Debate #1: Who lied more?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:13 pm

I heard a lot of cases where Romney refuted an assertion of Obama's about his platform.

I'm reading a lot about how Romney lied his way through the whole thing.

I'm curious, who do you think actually told more refutable/verifiable lies? I don't want to hear about some "Joe Smith"'s study that says that Romney's plan won't work and will really mean free ice cream for billionaires, or some other study that says that Obamacare will mean death to puppies five years from now... I want to hear about assertions that either guy made about either the past or the present that's verifiable to be false.

My impression was that Obama was the liar of the night... so I'd like to be shown where Romney was also stating falsehoods.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:47 pm

well according to fact check Obama did win that portion of the debate

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:28 pm

CUDA wrote:well according to fact check Obama did win that portion of the debate

why do you keep making that claim? I just read the article, the whole article on FactCheck and they cite 14 Romney misstatements or exaggerations to 9 by Obama, with Romney having the two completely bogus claims. It's there in black and white, CUDA, have you gotten so desperate as to repeat erroneous information at this stage?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:39 pm

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... al-debate/

are you sure your real name isn't Chris Matthews

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:41 pm

OH and it looks like the early results of the debate shows the polls shifting

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... al-debate/

but I'm sure you'll try to spin that one too

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:03 pm

ummm, CUDA, in your frenzy, you posted the same link twice. You know, the one that still said Romney told the more major whoppers?
And, if you're referring to the only two recent polls, Rasmussen(we've been over this before) and WeAskAmerica(a hack organization who sort of pops up and then goes away, with murky ties to the Michigan GOP.....site is current 'unavailable'), let's see where the polls stand in a week. Or, later, after Biden makes Ryan look like the looney-tune Ayn Rand fanboi that he is.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:16 pm

Romney has lied more than anyone. Doesn't everyone realize by now that he's the king of the flip floppers. But the 2 biggest whoppers during the debate are telling.

#1 He's going to cut taxes by 20% (the truth) and doesn't say HOW IT WILL BE PAID FOR (the lie). So guess where suckers, the middle class and poor, and by cutting a whole host of programs and subsidies that are actually pretty paltry in the government spending department.

#2 He wants to repeal Obamacare, but doesn't have a replacement plan for those who are already sick without insurance, unless you count his plan to stuff them into emergency rooms and overburden the already overtaxed hospitals. It's either that, or pray they get well and THEN tell them to get insurance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-575 ... uninsured/

Romney and Jay Leno wrote:
Jay: “So you would make the law stand for children and people with pre-existing conditions?”

Romney: “People with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance.”

Leno: “Suppose they haven’t been insured.”

Romney: “Well, if they, if they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it’s like, Hey guys. We can’t play the game like that. You’ve got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world ... itt-romney

And here are the 12 lies:

http://www.politicususa.com/12-lies-mit ... ction.html

And someone has actually taken the time to track Romney's lies over a 30 week period. He's gotten to 533.......so far.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivis ... ents-them/

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:19 pm

LOL cut and paste didnt work.

I just figured I'd try and match your fanboy frenzy when you declared just last week that the election was over because the polls said so.

You know, the one that still said Romney told the more major whoppers?

funny I've been over that page a few times and by my count it has Obama telling more half and untruths than it does Romney. are you sure that your Eyesight's recovered from your granddaughters finger

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:24 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Romney has lied more than anyone. Doesn't everyone realize by now that he's the king of the flip floppers. But the 2 biggest whoppers during the debate are telling.

#1 He's going to cut taxes by 20% (the truth) and doesn't say HOW IT WILL BE PAID FOR (the lie).

IF that's how you understand English that explains your posts all these years

#2 He wants to repeal Obamacare, but doesn't have a replacement plan for those who are already sick without insurance, unless you count his plan to stuff them into emergency rooms and overburden the already overtaxed hospitals. It's either that, or pray they get well and THEN tell them to get insurance.

can you please explain to the board WHERE the lie is in that statement. I want to be rich and famous, but it doesn't make it a lie

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:31 pm

Well I watched that debate, and unless I am now hard of hearing as well as half blind…I did hear Romney say he would pay for tax cuts by eliminating deductions.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:40 pm

#1 The lie is that he said his 20% tax cuts would NOT affect the middle class. Lie..lie...lie.

#2 The truth (actually, maybe a lie, Obamacare models Romneycare, so why trash your own plan) is that he's going to repeal Obamacare. The lie is that he doesn't have an alternative plan that actually solves the healthcare problem, like he claims.

Spidey, guess who's deductions Romney's going to eliminate? Mostly middle class ones. But behold, charities will really get shafted. Eliminating itemized deductions will not be enough to bring down the debt either, not even close.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/opinion/g ... index.html

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:00 pm

tunnelcat wrote:#1 The lie is that he said his 20% tax cuts would NOT affect the middle class. Lie..lie...lie.

Proof??

