head screw, for which HUD duly recorded and approved a purchase value of $22.00, as my contribution to fulfill the Presidential Election Fund option on Form 1040.

It has been a pleasure to pay my taxes this year, and I look forward to paying them again next year in accordance with officially established government values.

Sincerely,

Another satisfied taxpayer

What? No monkeywrench for the monkey in the Whitehouse???-;)

[red states rule]

This has to be the single most stupid thing you have ever posted, and that says a great deal.


Are you completely fucking insane?


Currently CA residents are paying around $6/gal for gas. I could not be happier for Gabby and her liberal pals

I do hope she swells with pride as she pulls up to the pump and fills up her car as she experiences more hope and change

[aboutime]

Currently CA residents are paying around $6/gal for gas. I could not be happier for Gabby and her liberal pals

I do hope she swells with pride as she pulls up to the pump and fills up her car as she experiences more hope and change

We should all be sending Greetings, and Applause Celebration wishes to GABBY today.

Finally. Gabby gets to see...up close, and personal. Everything she has denied about almost everything...coming true.

Ya know? Like how many of us tried to WARN Gabby what was coming. But no! Stubborn gabby is probably reading this right now...still convinced it will be so easy to survive...no matter how high prices go because OBAMA promised her, and 55 million other nearly perfect IDIOTS...not to worry about any NEW TAXES.

How bout that Gabby. Still feel like Blaming BUSH?

[SassyLady]

Currently CA residents are paying around $6/gal for gas. I could not be happier for Gabby and her liberal pals

I do hope she swells with pride as she pulls up to the pump and fills up her car as she experiences more hope and change

Hey now .... there's a bunch of us conservatives living in CA that are definitely not happy. The difference is that we know why the prices are up.......starting with regulations.


A web of refinery and transmission problems is to blame, analysts said. The situation is compounded by a California pollution law that requires a special blend of cleaner-burning gasoline from April to October, said Denton Cinquegrana, executive editor of the Oil Price Information Service, which helps AAA compile its price survey.
"We use the phrase `the perfect storm,' and you know what, this current one makes those other perfect storms look like a drizzle. I don't want to scare anyone, but this is a big problem," Cinquegrana said. "Run-outs are happening left and right."


Read more: http://www.myfoxla.com/story/19756096/sticker-shock-at-california-gas-stations#ixzz28b1pB9fS

[DragonStryk72]

uncomplicate the system? Hell the IRS does not even understand the tax code and tells you when you call in to ask questions; they are not responsible for any incorrect info you are given

There's a general rule in engineering that the more complicated a system becomes, the more chance that system has to break down. The IRS even knows this, but our politicians seem to need a brush up on the lesson. But what do I know? I was only a Machinist's Mate on an amphibious carrier, it's not like we had moving parts.

[DragonStryk72]

Hey now .... there's a bunch of us conservatives living in CA that are definitely not happy. The difference is that we know why the prices are up.......starting with regulations.

Ugh, does California even understand how many lives among the poor they're destroying with these sorts of regulations? Think about it, when you're poor, you have to evaluate whether you can afford the costs of a car or not. When gas prices go up, you see more folks get into a hole, because it directly hits their bank accounts, and hits them hard. It can severely limit the jobs, and income you can make, regardless of where you live.

[red states rule]

Hey now .... there's a bunch of us conservatives living in CA that are definitely not happy. The difference is that we know why the prices are up.......starting with regulations.


I undersatnd that SL and I feel sorry for you having to live in the land of nuts and far left moonbats. They wanted change and now they have it.

But perhaps if these idiot libs suffer and get a Super Sized dose of hope and change it might take enough votes away from Obama to make CA competitive

Which would cause Chris Matthews to have a stroke and a heart attck at the same time

[NightTrain]

I think post #20 should be broadcast on TV. This shows exactly what kind of idiot votes democrat these days. The scary part, she actually teaches kids. American kids.

[taft2012]

Anyone want to take issue with any of these? I would be interested.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?paging=off

Why this constant incessant fact-checking of Romney? Let us fact check the Obama of 2012 vs. the Obama of 2008.

2008 Positions:

opposed the individual mandate for health insurance
opposed taxing employer provided health care plans
opposed gay marriage
said he would close the Guatanamo Bay prison camp
said he would give the Guatanamo Bay prisoners civil trials in US courts
said he would sit down with Ahmedinejad and solve the Iranian nuclear crisis
said the American people would have 5 days to read all laws on-line before they were voted on
said he would cut the deficit in half
said he would submit balanced budgets
said he would read through the budgets "line by line" to make needed cuts, and instead has run the country entirely without budgets
said he would create 7 million new jobs

The only question is; if anyone voted for Obama in 2008 based on a rational evaluation of his positions.... what possible reason could they have to vote for him again in 2012?

[Noir]

Why this constant incessant fact-checking of Romney? Let us fact check the Obama of 2012 vs. the Obama of 2008.

Both candidates should be fact checked, incessantly, but then who's left to be surprised when they're both as bad as each other.

[DragonStryk72]

Both candidates should be fact checked, incessantly, but then who's left to be surprised when they're both as bad as each other.

