Here is the correct link to the Rolling Stone piece: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20121004

Actually, Romney told a staggering number of fibs at the debate: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/ ... ?mobile=nc

While Obama's performance was weak, Romney is going to take a huge hit from these lies. Before he was a flip-flopper--now he is just a liar.

I don't blame you for not trying to respond--clearly Romney was trying to tack towards the center so he just started just making stuff up. 27 lies in 38 minutes! That is got to be a record. But, really, he has to lie to win so there you go...

danivon wrote: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?

I'm not defending what you can't even accurately estimate.

Did you read/listen to what he actually said? He said he's going to cut the rates and that it is going to be revenue-neutral. What part of that do you not understand?

If you think it's impossible, don't vote for him. Oh wait . . .

freeman2 wrote:Here is the correct link to the Rolling Stone piece: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20121004

Er, thanks.

I already quoted from the article, which is more than you bothered to do.

Actually, Romney told a staggering number of fibs at the debate: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/ ... ?mobile=nc

Let's make a deal: if I can disprove one, will you shut up?

If not, then why don't you try disproving the lies I've already cited that Obama told?

While Obama's performance was weak, Romney is going to take a huge hit from these lies. Before he was a flip-flopper--now he is just a liar.

Right, this from the "honest" campaign--the one which already accused Romney of murder?

I don't blame you for not trying to respond--clearly Romney was trying to tack towards the center so he just started just making stuff up. 27 lies in 38 minutes! That is got to be a record. But, really, he has to lie to win so there you go...

Obama has been lying since he came into office.

Here, have some Obamalies: http://www.gop.com/news/research/12-oba ... -counting/

Yeah that is Romney's plan--lie but accuse Obama of lying. Not even close. Have you heard Romney's "trickle-down government" line? He keeps using it--you know why? Because his program is trickle-down economics and he is trying to deflect that attack by causing linguistic confusion with his "trickle-down government" line. The line does not even make sense. He even said before the debate that he had to worry about Obama getting loose with the facts and in the debate made some statements to that effect too--meanwhile he was Nixon-like in his level of dishonesty at the debate. The man clearly has no conscience when it comes to lying.

I looked at those supposed 12 lies of Obama. "Social Security is structurally sound but it needs to be tweaked" is one example. How can that be a lie--it is too general a statement to be a lie. ? "Five million jobs created in the private sector". This was a true statement. Using a true statement to deceive, that is a new one. The other supposed lies are in the same vein. Whereas Romney's lies are for example "U.S companies don't get tax breaks for going overseas." Or "my plan covers pre-existing condtiions" or insurance companies will cover your child (Obama's plan raised it from 23 to 26).

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm not defending what you can't even accurately estimate.

Huh? I used the figure from your own source (a HotAir article) for the deductions that are being ignored. My projection was based on an assumption the increased tax take from them would grow faster than inflation, and then I rounded up, and came up with a figure of about 12% of the alleged gap.

Clearly there's more to it than the deductions, right?

Did you read/listen to what he actually said? He said he's going to cut the rates and that it is going to be revenue-neutral. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand it. The question is where is the evidence to back his assertion up? How can I 'research' something as vague as that anyway? The devil is in the detail, and given that Romney has been planning this run since his last one ended in a loss to McCain, I'm wondering why a month from the election the detail is so lacking.

freeman2 wrote:Yeah that is Romney's plan--lie but accuse Obama of lying. Not even close. Have you heard Romney's "trickle-down government" line? He keeps using it--you know why?

Because it's true. Obama believes government is the solution. One might have thought that the "brilliant" results of his stimulus would have cured him. Remember his line about "shovel ready jobs not being as shovel ready as we thought?" Well done, Mr. President!

Because his program is trickle-down economics and he is trying to deflect that attack by causing linguistic confusion with his "trickle-down government" line.

Rubbish. "Trickle-down economics" would be giving the rich an actual cut. He's not and he said he's not.

Obama's message is "The government needs more money." He recently called it "economic patriotism." He has said he wants to spread the wealth around and his VP recently admitted they want to raise taxes $1T. Where is that coming from? Not simply by going to the Clinton rates.

The man clearly has no conscience when it comes to lying.

Obama does?

He would not even directly retract the ad that accuses Romney of murder.

I looked at those supposed 12 lies of Obama. "Social Security is structurally sound but it needs to be tweaked" is one example. How can that be a lie--it is too general a statement to be a lie.

Is it "structurally sound?" What are his proposed "tweaks?"

"Five million jobs created in the private sector". This was a true statement.

