Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear disraeli123,

"Substance?" I don't think that word should be used a synonym for (to be kind) "misrepresentations."

But we "lefties" are much more "fair and balanced" than you "righties." You swallow all Mitt's mendacity and ask for "More, please," whereas, as spiral's post shows, we are realistic enough to know that BOTH debaters were guilty of (again, to be kind) "misrepresentations."

But (as was also pointed out by spiral) Mitt's "fibs" were much bigger and more duplicitous.

"Obama vs. Romney Presidential Debate Fact-Check: Who Lied?

Romney�s figure for the rise in health-care costs was wrong. Obama�s $4 trillion number was inaccurate. The Daily Beast turns to the Internet's most reliable fact-checkers for the candidates� most glaring errors.

Romney: �Health-care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family.�

Factcheck.org, the Annenberg Public Policy Center�s accuracy policy, say this is false. They cite a Kaiser Family Foundation survey (PDF) that found that between 2010 and 2011, the average health-insurance premium cost for families increased by $1,300, not $2,500, and point out that even between 2009 and 2011 the increase in average cost was only $1,700.

Obama: �I put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. It�s on a website. You can look at all the numbers. What cuts we make and what revenue we raise.�

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler argues that this statement isn�t exactly true. First of all, $1 trillion of the $4 trillion the president says his budget plan will cut from the deficit was already reached a year ago, so that�s $1 trillion that�s already cut regardless of who wins the election. Kessler also points out that Obama�s $4 trillion figure includes $848 billion saved by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan�money that, since ending the wars have been in the works for a while, the administration had never intended to spend in the first place. �Imagine someone borrowing $50,000 a year for college�and then declaring that they have an extra $500,000 to spend over he next decade once they graduate,� is how Kessler explains it.

Romney: �I�m not going to cut education funding. I don�t have a plan to cut education funding.�

Trip Gabriel at The New York Times notes that, contrary to this statement, Mitt Romney has suggested in the past that he would, in fact, cut the education budget. Back in the spring, reporters heard Romney tell a group of Florida donors that, as president, he would merge another federal agency with the Education Department, �or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller.� While the Romney-approved House budget does not specify how cuts would affect particular federal programs, the White House�s own study (PDF) on the budget finds that it drops 200,000 children from Head Start as well as other early education programs, and gets rid of 38,000 teachers and aides at underprivileged schools as well as 27,000 special-education teachers.

Obama: �Governor Romney�s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, so that is another trillion dollars. And $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn�t asked for. That is $8 trillion.�

ABC News�s Amy Bingham and Jon Karl point to Mitt Romney�s own campaign website (PDF) to counter the president�s argument here, calling it �mostly fiction.� Despite Romney�s repeated insistence that his tax plan would be �revenue-neutral,� the only real reason Obama�s claim that his opponent would add $5 trillion to the debt isn�t exactly true is because Mitt has never specified how his tax plan would be paid for. So, as Bingham explains, �Romney�s tax plan could add $5 trillion to the deficit. But that is an estimate on an incomplete tax plan ... The issue is that no one knows what those provisions are just yet.�

Romney: President Obama brought up a nonpartisan Tax Policy Center Study (which has been declared mostly true) that says Mitt Romney�s �revenue-neutral� plan to cut taxes for all Americans by 20 percent is impossible without raising taxes on the middle class.

In response to this, Romney claimed five other studies prove the legitimacy of his plan.

The Washington Post, Salon, and Politifact all say this claim is false because these so-called studies are not exactly studies. �One was a Wall Street Journal article from Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist and an adviser to the Romney campaign; one was from Harvey Rosen, an economist at the Griswold Center for Economic Policy Studies at Princeton University; one was by Matt Jensen, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank; and two were Wall Street Journal editorials,� Politifact explains.

Obama: Romney will turn Medicare into a �voucher program.�

Factcheck.org disputes this. �The fact is, [Romney�s plan] is structured the same as the system Obama�s health-care law sets up for subsidizing private insurance for persons under the age 65,� the site argues.

Romney: �On Medicare for current retirees, [Obama�s] cutting $716 billion from the program.�

PolitiFact says this claim�a major talking point in the Denver debate�is half true. While $716 is not a made-up number, it refers to how much the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, would take away from Medicare spending�mostly to hospitals and insurers�over 10 years. Obamacare does not, as Romney insinuated, take $716 billion away from current Medicare recipients."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/04/obama-vs-romney-presidential-debate-fact-check-who-lied.html

Now, I know quite well that presenting facts is not going to change anyone's mind. Those who regard telling whoppers as being the same as "substance" will remain devoted to their candidate: Mitt.

But I'm posting this just in case anyone is truly interested in really being "fair and balanced."

