Romney did not win the debate last night.

[mostpost]

Yeah, I know that is not what I said last night in the other thread. Today I went back and rewatched the first forty minutes of the debate on Cspan.org. It took me over two and a half hours to do so because I kept pausing and taking notes and looking things up. Here is what I found.

Romney looked impressive and was confident and self assured. He was also blatantly lying and misrepresenting his and Obama's positions.

In his opening remarks Romney stated his commitment to improving education in the country, but in his first year as governor of Massachusetts he cut funding for education by $140M.

Obama on the other hand instituted the Race to the Top program which has provided education reforms in 46 states. He pledged to hire 100,000 new teachers in math and science.

When Obama questioned how Romney could cut the deficit while cutting $5T in taxes (over the next 10 years, Romney responded by saying he never said he would cut taxes by that amount. But cutting tax rates by 20% and eliminating the estate tax and alternative minimum tax does exactly that. So there is one falsehood.

Then Romney said that he would off set his cut in tax rates by eliminating loopholes, credits and deductions. Excepts studies-at least those not conducted by right wing think tanks-tell us that you can not offset $5T unless you eliminate deductions for working class people as well as the more well to do.

Romney kept insisting that lowering taxes creates growth. But recent history disproves that as Obama pointed out. GW Bush cut taxes. The result was the lowest job growth in fifty years, exploding deficits and the worst economic crisis in eighty years. Bill Clinton raised taxes and created 23M jobs, changed deficits to surpluses and business thrived.

Romney said that middle income wages dropped $4300 since Obama took office, but failed to mention that a lot of that was due to the recession and especially failed to mention that those wages have risen for the last year.

Romney repeated the tired old claim that gas prices have doubled under Obama. Actually the highest prices under Obama are considerably less than the highest prices under Bush. Only by comparing current prices to the artificially low and very temporary prices of late 2008 can you justify saying they have doubled.

Romney said the cost of electricity has gone up and it has, but less than the rate of inflation. He failed to mention that.

Romney said there were 23 M people out of work-almost double the actual number.

Romney said there are three ways to cut the deficit; raise taxes, cut spending or grow the economy, but refuses to use all three. Romney said raising taxes stifles growth but history has proven that to be false.

Romney said he would kill Obamacare (Good luck with that Mitt-you have to be President to do that and that ain't gonna happen.)
He said he will end funding for PBS-like that is a major source of spening. :rolleyes:

Romney said he would transfer many programs to the states. (he did not say which ones.) This means we would be paying higher state taxes while maybe paying lower Federal taxes. It also means there would be a large discrepancy in the quality of the programs from the richer states to the poorer states.

When Obama suggested eliminating subsidies to oil companies, Romney compared the $4 to $5B in oil subsidies to oil companies to the $90B given to clean energy companies in wind and solar. Of course he completely ignored that the latter was an investment in the future and in the change from a finite energy source to an infinite one.

All in all Obama definitely could have done better. He missed a lot of chances to challenge Romney on his falsehoods. But, by playing fast and loose with the truth and by advocating flawed policies, Romney clearly lost the debate.

[lamboguy]

i would love to know who in their right mind is going to bet on Obama after last nights debate.

[Lefty]

You a funny man, mosty.
I thought obummer looked most pathetic when Leher tried to help him and he just regurgitated what leher said.

My favorite moment was when Romney told him he picked the losers.

For the first time Obummer was challenged and he wasn't up to it.

Even Chris Mathews was mad at obummer. My my.

[bigmack]

Romney clearly lost the debate.
Sure, Bub.

Your entire post has as much value as what's in the bottom of this bowl.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfbxt7Udqo1qe0eclo1_500.gif

[Lefty]

Mosty, if the Bush Tax cuts caused so much harm, how come when they expired Obummer and the dims RENEWED them? Hmmm...

[Valuist]

I'm trying to get this liberal ideology down.

If the liberals win. Its ok, its legit.
If the liberals lose, it has to be due to cheating or lying.
Because they could never be wrong because its always for the greater good. :bang:

[Let's Roll]

Mostite needs to sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.

[RaceBookJoe]

There you have it, both Mostpost and the NFL Replacement Refs gave the win to 0bama :lol:

[ArlJim78]

with all due respect MP, you're trying too hard. loyal to the end though, even when everyone else abandons your boy, you still cling to the dream. not going to bother with any rebuttals because you're not interested in facts or the truth, you invent your own facts or distort logic in whatever way necessary to keep hope alive. suffice to say there are gaping holes and ommissions in your arguments.

[NJ Stinks]

i would love to know who in their right mind is going to bet on Obama after last nights debate.

Just the other night the question was "Who in their right mind is going to bet on Obama at 2/9?"

Now it's who in their right mind is going to bet on Obama period! :lol: :lol:

[elysiantraveller]

Mosty, I'm glad you feel that way. He's your boy but the overwhelming consensus was a Romney victory last night. Not gonna say you are wrong but you are certainly in a small minority on this one.

[bigmack]

Now it's who in their right mind is going to bet on Obama period! :lol: :lol:
That a guy, NJ. You mush less of a tool than your comrade in NoRiverside.

Gonna let you in for a day, but no loud talking and don't order the fish 'n chips. It's lutefisk.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/TattooNameImageGeneratorTattoYourNameGeneratorTatt ooingOnWomensButtCheekE-card-1.png

[badcompany]

Yeah, I know that is not what I said last night in the other thread. Today I went back and rewatched the first forty minutes of the debate on Cspan.org. It took me over two and a half hours to do so because I kept pausing and taking notes and looking things up. Here is what I found.



What a coincidence!

I spent last night watching this race over and over for hours, taking copious notes, and, I came to the conclusion that Secretariat didn't really win.

xoFquax2F-k

[GameTheory]

But, by playing fast and loose with the truth and by advocating flawed policies, Romney clearly lost the debate.Let's say you are right, and Romney lied, cheated and stole. What does that have to do with winning or losing the debate? If most people think he won, he won. There is no scoreboard except among the electorate. You can be dead wrong, lie about everything, and still win the debate hands down.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is exactly what Sharpton was selling last night, but obviously, without any actual facts to support it and just a lot of indecipherable, ear-splitting gibberish.

I thought he was totally insane, which is easy to think when you watch him speak and then try to figure out what it is that he was saying.

Then it occured to me that he is a master manipulator and since that is the the single greatest attribute in contemporary politics and the sale of politics, I gave it a second thought. The whole idea being, Obama is all class and tells the truth (HA!) and EVERYTHING Romney says is a flat-out lie. That's it. Mostpost knows that there are fact checkers out there that have pecked at both sides. Sharpton was one of the only ones not mentioning fact checkers, because they would invariably point out that both were being less than accurate with their claims throughout the night. No, this time, we're skipping the fact checkers and just going to figure out a way to portray EVERYTHING as a lie, facts be damned.

Good strategy... considering the audience.

As a side note, my ultra-liberal, war-on-women serviceperson, actually brought the debate up this morning, much to my surprise - she usually avoids talking politics with me even though she knows we agree on a lot - she just can't hear criticisms of her messiah. Spent an hour listening to some of the wildest stuff I've ever heard - (my favorite being how dumb Romney is and smart Obama is, which entailed a fairly amusing explanation). I realized then just how powerful hucksters like Rev. Al are and why not much of what happens matters too much when the lines are drawn in freaking neon with most people.

[HandyKapper]

Obama on the other hand instituted the Race to the Top program which has provided education reforms in 46 states. He pledged to hire 100,000 new teachers in math and science.

I don't understand how he can pledge hiring these teachers. Teacher positions are usually determined by school councils along with the local communities needs dependant upon the total teachers required based on enrollment numbers per class.

[bigmack]

Obama on the other hand instituted the Race to the Top program which has provided education reforms in 46 states. He pledged to hire 100,000 new teachers in math and science.

I don't understand how he can pledge hiring these teachers. Teacher positions are usually determined by school councils along with the local communities needs dependant upon the total teachers required based on enrollment numbers per class.
It's a bunch of crap.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/ObamaRecycledHisPlansForATeacherCorpsEvenThoughItI sAlreadyPredictedToFallFlat-GOP.png
http://www.gop.com/news/research/obama-recycled-his-plans-for-a-teacher-corps-even-though-it-is-already-predicted-to-fall-flat/
------------------
ALL of what Mostie posted is rubbish. Just say the word, M, and I'll tear you new one. We'll start with education expenditures having very little correlation to do with a schools success.