In terms of net jobs? From the link I provided:

“He claimed 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector in the past 30 months; that statistic tries to obscure the fact that the overall job record so far in this presidential term has been negative.” (Glenn Kessler, “Fact Check: Obama’s Jobs Stat,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, 10/3/12)

Using a true statement to deceive, that is a new one.

If you can't be bothered to read something, just say so. Something isn't false just because you refuse to read. I added bold to help you.

The other supposed lies are in the same vein.

Because you say so? There are actual facts under the allegations. Try disproving them instead of covering your eyes and ears.

Whereas Romney's lies are for example "U.S companies don't get tax breaks for going overseas."

Source?

Or "my plan covers pre-existing condtiions"

I've already said this is debatable, but we won't really know until Obamacare is repealed.

or insurance companies will cover your child (Obama's plan raised it from 23 to 26).

Not sure this was in the debate, but I reject the idea anyway. You can drink at 21, but your mommy and daddy need to provide you health insurance? You can have an abortion without consent 10-13 years earlier (depending on the State), but your ma and pa need to pay your freight until you're 26? Ridiculous.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm not defending what you can't even accurately estimate.

Huh? I used the figure from your own source (a HotAir article) for the deductions that are being ignored. My projection was based on an assumption the increased tax take from them would grow faster than inflation, and then I rounded up, and came up with a figure of about 12% of the alleged gap.

Clearly there's more to it than the deductions, right?

Let me help you, because I'm a giver. This is what I cited, but I cut it down so maybe you would see how you are reading it incorrectly.

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.

So, the citation is critical of the TPC study and is pointing out its errors. There are two tax expenditures worth $45B each annually, which it missed. Also, those aren't the only ones that are included in the calculations--those are just the ones they missed.

Hopefully, I've helped you understand your reading errors.

I understand it. The question is where is the evidence to back his assertion up? How can I 'research' something as vague as that anyway? The devil is in the detail, and given that Romney has been planning this run since his last one ended in a loss to McCain, I'm wondering why a month from the election the detail is so lacking.

He explained that too. I'm not going to waste my time walking you through it. One 1-800-helpmee a day is plenty.

First of all, DF, your site says that Obama's claim of five million jobs created in the past 30 months obscures the fact that the overall job record in this presidential term has been negative. Read that statement carefully. They are indicating that the statement that Obama's claim of five million private sector jobs created over past 30 months is correct (or why not just say that it is not correct?) It is not a lie for Obama to claim that there five million private sector jobs created in the past 30 months; if you want you can point that it is is a different picture if you look at the whole four years, but you can't call him a liar.

As for saying that the other alleged facts are in the same vein: (1) you're the one who only wanted to tackle one fact out of 27, (2) I talked about two of them and showed those are ridiculous assertions, and (3) I am not going to waste my time refuting all of the facts in writing but none of the alleged miscues looked significant, and (4) if you're site has any credibility it would not put any supposed lies that are easily refutable. You want me to refute a couple of more I will do so.

Whether social security is structurally sound or not is a matter of opinion and you can't call someone a liar for an opinion. And he also added the caveat that it needed some tweaks. You can demand more specificity perhaps or a definition of what "structurally sound" is but you can't say Obama lied.

With regard to the tax cuts for moving jobs overseas see

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/ge ... position=3

And finally on the pre-existing plan and keeping children on the family plan here is an excerpt from the debate:

"Well, actually it's -- it's -- it's a lengthy description. But, number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That's already offered in the private marketplace. You don't have to have the government mandate that for that to occur."

See http://www.policymic.com/articles/15875 ... ial-debate

Sorry, DF, but the sentence you highlighted is ambiguous, it does not say 'each', and it does not say combined.

However, I looked at a different HotAir article (one linked to in your one with reference to the $45bn deductions), and there they only use $45bn once. Also, the TPC report that is the source for this also says that the combined effect is $45bn - there is a claim of $90bn, but they show that some is in corporate tax which they already accounted for, some will be lost due to the rate cut, and some would have to be imposed on the middle class, leaving $45bn.

Don't vote for Romney then. Vote for the man who flouts the Constitution.

Latest edition: offering government money to corporations so they won't comply with the WARN Act and send out layoff notices.

Anyone willing to see knows that Obama and his Administration have done little but lie, deceive, and fail.

I'll address you individually when it's convenient.

freeman2 wrote:First of all, DF, your site says that Obama's claim of five million jobs created in the past 30 months obscures the fact that the overall job record in this presidential term has been negative. Read that statement carefully. They are indicating that the statement that Obama's claim of five million private sector jobs created over past 30 months is correct (or why not just say that it is not correct?)

