Romney vs. Obama

[emigre]

The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.

He's just making sure the dish was clean.

 

[Gahars]

The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.

Well, let's be fair here: he's a fan of Ayn Rand. The Soup Kitchen isn't exactly his natural environment.

 

[Valwin]

The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.

he seem like a good guy

 

[BlueStar]

The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.

Well, let's be fair here: he's a fan of Ayn Rand. The Soup Kitchen isn't exactly his natural environment.

I'm still not sure how the GOP can square the circle of worshiping both Jesus and Ayn Rand, religion hating atheist who called religious faith the "worst curse of mankind"

 

[DiscostewSM]

Obama Takes Responsibility for Libya

http://online.wsj.co...0764229738.html

Glad to hear it. I had enough of him blaming other people. But seriously, this is good. Him willing to admit to this makes him more trustworthy imo.

 

[Hanafuda]

The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.

He's just making sure the dish was clean.

He did wash dirty dishes.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/14485409-ryan-did-wash-dirty-dishes-during-soup-kitchen-visit?lite

Amid questions and criticisms related to Paul Ryan’s visit this weekend to an Ohio soup kitchen, the charity’s president said the Republican vice presidential candidate did, in fact, scrub dirty dishes though his visit wasn’t officially sanctioned.

1) pretty pitiful forced photo-op. not as bad as Biden with the biker skank though.
2) all politicians pull these stunts for the camera. Sometimes looks good, sometimes not, almost always fake either way. Yes, Obama too.
3) is this the most important thing the news media can come up with to report on? How about Obama claiming the other day that, "We got back every dime" of the financial system bailout, but CBO reported the same day that the end cost to the government (i.e. the taxpayers who funded the bailouts) will be $24 billion, and that as of now a total $65 billion of the funds needing to be repaid are still outstanding. I keep hearing about how Romney lies, but when Obama blows one out of the park, all we hear is crickets from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, etc.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-we-got-back-every-dime-bailout-cbo-bailout-will-lose-24-billion

 

[BlueStar]

Well the one in the video doesn't look like it's been used for cooking - the guy quoted wasn't there and was passing on what a member of staff told him, now he's going back on it. Sounds very much like he's been leaned on to me.

But you're right, there are much more important things to concentrate on that his PR stunts, such as Ryan's abhorrent political positions.

, "We got back every dime" of the financial system bailout, but CBO reported the same day that the end cost to the government (i.e. the taxpayers who funded the bailouts) will be $24 billion, and that as of now a total $65 billion of the funds needing to be repaid are still outstanding. I keep hearing about how Romney lies, but when Obama blows one out of the park, all we hear is crickets from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, etc.

Wait a second

“The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke.

Isn't this just looking at TARP, a Bush project started in 2008? ie, not the bailout that Obama is responsible for?

http://en.wikipedia...._Relief_Program

Isn't the Obama bail out this one, which is reported to be actually making money?

http://finance.fortu...-is-paying-off/

 

[Lacius]

How about Obama claiming the other day that, "We got back every dime" of the financial system bailout, but CBO reported the same day that the end cost to the government (i.e. the taxpayers who funded the bailouts) will be $24 billion

The $24 billion you're talking about refers to the subsidy costs, which includes grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made (to help homeowners restructure their mortgages, for example); it's also $8 billion less than previously estimated. Suffice it to say, it is correct that we got back "every dime" of the actual financial bailouts, and that's why you don't see this news outside (more or less) conservative conspiracy theory websites. However, I'd like to look at the bigger point you tried to make:

I keep hearing about how Romney lies, but when Obama blows one out of the park, all we hear is crickets from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, etc.

Am I claiming that President Obama never fudges the truth? No, I'm not claiming that. For example, President Obama embellished the truth by exaggerating Mitt Romney's position to strip federal funding for PBS and saying Romney would "fire Big Bird." However, there is a very big difference between sometimes embellishing the truth, something every political candidate in history is likely guilty of doing, and flat-out lying, something Romney has been shown to be guilty of again and again. When it comes to lies, the two candidates are incomparable. Governor Romney's campaign is based on lies:

Romney claims he would lower the deficit, which is a lie.
Romney claims Obama has doubled the deficit, which is a lie.
Romney claims he would create 12 million jobs, which is a lie.
Romney claims the economy hasn't gotten better under Obama, which is a lie.
Romney claims his health care plan would still, among other things, cover people with pre-existing conditions after repealing Obamacare, which is a lie.

