Doctor Fate wrote:Okay, now, if this doesn't tell you what a biased, nonsensical outfit the NYT is, nothing will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opini ... cv8Tl68bwQ

Got to agree with you. I was pretty shocked when I read that editorial and one thing I am NOT naive about is the NYT's bent. That ed. was crazy-skewed even for them.

Purple wrote:Amount of distortion/lying: not huge and about even.

After reading enough post-debate reportage, I have to retract this statement of initial impression. In Romney's strategic veer to the center he seems to have played a lot more games with truth than Pres. Obama.

Purple wrote:

Purple wrote:Amount of distortion/lying: not huge and about even.

After reading enough post-debate reportage, I have to retract this statement of initial impression. In Romney's strategic veer to the center he seems to have played a lot more games with truth than Pres. Obama.

I understand. The unbiased news media convinced you.

Ok DF debunk the "biased" media's reporting of Romney's lies.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... 0121004urr

I think that is pretty condescending of you to say that Purple, a smart guy who appears to be a centrist, would just buy whatever the "liberal" media is telling him.

I've been reading the biased news for a very long time, DF. I know how to read it.

Purple wrote:

Purple wrote:Amount of distortion/lying: not huge and about even.

After reading enough post-debate reportage, I have to retract this statement of initial impression. In Romney's strategic veer to the center he seems to have played a lot more games with truth than Pres. Obama.

I'd be interested in what made you change your mind.

freeman2 wrote:Ok DF debunk the "biased" media's reporting of Romney's lies.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... 0121004urr

Page not found. I looked it up.

But, because I'm a nice guy, sure, I'll help. I actually look around, instead of lazily just accepting Rolling Stone.

1. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut."

Interestingly, Stephanie Cutter acknowledged as much.

From the same link:

If you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class,” Obama said. “It’s — it’s math. It’s arithmetic.”

Obama was basing his claim on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. But there are at least three critical flaws the the TPC study: (1) it assumes pro-growth tax reform can’t actually produce economic growth, (2) it assumes two tax expenditures worth $45 billion per year are not ‘on the table’, and (3) it assumes tax reform must pay for repealing Obamacare’s tax hikes, rather than assuming that the repeal of Obamacare’s spending will pay for repealing the tax hikes. If one corrects these erroneous assumptions, the math checks out.

As Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen writes, Romney’s plan would neither require a net tax hike on the middle class nor a tax reduction for the rich under “plausible” growth assumptions.*

So, "Lie #1" turns out not to be a lie at all.

2. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." Romney has claimed that he will pay for his tax cuts by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions. The factual problem? Romney hasn't named a single loophole he's willing to close . . .

"Lie #2" is not even remotely a lie. He said he's not going to lower the gross amount they pay. He even explained why he hasn't put all the details out at the debate. Contra Obama and Obamacare, he is going to set out a blueprint, listen to all the ideas and jigger the plan to make it work.

3. "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work."

Really? So, part-time workers who can't find full-time work aren't "unemployed?" That's a lie? Okay, tell you what: Obama should make that his re-elect message: "I've created an economy in which full-time workers can find part-time jobs!"

4. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have."

Here's what the President said at the debate about IPAB:

“Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do."

So, the board, not your doctor, "identifies best practices." Again, I don't think that qualifies as a "lie."

Back to RS:

5. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."

That may be untrue.

However, it is the one thing that most people really do like and would be the hardest to imagine getting rid of.

Interestingly, when I looked I saw crazy claims that Romney would leave "72 million without insurance." Why is that crazy? Because not even Obama claims to be covering that many. I don't believe there are 72 million Americans without insurance.

I think that is pretty condescending of you to say that Purple, a smart guy who appears to be a centrist, would just buy whatever the "liberal" media is telling him.

I'm not saying he's not smart. I am saying he offered zero reason. That's not condescending. It's truth.

Should we talk about Obama's lies? Or, do you want to pretend he was the victim of anything other than a feeble performance?

Purple wrote:I've been reading the biased news for a very long time, DF. I know how to read it.

Okay, well then, rather than act indignant, why not point to one or two articles that you found most helpful?

Lie# 1: What do mean the math checks out? Just like the "laffer" curve worked for Reagan. Ridiculous. Every time a Republican president cuts taxes he says he will offset it--they never do. That is why Reagan ran deficits, that is why Bush II ran deficits. The problem with Romney is because there is this current concern about deficits he has to be more deceptive than usual. It's a 20% cut that winds up costing the government 5 trilllion in ten years--do you dispute that figure? There "might" be an offset because of growth because of the tax cuts but it certainly will not close to five trillion dollars. And if Romney can't identify the loopholes you are going to cover, well, you have to be pretty darn naive to believe that he is going to actually find loopholes anywhere close to five trillion

Lie#2: He's not cutting taxes for the rich? Not only is there a 20% tax cut across the board, but he is planning on eliminating capital gains taxes and getting rid of the estate tax.

