Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate
Romney won praise for his performance but only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers.
October 4, 2012 |
Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romneys strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obamas policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:
1) Get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs . Romneys 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. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand. Since he promises to undo the Obama administrations new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.
2) I dont have a $5 trillion tax cut. I dont have a tax cut of a scale that youre talking about. A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romneys 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.
3) My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But Im 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.
4) My 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, Romneys plan cant both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. Hes promised all these things and he cant do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, hed have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year, the Center found.
5) 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 its completely wrong. The studies Romney cites actually further prove 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.
6) I saw a study that came out today that said youre going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families. Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administrations policies those contained directly in his budget would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.
7) And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of Americas 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, theyre 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 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 dont have a direct impact on job creation. Its actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.
(8) 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 : Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasnt begun exploring or developing.
9) The presidents 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 . 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.
10) Thats why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I dont want to kill jobs in this environment. That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization , doesnt analyze what Obama has actually proposed.
11) What we do have right now is a setting where Id like to bring money from overseas back to this country. Romneys 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 .
12) I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, youre going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then youre 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 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.
13) I want to take that $716 billion youve 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. Theres 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 under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryans budget plan keeps those same cuts , but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.
14) What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare. Here is how Romneys Medicare plan will affect current seniors : 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.
15) 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 theyll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them. The Medicare program changes for everyone , 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.
16) And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or or Senator Wyden, whos the co-author of the bill with with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill Bill Clintons chief of staff. Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach which does not cap
...
> Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate
> Romney won praise for his performance but only accomplished this goal by > repeatedly misleading viewers.
> October 4, 2012 |
> Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romneys strong > debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge > President Obamas policies and accomplishments. But Romney only > accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for > 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:
> 1) Get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That > creates about 4 million jobs . Romneys 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. For instance, > he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that the United > States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower > its oil demand. Since he promises to undo the Obama administrations > new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of > 2 million barrels per day by 2025.
> 2) I dont have a $5 trillion tax cut. I dont have a tax cut of a > scale that youre talking about. A Tax Policy Center analysis of > Romneys 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.
> 3) My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the > middle class. But Im 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.
> 4) My 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, Romneys plan cant both > exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. > Hes promised all these things and he cant do them all. In order for > him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, hed > have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people > making less than $200,000 a year, the Center found.
> 5) 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 its completely wrong. The studies Romney cites actually > further prove 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.
> 6) I saw a study that came out today that said youre going to raise > taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families. Romney is > pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It > actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the > Obama administrations policies those contained directly in his budget > would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by > $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.
> 7) And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; > 54 percent of Americas 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, theyre > 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 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 dont have a direct impact on job creation. Its > actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be > hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year > is increased.
> (8) 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 : Production > from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the > oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, > that it hasnt begun exploring or developing.
> 9) The presidents 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 . 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.
> 10) Thats why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said > your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I dont want to kill jobs in this > environment. That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy > organization , doesnt analyze what Obama has actually proposed.
> 11) What we do have right now is a setting where Id like to bring > money from overseas back to this country. Romneys 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 .
> 12) I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say > to a state, youre going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, > plus 1 percent, and then youre 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 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.
> 13) I want to take that $716 billion youve 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. Theres 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 under Medicare > Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryans budget plan keeps > those same cuts , but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and > deficit reduction.
> 14) What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees > to Medicare. Here is how Romneys Medicare plan will affect current > seniors : 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.
> 15) 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 theyll have at least two plans that > will be entirely at no cost to them. The Medicare program changes for > everyone , 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
> Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate
> Romney won praise for his performance but only accomplished this goal by
> repeatedly misleading viewers.
> October 4, 2012 |
> Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney s strong
> debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge
> President Obama s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only
> accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for
> 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:
> 1) Get 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. For instance,
> he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that the United
> States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower
> its oil demand. Since he promises to undo the Obama administration s
> new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of
> 2 million barrels per day by 2025.
> 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.
> 3) 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.
> 4) My 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, 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.
> 5) 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 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.
> 6) 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 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 that go toward servicing the debt by
> $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.
> 7) 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 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 who think that they will be
> hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year
> is increased.
> (8) 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 : Production
> from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the
> oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill,
> that it hasn t begun exploring or developing.
> 9) 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 . 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.
> 10) 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 , doesn t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.
> 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 .
> 12) 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 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.
> 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 under Medicare
> Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan s budget plan keeps
> those same cuts , but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and
> deficit reduction.
> 14) 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 : 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.
> 15) 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 , 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.
> 16) 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 the Ryan/Wyden approach which does not cap
> ...
Boy - I posted something in a thread about Romney lying showing that Obama
had lied too and you called me to the carpet about not posting Romney's
lies. Now you start a whole new thread only about Romney lying?