And this is why I'd like it if we had more major political parties, like Ireland does, with 6. It keeps candidates from being able to constantly put us in the position of only choosing from A or B. It's like getting asked, "You wanna be punched in the throat, or punched in the balls?"

Shouldn't we have some sort of "not getting punched" option?

[tailfins]

Both candidates should be fact checked, incessantly, but then who's left to be surprised when they're both as bad as each other.

You're free to fact check 100 hours per week if you so desire. Why spoonfeed lazy voters? We have had enough of Candy Crowley style "fact-checking".


And this is why I'd like it if we had more major political parties, like Ireland does, with 6. It keeps candidates from being able to constantly put us in the position of only choosing from A or B. It's like getting asked, "You wanna be punched in the throat, or punched in the balls?"

Shouldn't we have some sort of "not getting punched" option?

It's hasn't worked so well in Canada. All it tends to do is weaken the ideological side that is not consolidated. That's what primary elections are for. Republicans decided they wanted to win this time and not have an embarrassment in the White House, so they dispensed with the low-intelligence Southern-oriented candidates.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This has to be the single most stupid thing you have ever posted, and that says a great deal.


Are you completely fucking insane?

^^^ Gabs, dont answer that without a good communist lawyer at your beck and call. ACLU has tons of the vermin to choose from..
As a teacher you have your rather low reputation to protect.
So call CYA- communist lawyers R-US.---:laugh:--Tyr

[Noir]

You're free to fact check 100 hours per week if you so desire. Why spoonfeed lazy voters? We have had enough of Candy Crowley style "fact-checking".

So if someone does a fact check, and the candidate is found wanting, the person who found it out should not share it ('spoon feed it') to other ('lazy') people?

[tailfins]

So if someone does a fact check, and the candidate is found wanting, the person who found it out should not share it ('spoon feed it') to other ('lazy') people?

"Fact-checking" is only useful if used as a point of investigation. Most commentary advertized as "fact-checking" is supplied by raw partisans. Do you believe the "non-partisan" Tax Policy Center is REALLY non-partisan?

[aboutime]

I undersatnd that SL and I feel sorry for you having to live in the land of nuts and far left moonbats. They wanted change and now they have it.

But perhaps if these idiot libs suffer and get a Super Sized dose of hope and change it might take enough votes away from Obama to make CA competitive

Which would cause Chris Matthews to have a stroke and a heart attck at the same time

red states rule. Something most of us are missing, or forgetting to mention in reference to those who are HAPPY, and claim to be so satisfied living in California is.....Most of them are the easily-led, brainwashed, uninformed, liberal, democrat types who MUST always obey, and believe whatever their Sheep Herders tell them, without question. Or they will be Tortured, Belittled, and blamed for Terrorist like, Republican actions that can only lead to Racist accusations....before being run out of town...ON A RAIL.

[Drummond]

So if someone does a fact check, and the candidate is found wanting, the person who found it out should not share it ('spoon feed it') to other ('lazy') people?

I'd say that fact checking has its value, certainly. Lists showing how abysmally Obama has kept his OWN promises over his term as President, for example, have great value ... obviously.

But look at it this way. Facts aren't everything. What's better .. a candidate not managing perfect recall of issues which require him to supply his understanding of facts relevant to them (as in during a Presidential debate ..) .. BUT, who's nonetheless well intentioned, fired up with the right overall policy direction he'd intend to apply .. OR .. a candidate with a greater encyclopaedic recall of facts and figures, BUT, with a wish to institute an agenda meaning only harm ??

I'm certain of this: a good Conservative candidate has core values totally in tune with what's best for citizens and country. Better the values held, and values represented, than a clear-headed wrecker.

They say (and I've no idea, admittedly, whether this is accurate) that Reagan was frequently hazy on detail. But he had a good heart, a brilliant gut instinct for value-led leadership, and THIS is what critically helped define him as one of the all-time 'greats' who've held high Office in America.

I look upon the Reagan-Thatcher era as our last transatlantic Golden Era. I really miss those days ! Such a brilliant partnership.

[aboutime]

Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the Internet knows. Any Website that claims to be totally honest, and non-biased...Like FACTCHECK has been proven to be, is unreliable, dishonest, and leans toward protecting the Obama-Democrat False Lie Principles of Fooling the people...as much, and as often as they can.

Anyone who relies on justification of false facts...is either an Obama fan, or they have been dead...but will still vote in November.

[red states rule]

red states rule. Something most of us are missing, or forgetting to mention in reference to those who are HAPPY, and claim to be so satisfied living in California is.....Most of them are the easily-led, brainwashed, uninformed, liberal, democrat types who MUST always obey, and believe whatever their Sheep Herders tell them, without question. Or they will be Tortured, Belittled, and blamed for Terrorist like, Republican actions that can only lead to Racist accusations....before being run out of town...ON A RAIL.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn102512dAPR20121023104613.jpg

[aboutime]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn102512dAPR20121023104613.jpg



red states rule. Good cartoon. Reminded me that Halloween is just around the corner, and all of the Obama Jackass-O'lanterns will be out to advertise the EMPTINESS behind those GLOWING eyes, nose, and Liberally arranged Phony Smiles.