[Greyfox]

Yeah, I know that is not what I said last night in the other thread. Today I went back and rewatched the first forty minutes of the debate on Cspan.org. It took me over two and a half hours to do so because I kept pausing and taking notes and looking things up..



God Bless you mostie.

It's sad that you have so much time on your hands to pursue such a task and derive such meaningless results, even if they support your view.

Very sad indeed.

[NJ Stinks]

God Bless you mostie.

It's sad that you have so much time on your hands to pursue such a task and derive such meaningless results, even if they support your view.

Very sad indeed.

What's really "sad indeed" are retired people who have nothing to keep their interest, no hobbies, stuff like that. Mostpost is a lucky guy in that regard.

And, hopefully, that luck carries over at the track too! :cool:

[Greyfox]

What's really "sad indeed" are retired people who have nothing to keep their interest, no hobbies, stuff like that. Mostpost is a lucky guy in that regard.

And, hopefully, that luck carries over at the track too! :cool:

Agreed. :ThmbUp: That's why so many greys play the slots. Boredom.

[mostpost]

God Bless you mostie.

It's sad that you have so much time on your hands to pursue such a task and derive such meaningless results, even if they support your view.

Very sad indeed.

If they support my view, then they are not meaningless. I did this because I wanted to check Al Sharpton's claim that Romney was playing very loose with the facts. It turns out Rev. Al was right.

As for having the time, I am retired. I don't play the stock market. I don't watch soaps. I don't play poker. On the other hand I don't spend all of my time here. I'm a member of my church choir. I am active behind the scenes at the local community theater. I attend a lot of sporting events at the local level-mostly high school. I have friends at all those venues-some overlapping.

So if you see me as some kind of nerd who spends all of his time at his computer that is your right, but you would be wrong.

ETA: I never play the slots and the last time I was in a casino was before I retired in 2005.

[TJDave]

That a guy, NJ. You mush less of a tool than your comrade in NoRiverside.

Gonna let you in for a day, but no loud talking and don't order the fish 'n chips. It's lutefisk.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/TattooNameImageGeneratorTattoYourNameGeneratorTatt ooingOnWomensButtCheekE-card-1.png


I know that ass. It used to have my name on it. How could she go and do a thing like that...and with a liberal?

I'd best go down to the clinic and get a shot.

[johnhannibalsmith]

.... I did this because I wanted to check Al Sharpton's claim that Romney was playing very loose with the facts. It turns out Rev. Al was right.
...

Ha, I knew it!

:lol:

[mostpost]

What's really "sad indeed" are retired people who have nothing to keep their interest, no hobbies, stuff like that. Mostpost is a lucky guy in that regard.

And, hopefully, that luck carries over at the track too! :cool:

Not this year. :( Although I did do well on the triple crown, but my trips to the track were less then profitable.

[NJ Stinks]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/TattooNameImageGeneratorTattoYourNameGeneratorTatt ooingOnWomensButtCheekE-card-1.png

I know that ass. It used to have my name on it. How could she go and do a thing like that...and with a liberal?

I'd best go down to the clinic and get a shot.

Now I don't want her either. :mad:


But I love the concept! :ThmbUp: ;) :ThmbUp:

[bigmack]

I know that ass. It used to have my name on it. How could she go and do a thing like that...and with a liberal?

I'd best go down to the clinic and get a shot.
Not to worry, you wouldn't want to 'tap it' anywho.

Nice can/rough mug.

Freight like this is more for a guy like JHS. What he lacks in teeth, she lacks in looks.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/920.jpg

[johnhannibalsmith]

... What he lacks in teeth, she lacks in looks.



I'll catch hell for my comment about that babe... self-policing is HARD... :lol:

[bigmack]

I'll catch hell for my comment about that babe... self-policing is HARD...
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/snoop.gif

Don't do it.

Shame you's a dude. Toothless chicks are a REAL sought-after commodity in certain cultures. :cool:

[TJDave]

But I love the concept! :ThmbUp: ;) :ThmbUp:

Concept?

It's an ass, not a theory.

You liberals are all alike. :rolleyes:

[TJDave]

Toothless chicks are a REAL sought-after commodity in certain cultures. :cool:

Major in bowling, minor in cultural anthropology

[ElKabong]

Here is what I found.

Romney clearly lost the debate.

.

[pandy]

Most, I am not surprised that you think that your man won the debate. Your reasoning is that Romney lied. Okay, if that's true, then how do you love Obama so much? President Obama has had more broken campaign promises than any President I've ever seen. If you search "Obama lies" on Youtube there are videos showing exactly how much of a b.s. artist he is.

First of all, there is no way that any one with half a brain could possibly think that Obama, a man who never held an executive position or ran a company, could run the country half as well as Romney, a man who is an accomplished businessman and sought after consultant; a man who saved the Olympics.

Let's put it this way, say you owned a company that was floundering and if it went out of business it would leave you and your family penniless. You had to choose someone to help save your company. Only two men were available, Romney and Obama. Who would you pick to help save your company?

[GameTheory]

Let's put it this way, say you owned a company that was floundering and if it went out of business it would leave you and your family penniless. You had to choose someone to help save your company. Only two men were available, Romney and Obama. Who would you pick to help save your company?Just to make it interesting, let's say you had to make that call at 3 am!

[highnote]

Let's put it this way, say you owned a company that was floundering and if it went out of business it would leave you and your family penniless. You had to choose someone to help save your company. Only two men were available, Romney and Obama. Who would you pick to help save your company?


Depends on the company. Is the company Solyndra?

[pandy]

Investing in emerging but untested technologies is like playing roulette. Even if the technology makes it the timing is always tricky. Often the companies that are first to market go out of business, then many years later other companies get in at the right time. It even happened in the personal computer market. Remember computers like Atari, Commodore, Tandy? All gone. Only Apple survived from the early days of home computing.

The investment the US made in these green companies, with our money, is extremely risky to say the leaset.

[rastajenk]

Could've paid for millions of shovel-ready math and science teachers.. :p

[Tom]

Romney clearly lost the debate.

And you have clearly lost your marbles. You an Juan Williams. :lol::lol::lol:

[Stillriledup]

Romney had to 'perform' at a high level since he was 'behind' in the theoretical polls. It wasnt a do or die situation for BO. There's still a long way to go before election day, lots can still happen.

[HUSKER55]

I WILL TELL YOU WHO ELSE BENEFITED FROM THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT....SARAH PALIN:lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

Romney had to 'perform' at a high level since he was 'behind' in the theoretical polls. It wasnt a do or die situation for BO. There's still a long way to go before election day, lots can still happen.
Like the unemployment rate dropping from 8.2 to 7.8. :jump:

Rachel Maddow had a segment last night in which she showed that of the six times an incumbent president was involved in a first televised debate, the challenger was the perceived winner of five of those debates. Now six of seven.

[mostpost]

And you have clearly lost your marbles. You an Juan Williams. :lol::lol::lol:
Romney won on perception; lost on facts.

[cj's dad]

for Obama

[Greyfox]

Romney won on perception; lost on facts.

Fact #1 . Perception is reality. That is how Obama beat Hillary.

[ArlJim78]

the perception and the reality of that debate are the same, Romney challenged and rebutted Obama's false claims for example on the $5 trillion tax cut. it was a complete thrashing. hopefully it brought home to many people how ignorant Obama is of the basics about jobs and the economy and how he has nothing to offer but platititudes, demagoguery and wasteful spending.

[bigmack]

Romney won on perception; lost on facts.
Riiiiiiight...

dKMUHcgsbag

[ArlJim78]

Obama again repeated his accusation to Romney in the debate about giving tax breaks to companies who relocate overseas. Romney said that after being in business 25 years he had no idea what the president was talking about. in fact nobody knows what he is talking about because there is no such tax break. too bad we don't have a media to investigate such claims. it would seem like something important, that the president makes up stuff and has no experience with business.

[Tom]

The good thing about the debates is that things that will never get reported by the LSM can get out there for people to hear, and, maybe investigate.
Outlets like PMSNBC who regularly LIE for the president cannot stop this information flow.

Hopefully, 51% can get past Big Bird.

