Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Romney Debate Fact check - does this surprise anyone?
115 views
Skip to first unread message
Dutch
Oct 5, 2012, 5:41:34 PM10/5/12
to
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutes-during-debate?akid=9489.231609.rerNCr&rd=1&src=newsletter721973&t=3
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 the
growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission
also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.
17) “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 of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is
to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds 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.
18) “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 . If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a
new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having
to pony up for a bailout.
19) “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 to make health
care more affordable.
20) “[I]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. The panel’s plan will
modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation
to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary
premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including
deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict
benefits or modify eligibility criteria” ( Section 3403 of the ACA ).
Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health
care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan
himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.
21) “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 or less people would leave employer-sponsored
health insurance coverage as a result of the law.
22) “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 .
23) “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 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.
24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who
are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because
they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be
extended to people who are currently uninsured.
25) “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 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.”
26) “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 of 1705
loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just
over $600 million.”
27) “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.
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 the
growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission
also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.
17) “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 of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is
to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds 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.
18) “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 . If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a
new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having
to pony up for a bailout.
19) “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 to make health
care more affordable.
20) “[I]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. The panel’s plan will
modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation
to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary
premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including
deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict
benefits or modify eligibility criteria” ( Section 3403 of the ACA ).
Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health
care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan
himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.
21) “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 or less people would leave employer-sponsored
health insurance coverage as a result of the law.
22) “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 .
23) “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 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.
24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who
are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because
they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be
extended to people who are currently uninsured.
25) “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 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.”
26) “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 of 1705
loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just
over $600 million.”
27) “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.
mary in vegas
Oct 6, 2012, 3:40:38 PM10/6/12
to
don't bother anybody here with the facts....(excuse top post)
mary in vegas
John Putnam
Oct 6, 2012, 3:53:47 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 5, 4:41 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-m...
> ...
>
> read more »
Thank you for that impartial piece that examines both sides.
Here's another worth looking at.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495
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
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 to people who make less.
In one scenario, the study says, Romney's proposal could result in a
$2,000 tax increase for families who make less than $200,000 and have
children.
Romney says his plan wouldn't raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign
points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the
Tax Policy Center's findings. Most of the conservative studies argue
that Romney's tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating
additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the
middle class. Congress, however, doesn't use those kinds of
projections when it estimates the effect of tax legislation.
ROMNEY on cutting the deficit: "Obamacare's on my list. ... I'm going
to stop the subsidy to PBS. ... I'll make government more efficient."
THE FACTS: Romney has promised to balance the budget in eight years to
10 years, but he hasn't offered a complete plan. Instead, he's
promised a set of principles, some of which — like increasing Pentagon
spending and restoring more than $700 billion in cuts that Democrats
made in Medicare over the coming decade — work against his goal. He
also has said he will not consider tax increases.
He pledges to shrink the government to 20 percent of the size of the
economy, as opposed to more than 23 percent of gross domestic product
now, by the end of his first term. The Romney campaign estimates that
would require cuts of $500 billion from the 2016 budget alone. He also
has pledged to cut tax rates by 20 percent, paying for them by
eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest and through economic growth.
To fulfill his promise, then, Romney would require cuts to other
programs so deep — under one calculation requiring cutting many areas
of the domestic budget by one-third within four years — that they
could never get through Congress. Cuts to domestic agencies would have
to be particularly deep.
But he's offered only a few modest examples of government programs
he'd be willing to squeeze, like subsidies to PBS and Amtrak. He does
want to repeal Obama's big health care law, but that law is actually
forecast to reduce the deficit.
___
ROMNEY: "Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that."
OBAMA: "That's what we've done, made some adjustments to it, and we're
putting it before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan."
THE FACTS: At first, the president did largely ignore the
recommendations made by his deficit commission headed by Democrat
Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson. He later incorporated some
of the proposals, largely the less controversial ones. He did not
endorse some of the politically troublesome recommendations, such as
trimming popular tax deductions like the one for home mortgage
interest.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495#ixzz28YBzAyEJ
> http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fact-check-romney-told-27-m...
>
> read more »
Thank you for that impartial piece that examines both sides.
Here's another worth looking at.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495
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
can have. I don't like that idea."
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 to people who make less.
In one scenario, the study says, Romney's proposal could result in a
$2,000 tax increase for families who make less than $200,000 and have
children.