 

[Hanafuda]

Interesting reading in Bluestar's link to the CNNMoney analysis of the overall bailouts picture. But where it interprets the whole of the bailouts to be profitable in the long run, that's inclusive of all the bailouts going back to 2007, so it is fair to include TARP in the mix. Still, its new information that I wasn't aware of ... although I don't see how you can call interest payments made by the treasury to the fed on loans the fed made to the treasury as pure profit.

Lacius, I wasn't directing that specifically at you. I know you'll acknowledge a lying politician when its plain to see, regardless of who said it. That said though, if all you're gonna use as sources for supporting your accusations re: Romney is barackobama.com and rachel maddow's blog, you're not likely to convince me. That whole "5 trillion dollar tax cut" thing, for instance, is flat bogus, but Obama's campaign keeps beating on it like a drum. Besides the fact that the 5 trillion number is based on extending his proposed tax cuts over 10 years (he can only be president a max of 8 years), the offset resulting from closing off deductions and loopholes currently enjoyed by the wealthy gets ignored. When Stephanie Cutter was confronted by this on CNN, she admitted the 5 trillion number was not accurate. She ended up conceding that the offsets still fell 1 trillion short - and that's over 10 years. Is it not possible that the positive effects on the economy over 10 years time couldn't offset that remaining 1 trillion??? It's debatable, but what is sure is that it's the Obama campaign that's lying with that 5 trillion baloney, over and over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTL9PB1oiF0

Most of what I see called "Romney's lies" turn out to be disagreements over campaign promises and the expected effects of one policy vs. another, or mild distortions of statements he's made. The 47 percent thing, for instance, is a glaring example - Romney said he wasn't going to worry about the 47% in his campaign strategy because his message of lower taxes and reducing dependency on government wasn't going to be received well by the segment of the population (47%) that are currently receiving government benefits and paying no income taxes, and so there was no point in campaigning to those people to get them to change their vote. That's very different from saying he "writes them off" or "doesn't give a shit" about that segment of the population - he says he wants the number of Americans who are dependent on the government to shrink, but acknowledged that for this election cycle, there was no point in putting effort into persuading those people to vote for him. I think he's mostly right about that. He also made some general remarks about the 'dependent class' type of people who abuse the generosity of the various entitlement programs to avoid taking "personal responsibility and care for their lives." He's right that such people exist, and in large numbers, but it was wrong to attribute those general arguments against the whole of the "47%" and he came back afterwards and said so.

I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.

 

[Lacius]

That said though, if all you're gonna use as sources for supporting your accusations re: Romney is barackobama.com and rachel maddow's blog, you're not likely to convince me.

Most, if not all, of the numerical data my sources provide that support the idea that Mitt Romney is a liar comes from nonpartisan sources like the Congressional Budget Office, a source you were perfectly willing to cite when you thought it supported your point of view. If you remain unconvinced, it's either because a.) You have nonpartisan evidence to the contrary that I (and people like me) have yet to see, or b.) You aren't being objective. Sorry to be blunt, bro.

That whole "5 trillion dollar tax cut" thing, for instance, is flat bogus, but Obama's campaign keeps beating on it like a drum. Besides the fact that the 5 trillion number is based on extending his proposed tax cuts over 10 years (he can only be president a max of 8 years)

Ignoring what you claim would offset that $5 trillion in tax breaks for a moment, it is accurate to say that Romney's tax plan would cut taxes by $5 trillion over ten years. While picking ten years to look at might be an arbitrary decision, it's still accurate. It doesn't matter if you pick four years, eight years, ten years, twenty years, etc. Romney's tax plan, if taken by percentages (20% tax rate decrease across the board) and what kinds of taxes he'd repeal (Alternative Minimum Tax, high-income payroll tax, estate tax, etc), causes a substantial decrease in yearly revenue. It just so happens that when you choose to look at it as ten years, it's a $5 trillion decrease in revenue, and these numbers are all from nonpartisan sources like the TPC.

You seem to be arguing that ten years is an unfair time span to look at since Romney can only be president for a maximum of eight years. Are you saying now that Romney's tax plan (a plan Republicans claim would work to both strengthen the economy and reduce the deficit) should only be temporary? You can argue one of two things: a.) That Romney's tax plan is a temporary stop-gap measure to help the economy that also worsens the deficit, which is why it would be temporary, or b.) That Romney's tax plan is something that both reduces the deficit and helps the economy, which is why it would be permanent. If you argue that ten years is an unfair time-span to look at, then you're arguing that it actually increases the deficit and that's why it's temporary.

the offset resulting from closing off deductions and loopholes currently enjoyed by the wealthy gets ignored.

You're absolutely correct that the topic of loopholes and deductions is ignored; it's ignored by Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has not offered a single loophole/deduction he would close. In fact, each specific loophole/deduction he's been asked about (as far as I'm aware) he's said he would not eliminate.