[ArlJim78]

Debate fact check from Heritage, mostpost this is for you.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/04/first-presidential-debate-2012-top-10-truefalse-quiz/

[Tom]

Reports of Romney's car being vandalized while he was at the debate have surfaced. Police are investigating. They released this crime scene photo today.

[Valuist]

I think one has to take the George Constanza "opposite" angle anytime Al Sharpton says anything.
"

[alydar]

i would love to know who in their right mind is going to bet on Obama after last nights debate.

I would, I would even double down. The electoral map makes it almost impossible for Romney to win

[mostpost]

Obama again repeated his accusation to Romney in the debate about giving tax breaks to companies who relocate overseas. Romney said that after being in business 25 years he had no idea what the president was talking about. in fact nobody knows what he is talking about because there is no such tax break. too bad we don't have a media to investigate such claims. it would seem like something important, that the president makes up stuff and has no experience with business.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/
According to this.
Companies do get a deduction for the expenses involved in moving the company overseas. They get the same deduction for moving from Paducah to Poughkeepsie. Obama and Democrats want to eliminate the deduction if a company moves overseas in order to discourage such movement.

Is the deduction an incentive? It is in the sense that if you are moving in order to cut labor costs, but the expense of moving is high, those deductions mitigate those costs.

Was Obama telling the truth? Yes he was. There is such a deduction. It just isn't specific the one scenario.

[HUSKER55]

using democrats logic then Romney didn't lie

[Tom]

Obama and Democrats want to eliminate the deduction if a company moves overseas in order to discourage such movement.

Why haven't they, then?
They controlled congress for 2 years.
They failed to do this, they failed to reform the tax code, they failed to pass a budget.....sound like that lack of energy Obama shoed the other night has been his legacy so far.

[Greyfox]

How well is Obama's energy policy working mostie? Did Romney lie about that too??

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/1005-calgasprice/13953883-1-eng-US/1005-calgasprice_full_600.jpg

[ArlJim78]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/
According to this.
Companies do get a deduction for the expenses involved in moving the company overseas. They get the same deduction for moving from Paducah to Poughkeepsie. Obama and Democrats want to eliminate the deduction if a company moves overseas in order to discourage such movement.

Is the deduction an incentive? It is in the sense that if you are moving in order to cut labor costs, but the expense of moving is high, those deductions mitigate those costs.

Was Obama telling the truth? Yes he was. There is such a deduction. It just isn't specific the one scenario.
don't follow blatant distortions, read and understand what it says.


However, the deduction is not a special loophole afforded only to companies
moving work out of America, as the president sometimes makes it sound. Rather, the deduction is written into the tax code pertaining to any cost companies face in the course of doing business

what Obama said is simply not true, there is no tax break SPECIFICALLY for moving jobs overseas. do you not understand that or do you simply refuse to admit it's a lie?

[ArlJim78]

that whole line of attack by Obama is a red herring. the amount doesn't amount to a hill of beans. why not address WHY companies move operations overseas, namely the horrible taxes and regulations in our market.
we have one of the higest corporate tax rates in the world, and to think corporations try to avoid it in order to compete? go figure

[GameTheory]

So taking a standard deduction for a business expense is now a "tax break"? When I buy printer paper for my business and write it off as expenses that's a "tax break"? Any deduction I get for expenses is now to be considered a special favor granted by the government?

[Tom]

Yes, according to mostie and his friends.

did yo happen to catch the interview on MSNBC after the debate, with the governor of Maryland?

He said something so matter-of-factly it was scary.
It was something to the effect that most Americans are happy with the choices Obama has made for us all.

1984. Hello.

[mostpost]

Debate fact check from Heritage, mostpost this is for you.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/04/first-presidential-debate-2012-top-10-truefalse-quiz/

In the first place, using the Heritage Foundation to check facts is like making
Honey Boo Boo's mother the sole judge of the pageant.

Point # 1. Governor Mitt Romney’s tax plan would burden the middle class
Judged false because "Romney’s plan can make pro-growth changes to the tax code and doesn’t have to raise taxes on the middle class."
This uses the old theory that cutting taxes grows the economy. And you have to grow the economy in order to get more revenue if you cut tax rates.
George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. Here are the annual changes in GDP from 2002 to 2009. 1.8%; 2.5%; 3.5%; 3.1%; 2.7%; 1.9%; -0.3% and -3.1%.
All of those growth rates were lower than the average of the previous 25 years when the average rate of growth was 3.98%. If you take the average for the eight years and compare it to the average for the previous 25 the story is even worse. 1.175% to 3.98%.

Looking back at the previous time of large tax cuts (the Reagan Years) the comparison is more favorable to the tax cut advocates, but still disproves the tax cuts grow the economy theory. Growth rate during the Reagan years averaged 3.525%. For the twenty five years previous the average was 3.65%.
Isn't it the theory that lower taxes will cause the rate of growth to accelerate? Did not seem to happen.
Thus we can not assume that Romney's tax plan will grow the economy.

3. Seniors would receive vouchers under Medicare reform.
Judged false because "The Ryan proposal, like all major premium support models, is a defined-contribution system that would provide direct payment from the government to a health plan of a person’s choice, including traditional Medicare."
This is a distinction without a difference. First of all by changing Medicare from a requirement to a choice, it weakens Medicare. It leaves seniors at the mercy of insurance companies when it comes to premiums. The seniors would have to make up the difference in cost between what the government pays and what the cost of the premium is. So if you are entering the work force now you will be paying Medicare tax your entire life. Then the government will give you back your own money to pay premiums, but not all of them. You will have to spend more of your money to make up the difference. And you would be subject to the whims of the individual company in regards to coverage and premiums.

4. Romney would cut taxes by $5 trillion.
Judged False. "Governor Romney’s tax plan doesn’t cut taxes. His plan is revenue neutral."
Romney's plan to cut taxes 20% across the board; to eliminate the estate tax and to eliminate the Alternative Minimum tax would cost $5T. He claims that the elimination of certain deductions, exemptions, and credits would offset this. Yet he will not say which deductions etc. he will eliminate. The claim from the opposition is that his plan will not work unless he ends deductions for such thing as mortgage interest and charitable giving, which would result in a de facto raise in taxes for the middle class.

Romney could refute this claim easily enough if it is not true. The fact that he refuses to do so leads me to believe that it is true.

10. Social Security is structurally sound.
Judged false because "Social Security is running permanent and growing deficits"
This statement makes it sound as if Social Security has been running deficits for years. The truth is the deficits of the last two years were the first since 1983. It is also true that the deficits of the last two years have been exacerbated by the large numbers of unemployed and by the stagnation of wages.

But I am not saying there is not a problem. A problem with a solution. Eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes would fund the program in perpetuity. Right now the SS tax is a regressive tax. A hard working guy like me paid 6.2% of my (never more than $50,000 a year) income into Social Security. A rich millionaire playboy like you ;) pays .62%.
Eliminate the cap; solve the problem.

[Greyfox]

Mostpost -
Obama may win the election. In fact he's ahead in the polls.

But you are fighting a losing battle trying to convince us that Romney didn't win the debate.

Your problem is one that many horseplayers make.
When they handicap a race, they tend to fit the data to their preconceived belief systems, even when other obvious factors are apparent.
Then they go to the windows, bet their horse and lose.
It happens every day.
Occasionally, they get a winner and are reinforced in their beliefs.
But in general, seeing what you want to see forces you to fit the data to what you want to happen and it may or may not have any external validity when reality checks in.



As I said above, Obama may win the election.
He did not win the first debate. Romney won it.

[badcompany]

I've always admired people with this level of photoshop skills.:ThmbUp:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/RomneyKo.png

[bigmack]

Let's see... Oh yeah..

Steph Cutterupper today ADMITTED $5 TRILLION IS A LIE !

Let's see Mostie and she "mix it up" while I hang out with - (I gotta say, lsbeets, I find her QUITE fetching) Erin Burnett. That's Erin Burnett.

Hit it, Steph:

Kg0BmPhz2Dw

[lsbets]

She's a solid 6, maybe 6.5.

[bigmack]

She's a solid 6, maybe 6.5.
I'd go 8 but I'm not one of those that has 'death' as a 10. (See definition of 'death' in Barry Levinsons's Diner.)
-
So among the MANY stories we've heard the last few weeks has been Mitt's favorability numbers being low, calling for stories like the following last week:

Romney's High Unfavorable Rating Hampers Message on Economy

Why Mitt Romney Has the Worst Favorability Ratings in Memory

We find NOW that last week his favorability was 43%. Now, after the De-Bate? 53% ! :lol:

Tell Mostie to shut-down the thread. It's premise is UN-BE-LIEVE-A-BLE.

