Forum Index » Chaff » Romney/Ryan 2012


Display Avatars Sort By:
Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
jerry on 10/04/2012 16:07:40 MDT Print View

Yep. You admitted it. And most sources immediately afterwars as well.

But the tune shifted quickly. Quite quickly the left commentators started making excuses. Time, Elevation, Lies!!!

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
rope a dope on 10/04/2012 16:09:45 MDT Print View

Well I consider Obama the dope... :)

But i figure obama will bounce back somewhat. But he can't run on his record so I gues he can only sling mud.

And nobody noticed Gary Johnson not there because he isn't a viable candidate. The left only wishes he was there so he could take away a bit of Romeny's base.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
GS on 10/04/2012 16:16:15 MDT Print View

Investment banks got into trouble by buying and holding AAA-rated Mortgage Backed Securities. Let that sink in.

And again the consolidation was already taking place. The firewall provided by GS between securities and insured deposits was not the issue.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
GS on 10/04/2012 16:19:25 MDT Print View

Packaged RE debt is sold all the time.

R K
(oiboyroi) - M

Locale: South West US
Re: ironic on 10/04/2012 16:46:23 MDT Print View

@Michael,

I admit the left is acting sore about it. Everyone had high hopes for the President. I know better than to trust any politician but if they're going to pull the wool over my eyes, at least make a good effort at it. Mr. Romney was just too obvious.

Another list of misrepresentations:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=nc

Edit: Gary's not viable? Crap argument. He's on the ballot, so why was he not allowed to debate? People might have liked what he has to say. I for one have noticed a lot more chatter about third parties since they're fed up with Dems and Reps. I don't support him personally, but he should have been allowed to debate. Options are always good.

Edited by oiboyroi on 10/04/2012 17:41:52 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: GS on 10/04/2012 16:53:39 MDT Print View

I think a big part of the problem was the large number of derivatives.

Highly leveraged - if the value of the mortgages go down a little, the derivatives lose all their value.

And people that bought derivatives didn't understand what they were buying.

And they split up the mortgages into several "tranches" some were supposed to be less risky, but then they all became worthless. I think this was some of your "AAA" investments.

It's all way too complicated and the bankers were making huge bonuses that motivated them to mis-represent the derivatives.

Somehow, from 1940 or whatever, after the great depression, to 2000, there were very few bank failures except when they deregulated Saving and Loans which caused a bunch of bankruptcies. At least in that case they criminally prosecuted a bunch of people.

But, there is an evil genious to deregulating banks, which causes bank failures, and then claim the problem was that they didn't deregulate enough.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Regulated on 10/04/2012 17:18:35 MDT Print View

Jerry

I don't know of anyone that wants the complete absence of regulation in securities and banking markets. We don't have to go back far to find unethical, illegal, greedy, asshats that should have been hung from the nearest tree, when left to their own policies. The problem is the complexity and cost of a system in place today that is absolutely worthless. The fact that people are asking for more of it, is a little revealing.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Regulated on 10/04/2012 17:30:21 MDT Print View

"The problem is the complexity and cost of a system in place today that is absolutely worthless."

Unfortunately, we have the best government money can buy so the regulations are pretty screwy. I think we've come to another agreement.

One thing would be to make political contributions (bribes) illegal, including third parties buying ads.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife
Re: Romney/Ryan 2012 on 10/04/2012 18:03:10 MDT Print View

tthread

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Re: ironic on 10/04/2012 18:43:49 MDT Print View

Yeah. I'm going to go with thinkprogress. I notice they have a headline with Romney's breakdown but not Obama... Completely onesided - enough said.

There are plenty of places to go for misrepresentations for BOTH sides.

Gary is not viable? Do you disagree? This is far from the first time other candidates have been excluded. Where do you want to draw the line?

Why are you not crying for Jill Stein? Or is it just because you want the one other candidate to steal Republican votes and not the one that would take Dem votes?

R K
(oiboyroi) - M

Locale: South West US
Re: Re: Re: ironic on 10/04/2012 19:52:44 MDT Print View

Well of course its one sided, Michael, I'm not going to do your arguing for you. I agree there are both sides are misrepresenting. It just seems like Romney does it more often and blatantly. It's as if he thinks no one will notice. If you find an article about Obama misrepresenting at last nights debate, I will read it and consider it.

They estimate Gary to get 6% or more of the popular vote. That's a decent chunk of votes IMO. Electoral votes not so much but Romney isn't doing well there either.

I think if they are on the ballot, they should debate. I hadn't mentioned Jill Stein because I hadn't heard of her, honestly. Thanks for pointing her out.

EDIT: Good point Ken. I

Edited by oiboyroi on 10/04/2012 19:55:25 MDT.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Re: Re: Re: ironic on 10/04/2012 21:54:12 MDT Print View

Ken's just bitter about MLIFE and can't shake it.