Lie#3: Since when has been part-time employed been classified as being out of work? If you are going to use that 23 million figure you have to clarify it and say it includes part-time workers who may be looking for more work. He did not do that.

Lie#4: A board looking for improved treatment options is not the same as someone controlling treatment.by a doctor. Deceptive at best.

Lie#5: You acknowledged this was a lie.

The simple question on the $5T figure is this:

"What would the extra growth need to be to make up that gap?"

If we see that figure, we can get an idea of how realistic it is to expect the policy to break even (let alone reduce the deficit).

danivon wrote:The simple question on the $5T figure is this:

"What would the extra growth need to be to make up that gap?"

If we see that figure, we can get an idea of how realistic it is to expect the policy to break even (let alone reduce the deficit).

No, wrong, false.

You completely neglect the reduction in deductions. Not even Obama's designated liar, Stephanie Cutter, did that.

freeman2 wrote:Lie# 1: What do mean the math checks out? Just like the "laffer" curve worked for Reagan. Ridiculous. Every time a Republican president cuts taxes he says he will offset it--they never do. That is why Reagan ran deficits, that is why Bush II ran deficits. The problem with Romney is because there is this current concern about deficits he has to be more deceptive than usual. It's a 20% cut that winds up costing the government 5 trilllion in ten years--do you dispute that figure? There "might" be an offset because of growth because of the tax cuts but it certainly will not close to five trillion dollars. And if Romney can't identify the loopholes you are going to cover, well, you have to be pretty darn naive to believe that he is going to actually find loopholes anywhere close to five trillion

Lie#2: He's not cutting taxes for the rich? Not only is there a 20% tax cut across the board, but he is planning on eliminating capital gains taxes and getting rid of the estate tax.

Lie#3: Since when has been part-time employed been classified as being out of work? If you are going to use that 23 million figure you have to clarify it and say it includes part-time workers who may be looking for more work. He did not do that.

Lie#4: A board looking for improved treatment options is not the same as someone controlling treatment.by a doctor. Deceptive at best.

Lie#5: You acknowledged this was a lie.

I'm not going to dignify your non-factual arguments with a response.

As to #5, I did not acknowledge that. I didn't find a source, other than the debate. Then again, I'm not going to spend hours.

So far, you've spent 5 seconds--linking to a bad link. So, thanks for your contribution.

I notice no one can be bothered to check out Obama's lies. Why is that?

Lie #1: when he came into office, he had a $1T deficit to deal with.

He signed a couple of spending bills after he took office. He likes to blame those on Bush, but Democrats didn't want to deal with Bush, so waited until Obama was sworn in.

He also loves to take credit for the auto bailout, but doesn't take the blame for the money Bush spent starting the bailout.

There are plenty of Obama lies, if you want to make this a character study.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:The simple question on the $5T figure is this:

"What would the extra growth need to be to make up that gap?"

If we see that figure, we can get an idea of how realistic it is to expect the policy to break even (let alone reduce the deficit).

No, wrong, false.

You completely neglect the reduction in deductions. Not even Obama's designated liar, Stephanie Cutter, did that.

Ok, a little bombastic, but let's concede there are deductions that come into play. How much of the $5T is made back in reducing deductions, and how much is a result of increased projected growth?

What are the 'plausible' growth projections that are used to make up the gap (to use the word of a 'Princeton economics professor')?

And what will the effect on economic growth be on extra tax on those who have deductions - or does the laffer curve only apply selectively?

danivon wrote:Ok, a little bombastic, but let's concede there are deductions that come into play. How much of the $5T is made back in reducing deductions, and how much is a result of increased projected growth?

What are the 'plausible' growth projections that are used to make up the gap (to use the word of a 'Princeton economics professor')?

And what will the effect on economic growth be on extra tax on those who have deductions - or does the laffer curve only apply selectively?

I'll look forward to your research.

Well, first off I'd start with need to know which deductions are in play. $45bn a year is the number being bandied about. Of course, while those deductions are not ruled out by Romney, I don't see that they are ruled in (otherwise Hot Air and others would point to where they are included). Still let's assume they are in, and that it grows by about 5% a year (faster than inflation), for the 10 years that this alleged $5T gap runs over.

I make that a total of $566bn. Let's round up to $600bn.

Where does the other $4.4tn come from?