[Stillriledup]

I've always admired people with this level of photoshop skills.:ThmbUp:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/RomneyKo.png

Now all they have to do is read politics for dummies and they'll be all set!

[bigmack]

Now all they have to do is read politics for dummies and they'll be all set!
I don't get it.

[badcompany]

I don't get it.

My guess is that he didn't find the humor in it. He probably won't like this one, either:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/obama_debate_butt_bandaged.jpg

[ArlJim78]

he also might not like this one.

http://www.jammiewf.com/assets/romneyemptychair.jpg

[Stillriledup]

"Enjoy it while it lasts, because it never does"

-Lou Mannheim (1987 Wall Street)

[ArlJim78]

only two lasting memories of the 2012 conventions;

the democrats booing God, and Clint's lecture to an empty chair.

[lsbets]

On my phone, so no link, but according to politico Obama knows he lost the debate and was vet unhappy about it. It appears the only person on earth who doesn't agree with Obama that he lost is mosty.

[Stillriledup]

On my phone, so no link, but according to politico Obama knows he lost the debate and was vet unhappy about it. It appears the only person on earth who doesn't agree with Obama that he lost is mosty.

I know it seems fairly obvious that Romney is a sure thing now to win the election, but that's why they play the game. I know it appears that Obama has zero shot to win re-election, but you never know, i'd be willing to take 10-1 odds on BO to win this thing.

[mostpost]

Let's see... Oh yeah..

Steph Cutterupper today ADMITTED $5 TRILLION IS A LIE !

Let's see Mostie and she "mix it up" while I hang out with - (I gotta say, lsbeets, I find her QUITE fetching) Erin Burnett. That's Erin Burnett.

Hit it, Steph:

Kg0BmPhz2Dw

The tax cuts are worth $5 Trillion over 10 years. That is a separate issue.
Romney claims there are offsets which will neutralize that $5T, but he refuses to list them. As long as he doesn't, Obama and the Dems are under no obligation to consider them.

Stephanie Cutter: slightly more attractive than Erin Burnett, but both are considerably above 6.5. Besides, me and Steph have a thing going on. She e-mails me all the time. :jump: On the other hand, so does Al Franken. :eek:

[JustRalph]

I would, I would even double down. The electoral map makes it almost impossible for Romney to win

If everybody with an obamaphone in Ohio votes for Obama, Romney loses by 1 million votes

[bigmack]

The tax cuts are worth $5 Trillion over 10 years. That is a separate issue.
Romney claims there are offsets which will neutralize that $5T, but he refuses to list them. As long as he doesn't, Obama and the Dems are under no obligation to consider them.
Stunning, is what it is, the depth of your douchebaggery.

StephCu tler finally gets it. People are seeing the uselessness in engaging with you as a result of your NAZI-LIKE DEVOTION TO ALL THINGS BO.

Mighty SCARY it's become.

When do you think you'll be SNAPPING OUT OF IT?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf89wxB3ja1qe0eclo1_r34_500.gif

[Rookies]

My own evaluation is that Mittens out pointed the President. He appeared confident, poised and purposeful in giving his answers and explanations. The President appeared a little annoyed and less stepping up to the plate. I believe the candidate who goes through the trial by fire, as Romney did during the Republican debates and Obama did in the marathon against Hillary 4 years ago are simply far better, battle tested and ready.

At this level, each side is going to throw in some bullshit to make themselves look the better. It is up to their opponent to call it, contest it and provide their version of the correct strategy. If they don't as happenede the other night, it's a nolo contendere moment. Obama will be contesting in the next one, but he is always cognizant of one of his not so hidden weapons- his likeability factor. He doesn't want to appear too argumentative and cantankerous by using that strategy to win a debate, but lose the big prize!

In any event, no KO was sent by Mittens. To turn the tide, he needs one. Otherwise, two more close encounters, even points losses, are no where near enough.

[lsbets]

I know it seems fairly obvious that Romney is a sure thing now to win the election, but that's why they play the game. I know it appears that Obama has zero shot to win re-election, but you never know, i'd be willing to take 10-1 odds on BO to win this thing.

I've never interacted with you before, but if you've noticed my posts you will have seen that I have next to no tolerance for stupid.

That being said, are you a total moron? Where did I say Romney is a lock to win the election? If you pay any attention at all, you will see that I have said for a long time, and am still saying that I think Obama will win. I said, pointing to a Politico article, that even Obama knows he lost the debate. Debate does not equal election.

You are not very bright if you somehow deduced that I think Romney will win.

[highnote]

but you never know, i'd be willing to take 10-1 odds on BO to win this thing.

Who wouldn't take 10-1 odds on Obama?

Hell, I'd take 10-1 on Romney.

The big question is, if Obama is still favored to win, how much would you be willing to lay on Obama. If you're willing to lay 10-1 then tell me where to send the money.

[Tom]

mosite, a 5 trillion dollar tax cut - over any time period - is a
GOOD THING!

[pandy]

I can never understand why so many people think that raising taxes is a solution. Europe has high taxes and high taxes on the rich. Last I looked they were in worse shape than we are.

[Greyfox]

I can never understand why so many people think that raising taxes is a solution. Europe has high taxes and high taxes on the rich. Last I looked they were in worse shape than we are.

When the economy rebounds taxes and Government services reviewed, taxes will have to increase to cut the National Debt load down.
Sooner or later, a President will have to look that fact in the eye.

[jognlope]

If top 2% are making 1500% more since 1980, while the middle class is making about 18% more since 1980, I don't think paying a little more, especially if they care out this country and the deficit, is out of the question. Like Mayor Bloomberg said, it's not an increase in tax rate as much as a market for their products that they worry about.

[JustRalph]

If top 2% are making 1500% more since 1980, while the middle class is making about 18% more since 1980, I don't think paying a little more, especially if they care out this country and the deficit, is out of the question. Like Mayor Bloomberg said, it's not an increase in tax rate as much as a market for their products that they worry about.

Yeah, why not..........they already pay 70 percent of all taxes. Why not 72

:rolleyes:

[cj's dad]

If top 2% are making 1500% more since 1980, while the middle class is making about 18% more since 1980, I don't think paying a little more, especially if they care out this country and the deficit, is out of the question. Like Mayor Bloomberg said, it's not an increase in tax rate as much as a market for their products that they worry about.Been workong since 67, never for a poor person. lets tax the rich into oblivion.

[badcompany]

I can never understand why so many people think that raising taxes is a solution. Europe has high taxes and high taxes on the rich. Last I looked they were in worse shape than we are.

Because they're Pinkos who hate Capitalism with a passion and want it replaced with a Marxist/Socialist model.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Because they're Pinkos who hate Capitalism with a passion and want it replaced with a Marxist/Socialist model.

I think you are doling out too much credit to a lot of them. Most don't even know what pinkos, capitalism, marxism, or socialism even are. They just have a caricature like perspective of "the rich", have decided that life is unfair and that they will never be rich without 6 out of 6 plus the powerball, and think that "rich people" have towers filled with money like Scrooge McDuck and can't figure out why they don't just take one little handful out and feed all the poor little kids dying in the streets of Beverly Hills.

[Lefty]

When you raise taxes you take more investment capital out of the private sector and cede it to government. And the government usually pours it into one of their "money hole" programs or funds a new "money hole" program.

[Stillriledup]

Who wouldn't take 10-1 odds on Obama?

Hell, I'd take 10-1 on Romney.

The big question is, if Obama is still favored to win, how much would you be willing to lay on Obama. If you're willing to lay 10-1 then tell me where to send the money.

I think the market has overreacted on one debate. Obama was favored before the debate, but he's 'less favored' now. Is he still the favorite? Im not sure, i dont bet on politics so i dont follow it from an odds standpoint, but i would imagine that Romney is taking more money than he should based on one debate. There's a long way to go and this debate will be long forgotten in a few weeks and people who 'pounded Romney' might be second guessing themselves at some point for taking such a short price on him as part of a bandwagon situation.

