Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

In A Cautious Debate Obama Gets The Points He Needed: Romney lied all night long and it will catch up to him quickly.

Like the first few rounds of a heavy weight fight, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama spent a cautious night together mostly dancing around each other. Each made their points, but not aggressively so.

Romney tried to be the aggressor but will have more tape that can be played against him the morning after.

Obama was the cautious champ, picking his moments and more concerned with overplaying his hand than winning every point in the first meeting.

Like Reagan’s cautious approach to the debates in 1984, Obama knows he is the president.

He has the votes where he needs them and he knows that it is more important to be true to those voters that hold the key to his re-election than to try to run up the score early to please his fans.

Anyone tuning in tonight to see the candidates go for broke was disappointed – and I think ultimately most people were disappointed – especially the reporters covering the race.

Obama did not win the night on its own, but that is not the job of an incumbent president with an electoral college lead.

Just like the selection of his running mate and just like the convention, Romney failed to deliver.

Romney’s aggressiveness may have produced the worst moment of the night for him – if Democrats recognize it and nail him on it.

Romney claimed to not know how anyone could not profit on their taxes for shipping jobs overseas. That is not only a lie, the benefit exists, but Romney reaped great financial rewards for doing just that.

He personally and repeatedly benefited from a tax law he denied existed.

The bigger problem for Romney is he defined himself to the American public as a politician that was not going to cut taxes for the rich, was going to cut taxes for the middle class, loves Medicare and supports popular government programs.

Wait till the truth catches up to Mitt Romney.

Alternately, Obama spent the evening being cautious. It was the right move. He was the president tonight. He defended his record and had the two best push back moments of the night.

First, as Romney denied his central campaign theme of delivering rate cuts to the wealthiest Americans, Obama rightly pointed out that Romney’s big idea was “never mind”.

Second, Obama dropped an excellent line when he questioned if Romney was keeping his plans secret because they were “too good” for the middle class.

Those are classic lines that will be replayed and underscore central themes of the president’s message and strategy.

Little that Romney said tonight was consistent with the campaign he has run for the last five years.

Obama made his points tonight without seeming shrill or arguing over a couple of minutes of time with the moderator like Romney.

Romney showed some of the annoyance he did during the GOP debates when he did not feel he got everything he was entitled to. Not a smart move on his part.

On easier targets like hitting Romney for talking about needing a new accountant or a clean shot to hit Romney on parking his money overseas – Obama passed. Again, It was the right move. The reward is not worth the risk. Surrogates will have endless hours to re-litigate the debate. They can deliver those zingers.

Romney did nothing to make himself more likable and he found no way to end the hemorrhaging of Hispanic voters, women or seniors.

It was on Medicare that Romney was weakest. That will not do for his campaign.

Obama boxed him in on vouchers and Romney’s return to a failed argument that Obama cut Medicare benefits is a loser.

Romney turned in the biggest flubs of the night. The first was when he said Americans don’t want Medicare. He meant to say Obamacare, but in the turn of a phrase Romney both seemed to reveal a truth about his philosophy about Medicare and elevate the Affordable Care Act to the program, along with Social Security, American voters feel most passionate about.

Romney must feel confident on the right because he embraced a bigger government and seemed to walk away from a commitment to cut taxes.

Those on the right worried about Romney playing the right wing have new reason to be worried tonight.

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 6:01 AM
Replies (111-120):
lga1965
by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 8:59 PM

 

Quoting GLWerth:

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Quoting futureshock:


Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:

Quoting futureshock:

I was getting so frustrated at the way Romney was spewing lies that I almost had to turn the channel.  The most frustrating were the lies about health care reform.




I had to take several breaks from watching last night. I was so frustrated.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. :)

Yeah-You gals were not alone.

I was looking forward to a debate. But if lies and dodging answers is winning apparently it isn't a debate but a soundbite contest.

I was right there with you. How do you answer someone who has no connection to actual reality? But, you have to give it to Romney, he lies aggressively and as if even he believes his lies. Just like a textbook sociopath.

If Obama had responded aggressively, he'd be the "angry black man" this morning.

 Exactly!  I think he showed restraint and he remained calm in the face of the fiction Romney spewed. I couldn't watch most of it.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 2:42 AM

No no one needs to pay me to tell the truth.