#2 The truth (actually, maybe a lie, Obamacare models Romneycare, so why trash your own plan) is that he's going to repeal Obamacare. The lie is that he doesn't have an alternative plan that actually solves the healthcare problem, like he claims.

here ya go TC just to help you out

lie
1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Not having a plan is not lying. it might be poor planning but it's not a lie. I'm beginning to understand liberals more and more with each passing post. you make up your own reality as you go along

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:25 pm

Semantics. Half truths, exaggerations, being vague or lies, take your pick. He's done them all. As for the tax cuts, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the middle class, and poor, AND CHARITY, are going to get hit the most. My proof will be when Romney either comes out WITH A COGENT PLAN or wins and gets what he wants with his trickle down fairy dust economics he's been throwing at everyone and when it's a hammer that eventually falls on our heads. I guess we'll eventually see, won't we?

By the way, that's another lie. Romney is never going to get Democrats to work with him in a bipartisan way, unless he goes back on his stated ideas and principles ,which would be another lie if he did, which he might.

Depends on if he wants a legacy.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:52 am

tunnelcat wrote:#1 The lie is that he said his 20% tax cuts would NOT affect the middle class. Lie..lie...lie.

#2 The truth (actually, maybe a lie, Obamacare models Romneycare, so why trash your own plan) is that he's going to repeal Obamacare. The lie is that he doesn't have an alternative plan that actually solves the healthcare problem, like he claims.

Spidey, guess who's deductions Romney's going to eliminate? Mostly middle class ones. But behold, charities will really get shafted. Eliminating itemized deductions will not be enough to bring down the debt either, not even close.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/opinion/g ... index.html

May I refer back to the OP. I don't want to hear about your skepticism, even if you choose to tell yourself that it's a "lie" it isn't verifiable until it happens. Tunnel, you're heading down quite the path... sort of makes me think of movies like the minority report where you get arrested for crimes you have yet to commit.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:24 am

Spidey wrote:Well I watched that debate, and unless I am now hard of hearing as well as half blind…I did hear Romney say he would pay for tax cuts by eliminating deductions.

kinda short on specifics, especially to get to 5 Trillion bucks(Bush tax cuts re-enacted, new cuts proposed), don't you think?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:38 pm

I personally don’t support Romney’s tax plan, I was simply responding to tc’s assertion.

I will also challenge anyone to prove the 5 trillion figure just as I was challenged, because when I do the math, taking the government’s income from personal income taxes X it by 10 years and subtract 20 percent I don’t get 5 trillion. (closer to 2)

(2009 total revenue from individual taxes was aprox 900 billion) source IRS

But all of that aside…I don’t see the need for a revenue neutral tax plan to begin with. That’s kinda like fixing your car all day, and it still runs the same.

I support a flat tax with a minimum of 20k deductable.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:17 pm

Every time I see a someone like romney propose tax cuts, I always end up thinking back to Nixon's 1950's "future is the past" method.

so if it didn't work then.. how is it supposed to work now?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:39 pm

Ferny, try not looking at Tricky Dick but look at Reagan:

" His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988"

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:02 pm

Everybody lies, has lied and will lie

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:38 pm

woodchip wrote:. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988"

you left out a few things.....such as:

the dramatic increase in the Federal Deficit.
the push for deregulation that led to three major economic bubbles and the loss of trillions of dollars in investments
the preaching that led average Americans to raise their levels of consumption to obscene levels, fueling the necessity for
cheap good imported from overseas.
sowing the seeds of distrust in the government that have ripped the nation asunder ever since.

Basically, Reagan had a feel-good administration that led to long-term structural dysfunction that is killing the nation to this day.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:44 am

oh and don't forget the rate of inflation has superseded any and all income increases from 1940 to 2010.

and after doing a quick calculation, anyone making $50,000 in 1988 is no better off than if they were making $20,000 in 1981. So all that so-called better worth is almost swallowed up by inflation alone. Tack on all the extra levies, fees, and 'small' taxes that the average person pays out, plus everything else slick mentioned means... yup. a person has less than what they would have had ten years ago.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:38 am

I get 28,710

20,000 a year X 5.3 % (average from 81 to 88) inflation x 7 years

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:11 am

Ferno wrote:oh and don't forget the rate of inflation has superseded any and all income increases from 1940 to 2010.

and after doing a quick calculation, anyone making $50,000 in 1988 is no better off than if they were making $20,000 in 1981. So all that so-called better worth is almost swallowed up by inflation alone. Tack on all the extra levies, fees, and 'small' taxes that the average person pays out, plus everything else slick mentioned means... yup. a person has less than what they would have had ten years ago.

unless....let me emphasize UNLESS one gets one's income from investments. That income class has been on a steady climb, and if one had any insight or judgement, even through the Great Recession, where most of us ended up making a killing. That is what Reagan helped usher in; an economy and overall system that vastly favors investment income over labor/wage income. Thus, favoring inherited wealth.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:22 am

Ferno wrote:oh and don't forget the rate of inflation has superseded any and all income increases from 1940 to 2010.

and after doing a quick calculation, anyone making $50,000 in 1988 is no better off than if they were making $20,000 in 1981. So all that so-called better worth is almost swallowed up by inflation alone. Tack on all the extra levies, fees, and 'small' taxes that the average person pays out, plus everything else slick mentioned means... yup. a person has less than what they would have had ten years ago.