[GameTheory]

If top 2% are making 1500% more since 1980, while the middle class is making about 18% more since 1980, I don't think paying a little more, especially if they care out this country and the deficit, is out of the question. Like Mayor Bloomberg said, it's not an increase in tax rate as much as a market for their products that they worry about.Whatever -- it is still just political gamesmanship. You can confiscate 100% of their wealth and it is still just a drop in the bucket. It's not a solution.

[fast4522]

The poor can not pay, the rich will never pay, its just a game to make the middle class pay more. Business does not have to do anything the liberal establishment wants, its fiduciary responsibility is to its shareholders and most of the multinational company's are institutional investors. A company as big as GE pays nothing in taxes and can and will shut down operations all over this country in a heartbeat if it means its in the shareholders best interest. BHO is in bed with the multinationals so you guys love to shoot each other in the feet when you can not see the forest from the trees.

[ElKabong]

The poor can not pay, the rich will never pay, its just a game to make the middle class pay more..

If the Dems would understand this fact, we could actually move things forward.

When Obama and the dems had the WH, Senate and House to their own for 2 yrs after the 2008 election they did nothing to "reform" the tax code. If they were serious about "reform" it would have been done in that timeframe

[badcompany]

I think you are doling out too much credit to a lot of them. Most don't even know what pinkos, capitalism, marxism, or socialism even are. They just have a caricature like perspective of "the rich", have decided that life is unfair and that they will never be rich without 6 out of 6 plus the powerball, and think that "rich people" have towers filled with money like Scrooge McDuck and can't figure out why they don't just take one little handful out and feed all the poor little kids dying in the streets of Beverly Hills.

You're right, but, I'm thinking more,in terms of the opinion shapers on the left, the Paul Krugmans and the Jeffery Sachs, for whom no tax and no amount of government spending is high enough.

[fast4522]

Because the liberal establishment can not say it wants to raise taxes on the middle class, its not what is said but rather what is done. A huge amount of brain washing is done at higher educational level, if they published in text books the effect of tax collection upon the middle class as a result of liberalism do you really think the middle class would be at odds with itself as a result? If you can not enlist the middle class to pick up the tab then they are lost completely.

[Tom]

I've been reviewing that charts from yesterday.....and I conclude that Wise Dan did not win the Shadwell Turf Mile.

[OntheRail]

I think you are doling out too much credit to a lot of them. Most don't even know what pinkos, capitalism, marxism, or socialism even are.

Prezadent Obama what's your definition... Tell us.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/03/16/us/politics/16obama-leno.jpg

Well Jay

Pinko's... Um... That's a place that makes copies for our campaign.
Capitalism... Um... Ok that's that other record company that tries to complete with A & M Records ( Go Zenyatta... I hope she wins the breeder cup this year Jay) A Little Pandering
Marxism... Um... Didn't they make toys or something in the 50's
Socialism... Oh I know this one quite well. That's like facebook and twitter... which we would not have if it was not for Al Gore. Give It Up For AL.

Pst... Jay I can honestly say He didn't build dat... but since he's my boy I'll let it slide.

Ok let's go to a commercial.

[mostpost]

Whatever -- it is still just political gamesmanship. You can confiscate 100% of their wealth and it is still just a drop in the bucket. It's not a solution.

I keep hearing how even if we confiscate 100% of the wealth of the wealthy it will not pay off the debt or pay for whatever programs we need to pay for. My first question is who suggested we confiscate 100%? I don't think any sensible person would suggest that. I guess that is why I always hear it from conservatives.

For thirty years we have not been collection enough from the top 1 or 5 or 10%.
We are not going to recoup that loss in a year or even ten years. That does not mean we should not begin to do so.

[Greyfox]

For thirty years we have not been collection enough from the top 1 or 5 or 10%.
.

The Government has been collecting enough for 30 years from all income levels.

It has been spending too much over that time. It has never been a Revenue problem.

[mostpost]

The poor can not pay, the rich will never pay, its just a game to make the middle class pay more. Business does not have to do anything the liberal establishment wants, its fiduciary responsibility is to its shareholders and most of the multinational company's are institutional investors. A company as big as GE pays nothing in taxes and can and will shut down operations all over this country in a heartbeat if it means its in the shareholders best interest. BHO is in bed with the multinationals so you guys love to shoot each other in the feet when you can not see the forest from the trees.

BHO is a communist who is in bed with the multinationals? Interesting.

[mostpost]

If the Dems would understand this fact, we could actually move things forward.

When Obama and the dems had the WH, Senate and House to their own for 2 yrs after the 2008 election they did nothing to "reform" the tax code. If they were serious about "reform" it would have been done in that time frame
If I knew as little of what I was talking about as you, I would be embarrassed. The Democrats never had sufficient control of the Senate to pass whatever legislation they wanted.

According to Senate rules as now constituted, it only takes 41 votes for the opposition to block a vote on most subjects. Also any Senator can put an anonymous hold on legislation.

In any case there were a lot more pressing problems at the start of Obama's first term than tax reform.

[bigmack]

In any case there were a lot more pressing problems at the start of Obama's first term than tax reform.
He's poised and at the ready to start getting to work? :lol:

[lsbets]

If I knew as little of what I was talking about as you, I would be embarrassed. The Democrats never had sufficient control of the Senate to pass whatever legislation they wanted.

According to Senate rules as now constituted, it only takes 41 votes for the opposition to block a vote on most subjects. Also any Senator can put an anonymous hold on legislation.

In any case there were a lot more pressing problems at the start of Obama's first term than tax reform.

The Dems had 60 seats in the Senate until Ted Kennedy died. It wasn't until Scott Brown was elected that the Republicans could block anything. When you tell someone they should be embarrassed at how little they know, it would be better if you had the basic facts right when you try to prove that person wrong.

[ElKabong]

If I knew as little of what I was talking about as you, I would be embarrassed. The Democrats never had sufficient control of the Senate to pass whatever legislation they wanted.

According to Senate rules as now constituted, it only takes 41 votes for the opposition to block a vote on most subjects. Also any Senator can put an anonymous hold on legislation.

In any case there were a lot more pressing problems at the start of Obama's first term than tax reform.

Aside from your snippy feminine retort in the first sentence, if Tax Reform wasn't a big enough deal when Dems had majority all around, then it's hard to take you seriously that it is, now. If tax reform wasn't a more pressing problem, list all the things Obama successfully accomplished in 2009/10 that would be more pressing than this tax reform drum beating I've heard since 2008

[johnhannibalsmith]

I keep hearing how even if we confiscate 100% of the wealth of the wealthy it will not pay off the debt or pay for whatever programs we need to pay for. My first question is who suggested we confiscate 100%? I don't think any sensible person would suggest that. I guess that is why I always hear it from conservatives.

....

I know the obvious can be less-than-obvious if you try hard enough, but it's a hypothetical to contradict the pervasive mentality that we can just keep spending and spending, but the wealthy need to just ante up a little bit more to keep it going. The point is that you can babble about 3% more or 30% or 50% being the level we should aim for, but the reality is that even at 100%, it still isn't enough - so all these raise the taxes monologues mean nothing unless you include some method of making up the rest of the deficit you cannot mathematically cover simply by taxing the one part of the population that has been scapegoated as the road to salvation.

[fast4522]

I've been reviewing that charts from yesterday.....and I conclude that Wise Dan did not win the Shadwell Turf Mile.

Now Tom, you know some pinhead is going to say that your a racist.

[lamboguy]

the Obama team is stupid and does not deserve to win this election. if those guys couldn't figure out how to beat this easy opposition by now, what makes anyone think they are capable of running this country for another term?

[highnote]

the Obama team is stupid and does not deserve to win this election. if those guys couldn't figure out how to beat this easy opposition by now, what makes anyone think they are capable of running this country for another term?


Never underestimate your opponent.

[Tom]

My first question is who suggested we confiscate 100%? I don't think any sensible person would suggest that. I guess that is why I always hear it from conservatives.

You'll settle for 90%, right?

[PaceAdvantage]

(I gotta say, lsbeets, I find her QUITE fetching) Erin Burnett. That's Erin Burnett.Never saw the huge appeal...and I've been watching her for years...

[PaceAdvantage]

I know it seems fairly obvious that Romney is a sure thing now to win the election, but that's why they play the game.Huh? Seriously? You really need to work more on disguising your more disingenuous flame-bait.

[bigmack]

Never saw the huge appeal...and I've been watching her for years...
I could support or destroy my case with pictures..