Quoting asfriend:

I dunno what the truth team is paying you, but they are definitely getting a loyal soldier.


Quoting brookiecookie87:

You are right. Her post was completely false and it is why I corrected her.



Quoting asfriend:

a completely false post, broken up into little segments, you've outdone yourself.





Quoting brookiecookie87:




Quote:

How raising taxes on small business and middle income earners will stifle the economy, not help it grow.
Except Obama does not plan to raise taxes on small business owners. He wants to raise it on people in the upper tiers yes-Not small business owners.

You might be confused with Mitt Romney who is proposing a plan that will raise taxes on middle class americans (according to non-partisan tax centers).


Quote:



That Obama had 4 years to tackle Simpson-Bowles, and instead of addressing a critical deficit reduction plan, pursued Obamacare, without a bipartisan support in Congress.
Republicans had no interest in doing anything with bipartisan supporting during that time. What Republicans wanted was there way or no way-Hence it being done without their support.




Quote:

Romney points out that Obama is wrong to say that Romney's plan is a repeat of the past, Romney says that it is different because, along with bringing down rates to raise revenue it will also bring down deductions, exemptions, and credits to help keep net revenue intact.
Except Mitt Romney doesn't specify which exemptions, deductions, or credits will be removed. It's a secret that he isn't willing to share with anyone. And until he releases those secrets there is no way to speculate what his tax plan will actually do. Because non-partisan tax groups are saying that his plan WILL increase the tax burden on the middle class. But since Romney isn't releasing the details he can claim, "Nope won't happen-We have a secret idea that fixes everything don't worry about it".





Quote:


Romney says that with Obama's 716 billion Medicare reduciton, 15% of hospitals and nursing homes and 50% of doctors say they will have to stop taking Medicare patients.  And 4 million seniors will lose Medicare Advantage with Obama's plan.
Is this oppose to the 50 some million who will lose Medicare if Obama is rejected?




Quote:

Romney points out how Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, but infact doubled it, thereby increasing the moral hazard of continuing to run yearly trillion-dollar deficits while having to borrow from China to do so.
I imagine it would have been interesting to see what happened during the recession if President Obama did not pump money into it. But I am not sure the risk of spiralling downward into a great depression would be worth it to find out.

I thought the Fear mongering with China was a bit over the top. We will cut programs we don't deam worth borrowing from China for? Which Programs? Again Mitt Romney keeps it a secret.



Quote:


That while Obama wants to eliminate the 2.8 billion that goes to oil companies like Exxon-Mobil, Romney pointed out that a large part of that goes to drilling operators, not "Big Oil," and that in fact Obama wants to eliminate the 2.8 billion while he gave 90 billion to solar and wind companies, many of which are failing or already belly-up.
Wait-Are you (Or Mitt) really implying that because 90 Billion went to Green Energy (Not just solar and wind companies) that Exxon-Mobil deserves the 2.8 Billion in Corporate Welfare? Those are two completely different issues. 2.8 Billion is a LOT of money our country could save. Could our country have saved more else where as well? Of course. Does not saving more in one area justify not saving more in another area? Absolutely not.











I think this tiny bit wraps up the entire Debate pretty well. Most of Mitt Romney's points depend on him not answering the details.












Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 4:43 AM

 purple

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

 

Quote:

Quoting brookiecookie87:

For sure I can handle that.
 
Romney said President Obama has ran up our debt as much as all the prior Presidents Combined. That is not true.

When President Obama took Office the debt was around 10Trillion. Now it is around 15.6Trilion. 5 is not greater than 10 no matter how you cut it. Not my opinion but a lie from Romney.

Three ways to calculate the debt before Obama:

1) Starting at the end of fiscal year 2008, where accrued debt under the 43 presidents was $5.851 trillion, that's less than half of 15 trillion, making Romney's statement true.

2)Starting Obama's inauguration, when the accrued debt was $6.307 trillion, that's less than half of 15 trillion, making Romney's statement true.

3)Starting at the end of fiscal year 2009, when the accrued debt was $7.506 trillion. That's nearly exactly half of 15 million, still making Romney's statement true.

 

Now who is deviating from Facts and relying on Opinions (Or out right lying)?


All Three of your Theories: You are comparing the start Debt held by the Public to the end of National Debt? That's worst than the first lie. Now you are purposely misrepresenting data (Well-I guess that is just more lying to cover up lies. )

Sorry about that. I did not intend to mix measurements, my mistake. 