And how much did the 18% inflation eat up under Jimmy "The Rabbit" Carter?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:31 am

callmeslick wrote:
you left out a few things.....such as:

callmeslick wrote:the dramatic increase in the Federal Deficit.
Dramatic is the 5 trillion deficit Obama racked up...Reagans is chump change

callmeslick wrote:
callmeslick wrote:the push for deregulation that led to three major economic bubbles and the loss of trillions of dollars in investments
At least the middle class was working.

callmeslick wrote:the preaching that led average Americans to raise their levels of consumption to obscene levels, fueling the necessity for cheap good imported from overseas.
People buy when they have money. Like Ross Perot said, listen to the big sucking sound after NAFTA is signed.

callmeslick wrote:sowing the seeds of distrust in the government that have ripped the nation asunder ever since.
No, whats ripping the country apart are the racist class warfare rhetoric your smart guy in office is doing.

callmeslick wrote:Basically, Reagan had a feel-good administration that led to long-term structural dysfunction that is killing the nation to this day.

And there I thought it was all Bush's fault.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:33 am

callmeslick wrote:unless....let me emphasize UNLESS one gets one's income from investments. That income class has been on a steady climb, and if one had any insight or judgement, even through the Great Recession, where most of us ended up making a killing. That is what Reagan helped usher in; an economy and overall system that vastly favors investment income over labor/wage income. Thus, favoring inherited wealth.

yeah. bloody annoying really.

I'd rather work to create my own fortune instead of watching it trickle in from the work of others.

Spidey wrote:I get 28,710

20,000 a year X 5.3 % (average from 81 to 88) inflation x 7 years

and I bet you don't get to see 7/8ths of that.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:14 am

callmeslick wrote:
Ferno wrote:oh and don't forget the rate of inflation has superseded any and all income increases from 1940 to 2010.

and after doing a quick calculation, anyone making $50,000 in 1988 is no better off than if they were making $20,000 in 1981. So all that so-called better worth is almost swallowed up by inflation alone. Tack on all the extra levies, fees, and 'small' taxes that the average person pays out, plus everything else slick mentioned means... yup. a person has less than what they would have had ten years ago.

unless....let me emphasize UNLESS one gets one's income from investments. That income class has been on a steady climb, and if one had any insight or judgement, even through the Great Recession, where most of us ended up making a killing. That is what Reagan helped usher in; an economy and overall system that vastly favors investment income over labor/wage income. Thus, favoring inherited wealth.

Yup, QFT.

EDIT: I guess it should be noted that even Reagan may have lacked that insight

The people that run this country are old white men.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:55 am

No Ferno, that’s not my income, that’s a correction of your 50,000 amount.

Use this site…it has an even more accurate calculator.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl ... lator.aspx

Why the hell would I post my income? I have to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt, and spell out every little thing.

………………..

Reagan helped create a “TAX” system that favors investment over labor, not an entire system, many other factors have seen to that.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:20 am

^^ actually, I already used that site.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:29 am

If you used that site and got 50,000 needed in 88 to cover 20,000 in 81 you did something wrong.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:00 pm

no, I'm pretty sure I did it correctly. I took into account all the things that exist now that didn't exist then.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:24 pm

Now? Your post says 1981 to 1988.

You know what…Just never mind….Just never mind.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:42 pm

Spidey wrote:1981

then

1988.

now.

You know what…Just never mind….Just never mind.

okay.

but if you're saying you get a little over 21k now (2012 figures), that's gonna be an interesting figure in 1981 dollars (with relevant adjustments)

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:19 am

[youtube]QlwilbVYvUg[/youtube]

heh heh heh

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:43 am

God I love those things.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:48 am

turns out that old pants-on-fire Mitt not only lies to voters, he might well have lied, under oath, in a Civil Court........

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49546553

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:51 am

callmeslick wrote:turns out that old pants-on-fire Mitt not only lies to voters, he might well have lied, under oath, in a Civil Court........

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49546553

Is this another "He didn't file taxes for ten year" or "He caused the death of a guys wife" moments?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:56 am

we'll find out when the court releases the testimony(which is likely to be very soon). Might be that lying under oath is acceptable to those of you so steeped in Obama-hate, but we'll see what the rest of the nation thinks.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:15 am

The testimony is sealed and I'd be surprised if the court unsealed the records just so someone can score political points during a presidential election. also i suspect at the time Romney gave his opinion, the value of the stocks was based on what they were then and not what they became. Nice try again.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:18 am

woodchip wrote:The testimony is sealed and I'd be surprised if the court unsealed the records just so someone can score political points during a presidential election. also i suspect at the time Romney gave his opinion, the value of the stocks was based on what they were then and not what they became. Nice try again.

um, the court agreed to unseal the records immediately, unless there were some confidential business secret therein. We'll know later today. The implication is that Romney lied to protect a friend's assets during a divorce proceeding. Thus, he is getting sued.

Who told more refutable lies?