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/ErinBurnett--Gallery--Image1.png http://wallstreetexaminer.com/uploads/image1754.jpg

...But we both know better.

Some of us out here on the front lines (& I love that portrayal I give myself as the "trailblazer" of poontang huntin' :D )..

..Recognize a certain something about women when they're behind closed doors and let their hair down they're what we call in the business - "Gamers"

She's got the look. You bloaks might not see it, but it's there.

That's why I have her an 8 and ls has her a 6.5.

Once you heat this type on, STAND BACK!
----

By the way, I've come around on Liz C. She's quite captivating for a tall drink of water but she isn't CLOSE to being a gamer. Looks chilly as a Tastee Freeze.

[NJ Stinks]

the Obama team is stupid and does not deserve to win this election. if those guys couldn't figure out how to beat this easy opposition by now, what makes anyone think they are capable of running this country for another term?

The "stupid" team is currently a 2/7 favorite. How big a favorite does Obama have to be before you believe/accept/realize that Barack's team may have figured it out? :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

The "stupid" team is currently a 2/7 favorite. How big a favorite does Obama have to be before you believe/accept/realize that Barack's team may have figured it out? :rolleyes:Figured what out? How to win an election? On merit? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The "Chicago boys" figured it out a LONG time ago...way before Barack ever rolled around...and it was rarely done on merit...

I guess that's what you're talking about... :rolleyes:

[maddog42]

Let's say you are right, and Romney lied, cheated and stole. What does that have to do with winning or losing the debate? If most people think he won, he won. There is no scoreboard except among the electorate. You can be dead wrong, lie about everything, and still win the debate hands down.

This is the most cynical post I have read in a long time. It is also truer than
I would like to (grudgingly)admit. I read it about a week ago and it has been haunting me. Very insightful. I have read this entire thread and I was very impressed with Mostie's comments and analysis. Not really many factual retorts from the righties. There is one area which needs to be pointed out to the "Republican bubble crowd" who may only read right wing propaganda: There has been widespread verification to every Mostie point, and then some.
This is probably the most concise summation of the bigger lies.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romneys-successful-debate-plan-lying.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/will-romneys-lies-be-a-thing/2012/10/04/fc9ba078-0e52-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_blog.html


This article asks an important question?
Will Romney's debate lies become the story?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Undecideds and independents think all politicians are completely full of shit. That's one of the reasons why they can remain out of the fray for so long. I would venture those that care about "lies" already view the President as being an established liar. Pressing on with the "Rev Al" motif to sway those that can still be swayed via this "Romney is a liar!" theory may be 104% accurate, but telling people that a politician is a liar is akin to telling a smoker that smoking is bad for you. Wrong strategy.

[Tom]

Let's see if Obama admits his lies tonight, about Ben Ghazi.
For 6 hours, the attack was being watched by feeds from a predator drone.
And nothing was done. It had to be obvious, seeing it unfold in real time, that there never was a wide-spread demonstration.

And get real on the debate - the ONLY thing that comes out it is you get votes. There is no "winning of losing" other than that. What GT said - 100% on the money. Truth takes a back seat to perception. This why Biden won his debate.

[lsbets]

There has been widespread verification to every Mostie point



No there hasn't. All that has happened is the left wing echo chamber has kept repeating "Romney lied". And to people as dimwitted as you, hearing it over and over again makes it true. There has been no non left wing source that has provided verification of the claims made by the left. Even the professor at Princeton has distance himself from the Obama campaign's claims about Romney's tax plan.

I know you think you've seen verification, but as you showed the other day, you're a complete moron who doesn't really understand anything. After all, you think asking for an ID is the same as gassing people in concentration camps.

Speaking of ID, have you taken your Mom to get her's yet?

[maddog42]

Undecideds and independents think all politicians are completely full of shit. That's one of the reasons why they can remain out of the fray for so long. I would venture those that care about "lies" already view the President as being an established liar. Pressing on with the "Rev Al" motif to sway those that can still be swayed via this "Romney is a liar!" theory may be 104% accurate, but telling people that a politician is a liar is akin to telling a smoker that smoking is bad for you. Wrong strategy.

It is the best strategy there is. Because no matter that I tease Mostie and you guys about "useless" facts, they are still the only coin that matters.

[badcompany]

No there hasn't. All that has happened is the left wing echo chamber has kept repeating "Romney lied". And to people as dimwitted as you, hearing it over and over again makes it true. There has been no non left wing source that has provided verification of the claims made by the left. Even the professor at Princeton has distance himself from the Obama campaign's claims about Romney's tax plan.

I know you think you've seen verification, but as you showed the other day, you're a complete moron who doesn't really understand anything. After all, you think asking for an ID is the same as gassing people in concentration camps.

Speaking of ID, have you taken your Mom to get her's yet?

:lol:

Because we all had the good sense to not indulge Mostie's obsessive/compulsive lunacy, therefore all of his points are valid, even though Obama, himself, admitted he had a bad night and Romney had a good one.

[maddog42]

No there hasn't. All that has happened is the left wing echo chamber has kept repeating "Romney lied". And to people as dimwitted as you, hearing it over and over again makes it true. There has been no non left wing source that has provided verification of the claims made by the left. Even the professor at Princeton has distance himself from the Obama campaign's claims about Romney's tax plan.

I know you think you've seen verification, but as you showed the other day, you're a complete moron who doesn't really understand anything. After all, you think asking for an ID is the same as gassing people in concentration camps.

Speaking of ID, have you taken your Mom to get her's yet?

Would you care to furnish an example? Not really showing me any evidence
that I am wrong. None at all.

My mom hasn't been feeling well. When you are 95, I dare say you have more good days than bad. Thanks for inquiring about her welfare. I appreciate it.If she ever indicates in any way she wants a government issued ID, I will get her one.

[lsbets]

Would you care to furnish an example? Not really showing me any evidence
that I am wrong. None at all.



Here ya go, from Harry Rosen, the guy the Obama campaign uses as evidence against Romney's tax plan:

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html

You are very wrong, as usual.

[Tom]

:lol:

Because we all had the good sense to not indulge Mostie's obsessive/compulsive lunacy, therefore all of his points are valid, even though Obama, himself, admitted he had a bad night and Romney had a good one.

They named a street in Chicago after mostie.......One Way!:D

[PhantomOnTour]

They named a street in Chicago after mostie.......One Way!:D
It sure beats "Dead End"

[johnhannibalsmith]

It is the best strategy there is. Because no matter that I tease Mostie and you guys about "useless" facts, they are still the only coin that matters.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. People that haven't made up their minds are looking for a reason to vote for one or the other and one liar is calling the other guy a liar and that's going to get the job done? Mitt Romney is as counterfeit as I am? The people that may be affected by campaigning or spin or debates are neither Obama stalwarts nor Republican devotees. They are those looking for a reason to vote for anyone, someone. The best that this "liar" strategy can possibly achieve is to disenfranchise people that might have voted, but wouldn't vote for Obama again at all, effectively trying to win not by getting votes but by making sure the other guy doesn't get them --- which sounds a lot like that which you have taken up miles of text to decry.

[maddog42]

Here ya go, from Harry Rosen, the guy the Obama campaign uses as evidence against Romney's tax plan:

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html

You are very wrong, as usual.

Buried in that little article under the Math link they admit this:

"So what the Tax Policy Center is really saying is not that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible, but that it's difficult. Whether or not eliminating tax expenditures from the top down is "administratively feasible" is a matter of opinion--not a matter of math."

They admit that it will take $53 billion in economic growth to make this happen.
Difficult?!!Difficult!!?? When a right Wing Blog like Weekly Standard admits that it would be difficult, you can translate that to mean impossible.

"Harvey Rosen gave it a shot, but succeeded only by assuming wildly implausible growth estimates."

"Needless to say, Romney knows all this. The guy ran Bain Capital for years. If there's anything he knows his way around, it's a spreadsheet. So is it fair to say flat-out that he's lying about his tax plan? I guess reasonable people can disagree, but I'd say it is. There really aren't any plausible assumptions under which his plan can work, and he obviously knows it. But he keeps saying it anyway. If that's not a lie, what is?"


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/lies-damn-lies-and-mitt-romneys-tax-plan

Only the most ardent Romney Supporter still believes that this Tax Plan will work without raising taxes on the middle class. The facts say otherwise.