Let's look at public debt again, where there are plausible start numbers ranging from 5.85 to 7.5 trillion. 

Now lets look at the ending public debt range, using the same markers.  Stick to the low end (which would favor you) and look at end of fiscal year 2012, it's 11.3 trillion (Source, US Treasury.)

Romney said, "almost" and he is correct when we look at fiscal 2008 to 2012. 

Quote:

Romney said that half of the Green Companies that received money from the Stimulus have failed. Another lie. 3 out of nearly 3 dozen is not half. Not my opinion but a lie from Romney.

Here's a list from July of 15 companies, nearly half of 33.  Question the source but google the company names to check reliability:

 

I never said all of the Green Companies are doing spectacular. But not half of them are "Failing". You did (Or whoever got this for you) some creative story telling here. All of the ones listed in Red are not listed as Companies that were loaned money under the program.


https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

Can you rephrase?  What do you mean by "listed in red?" 

 

Quote:

Romney repeatedly claimed that the medical Boards can dictate what kind of treatment you can get. That's another lie. It is actually illegal for them to do that. Not my opinion-not someone else's opinion. Just a lie from Mitt Romney.

  • They are called IPABs, or an Independent Payment Advisory Board put into law by sections 3403 and 10320 of the ACA in 2010.  Romney said they could "ultimitely" decide what treatments people can get, which is highly plausible because they set prices, and if they set prices too low they can therefore make it impossible for providers to give the treatment.
  •  

     


    Your third one is pure speculation void of Fact when the Fact's don't say that will happen and prohibit it.

    You mean that IPABs are intended and mandated to set costs while not sacrificing quality of care? I did not contradict that.  The panel can set prices and dictate the services expected to be covered by such prices, but it cannot force a doctor or hospital to accept that price.  Therefore, it could plausibly lead to a loss of service if the provider refuses the set price.

    Again, I said that people need to stop pretending like opinions are fact.  They should do so whether they are the opinion of the Tax Policy Center, the POTUS, or Mitt Romney.  Romney's view that the Independent Payment advisory Board could "ultimately" lead to determining treatments  is plausible.  Therefore, it would be unreasonable to say he is lying.

    I am starting to think the reason you cannot see blatant lies is because you refuse to.

     

    The most pressing social issue today is the economy

    Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

    brookiecookie87
    by Platinum Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 5:34 AM


    Quote:

    Now who is deviating from Facts and relying on Opinions (Or out right lying)?


    All Three of your Theories: You are comparing the start Debt held by the Public to the end of National Debt? That's worst than the first lie. Now you are purposely misrepresenting data (Well-I guess that is just more lying to cover up lies. )

    Sorry about that. I did not intend to mix measurements, my mistake. 

    Let's look at public debt again, where there are plausible start numbers ranging from 5.85 to 7.5 trillion. 

    Now lets look at the ending public debt range, using the same markers.  Stick to the low end (which would favor you) and look at end of fiscal year 2012, it's 11.3 trillion (Source, US Treasury.)

    Romney said, "almost" and he is correct when we look at fiscal 2008 to 2012. 

    Well now we are resorting to skewing the data from one set of numbers. If it is closer to the 7 Million range than I would not consider that "almost" half. The debt would need to be 14 million for 7 million to almost be half.

    How did you get 5.85? I did a search from January 20th, 2009 (When he was inaugurated) and the lowest number I could find anywhere is 6.3 trillion. And that is counting the few days after his inauguration.

    And you said you would stick to the low end but 11.3 trillion is the highest number the chart presents.

    So you picked a starting point lower than the lowest starting point on the chart and compared it to the highest number on the chart.

    Which again I will say. If you don't mind not telling the truth-Sure. It's almost there. But it seems the more and more lies that are dismissed the less and less true the statement gets.


    Quote:

    I never said all of the Green Companies are doing spectacular. But not half of them are "Failing". You did (Or whoever got this for you) some creative story telling here. All of the ones listed in Red are not listed as Companies that were loaned money under the program.


    https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

    Can you rephrase?  What do you mean by "listed in red?" 