On Oct 6, 3:13 pm, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Oct 5 2012 4:41 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Boy - I posted something in a thread about Romney lying showing that Obama
> had lied too and you called me to the carpet about not posting Romney's
> lies. Now you start a whole new thread only about Romney lying?
OBAMA: "I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction
plan. ... The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in
additional revenue."
THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more
than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last
year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years.
He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur
anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare
reimbursements to doctors. Take those "cuts" away and Obama's $2.50/$1
ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in
the direction of tax increases.
Obama's February budget offered proposals that would cut deficits over
the coming decade by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion. Of that
deficit reduction, tax increases accounted for $1.6 trillion. He
promises relatively small spending cuts of $597 billion from big
federal benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He also proposed
higher spending on infrastructure projects.
___
ROMNEY: Obama's health care plan "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 FACTS: Romney is referring to the Independent Payment Advisory
Board, a panel of experts that would have the power to force Medicare
cuts if costs rise beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act.
But Obama's health care law explicitly prohibits the board from
rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or
raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the board doesn't have the
power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe.
Romney seems to be resurrecting the assertion that Obama's law would
lead to rationing, made famous by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's
widely debunked allegation that it would create "death panels."
The board has yet to be named, and its members would ultimately have
to be confirmed by the Senate. Health care inflation has been modest
in the last few years, so cuts would be unlikely for most of the rest
of this decade.
___
OBAMA: "Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up
it's true but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50
years. So we're already beginning to see progress. In the meantime,
folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate."
THE FACTS: Not so, concerning premiums. Obama is mixing overall health
care spending, which has been growing at historically low levels, and
health insurance premiums, which have continued to rise faster than
wages and overall economic growth. Premiums for job-based family
coverage have risen by nearly $2,400 since 2009 when Obama took
office, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. In
2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent. This year's 4 percent increase was
more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at
$15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.
When it comes to insurance rebates under Obama's health care law, less
than 10 percent of people with private health insurance are
benefiting.
More than 160 million Americans under 65 have private insurance
through their jobs and by buying their own policies. According to the
administration, about 13 million people will benefit from rebates. And
nearly two-thirds of that number will only be entitled to a share of
it, since they are covered under job-based plans where their employer
pays most of the premium and will get most of the rebate
ROMNEY on the failure of Obama's economic policy: "And the proof of
that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is 1 out of 6
people in poverty. The proof of that is we've gone from 32 million on
food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50
percent of college graduates this year can't find work."
THE FACTS: The number of unemployed is 12.5 million, not 23 million.
Romney was also counting 8 million people who are working part time
but would like a full-time job and 2.6 million who have stopped
looking for work, either because they are discouraged or because they
are going back to school or for other reasons.
He got the figure closer to right earlier in the debate, leaving out
only the part-timers when he said the U.S. has "23 million people out
of work or stopped looking for work." But he was wrong in asserting
that Obama came into office "facing 23 million people out of work." At
the start of Obama's presidency, 12 million were out of work.
His claim that half of college graduates can't find work now also was
problematic. A Northeastern University analysis for The Associated
Press found that a quarter of graduates were probably unemployed and
another quarter were underemployed, which means working in jobs that
didn't make full use of their skills or experience.
___
OBAMA: It's important "that we take some of the money that we're
saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America."
THE FACTS: This oft-repeated claim is based on a fiscal fiction. The
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for mostly with borrowed money,
so stopping them doesn't create a new pool of available cash that can
be used for something else, like rebuilding America. It just slows
down the government's borrowing.
___
ROMNEY: "At the same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the
president. Electric rates are up."
THE FACTS: He's right that the average price has doubled, and a little
more, since Obama was sworn in. But presidents have almost no
influence on gasoline prices, and certainly not in the near term.
Gasoline prices are set on financial exchanges around the world and
are based on a host of factors, most importantly the price of crude
oil used to make gasoline, the amount of finished gasoline ready to be
shipped and the capacity of refiners to make enough to meet market
demand.
Retail electricity prices have risen since Obama took office barely.
They've grown by an average of less than 1 percent per year, less than
the rate of inflation and slower than the historical growth in
electricity prices. The unexpectedly modest rise in electricity prices
is because of the plummeting cost of natural gas, which is used to
generate electricity.
___
OBAMA: "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion
tax cut on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that's another
trillion dollars and $2 trillion in additional military spending
that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion. How we pay for
that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to
make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think
is one of the central questions of this campaign."
THE FACTS: Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion
doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of
Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But
Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.
Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate
the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center,
a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax
revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5
trillion over 10 years.
However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or
eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a
simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current
system but does it in a more efficient manner.
The knock on Romney's plan, which Obama accurately cited, is that
Romney has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate to pay
for the lower rates.