Romney says his plan wouldn't raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign
points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the
Tax Policy Center's findings. Most of the conservative studies argue
that Romney's tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating
additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the
middle class. Congress, however, doesn't use those kinds of
projections when it estimates the effect of tax legislation.
ROMNEY on cutting the deficit: "Obamacare's on my list. ... I'm going
to stop the subsidy to PBS. ... I'll make government more efficient."
THE FACTS: Romney has promised to balance the budget in eight years to
10 years, but he hasn't offered a complete plan. Instead, he's
promised a set of principles, some of which — like increasing Pentagon
spending and restoring more than $700 billion in cuts that Democrats
made in Medicare over the coming decade — work against his goal. He
also has said he will not consider tax increases.
He pledges to shrink the government to 20 percent of the size of the
economy, as opposed to more than 23 percent of gross domestic product
now, by the end of his first term. The Romney campaign estimates that
would require cuts of $500 billion from the 2016 budget alone. He also
has pledged to cut tax rates by 20 percent, paying for them by
eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest and through economic growth.
To fulfill his promise, then, Romney would require cuts to other
programs so deep — under one calculation requiring cutting many areas
of the domestic budget by one-third within four years — that they
could never get through Congress. Cuts to domestic agencies would have
to be particularly deep.
But he's offered only a few modest examples of government programs
he'd be willing to squeeze, like subsidies to PBS and Amtrak. He does
want to repeal Obama's big health care law, but that law is actually
forecast to reduce the deficit.
___
ROMNEY: "Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that."
OBAMA: "That's what we've done, made some adjustments to it, and we're
putting it before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan."
THE FACTS: At first, the president did largely ignore the
recommendations made by his deficit commission headed by Democrat
Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson. He later incorporated some
of the proposals, largely the less controversial ones. He did not
endorse some of the politically troublesome recommendations, such as
trimming popular tax deductions like the one for home mortgage
interest.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495#ixzz28YBzAyEJ
brattt
Oct 6, 2012, 4:11:35 PM10/6/12
to
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?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP
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?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP
brattt
Oct 6, 2012, 4:12:43 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6 2012 2:40 PM, mary in vegas wrote:
> don't bother anybody here with the facts....(excuse top post)
Sure you aren't implying that Romney was the only one not paying attention
> don't bother anybody here with the facts....(excuse top post)
to facts, are you?
John Putnam
Oct 6, 2012, 4:20:20 PM10/6/12
to
Thank you for that impartial piece that examines both sides.
Here's another worth looking at.
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.
___
that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they
can have. I don't like that idea."
can have. I don't like that idea."
Dutch
Oct 6, 2012, 4:55:35 PM10/6/12
to
John Putnam wrote:
>
> Here's another worth looking at.
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-ar...
That's pretty good, thanks. I think a broad view is that after an
>
> Here's another worth looking at.
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-ar...
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.
John Putnam
Oct 6, 2012, 6:35:05 PM10/6/12
to
Steam
Oct 6, 2012, 8:39:10 PM10/6/12
to
irreparably destroy the US economy? That sounds like a really good idea,
for a Canadian that hates the USA.
Dutch
Oct 7, 2012, 3:20:46 AM10/7/12
to
John Putnam
Oct 7, 2012, 11:49:06 AM10/7/12
to
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.
Dutch
Oct 7, 2012, 4:20:11 PM10/7/12
to
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.
TruthSeeker
Oct 7, 2012, 6:44:07 PM10/7/12
to
On 7/10/12 2:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
> John Putnam 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
> 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.
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.
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Clave
Oct 7, 2012, 6:48:03 PM10/7/12
to
"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:cb6dndaFUp4gmO_N...@giganews.com...
control.
Jim
Steam
Oct 7, 2012, 8:11:04 PM10/7/12
to
that the democratic supermajority congress spent all day smoking dooky
stick and didnt give a damn about Obama
TruthSeeker
Oct 7, 2012, 10:55:28 PM10/7/12
to
Clinton and Bush get things done when their party not only did not have
control of Congress, but did not even have a majority?
Clave
Oct 7, 2012, 11:01:10 PM10/7/12
to
news:JuydnfCslfQ43e_N...@giganews.com...
>> 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
> On 7/10/12 4:48 PM, Clave wrote:
<...>
>> 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?
interested in advancing the interests of the country, instead of sheer
acquisition and maintenance of power.
Glad you asked.