    You provided a bunch of Company names and said they "Failed" and had them in blue. The ones I changed from blue to red were not companies that were on the list that actually used the stimulus program. Of the 15 or so names you gave only about 4 of them were actually on the list. Which goes back to my statement that only 3 had declared bankruptcy. 3  is not close to half of three dozen. The link I provided you list the names of the Companies that got money via the stimulus.


    Quote:


    Your third one is pure speculation void of Fact when the Fact's don't say that will happen and prohibit it.

    You mean that IPABs are intended and mandated to set costs while not sacrificing quality of care? I did not contradict that.  The panel can set prices and dictate the services expected to be covered by such prices, but it cannot force a doctor or hospital to accept that price.  Therefore, it could plausibly lead to a loss of service if the provider refuses the set price.

    Again, I said that people need to stop pretending like opinions are fact.  They should do so whether they are the opinion of the Tax Policy Center, the POTUS, or Mitt Romney.  Romney's view that the Independent Payment advisory Board could "ultimately" lead to determining treatments  is plausible.  Therefore, it would be unreasonable to say he is lying.

    I am starting to think the reason you cannot see blatant lies is because you refuse to.

    How do you say people should stop pretending opinions are fact when you just did that in your previous sentence to it?

    You are speculating (It's your opinion) that the medical boards can dictate what services people will get. That is not the truth. The truth is they are not allowed to and the laws strictly prohibit that. That is the Fact.

    Mitt Romney could also believe that the Medical Board will bring the end of the World. That would still be his opinion. It would still be a lie. And the truth would still be that the medical board is strictly prohibited from doing what he is implying.

    At best it seems like a scare tactic. At worst-It is easily seen as a lie.

    If someones opinion is the opposite of the truth-It's a lie. Being an opinion doesn't make a lie okay.

    If someone believes that fire is cold. And he starts telling people, "Don't worry the fire is cold". It doesn't change the fact that fire is hot. That if people listen to him they would be believing a lie.


    Join us on the 99% Moms group!
    The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

    If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

    Meadowchik
    by Silver Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 7:40 AM

     Green

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

     

     

    Quote:

    Now who is deviating from Facts and relying on Opinions (Or out right lying)?


    All Three of your Theories: You are comparing the start Debt held by the Public to the end of National Debt? That's worst than the first lie. Now you are purposely misrepresenting data (Well-I guess that is just more lying to cover up lies. )

    Sorry about that. I did not intend to mix measurements, my mistake. 

    Let's look at public debt again, where there are plausible start numbers ranging from 5.85 to 7.5 trillion. 

    Now lets look at the ending public debt range, using the same markers.  Stick to the low end (which would favor you) and look at end of fiscal year 2012, it's 11.3 trillion (Source, US Treasury.)

    Romney said, "almost" and he is correct when we look at fiscal 2008 to 2012. 

    Well now we are resorting to skewing the data from one set of numbers. If it is closer to the 7 Million range than I would not consider that "almost" half. The debt would need to be 14 million for 7 million to almost be half.

    How did you get 5.85? I did a search from January 20th, 2009 (When he was inaugurated) and the lowest number I could find anywhere is 6.3 trillion. And that is counting the few days after his inauguration.

    As I said earlier, 5.85 is for fiscal year 2008.  I compared it to the fiscal year 2012, exactly 4 years later, which is 11.3.  Your table does not say where it gets it's last measurement from, so I didn't use it. I went to the US treasury and found the current public debt, which would represent fiscal year 2012 since the end of Sept 2012 is the end of the fiscal year. 

    And you said you would stick to the low end but 11.3 trillion is the highest number the chart presents.   By low end, I was referring to the first marker of those corresponding to what was used in the start range.  The start range markers were: 1)fiscal year 2008, 2)Inauguration 2009, and 3) fiscal year 2009.  So the finish range markers would be: 1)fiscal year 2012, 2)Inauguration 2013, and 3) fiscal year 2012. Fiscal year 2012 is the lowest, reasonably, since we are still running deficits.


    So you picked a starting point lower than the lowest starting point on the chart and compared it to the highest number on the chart.

    I used markers exactly 4 years apart.

    Which again I will say. If you don't mind not telling the truth-Sure. It's almost there. But it seems the more and more lies that are dismissed the less and less true the statement gets.

     

     

    Quote:

    I never said all of the Green Companies are doing spectacular. But not half of them are "Failing". You did (Or whoever got this for you) some creative story telling here. All of the ones listed in Red are not listed as Companies that were loaned money under the program.


    https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

    Can you rephrase?  What do you mean by "listed in red?" 