[lsbets]

All I quoted was the guy who is the cornerstone of the Romney lied about his tax plan argument. I didn't quote anything from the weekly standard, because its not relevant. Rosen says the Obama campaign is basically lying about his work. And you use an opinion piece by Kevin drum, one of the most dishonest "journalists" around to rebut Rosens own words.

Face it, you were wrong. You asked for an example, I gave you one, but you are not honest enough to own up to your error.

[maddog42]

All I quoted was the guy who is the cornerstone of the Romney lied about his tax plan argument. I didn't quote anything from the weekly standard, because its not relevant. Rosen says the Obama campaign is basically lying about his work. And you use an opinion piece by Kevin drum, one of the most dishonest "journalists" around to rebut Rosens own words.

Face it, you were wrong. You asked for an example, I gave you one, but you are not honest enough to own up to your error.

You are the one that linked to the weekly standard. So one of their quotes is ok for you to use but not the one I quoted. The Weekly standard admitted in the Math link that Romneys plan would be difficult but not impossible.

Many, Many other economists are saying Impossible.
You are the one that is wrong.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html

[lsbets]

You are the one that linked to the weekly standard. So one of their quotes is ok for you to use but not the one I quoted. The Weekly standard admitted in the Math link that Romneys plan would be difficult but not impossible.

Many, Many other economists are saying Impossible.
You are the one that is wrong.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html

I linked to the ws because that's where I found the Rosen quote. Rosen is the guy who's work the Obama campaign based its lies statement on. You asked for one example, I figured Rosen in his own words was the best one.


But you know that. You are simply a very dishonest person.

[lsbets]

They admit that it will take $53 billion in economic growth to make this happen.
Difficult?!!Difficult!!?? When a right Wing Blog like Weekly Standard admits that it would be difficult, you can translate that to mean impossible.



Maybe you're not dishonest, maybe you're just really dumb (well, you proved that the other day, but maybe you're dumber than I thought).

The Weekly Standard did not say it would be difficult, they said that is what the Tax Policy Center said.

I assume you can read, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on not being that dumb, so that goes back to you are just one incredibly dishonest person.

Here's the quote:

So what the Tax Policy Center is really saying is not that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible, but that it's difficult.

I'm done with you, I have no time for serial liars.

[mostpost]

All I quoted was the guy who is the cornerstone of the Romney lied about his tax plan argument. I didn't quote anything from the weekly standard, because its not relevant. Rosen says the Obama campaign is basically lying about his work. And you use an opinion piece by Kevin drum, one of the most dishonest "journalists" around to rebut Rosens own words.

Face it, you were wrong. You asked for an example, I gave you one, but you are not honest enough to own up to your error.
You certainly did quote from the Weekly Standard. Your whole link is from the Weekly Standard. Mr Rosen said that the Romney plan would work if the tax cuts provided sufficient revenue growth to offset the cost of the cuts. Since that is unlikely to happen, Obama is correct in saying that Prof. Rosen's study proves the Romney plan is impractical. Impractical because it relies on an old rightwing fantasy that cutting taxes will increase revenue to a greater degree than just leaving them as they were.

Here is some proof which you will, of course, ignore or ridicule.

We will start with 1977. Jimmy Carter was president and the top rate was 70%. Revenue grew at an annual rate of 14.85% per year for those four years. In 1981 Ronald Reagan became president and taxes dropped to 50% and then to 28%. The annual rate of growth for revenue dropped to 7.5875% per annum.

During four years under George HW Bush it dropped again to 4.675/yr.

Bill Clinton took office in 1993. He raised taxes a bit and revenue grew by 8.0375% each year he was in office.

Can you guess what the rate of growth was under George W. Bush? A paltry 3.0375%

Yes, revenue will almost always grow, but that is because the population keeps growing. 300,000,000 people require more goods and services than 290,000,000.

Here is another way to compare-by decades.
Taxes were high in the forties, the fifties, the sixties and the seventies.
From 1940 to 1949 annual revenues increased 510%-of course this is an anomaly due to the war years.
From 1950 to 1959 the increase was 101%.
In the sixties it was 102% and in the seventies, 140.3%

Then came the era of Ronald Reagan, Grover Norquist and radical tax cuts. Revenue growth got rapidly worse. In the 80's Revenue growth dropped to 91.6% In the 90's it was 77% and in the last decade all the way down to 33%.

Rationalize all you want, if you are collecting 33% of earnings as revenue, you are not getting as much as if you were collecting 50%. To make up the difference in rate would require a 50% increase in sales.

[PaceAdvantage]

Let's say his plan is impractical. That makes him a liar? Or just a guy with a dream... :lol:

[Tom]

Who says it is impractical?
He puts a cap on a dollar amount for deductions, then cuts rates for everyone.

The top earners will be paying more money. Everyone gets to pick what deductions apply to them and use those.

It makes far more sense the completely invisible plan Obama has, other than raises taxes on everyone and kill the economy.

Let's just say Obama has no plan....ore of the same, that double the price of gas, is keeping 23 million out of work, and is not generating anywhere near enough REAL jobs to ever get us out the hole he dug.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who says it is impractical?What I'm saying is, all these charges of Romney "lying" during the debate...one of those lies being his tax plan, correct?

I don't see how that tax plan makes him a liar...or maybe I'm confusing issues...

[GameTheory]

The max deduction idea without targeting specific deductions is actually the only "practical" plan I can think of. The second you starting talking about getting rid of something specific, an army of lobbyists springs into action to stop you, and they always succeed. So with this, you don't have to take on a any special interests, but just set a cap. Brilliant!

[lsbets]

Mosty I've previously destroyed your fallacies about tax rates and economic growth. As with maddog, I have no desire to go there again because you are so inherently dishonest. I could think of much better ways than to spend my afternoon than arguing with a liar.

[maddog42]

"After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance.

The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back."


Now lets get this correct. Romney comes out in front of a few thousand people and says “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” .
Then one of his spokesmen comes out and says that's "not what Mitt means". This almost happens on a weekly basis, with this SAME STATEMENT. Is he a serial liar or what?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php

From the New York Times:

“No. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?_r=0

So when I say "serial liar", I mean exactly that. This Dog and pony show of Mitt and his advisers: ,Statement, Denial,Statement, Denial,Statement, Denial, is getting very old.

[bigmack]

So when I say "serial liar", I mean exactly that. This Dog and pony show of Mitt and his advisers: ,Statement, Denial,Statement, Denial,Statement, Denial, is getting very old.
Get REAL involved. Break down & cry about it. :lol:

[maddog42]

Get REAL involved. Break down & cry about it. :lol:

I find this absurdly humorous.

[bigmack]

I find this absurdly humorous.
I know how emotional you get about lies. Careful, you could have a stroke after reading lie after lie here:
http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

Just today Planned Parenthood is going bananas as they've been inundated with calls asking to schedule mamagrams. See, BO used that as a stump speech, when it's a TOTAL LIE.

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n537/themackster1/ListofObamasLies-BarackObamaLies.png

[mostpost]

Romney raised Medicare fees eight times:
From the politifact article:
• 1 to 30 beds, from $95 to $285;
• 31 to 60 beds, from $160 to $480;
• 61 to 90 beds, from $225 to $675;
• 91 to 120 beds, from $295 to $885;
• 121 to 150 beds, from $360 to $1,080;
• 151 to 200 beds, from $425 to $1,275;
• more than 200 beds, from $495 to $1,485.

In addition, Romney established a $9.60 per day user fee on nursing home beds not covered by Medicare. The money was meant to be returned to the nursing homes in the form of higher Medicaid reimbursement rates.

That is seven increases plus one new fee. Maybe it's not eight times, but that is just antics with semantics. People In Massachusetts are now paying from $190 to $990 more than before. Plus a $9.60 a day fee they were not paying before.

Mitt Romney called the Arizona immigration law a 'model for the nation.

Here is what Romney said as reported in the article you linked.
Romney answered, "You know, I think you see a model here in Arizona. They passed a law here that says that people who come here and try and find work, that the employer is required to look them up on E-Verify.

But Obama also based his interpretation on the fact that Romney's chief adviser on immigration was the man who formulated the "papers please" law; the entire law. I'm not saying Obama was completely correct in his characterization of Romney's views on this subject, but he is close. Furthermore, being wrong is not lying.