Using ten years as an example, because it's convenient for the math, Romney's tax cuts would decrease revenue by $5 trillion. This is a fact according to every reputable nonpartisan group that has looked into the matter, such as the TPC. Even if Romney eliminates all tax benefits for the wealthy, corporate tax benefits, and middle class tax benefits, he still has a net reduction in revenue of $1 trillion, and this is ignoring the fact that he's already said that he wouldn't end many of these deductions.

So for those of you keeping track at home: $5 trillion - $4 trillion = $1 trillion in revenue loss, and that involves Romney going back on deductions he's said he wouldn't end. It should also be noted that without specifying a single loophole or deduction that he would close, it's unfair to take anything away from that $5 trillion in revenue reduction for the time being. But moving on:

Is it not possible that the positive effects on the economy over 10 years time couldn't offset that remaining 1 trillion???

There are a few problems with this. First of all, Romney arbitrarily claims that he would create 7 million jobs from the tax breaks, but there is no evidence to back this up. In fact, the study Romney cites assumes that the tax breaks are already completely paid for and that the tax breaks are enacted when the economy is already at full employment. Economists agree that in a perfect economy, tax breaks are good for the economy; in a perfect supply-demand environment, tax breaks have the potential to allow businesses to increase product and labor, thus stimulating the economy more. However, in a poor economy, tax breaks for the wealthy do not do much to stimulate the economy, as I've already mentioned more times than I think I should have needed to. If you're a businessman and the poor economy has caused demand for your product to go down, your tax breaks are not going to incentivize you to hire more workers or buy more product when demand for the product is still low due to the poor economy; to stimulate a poor economy, you need to give money to people who need to spend it (like giving food stamps to people who are going to use that money ASAP) and increase employment through infrastructure spending like bridge-building, etc. This is the same principle that helped us get out of the Great Depression (World War II was one of the best forms of stimulus spending).

You're second problem is that we already have a deficit due to existing Bush tax cuts, less revenue coming in due to the recession, etc. Hypothetically, if there were any economic gains from Romney's tax cuts, which all the evidence says would be minimal at best, the increased revenue from people now having jobs or getting paid more would just go to fill in that part of the deficit that appeared when the recession hit in the first place and is irrelevant when talking about Romney's new additions to the deficit. It should also be noted that the economy is already on track to create around as many jobs Romney is claiming to be able to create anyway, which means that portion of the deficit we're talking about caused by people being out of work and not paying as many taxes is irrelevant when talking about Romney's policies.

Your third problem is that Romney wants to increase military spending by $2 trillion without paying for it.

So for those of you still keeping track at home: $5 trillion - $4 trillion - $0 (something inconsequential) + $2 trillion = $3 trillion deficit increase, and that's giving Romney the benefit of the doubt when assuming a lot about the deductions/loopholes Romney would allegedly close. If, instead, you use the loopholes/deductions that Romney has specific said he would close:

$5 trillion - $0 (no loopholes/deductions mentioned) - $0 (no foreseeable affect on a poor economy, although it might have a minimal positive effect) + $2 trillion = $7 trillion added to the deficit.

Most of what I see called "Romney's lies" turn out to be disagreements over campaign promises and the expected effects of one policy vs. another, or mild distortions of statements he's made.

I think you might want to reread the pages I linked to, because saying things like that Obama has doubled the deficit, that Obamacare increases the deficit, or that Romney would create 12 million jobs in four years are blatant lies, not disagreements over campaign promises or expected effects of policies.

The 47 percent thing, for instance, is a glaring example - Romney said he wasn't going to worry about the 47% in his campaign strategy because his message of lower taxes and reducing dependency on government wasn't going to be received well by the segment of the population (47%) that are currently receiving government benefits and paying no income taxes, and so there was no point in campaigning to those people to get them to change their vote. That's very different from saying he "writes them off" or "doesn't give a shit" about that segment of the population

First of all, I don't think anyone significant has said that Romney used the words "doesn't give a shit."

Second, Romney said, "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," and that his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Ignoring for a second that I have no idea what you're getting at, have fun attempting to spin that.

I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.

As I've already mentioned, there's a huge difference between embellishment and lying, and there is overwhelming evidence showing that Romney is a boldfaced liar. I refer you to my previous posts.

 

[DiscostewSM]

But I like ketchup.

 

[Hanafuda]

But I like ketchup.

Then vote for change, cuz the last 4 years all you've gotten on that bread is shit.

 

[retKHAAAN]

LMAO at the people who actually waste their time trying to disect each candidate's every word...