    You provided a bunch of Company names and said they "Failed" and had them in blue. The ones I changed from blue to red were not companies that were on the list that actually used the stimulus program. Of the 15 or so names you gave only about 4 of them were actually on the list. Which goes back to my statement that only 3 had declared bankruptcy. 3  is not close to half of three dozen. The link I provided you list the names of the Companies that got money via the stimulus.

     Alrighty.

    Your list was not all-inclusive of all energy companies getting federal dollars.  For instance, ECOtotality, which you highlighted in red, recieved a 115 million federal stimulus grant. SOURCE. Then, another in red, A123 solar, got a quarter-billion dollar technology grant. SOURCE

     

    Quote:


    Your third one is pure speculation void of Fact when the Fact's don't say that will happen and prohibit it.

    You mean that IPABs are intended and mandated to set costs while not sacrificing quality of care? I did not contradict that.  The panel can set prices and dictate the services expected to be covered by such prices, but it cannot force a doctor or hospital to accept that price.  Therefore, it could plausibly lead to a loss of service if the provider refuses the set price.

    Again, I said that people need to stop pretending like opinions are fact.  They should do so whether they are the opinion of the Tax Policy Center, the POTUS, or Mitt Romney.  Romney's view that the Independent Payment advisory Board could "ultimately" lead to determining treatments  is plausible.  Therefore, it would be unreasonable to say he is lying.

    I am starting to think the reason you cannot see blatant lies is because you refuse to.

    How do you say people should stop pretending opinions are fact when you just did that in your previous sentence to it?

    The sentence was, "Therefore, it could plausibly lead to a loss of service if the provider refuses the set price."  I did not say it WILL lead to such and such.  THAT would be claiming it's a fact.  I said "could plausibly."

    You are speculating (It's your opinion) that the medical boards can dictate what services people will get. That is not the truth. The truth is they are not allowed to and the laws strictly prohibit that. That is the Fact.

    I explained how it could lead there.  Again, the panels cannot force doctors to provide all services.  It can set the prices.  And in a price-cutting environment, it is very plausible that costs can be cut too low for the providers.  These are possibilities, factual possibilities. 

    Mitt Romney could also believe that the Medical Board will bring the end of the World. That would still be his opinion. But he did not say that, he said something much more in the realm of possibility, something which is consistent with economic principle. A medical panel bringing the end of the world is highly implausible.  It would still be a lie. Nope. And the truth would still be that the medical board is strictly prohibited from doing what he is implying. Not at all, because what it is is price-fixing.  Economically, price fixing can lead to a decrease of supply. 
    At best it seems like a scare tactic. At worst-It is easily seen as a lie.

     

    If someones opinion is the opposite of the truth-It's a lie. Being an opinion doesn't make a lie okay.

    If someone believes that fire is cold. And he starts telling people, "Don't worry the fire is cold". It doesn't change the fact that fire is hot. That if people listen to him they would be believing a lie.

    Likewise, a law claiming to preserve quality of care and control costs could very well be impossible.  Just because it says it must do both at the same time, does not mean that it can, just like the man calling the fire cold does not make it cold. Apply your own logic to the IPABs.

    Civil law cannot dictate natural law or economic principle.  That's why, IMO, laws affecting economics must respect economic principle if they are to be of any use.

     

     

    The most pressing social issue today is the economy

    Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

    littlelamb303
    by Bronze Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 7:54 AM

    I am disgusted with my friends and family that do not see through ROBme.  They don't do any research, yet clearly vote against their own interests.  I think my blood pressure went through the roof while watching him speak lie after lie. NO, he is NOT better than obama.  As a matter of fact, I want nothing to do with his destructive republican policies if he gets elected.  Let his supporters "enjoy" them.  My family IS doing better than under BUSH

    asfriend
    by on Oct. 5, 2012 at 8:21 AM
    Excellent when should we expect to see that start?


    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    No no one needs to pay me to tell the truth.


    Quoting asfriend:

    I dunno what the truth team is paying you, but they are definitely getting a loyal soldier.





    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    You are right. Her post was completely false and it is why I corrected her.




    Quoting asfriend:

    a completely false post, broken up into little segments, you've outdone yourself.