___
ROMNEY: "What would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will
eliminate all programs by this test, if they pass it: Is the program
so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"
THE FACTS: China continues to be portrayed by Romney and many other
Republicans as the poster child for runaway federal deficits. It's
true that China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, but it
only represents about an 8 percent stake. And China has recently been
decreasing its holdings, according to the Treasury Department. Some
two-thirds of the $16 trillion national debt is owed to the federal
government, with the largest single stake the Federal Reserve, as well
as American investors and the Social Security Trust Fund.
___
OBAMA: "Independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet
Gov. Romney's pledge of not ... adding to the deficit is by burdening
middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children
would pay about $2,000 more."
THE FACTS: That's just one scenario. Obama's claim relies on a study
by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. The study,
however, is more nuanced than Obama indicated.
The study concludes it would be impossible for Romney to meet all of
his stated goals without shifting some of the tax burden from people
who make more than $200,000
...
That's pretty good, thanks. I think a broad view is that after an extended period of largely Republican control resulting in massive debt, that a prudent course would be to allow the Democrats at least two terms at the helm to see of they can right the ship. Flip-flopping back to the GOP now just seems like a dumb idea on the face of it.
> That's pretty good, thanks. I think a broad view is that after an
> extended period of largely Republican control resulting in massive debt,
> that a prudent course would be to allow the Democrats at least two terms
> at the helm to see of they can right the ship. Flip-flopping back to the
> GOP now just seems like a dumb idea on the face of it.
> That's pretty good, thanks. I think a broad view is that after an > extended period of largely Republican control resulting in massive debt, > that a prudent course would be to allow the Democrats at least two terms > at the helm to see of they can right the ship. Flip-flopping back to the > GOP now just seems like a dumb idea on the face of it.
So you think it's a really good idea to let Obama completely and
irreparably destroy the US economy? That sounds like a really good idea,
for a Canadian that hates the USA.
>> That's pretty good, thanks. I think a broad view is that after an
>> extended period of largely Republican control resulting in massive debt,
>> that a prudent course would be to allow the Democrats at least two terms
>> at the helm to see of they can right the ship. Flip-flopping back to the
>> GOP now just seems like a dumb idea on the face of it.
> >> That's pretty good, thanks. I think a broad view is that after an
> >> extended period of largely Republican control resulting in massive debt,
> >> that a prudent course would be to allow the Democrats at least two terms
> >> at the helm to see of they can right the ship. Flip-flopping back to the
> >> GOP now just seems like a dumb idea on the face of it.
> > Not to me.
> lol, dyed in the wool eh?
Not really, I just recognize the fact a lot of the damage was done
even before Bush took office and even more was done when the Dems took
control of Congress in 06. Repubs share the blame, but they don't
own the collapse.
John Putnam wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:21 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> John Putnam wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 3:55 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> John Putnam wrote:
>>>> That's pretty good, thanks. I think a broad view is that after an
>>>> extended period of largely Republican control resulting in massive debt,
>>>> that a prudent course would be to allow the Democrats at least two terms
>>>> at the helm to see of they can right the ship. Flip-flopping back to the
>>>> GOP now just seems like a dumb idea on the face of it.
>>> Not to me.
>> lol, dyed in the wool eh?
> Not really, I just recognize the fact a lot of the damage was done
> even before Bush took office and even more was done when the Dems took
> control of Congress in 06. Repubs share the blame, but they don't
> own the collapse.
Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been done. And I would add, particularly not with half the House and Senate working around the clock with failure as their primary goal. I honestly don't know how you got as far ahead as you have done.
> John Putnam wrote:
> Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four > years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been > done. And I would add, particularly not with half the House and Senate > working around the clock with failure as their primary goal. I honestly > don't know how you got as far ahead as you have done.
I hate to break the news to you, Dutch old boy, but that claim is just
politics, the "ins" trying to remain the "ins." Clinton has a gift for
persuasive speeches, so I'm not surprised that you're taken in by him,
though. Oh, BTW, Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for the first
two years, but demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to work with
Congress to get useful things done even then.
> On 7/10/12 2:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> John Putnam wrote:
>> Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four
>> years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been
>> done. And I would add, particularly not with half the House and Senate
>> working around the clock with failure as their primary goal. I honestly
>> don't know how you got as far ahead as you have done.
> I hate to break the news to you, Dutch old boy, but that claim is just
> politics, the "ins" trying to remain the "ins." Clinton has a gift for
> persuasive speeches, so I'm not surprised that you're taken in by him,
> though. Oh, BTW, Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for the first
> two years, but demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to work with
> Congress to get useful things done even then.
Another drooling hack who thinks a simple majority is the same thing as control.
> On 7/10/12 2:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > John Putnam wrote:
> > Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four > > years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been > > done. And I would add, particularly not with half the House and Senate > > working around the clock with failure as their primary goal. I honestly > > don't know how you got as far ahead as you have done.