Regards,
John

[johnslat]

FLIP FLOP

That darn "substance" keeps changing:


"FISHERSVILLE, Va � Mitt Romney for the first time characterized his comments during a fundraiser that were surreptitiously filmed and caught the candidate essentially writing off 47 percent of Americans as �completely wrong.�

�Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question and answer sessions, now and then you�re gonna say something that doesn�t come out right,� Romney said in an interview Wednesday night with Fox News� Sean Hannity. �In this case I said something that�s just completely wrong.�

Romney went on to say that his life has shown he cares about �100 percent and that�s been demonstrated through my life and this whole campaign is about the 100 percent.�

�When I become president it will be about helping the 100 percent,� Romney told Hannity.

This is the first time Romney has described what he said in those leaked video tapes from a closed-press Florida fundraiser as �wrong.�

The night the videos emerged Romney stood behind his statements, only going as far as to say that they had not been �elegantly� stated.

�It�s not elegantly stated let me put it that way I�m speaking off the cuff in response to a question,� Romney said last month.

Since then, Romney has sought to clarify that what he really meant was that he didn�t expect to garner the votes from 47 percent of Americans. He went on in the video to describe the group as some who are overly dependent on government handouts and who consider themselves to be �victims.�

Romney�s 47 percent comment did not come up in the presidential debate earlier this week in Denver, despite advisers having said Romney was prepared for the question."

Regards,
John

[Henry_Cowell]

[johnslat]

We lefties are ALL hooligans. miscreants, layabouts, and wastrels who run in packs and savage poor, innocent, tax-paying, law-abiding conservatives.

It's a flaw, but our Moms love us .

Regards,
John the Ruffian

[Guy Courchesne]

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/04/if-obama-wont-defend-the-last-four-years-why-would-america-give-him-another-four-years/

[johnslat]

On the 47%


Mitt's Evil Twin: "Romney said that his remarks were �not elegantly stated,� but added that he won�t back down from them. �It�s a message which I�m going to carry and continue to carry,� he said. He added that the comments are "something I talk about a good deal in rallies and speeches and so forth."

The Good Mitt: "Well, clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that's completely wrong."

Hmm, looks like he decided that the message was too heavy to carry for very long.

Regards,
John

[Henry_Cowell]

Romney�s Sick Joke

�No. 1,� declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday�s debate, �pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.� No, they aren�t � as Mr. Romney�s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.

Was Mr. Romney lying? Well, either that or he was making what amounts to a sick joke. Either way, his attempt to deceive voters on this issue was the biggest of many misleading and/or dishonest claims he made over the course of that hour and a half. Yes, President Obama did a notably bad job of responding. But I�ll leave the theater criticism to others and talk instead about the issue that should be at the heart of this election.

So, about that sick joke: What Mr. Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job � as long as they keep paying the premiums. As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it�s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job). Did I mention that the number of jobs that come with health insurance has been steadily declining over the past decade?

What Mr. Romney did in the debate, in other words, was, at best, to play a word game with voters, pretending to offer something substantive for the uninsured while actually offering nothing. For all practical purposes, he simply lied about what his policy proposals would do.

How many Americans would be left out in the cold under Mr. Romney�s plan? One answer is 89 million. According to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Foundation, that�s the number of Americans who lack the �continuous coverage� that would make them eligible for health insurance under Mr. Romney�s empty promises. By the way, that�s more than a third of the U.S. population under 65 years old.

Another answer is 45 million, the estimated number of people who would have health insurance if Mr. Obama were re-elected, but would lose it if Mr. Romney were to win....

[Henry_Cowell]

[Henry_Cowell]

Unemployment Rate Falls to 7.8%

The U.S. unemployment rate under Obama has always been one of the PRIMARY complaints of the right wing. They are now scrambling to explain these new numbers. I've never seen so many television mouths working overtime!

[Isla Guapa]

[johnslat]

Oh, just in case anyone missed the debate - here are some highlights:

http://gawker.com/5948957/the-debate-isnt-over-until-the-gregory-bothers-songify-it



Regards,
John

[geaaronson]

And should anyone wonder, the unemployment rate during the 1984 election was 7.5% and Reagan went to win over Mondale in a 60%plus landslide and that was after having climbed to a 10.8% unemployment rate,.6% higher than Obama`s high, but then again, Reagan did not inherit an economic disaster in which almost every financial service was perilously close to bankruptcy and 2 of the 3 automakers, the same.

[Guy Courchesne]

[EFLeducator]

Romney gains ground on Obama after strong debate!

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gains-ground-obama-strong-debate-004941209--business.html

"The debate showed the difference between a guy who has had to face accountability as a professional businessman and an Occupy Wall Street demonstrator."

[choudoufu]

it seems clint was right about the empty chain/podium.