“Planned Parenthood provides mammograms”
Not what he said. He said (some)women rely on Planned Parenthood for mammograms. PP refers women to other providers for mammograms, but PP also helps women to find free or low cost mammograms and PP does provide clinical breast exams and consultations.

“Mitt Romney Plans to fire Big Bird”
Hint: Big Bird is not real. He is a TV character; a guy (girl?) in a costume. What Obama said was symbolic. Romney wants to cut many worthwhile programs because he thinks the only worthwhile program is one that makes money.

“We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system”
The same CBO report that says there is a $24B shortfall also says that if you consider all aspects of the rescue we are $26B ahead. Also that $24B was $100B a few years ago and we are still receiving payback.

There is just a few reasons why your whole post is hogwash. I won't bother to debunk the rest.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Furthermore, being wrong is not lying...

I'm glad that you cleared that up finally for Revrum Al and the Gang.

[bigmack]

There is just a few reasons why your whole post is hogwash. I won't bother to debunk the rest.
You didn't debunk A THING.

[mostpost]

You didn't debunk A THING.
Did Too!!

[bigmack]

Did Too!!
You're right, you lied too.

Romney wants to cut many worthwhile programs because he thinks the only worthwhile program is one that makes money.

Try & back-up that pile of shit.

[GameTheory]

Here's another cynical (and true) statement for you -- of course Romney is a serial liar, he's campaigning for President. Of course Obama is also a serial liar, he is the President and also campaigning (he has never stopped campaigning in four years). More serial liars for you: George W. Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (he wasn't that bad on a relative basis, actually), Michael Dukakis, Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, well you get the idea. Plus all the senators and congressmen you can name, all mayors, and most members of a city council. Pretty much anybody that is part of a group with an agenda...

[bigmack]

More serial liars for you: Michael Dukakis
Take that back.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bjKg7cNMRQE/TyAmSnuAhHI/AAAAAAAAARU/BWRH8NFp0Es/s1600/michael_dukakis.jpg

[ElKabong]

It sure beats "Dead End"

2 years into Obama's presidency, Americans named a street for Obama > Wrong Turn.

In two weeks, it's Exit Ramp.

[highnote]

Here's another cynical (and true) statement for you -- of course Romney is a serial liar, he's campaigning for President. Of course Obama is also a serial liar, he is the President and also campaigning (he has never stopped campaigning in four years). More serial liars for you: George W. Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (he wasn't that bad on a relative basis, actually), Michael Dukakis, Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, well you get the idea. Plus all the senators and congressmen you can name, all mayors, and most members of a city council. Pretty much anybody that is part of a group with an agenda...


I am less inclined to call them serial liars than to say they make promises they know will be difficult to keep. They can say all kinds of things about what they will do in foreign policy, for example, but they can only act based on the behavior of foreign countries. Domestically, a lot of what a president can accomplish depends on how well he is able to form coalitions within congress.

[GameTheory]

I am less inclined to call them serial liars than to say they make promises they know will be difficult to keep. They can say all kinds of things about what they will do in foreign policy, for example, but they can only act based on the behavior of foreign countries. Domestically, a lot of what a president can accomplish depends on how well he is able to form coalitions within congress.Promises made and kept is just the tip. Everything that comes out their mouths is at least partially dishonest -- politicians are being phony practically every second they are in public. Not just their speech, but their body language, even the clothes they wear are lying. And you know, that's just the way we want them to be whether we will admit it or not. And so they are...

[highnote]

Promises made and kept is just the tip. Everything that comes out their mouths is at least partially dishonest -- politicians are being phony practically every second they are in public. Not just their speech, but their body language, even the clothes they wear are lying. And you know, that's just the way we want them to be whether we will admit it or not. And so they are...


You make good points. They were expensive suits and expect to be treated by their underlings as a superior being. They aren't superior, but they act that way and their underlings act that way.

You are right that they are the way "we" want them to be. They dress in the fashion of the day. If they wore big wigs and fashion from the 1780s they wouldn't be electable. If they dress like Steve Jobs they wouldn't be electable. So what choice do they have if they want to be elected?

I like this quote:

The state is a dead man walking because its ability to extort support from its subjects is rapidly disappearing in the face of new technologies.

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-phyles

...a phyle is a group of people that’s self-defined by whatever values they share. A phyle is not limited by race or language or geography – or, most importantly, by borders on maps or other such fictions – although it could be, if its members chose to be so limited. The word phyle was coined by science fiction author Neal Stephenson in his masterwork, The Diamond Age. It comes from the Greek, φυλή which means "tribe” or “clan."But it would be at least as apt if they were called philes, stemming from the Greek word philia, which means “love”– the same root in the word “philosophy”. The basic idea is that man is a social animal, and we tend to prefer to run with others who are like us – or who love what we love. Birds of a feather flock together, in either case.

People organized as clans and tribes from the dawn of mankind until about 5000 years ago, when the agricultural revolution greatly increased the population. Then they organized into kingdoms and empires – where, instead of giving their loyalty to their close relations, they gave it to a king. Things started changing again in about the 17th century, with the rise of the nation-state; you were now supposed to be loyal to a country, as opposed to a ruler per se. I think we’re now at the point where the nation-state is on its way out.

[GameTheory]

They dress in the fashion of the day.No they don't. Nobody else dresses like that. They dress in the political fashion of the day, especially the women. You can spot a woman politician a mile away by the particular ugliness of their skirt suits (is that the term?) with their absurdly large buttons. Political fashion seems to be a mutant version of your grandparents' Sunday best...

[highnote]

No they don't. Nobody else dresses like that.

The corporations where I work are filled with executives who dress like politicians.

[GameTheory]

The corporations where I work are filled with executives who dress like politicians.That's horrible. Corporate dress is its own thing of course, but they are generally a little snappier than politicians. All suits and ties either way of course, but there are telltale differences. Evangelical preachers on their off days dress like politicians. You may be seeing it more broadly than me...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Since this seems like a good place to post just about anything... Mz. Maddow is RABID this evening... :lol: ...Bain, Reagan, and Bush, the word "unmetaphorically", all at 45RPMs... holy heck lady, slow down for mostpost, he's trying to take notes.

[bigmack]

Since this seems like a good place to post just about anything... Mz. Maddow is RABID this evening... :lol: ...Bain, Reagan, and Bush, the word "unmetaphorically", all at 45RPMs... holy heck lady, slow down for mostpost, he's trying to take notes.
How serious can I take the old girl? I'm staring at her axing questions of DannyR. Dan "Would" Rather.

What the frequency, Kenneth? :lol:
----

I seen a film a while back about that election Bush beat Kerry. Documentary aboat (CAN) covering a presidential election from the Purrspective of a lib. Rach' was BESIDE HERSELF to learn Bushie won. Now, when I say BESIDE HERSELF, I mean NOT WELL.

Padded room, tongue tie, the whole rotisserie...

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

What the frequency, Kenneth? :lol:
...

There's a former jock that works as a valet and everytime he sees me he walks by stealthly and whispers that in my ear everytime he sees me...

I woulda used it as my senior quote if I had known him much earlier... but it probably would have gotten declined like my other top seven selections.

[ElKabong]

Since this seems like a good place to post just about anything... Mz. Maddow is RABID this evening... :lol: ...Bain, Reagan, and Bush, the word "unmetaphorically", all at 45RPMs... holy heck lady, slow down for mostpost, he's trying to take notes.

watching her now....definitely pissed off, for the 2nd nite in a row.

Maybe that "fear" someone spoke of, is setting in. She's not been her usual self

[GameTheory]

watching her now....definitely pissed off, for the 2nd nite in a row.

Maybe that "fear" someone spoke of, is setting in. She's not been her usual self
When you get desperate, you stop playing it cool and/or suddenly start throwing hail marys -- that's why I said Obama knew he was losing when he released his first forward-looking ad this morning. (Ironic given his campaign slogan.)

[bigmack]

that's why I said Obama knew he was losing when he released his first forward-looking ad this morning. (Ironic given his campaign slogan.)
Oh. Em. Geepers ! I JUST ordered the new 20 page (PICTURES INCLUDED) brochure (glossy print) of the BO next 4 years plan, culled: “The New Economic Patriotism: A PLAN FOR JOBS & MIDDLE-CLASS SECURITY.

I'm SO excited! By the way, do you know how to pop a zit? :lol:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcczohXgto1qij8k6.jpg