They're citing that "right-winger," Glenn Kessler. Obscuring the truth may not be a lie to you, but it sure ain't the truth.

As for saying that the other alleged facts are in the same vein: (1) you're the one who only wanted to tackle one fact out of 27, (2) I talked about two of them and showed those are ridiculous assertions,

You haven't "shown" anything. You've asserted. Look up the difference between "opinion" and "fact." The GOP list cites actual facts and sources. Refute them.

and (3) I am not going to waste my time refuting all of the facts in writing but none of the alleged miscues looked significant,

To someone who would vote for Obama no matter what he did.

and (4) if you're site has any credibility it would not put any supposed lies that are easily refutable. You want me to refute a couple of more I will do so.

You haven't done one yet.

On the other hand, I offered to refute one of the 27 "lies" you claimed if you'd just stop prattling on, but you declined.

Look, what happens in debates when one side gets schooled: the supporters of the loser (in this case, that would be your Man, Obama) make excuses and whine that the other guy wasn't fair.

Obama lost. If Romney distorted the truth, why couldn't Obama, allegedly the most brilliant man ever to be President, figure that out and say it within the confines of 90 minutes? Romney called Obama on at least one distortion that I recall, why couldn't the almighty Obama do it?

Whether social security is structurally sound or not is a matter of opinion and you can't call someone a liar for an opinion.

Sure you can when he knows better, as he surely does.

And he also added the caveat that it needed some tweaks. You can demand more specificity perhaps or a definition of what "structurally sound" is but you can't say Obama lied.

No, he lied. If he announced his "tweaks" (I doubt he's ever sat down and thought about them), they would not be "tweaks." Social Security needs some substantial changes.

With regard to the tax cuts for moving jobs overseas see

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/ge ... position=3

Did you read YOUR OWN link? I doubt it.

It is NOTHING like evidence, proof, or even conjecture that Romney lied about this issue.

That's just pathetic.

"Well, actually it's -- it's -- it's a lengthy description. But, number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That's already offered in the private marketplace. You don't have to have the government mandate that for that to occur."

See http://www.policymic.com/articles/15875 ... ial-debate

Okay, he said it. It doesn't mean it's not true. You've cited no evidence for that. Now, it may not be true, but you've certainly not proved it.

In any event, Obamacare is still not popular. It costs too much, covers too few, and is only "good" to socialists who see it as a step toward State-provided healthcare.

danivon wrote:Sorry, DF, but the sentence you highlighted is ambiguous, it does not say 'each', and it does not say combined.

However, I looked at a different HotAir article (one linked to in your one with reference to the $45bn deductions), and there they only use $45bn once. Also, the TPC report that is the source for this also says that the combined effect is $45bn - there is a claim of $90bn, but they show that some is in corporate tax which they already accounted for, some will be lost due to the rate cut, and some would have to be imposed on the middle class, leaving $45bn.

First, thanks for not providing a link.

Second, again, if the man says it's going to be revenue neutral, AND that he will veto any bill that raises taxes on the middle class, which he has, I'm going to take him at his word. Why? Because the last first-term President who lied about raising taxes didn't do too well.

You're right DF--Romney will probably not close middle-loopholes but he will raise the deficit several trillion dollars with his tax plan. Just be honest about it. he could say my tax plan will cost five trillion dollars but we will see some part of that back in taxes created by economic growth and we need it right now to stimulate the economy. That would be a honest plan and people could debate it. But Romney is trying to square the circle (my plan is revenue neutral, and I will make it revenue neutral with some un-named loopholes, and I won't raise taxes on the middle-class by closing the mortgage interest deduction--impossible). I'll tell you what--I'll believe him if he offers to resign if his plan turns out not to be revenue neutral.

I'm not going to continue to argue about Romney's lies, you're never going to concede and I have made my points but clearly Romney was trying to deceive voters into thinking that the already popular parts of Obamacare (coverage for pre-existing conditions and extending coverage to children from 23 to 26 on a parent's plan) would be no different under his administration. You should know that, and if you're pretending not to understand then I am not going to waste my time looking for sources and if you don't know, well, there is google.

And, yes, Obama should have called Romney on his lies. I think Obama's team did not want Obama attacking Romney (with a decent lead they did not want to take any chances) and so Obama was not ready to deal with the whoppers Romeny was telling. We'll see what happens in the next debate.

You need a wah-mbulance.

You persist on distorting the tax cut amount. Even the reflexive-liar, Cutter, admitted that, eventually.

Obama can't win against his opponent because it is his own record.