Jim
John Putnam
Oct 7, 2012, 11:21:10 PM10/7/12
to
On Oct 7, 10:00 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message
That's right. Politics is different that it used to be.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
~M~
Oct 7, 2012, 11:25:44 PM10/7/12
to
"Dutch" wrote in message news:hulcs.10896$vv4....@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
>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.
--
"We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private
business."
- Dutch 12/3/2011
double....@hotmail.com
Oct 8, 2012, 1:06:40 AM10/8/12
to
> "We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private
> business."
> - Dutch 12/3/2011
Definitely a timely statement:
> business."
> - Dutch 12/3/2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/07/meningitis-outbreak-spreads-confirmed-infections
Dutch
Oct 8, 2012, 4:26:03 AM10/8/12
to
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
> 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,
a long to create the mess.
> 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.
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.
Dutch
Oct 8, 2012, 4:35:44 AM10/8/12
to
John Putnam wrote:
> That's right. Politics is different that it used to be.
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
US politics definitely is.
> That's right. Politics is different that it used to be.
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Dutch
Oct 8, 2012, 4:40:23 AM10/8/12
to
~M~ wrote:
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:hulcs.10896$vv4....@newsfe02.iad...
>
>> Whatever the case may be, Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head, four
>> years is just not enough time to repair all the damage that had been
>> done.
>
> Especially if you continue to add to the damage.
There's no objective evidence of that at all, quite the contrary. Not
> "Dutch" wrote in message news:hulcs.10896$vv4....@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.
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.
Steam
Oct 8, 2012, 5:16:36 AM10/8/12
to
so we can clean up his horrible mess. Maybe you can use him up in Canada
for your government, that would be just super.
Patrick Powers
Oct 8, 2012, 6:26:10 AM10/8/12
to
On Oct 6, 5:41 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
So a politician lied his ass off. Is this, like, supposed to be news?
>
So a politician lied his ass off. Is this, like, supposed to be news?
da pickle
Oct 8, 2012, 9:53:06 AM10/8/12
to
include eschewing "dutchery".
Truthseeker
Oct 8, 2012, 12:51:30 PM10/8/12
to
Both Democrats and Republicans have always had their career and power
interests first. A good President with leadership ability understands
that and uses it in negotiating with them.
> Glad you asked.
I'm sorry you didn't get the right answer. The reason was that they
were able to actually work with Congress, both parties, a skill (or
motivation) that Obama lacks.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Oct 8, 2012, 12:52:32 PM10/8/12
to
news coverage and social media.
--
Truthseeker
Clave
Oct 8, 2012, 12:55:45 PM10/8/12
to
"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:Ue2dnZBYGvoOme7N...@giganews.com...
> On 10/7/12 9:01 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
>> news:JuydnfCslfQ43e_N...@giganews.com...
>>> On 7/10/12 4:48 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> I was following politics during those times and don't see it that way...
>> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
>> news:JuydnfCslfQ43e_N...@giganews.com...
>>> On 7/10/12 4:48 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>> 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.
>
I doubt many GOP hacks do.
Jim
Dutch
Oct 8, 2012, 2:22:36 PM10/8/12
to
Truthseeker wrote:
> On 10/8/12 2:35 AM, Dutch wrote:
>> John Putnam wrote:
>>> That's right. Politics is different that it used to be.
>>> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>> US politics definitely is.
>
>
> Bullshit. We just see it more easily today, due to the expansion of
> news coverage and social media.
>
>
Jimmy Carter said that he never faced the kind of lack of respect or
> On 10/8/12 2:35 AM, Dutch wrote:
>> John Putnam wrote:
>>> That's right. Politics is different that it used to be.
>>> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>> US politics definitely is.
>
>
> Bullshit. We just see it more easily today, due to the expansion of
> news coverage and social media.
>
>
obstructionism that Obama has had to deal with. The Republicans put up
an immovable stone wall then proclaim that "Obama didn't get a single
Republican vote" for his healthcare bill as if that was his fault.
Politics has changed.
TruthSeeker
Oct 8, 2012, 6:38:09 PM10/8/12
to
the Iranians holding our embassy staff hostage for over a year?
When a President can't get a single opposition-party vote for his
signature bill, that IS his fault. Previous Presidents have faced the
same kind of partisan situations and managed to get some bipartisan
support for major bills. In the case of Obamacare, Obama, Reid and
Pelosi would not allow any Republican amendments to get their support,
but they gave a lot of logrolling and pork to Democratic legislators.