    Quoting brookiecookie87:





    Quote:

    How raising taxes on small business and middle income earners will stifle the economy, not help it grow.
    Except Obama does not plan to raise taxes on small business owners. He wants to raise it on people in the upper tiers yes-Not small business owners.

    You might be confused with Mitt Romney who is proposing a plan that will raise taxes on middle class americans (according to non-partisan tax centers).



    Quote:



    That Obama had 4 years to tackle Simpson-Bowles, and instead of addressing a critical deficit reduction plan, pursued Obamacare, without a bipartisan support in Congress.
    Republicans had no interest in doing anything with bipartisan supporting during that time. What Republicans wanted was there way or no way-Hence it being done without their support.





    Quote:

    Romney points out that Obama is wrong to say that Romney's plan is a repeat of the past, Romney says that it is different because, along with bringing down rates to raise revenue it will also bring down deductions, exemptions, and credits to help keep net revenue intact.
    Except Mitt Romney doesn't specify which exemptions, deductions, or credits will be removed. It's a secret that he isn't willing to share with anyone. And until he releases those secrets there is no way to speculate what his tax plan will actually do. Because non-partisan tax groups are saying that his plan WILL increase the tax burden on the middle class. But since Romney isn't releasing the details he can claim, "Nope won't happen-We have a secret idea that fixes everything don't worry about it".







    Quote:


    Romney says that with Obama's 716 billion Medicare reduciton, 15% of hospitals and nursing homes and 50% of doctors say they will have to stop taking Medicare patients.  And 4 million seniors will lose Medicare Advantage with Obama's plan.
    Is this oppose to the 50 some million who will lose Medicare if Obama is rejected?





    Quote:

    Romney points out how Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, but infact doubled it, thereby increasing the moral hazard of continuing to run yearly trillion-dollar deficits while having to borrow from China to do so.
    I imagine it would have been interesting to see what happened during the recession if President Obama did not pump money into it. But I am not sure the risk of spiralling downward into a great depression would be worth it to find out.

    I thought the Fear mongering with China was a bit over the top. We will cut programs we don't deam worth borrowing from China for? Which Programs? Again Mitt Romney keeps it a secret.




    Quote:


    That while Obama wants to eliminate the 2.8 billion that goes to oil companies like Exxon-Mobil, Romney pointed out that a large part of that goes to drilling operators, not "Big Oil," and that in fact Obama wants to eliminate the 2.8 billion while he gave 90 billion to solar and wind companies, many of which are failing or already belly-up.
    Wait-Are you (Or Mitt) really implying that because 90 Billion went to Green Energy (Not just solar and wind companies) that Exxon-Mobil deserves the 2.8 Billion in Corporate Welfare? Those are two completely different issues. 2.8 Billion is a LOT of money our country could save. Could our country have saved more else where as well? Of course. Does not saving more in one area justify not saving more in another area? Absolutely not.














    I think this tiny bit wraps up the entire Debate pretty well. Most of Mitt Romney's points depend on him not answering the details.


















    Posted on CafeMom Mobile
    pvtjokerus
    by Platinum Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 8:39 AM
    1 mom liked this

    His answers are acceptable in the forum that he was in.  Stop running with the media liberal line.  Let's face it.  Obama can't defend his 4 years of failure: unemployment, falling dollar, lowered credit rating, terrorist attacks, failed foreign policy, cronyism among his inner circle, lies to the American public and so on and so on.

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Did you watch the debate?

    When Obama pointed out Mitt Romney hasn't showed which tax loopholes/deductions he will close did he specify which? If he has been giving those details out can you present them?

    Mitt Romney said he would replace Dodd Frank wall street reforms but he doesn't say which ones.

    Mitt Romney said he will cut spending on programs that are not needed-But refuses to say which ones.


    Obama says it better than I can. That 1 minute clip pretty much responds to everything Mitt Romney said.

    Quoting pvtjokerus:

    Romney freakin' laid out Frank and Dodd.  He gave points.  He has been given points but your precious liberal media has not been reporting them.  Sorry, you can't spin this one.  Facts are facts and Obama's arrogance got the best of him last night.

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

     

    Quoting CreziaMommyTo2:

    well i guess you got that article from a bias opinion reporter, because everywhere else and from what i saw last night  ROMNEY KICKED ASS!