Politics is a sport, and shitty one at that. It's like taking the shit talking before a boxing match or mma fight and naming the winner the person you think might actually be able to do what they claim they're going to do...without there actually being a fight... All they do is nitpick at each other like smarmy douchebags and you people fall for it. Are you Team Edward or Team Jacob? Silly humans...

Vote for your party, not your "candidate". Vote based on your economical beliefs or even, I can't believe I'm saying this, your stances on social issues.

One person didn't fuck up the economy on their own and it's not on one person to fix it. It's just easier to say "Bush/Obama ruined American" than it is to take any responsibility on yourself or recognize that blame falls on the ones who live outside their means and the trash that abuse government programs because they're too lazy to get off their asses and do something for themselves.

 

[The Catboy]

But I like ketchup.

Then vote for change, cuz the last 4 years all you've gotten on that bread is shit.

I prefer voting for progress instead of voting to send America backwards. Change shouldn't be about using the same tactics that have been tried over and over again and never worked, it should be about progression.
Mitt's campaign only promises to bring back the same crap that got us into this mess. That's not change, that's just the same shit different day. Not to mention attempting drag our culture back into the dark ages.
Obama may not be the best president we've had, but look what he as left with? He was left with Bush's mess, which is appears no one seems to remember just how bad that really was. The man has brought us forward though and has helped our country the best he can in those 4 years, there is no need to go right back to the same thing that brought us into that mess.

 

[Gahars]

But I like ketchup.

Then vote for change, cuz the last 4 years all you've gotten on that bread is shit.

I think your metaphor got messed up somewhere along the way.

 

[KingVamp]

So, not only is he trying say Romney numerous on the whim lies is comparable to Obama, but he trying to defend the 47% comment?
Wow...just...wow...

 

[leic7]

I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.

Well, not all opinions are created equal. When two sides disagree with each other, both sides don't necessarily have equally valid points. The problem with Romney's tax plan (one of the more memorable "lies") is this: one side says "1-1=1 and yes, the math absolutely works", and the other side says "No, the math doesn't work". That's not just a disagreement...one of them is actually more right than the other.

Since neither Romney nor Ryan could offer any specifics about their tax plan, I'd like to pose this question to you (or someone like you), someone who apparently supports the plan (and presumably knows what exactly they're supporting): Will the effective tax rates for the wealthy be higher, lower, or the same, after the 20% tax cut and the closing of loopholes and deductions?

 

[Hanafuda]

I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.

Well, not all opinions are created equal. When two sides disagree with each other, both sides don't necessarily have equally valid points. The problem with Romney's tax plan (one of the more memorable "lies") is this: one side says "1-1=1 and yes, the math absolutely works", and the other side says "No, the math doesn't work". That's not just a disagreement...one of them is actually more right than the other.

Since neither Romney nor Ryan could offer any specifics about their tax plan, I'd like to pose this question to you (or someone like you), someone who apparently supports the plan (and presumably knows what exactly they're supporting): Will the effective tax rates for the wealthy be higher, lower, or the same, after the 20% tax cut and the closing of loopholes and deductions?

Dude, I would in all seriousness cast my vote for Vermin Supreme before I voted to re-elect Obama. And as for "specifics" I know better than get all twisted up over such things because once any "plan" gets run through the congressional meat grinder it's not even recognizable anymore. So, I'm just going with the "dark ages", apparently.

 

[KingVamp]

At least Obama has a plan, so when it goes through the "meat grinder", it can actually be used unlike Mitt's "plan".

 

[Jan1tor]

Though I do not agree with everything Romney says I'll be voting for him. The company I work for has been in business since 1917 and we have had our ups and downs. I have been there 35 years myself. We just laid off 8 people and reduced the others hours to 32 hours. The last time we had a layoff was hmmm 4 years ago. Things got a little better in the hopes of better government, but we are on the slide back down. The economy isn't getting any better, it is getting worse. The oil pipe line helps our business and we are tired of waiting. We are a tooling manufacture and have been forced to buy overseas steel because with the unfair trade we can't afford to buy American steel anymore. (the overseas steel is crap compared to the U.S. steel we used to use). This also hurts us because then our product isn't as good as it shoud be. We can say the raises we have gotten over the last 3 years is really a bust because insurance, gas, and the general economy have risen more than the wage. The current system ISN'T working. They asked for change, they got it. If I could change halfway back I'd be happy. As for GM the only reason they are doing better is because the Government buys a significant amount of their cars. I drove an American car all my life till 4 years ago. I'd never buy another American car again after buying my Toyota Camry Hybrid. Best car I ever owned and I have owned a LOT of American cars. So sorry if annoys anyone, I'm giving Romney a shot.