--
TruthSeeker
Dutch
Oct 8, 2012, 8:22:54 PM10/8/12
to
TruthSeeker wrote:
> When a President can't get a single opposition-party vote for his
> signature bill, that IS his fault.
Republicans stated publicly in advance that they would filibuster their
> When a President can't get a single opposition-party vote for his
> signature bill, that IS his fault.
asses off. They said that and their definition of success would be to
make everything Obama proposed fail. That's not governing, it's
unprincipled, it's dangerous, it's unprecedented and it's treasonous.
That anybody can even consider these jackasses ready to govern is mind
boggling.
~M~
Oct 9, 2012, 6:06:39 AM10/9/12
to
Jerry Junior wrote in message
news:bfa3ec14-5cd7-4b9f...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Do you think regulation stopped the meningitis outbreak or something?
--
"I'm not afraid to say European Socialism works."
- Beldonian Libertarian Bill Maher, 9/25/2010
news:bfa3ec14-5cd7-4b9f...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
--
"I'm not afraid to say European Socialism works."
- Beldonian Libertarian Bill Maher, 9/25/2010
da pickle
Oct 9, 2012, 7:33:45 AM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/2012 5:06 AM, ~M~ wrote:
> Jerry Junior wrote in message
> news:bfa3ec14-5cd7-4b9f...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> "We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating
>>> private
>>> business."
>>> - Dutch 12/3/2011
>>
>> Definitely a timely statement:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/07/meningitis-outbreak-spreads-confirmed-infections
>>
>
> Do you think regulation stopped the meningitis outbreak or something?
Underfunding.
> Jerry Junior wrote in message
> news:bfa3ec14-5cd7-4b9f...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> "We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating
>>> private
>>> business."
>>> - Dutch 12/3/2011
>>
>> Definitely a timely statement:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/07/meningitis-outbreak-spreads-confirmed-infections
>>
>
> Do you think regulation stopped the meningitis outbreak or something?
Truthseeker
Oct 9, 2012, 12:48:13 PM10/9/12
to
mistake of saying what is always true of both parties, and the Dems have
been using it to excuse their own failures ever since. As we see, some
people fall for it. Clue: for both parties, winning the next election
is always their top concern.
That has not stopped other Presidents from working with both parties in
Congress to get things done.
--
Truthseeker
Dutch
Oct 9, 2012, 1:39:02 PM10/9/12
to
Truthseeker wrote:
> Some Republican leaders made the
> mistake of saying what is always true of both parties,
No, they made the mistake of showing what scoundrels they are.
> Some Republican leaders made the
> mistake of saying what is always true of both parties,
Truthseeker
Oct 9, 2012, 3:30:26 PM10/9/12
to
party are altruistic good guys, working for the good of the people. The
politicians in the other party are lying greedy scoundrels."
Hmmm, actually, you don't.
Pepe Papon
Oct 13, 2012, 1:28:14 AM10/13/12
to
The beauty if this spin is that it can't really be proven either way,
as long as you dismiss the explicit comment made by the Republican
leader,
TruthSeeker
Oct 13, 2012, 9:20:11 AM10/13/12
to
On 12/10/12 11:28 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:48:13 -0600, Truthseeker
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:48:13 -0600, Truthseeker
>> Democratic Party talking points. Some Republican leaders made the
>> mistake of saying what is always true of both parties, and the Dems have
>> been using it to excuse their own failures ever since. As we see, some
>> people fall for it. Clue: for both parties, winning the next election
>> is always their top concern.
>> That has not stopped other Presidents from working with both parties in
>> Congress to get things done.
> Artfully spun. Blame the Republican obstructionism on the President.
> The beauty if this spin is that it can't really be proven either way,
> as long as you dismiss the explicit comment made by the Republican
> leader,
I don't dismiss it, I recognize it for what it was: a politician
>> mistake of saying what is always true of both parties, and the Dems have
>> been using it to excuse their own failures ever since. As we see, some
>> people fall for it. Clue: for both parties, winning the next election
>> is always their top concern.
>> That has not stopped other Presidents from working with both parties in
>> Congress to get things done.
> Artfully spun. Blame the Republican obstructionism on the President.
> The beauty if this spin is that it can't really be proven either way,
> as long as you dismiss the explicit comment made by the Republican
> leader,
foolishly stating what has been true of the leadership of all political
parties for as long as there have been parties. And you guys have been
beating him with it ever since.
Your holier-than-thou naivete about the Democratic Party is quite obvious.
--
TruthSeeker
0 new messages