    Yes-If by Kicked Ass you mean he dodged any attempt to give details on his plans. Denied his own Tax Plan.

    Like I said earlier. It is really easy to look like the winner if you refuse to give any details about any of your plans but require the utmost scrutiny of your opponent, while at the same time denying anything that looks bad on you but again refusing to give any details if called on about it.



     

     


    brookiecookie87
    by Platinum Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 9:24 AM


    Quote:


    Well now we are resorting to skewing the data from one set of numbers. If it is closer to the 7 Million range than I would not consider that "almost" half. The debt would need to be 14 million for 7 million to almost be half.

    How did you get 5.85? I did a search from January 20th, 2009 (When he was inaugurated) and the lowest number I could find anywhere is 6.3 trillion. And that is counting the few days after his inauguration.

    As I said earlier, 5.85 is for fiscal year 2008.  I compared it to the fiscal year 2012, exactly 4 years later, which is 11.3.  Your table does not say where it gets it's last measurement from, so I didn't use it. I went to the US treasury and found the current public debt, which would represent fiscal year 2012 since the end of Sept 2012 is the end of the fiscal year. 

    And you said you would stick to the low end but 11.3 trillion is the highest number the chart presents.   By low end, I was referring to the first marker of those corresponding to what was used in the start range.  The start range markers were: 1)fiscal year 2008, 2)Inauguration 2009, and 3) fiscal year 2009.  So the finish range markers would be: 1)fiscal year 2012, 2)Inauguration 2013, and 3) fiscal year 2012. Fiscal year 2012 is the lowest, reasonably, since we are still running deficits.


    So you picked a starting point lower than the lowest starting point on the chart and compared it to the highest number on the chart.

    I used markers exactly 4 years apart.

    Which again I will say. If you don't mind not telling the truth-Sure. It's almost there. But it seems the more and more lies that are dismissed the less and less true the statement gets.

    I was using the exact source you are (Or at least the one you linked).

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

    Wait-Are you telling me you were using numbers from before he was President? You don't think that skews the data? Why not go further back? If you start at January 01, 2008 and end at January 01, 2012 it looks even worse and the data would actually line up with his statement. If you are going to lie why not go all the way?

    If you look at the Data starting from when Obama took Office the lowest numbers you get are 6.3Trillion+ And looking at anything before President Obama took office is not holding true to the statement since it would no longer be "Under President Obama".

    Again if you are willing to lie yes. But if you look at the facts-Wong.


    Quote:

    You provided a bunch of Company names and said they "Failed" and had them in blue. The ones I changed from blue to red were not companies that were on the list that actually used the stimulus program. Of the 15 or so names you gave only about 4 of them were actually on the list. Which goes back to my statement that only 3 had declared bankruptcy. 3  is not close to half of three dozen. The link I provided you list the names of the Companies that got money via the stimulus.

     

    Quote:

     Alrighty.

    Your list was not all-inclusive of all energy companies getting federal dollars.  For instance, ECOtotality, which you highlighted in red, recieved a 115 million federal stimulus grant. SOURCE. Then, another in red, A123 solar, got a quarter-billion dollar technology grant. SOURCE

    The 3 dozen Companies that took from the part of the Program that Mitt Romney is slamming is listed on that site.

    https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

    IF he (Or you) are going to claim that half of them are failures you need to prove the ones listed that actually participated are failures. If you are going to broaden the definition to include other companies that got money from other ways you will need to include every Company that got money from that Method.

    Because now you are doing what you did earlier when you compared President Obama's Public Debt to the total national debt to prove your point. But instead you are grabbing Companies from a completely different list and then comparing them to the list of 33 and saying, "Told you!" When that is a completely lie.

    Of the 3 dozen Companies 3 going bankrupt is NOT half

    If you are going to add Companies from a Different list you need to explain what list they are from and how many succeeded/failed from that list as well and how the list look when combined.

    Quote:

    How do you say people should stop pretending opinions are fact when you just did that in your previous sentence to it?

    The sentence was, "Therefore, it could plausibly lead to a loss of service if the provider refuses the set price."  I did not say it WILL lead to such and such.  THAT would be claiming it's a fact.  I said "could plausibly."

    You are speculating (It's your opinion) that the medical boards can dictate what services people will get. That is not the truth. The truth is they are not allowed to and the laws strictly prohibit that. That is the Fact.