> I hate to break the news to you, Dutch old boy, but that claim is just
> politics, the "ins" trying to remain the "ins." Clinton has a gift for
> persuasive speeches, so I'm not surprised that you're taken in by him,
> though. Oh, BTW, Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for the first
> two years, but demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to work with
> Congress to get useful things done even then.
If he had no control over that congress, the only possiuble explanation is
that the democratic supermajority congress spent all day smoking dooky
stick and didnt give a damn about Obama
>>> Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four
>>> years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been
>>> done. And I would add, particularly not with half the House and Senate
>>> working around the clock with failure as their primary goal. I honestly
>>> don't know how you got as far ahead as you have done.
>> I hate to break the news to you, Dutch old boy, but that claim is just
>> politics, the "ins" trying to remain the "ins." Clinton has a gift for
>> persuasive speeches, so I'm not surprised that you're taken in by him,
>> though. Oh, BTW, Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for the first
>> two years, but demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to work with
>> Congress to get useful things done even then.
> Another drooling hack who thinks a simple majority is the same thing as > control.
So tell me, how did Eisenhower and Johnson and Nixon and Reagan and
Clinton and Bush get things done when their party not only did not have
control of Congress, but did not even have a majority?
>> Another drooling hack who thinks a simple majority is the same thing as
>> control.
> So tell me, how did Eisenhower and Johnson and Nixon and Reagan and
> Clinton and Bush get things done when their party not only did not have
> control of Congress, but did not even have a majority?
The opposition weren't a party of obstructionist crybabies, and were interested in advancing the interests of the country, instead of sheer acquisition and maintenance of power.
> >> Another drooling hack who thinks a simple majority is the same thing as
> >> control.
> > So tell me, how did Eisenhower and Johnson and Nixon and Reagan and
> > Clinton and Bush get things done when their party not only did not have
> > control of Congress, but did not even have a majority?
> The opposition weren't a party of obstructionist crybabies, and were
> interested in advancing the interests of the country, instead of sheer
> acquisition and maintenance of power.
> Glad you asked.
> Jim
That's right. Politics is different that it used to be.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"Dutch" wrote in message news:hulcs.10896$vv4.3998@newsfe02.iad...
>Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four years >is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been done.
Especially if you continue to add to the damage.
-- "We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private business."
- Dutch 12/3/2011
TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 7/10/12 2:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> John Putnam wrote:
>> Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four
>> years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been
>> done. And I would add, particularly not with half the House and Senate
>> working around the clock with failure as their primary goal. I honestly
>> don't know how you got as far ahead as you have done.
> I hate to break the news to you, Dutch old boy, but that claim is just
> politics,
Why, because you don't like it? It seems very reasonable to me. It took a long to create the mess.
> the "ins" trying to remain the "ins."
As opposed to the outs trying to become the ins. uh huh <!>
Clinton has a gift for
> persuasive speeches, so I'm not surprised that you're taken in by him,
> though. Oh, BTW, Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for the first
> two years, but demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to work with
> Congress to get useful things done even then.
Plenty was done, but again, not long enough man, not_long_enough. And if you actually believe that Mitt Romney will be able to be more conciliatory than Obama and work across the aisle then you are completely unhinged. He's got a shitload of whackos like you to keep happy.
>> Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four
>> years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been
>> done.
> Especially if you continue to add to the damage.
There's no objective evidence of that at all, quite the contrary. Not even the GOP campaign is claiming that, they're saying the recovery is too slow and they can do better. Of course, what else are they going to say, even though it is a laughable claim. Every time the Republicans get in they cut taxes for the wealthy and promise to reduce spending, but end up only doing the former, hence the economic mess the country was in in 2008. Romney has the exact same plan that Bush 1 and 2 had, point for point.
> TruthSeeker wrote:
> > On 7/10/12 2:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
> >> John Putnam wrote:
> >> Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four
> >> years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been
> >> done. And I would add, particularly not with half the House and Senate
> >> working around the clock with failure as their primary goal. I honestly
> >> don't know how you got as far ahead as you have done.
> > I hate to break the news to you, Dutch old boy, but that claim is just
> > politics,
> Why, because you don't like it? It seems very reasonable to me. It took > a long to create the mess.
> > the "ins" trying to remain the "ins."
> As opposed to the outs trying to become the ins. uh huh <!>
> Clinton has a gift for
> > persuasive speeches, so I'm not surprised that you're taken in by him,
> > though. Oh, BTW, Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for the first
> > two years, but demonstrated a remarkable lack of ability to work with
> > Congress to get useful things done even then.
> Plenty was done, but again, not long enough man, not_long_enough. And if > you actually believe that Mitt Romney will be able to be more > conciliatory than Obama and work across the aisle then you are > completely unhinged. He's got a shitload of whackos like you to keep happy.
He has hazd way too much time, and it really is time to hit the pavement,
so we can clean up his horrible mess. Maybe you can use him up in Canada
for your government, that would be just super.