I don't need to do you to do my work because I (unlike you) have already read the breakdown on who bent the truth and how much. Also, I read the ones on the left of middle press like CBS, MSNBC, so as to get a different view. So of course I'm going to criticize you when you dig up a blatantly biased site. Go use FactCheck.org. They are nonpartisan and give a good view of BOTH sides lies.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife
Re: ironic on 10/04/2012 22:56:30 MDT Print View

2220

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ironic on 10/04/2012 23:44:53 MDT Print View

factcheck.org - I agree, fairly objective:

■Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.

disagree with factcheck - Romney did propose $5 trillion tax cut - and also $5 trillion offsets - analysis says it will be difficult to come up with that but Romney just says trust me but no details

■Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
■Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.

okay - good point - Obama should have said "costs" not "premiums" - and the president always gets blamed and given credit for stuff he has no effect over

■Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
■Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.

4.6 million, 5 million, whatever... is that all they can come up with?

■Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
■Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.

factcheck just agreed with Obama - plus the health care tax but Obama wasn't talking about that - I wonder how much that is

■Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
■Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.

Why shouldn't the deficit reduction include what's saved from winding down the wars - that's a big part of why we have a deficit

Seems like factcheck is bending over backwards trying to find Obama "lies"

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Wow on 10/05/2012 01:12:48 MDT Print View

Stop spinning. You pulled bullet points and ignored the larger breakdown. They explain several of the things you just don't like.

For example obamas 5 trillion tax cut allegation. Obamas side is extrapolating over 10 years. Romney's side and several think tanks disagree with the calculation.

I could elaborate but ill let people read on their own.



I will agree that Romney was more exposed for criticism though. Of course he would be because he actually said something other than meaningless blather like the other guy.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Wow on 10/05/2012 07:37:57 MDT Print View

"For example obamas 5 trillion tax cut allegation. Obamas side is extrapolating over 10 years. Romney's side and several think tanks disagree with the calculation."

factcheck agreed with 5 trillion - you're the one that identified factcheck as objective

factcheck just objected that Obama didn't mention that there were also 5 trillion of offsets

that's not lieing, and it's not even ommision - presumably Obama was going to debate the offsets which just isn't possible. Romney just denied that he ever proposed 5 trillion of tax cuts which factcheck said was a lie.


"I will agree that Romney was more exposed for criticism though."

Ah ha - we agree again - Romney is a liar - but you want to sugar coat it


"Of course he would be because he actually said something other than meaningless blather like the other guy."

Romney is much less specific. And he changes from day to day as he thinks will get him elected.

And come one, you can say it, "President Obama" : )


Actually, you have said some reasonable things on this thread, as opposed to the Republicans who define "truth" as whatever they think will get them elected. I don't know why you have blinded yourself to this. You're close to admitting it though...

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Re: Wow on 10/05/2012 07:59:12 MDT Print View

No factcheck agreed that if you follow obamas math you can get to 5 trillion


Romney proposed about. 486 billion I think. By obamas fuzzy thinking he could have argued it was 20 trillion if he spread it over 40 years! Fact check explained this in detail below the simple bullet points. And Romney doesn't even agree with that number as his side feels revenues will increase.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Wow on 10/05/2012 08:25:32 MDT Print View

10 years seems to be a common period to project federal expenses - Rs, Ds, CBO,... do this

Romney said he's going to cut taxes 20%. It's a pretty straightforward calculation that in 10 years there'll be about $25 Trillion of taxes - 20% is $5 trillion - this is just a rough calculation

Arguing that this isn't calculated correctly is just distraction from the fact that Romney will say anything to get elected.

Romney says he has a secret plan to offset this with loophole elimination but won't tell us any details

That's like Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war - just B.S. to get elected

I see it now - Romney will cut taxes 20%, have "a plan" to cut loopholes by the same amount but they'll never agree on it so the only thing that gets passed is the cuts.

Then they'll say "we're broke! we have to eliminate social security and medicare"

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: Romney/Ryan on 10/05/2012 10:21:41 MDT Print View

For your viewing pleasure, and a bit of a laugh.

Not getting into the debates. Carry on!

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Lying? on 10/05/2012 10:33:14 MDT Print View

Jerry

I saw 5 minutes of the debate and you sound like Barrak Hussein himself. Romney said he has a general plan, an outline if you will, ex., to cut taxes and simplify some deductions, to simplify the tax code, to be ironed out by congress, jacked with and voted on. The appointed one states: He's being secret, he doesn't have a plan, he won't tell us how he's going to do it, what's he hiding, whats up his sleeve, we should be scared of the unknown, blah blah blah. Really? I was 4 minutes into it and I don't know how many times he repeated himself. Debate default failure. Sad too that a guy that has been on the job, in the hot seat for almost four years, is given a poor grade due to lack of prep time? His handicap is improving however.

You understand too, that a tax rate can be reduced and revenues to the fed can actually increase, yes? Like a business can reduce it's prices but ACTUALLY increase profits. Yes?
It can actually happen, it's been done before, and that kinda makes it not a lie. Once again, TURN OFF PMSNBC, and quit repeating the "squirrel is tingling my leg" guy or the "mad at the world" woman(?), Rachel Maddow. Do a truth check on that hussie for grins. :-)

Edited by BFThorp on 10/05/2012 10:38:11 MDT.