    I explained how it could lead there.  Again, the panels cannot force doctors to provide all services.  It can set the prices.  And in a price-cutting environment, it is very plausible that costs can be cut too low for the providers.  These are possibilities, factual possibilities. 

    Mitt Romney could also believe that the Medical Board will bring the end of the World. That would still be his opinion. But he did not say that, he said something much more in the realm of possibility, something which is consistent with economic principle. A medical panel bringing the end of the world is highly implausible.  It would still be a lie. Nope. And the truth would still be that the medical board is strictly prohibited from doing what he is implying. Not at all, because what it is is price-fixing.  Economically, price fixing can lead to a decrease of supply. 
    At best it seems like a scare tactic. At worst-It is easily seen as a lie.

     

    If someones opinion is the opposite of the truth-It's a lie. Being an opinion doesn't make a lie okay.

     

    If someone believes that fire is cold. And he starts telling people, "Don't worry the fire is cold". It doesn't change the fact that fire is hot. That if people listen to him they would be believing a lie.

    Likewise, a law claiming to preserve quality of care and control costs could very well be impossible.  Just because it says it must do both at the same time, does not mean that it can, just like the man calling the fire cold does not make it cold. Apply your own logic to the IPABs.

    Civil law cannot dictate natural law or economic principle.  That's why, IMO, laws affecting economics must respect economic principle if they are to be of any use.

    Well the it 'could' happen doesn't refute laws saying it won't happen. Especially since the President who put the system in did it so that everyone could have coverage. I imagine if a situation like the one you predicted started wearing it's head (A situation he made plans to avoid) then I imagined the system would be changed so it won't happen.

    Saying it "could" happen seems more like fear mongering.

    If his (or your) "opinion" is it "could" happen-Fine that can be your opinion. But when the law says that Medical boards are not allowed to choose which services people get if they started using "Price Fixing" to limit (or choose) whatever services they wanted then that would fall under the law that says they are not allowed to do that.

    And now we have an argument where the facts say it won't happen. That it is illegal. And you are trying to argue against it using your opinion.


    Join us on the 99% Moms group!
    The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

    If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

    brookiecookie87
    by Platinum Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 9:29 AM



    Looking at what he came into, stopping that Recession, and making a recovery. You call that bad? (This contributes a lot to Unemployment, falling dollar, and lower credit rating).

    Are you really blaming him for "terrorist attacks"? Does that mean we can blame President Bush and Republicans for 9/11?

    Quoting pvtjokerus:

    His answers are acceptable in the forum that he was in.  Stop running with the media liberal line.  Let's face it.  Obama can't defend his 4 years of failure: unemployment, falling dollar, lowered credit rating, terrorist attacks, failed foreign policy, cronyism among his inner circle, lies to the American public and so on and so on.

    Quoting brookiecookie87:

    Did you watch the debate?

    When Obama pointed out Mitt Romney hasn't showed which tax loopholes/deductions he will close did he specify which? If he has been giving those details out can you present them?

    Mitt Romney said he would replace Dodd Frank wall street reforms but he doesn't say which ones.

    Mitt Romney said he will cut spending on programs that are not needed-But refuses to say which ones.


    Obama says it better than I can. That 1 minute clip pretty much responds to everything Mitt Romney said.

    Quoting pvtjokerus:

    Romney freakin' laid out Frank and Dodd.  He gave points.  He has been given points but your precious liberal media has not been reporting them.  Sorry, you can't spin this one.  Facts are facts and Obama's arrogance got the best of him last night.

    Quoting brookiecookie87:


    Quoting CreziaMommyTo2:

    well i guess you got that article from a bias opinion reporter, because everywhere else and from what i saw last night  ROMNEY KICKED ASS!

    Yes-If by Kicked Ass you mean he dodged any attempt to give details on his plans. Denied his own Tax Plan.

    Like I said earlier. It is really easy to look like the winner if you refuse to give any details about any of your plans but require the utmost scrutiny of your opponent, while at the same time denying anything that looks bad on you but again refusing to give any details if called on about it.







    Join us on the 99% Moms group!
    The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

    If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

    Add your quick reply below:
    You must be a member to reply to this post.
    Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
    Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

    (minimum 6 characters)

    close Join now to connect to
    other members!
    Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

    Already Joined? LOG IN