Obama Wins Debate Factchecking

[Not2BSubjugated]

If Romney cuts taxes by 20%, cuts spending by 30% and creates 12 million jobs, or however many he's claiming, would that not increase revenue?

I'm asking this question because I don't know and wondering if anyone does.

Here is the first problem; just like Obama isn't the one creating the jobs, Mitt isn't going to create 12 million jobs because he's not doing the hiring. He tells us that by cutting taxes, employers will then hire more people. What he doesn't state is the fact that American businesses are already sitting on top of $2 trillion to $3 trillion due to our screwy tax system and even with all that excess cash they aren't hiring. What makes anyone think that letting them keep even more money that they will all of a sudden start hiring.

There is a perception that American businesses are hurting, but their profits tell a completely different story. The bottom line is this; we can cut taxes even more, but the end result will just be less revenue to the government and the wealthy will continue to hold on to even more profits.

Businesses doing more hiring and engaging in more economic activity in general isn't a function of how much money they're sitting on. It's a function of whether or not they feel that said hiring/activity WILL PROFIT. They're not looking to spend money, they're looking to make money. If they feel it's likely, they invest. If they don't, they don't.

Therefore, the fact that they're sitting on 3 trillion and not currently hiring doesn't necessarily imply that changes in the landscape that potentially make economic activity more profitable wouldn't cause hiring to happen. Whether or not an environment of improved profitability can be significantly achieved through tax cuts alone is up for debate, mind you. . . just pointing out that your particular point is. . . well, not a point at all.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

well we sure know Obama's tax plan, tax the shit out of the American people any way he can..

whoohoo

Channeling "Frig" Newton, are you?​

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

- Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
1993​

* * *

It's "Taps"-Time for.....

BU$HCO'S TAX-CUTS

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

Hahaha, I love that you basically post all of your "points" in bumper sticker format. Saves me the time of having to check on whether or not you have anything intelligent to say.

 

[Stephanie]

See folks, they are cheering taxes being raised on you with the expire of the Bush tax cuts

gives you the warm fuzzies doesn't it

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks


by Mark Memmott and Scott Montgomery


In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney "traded barbs" and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.
Here a sample of what's being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:
— One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.

Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."

PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney's charge is "half true."

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."

Still, as NPR's Julie Rovner has reported, "some of the money does indeed reduce future Medical spending, and the fact is, you can't reduce health care spending and preserve Medicare for 78 million baby boomers without slowing its growth."

— In listing his objections to the Affordable Health Care Act, Romney said it "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."
But the Times and National Journal have reported that the board in question wouldn't make treatment decisions, a point Obama made during the debate. National Journal called Romney's characterization of what this board would do "one of the biggest whoppers of the night." PolitiFact gave Romney's claim a "mostly false" rating.
Under the law, the board's job would be to keep Medicare spending within a particular target (not a dollar figure, but as a factor of GDP) but the board is prohibited from choosing the benefits to be restricted to achieve savings so it cannot make treatment decisions.

FactCheck.org, which has likened the charge about this panel to the earlier claim from Republicans that Obama would create "death panels," writes that "the board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, cannot, by law, 'ration' care or determine which treatments Medicare covers. In fact, the IPAB is limited in what it can do to curb the growth of Medicare spending."

— On cutting the federal deficit, PolitiFact writes, "Romney claimed that Obama had said he would 'cut the deficit in half.' That's the case. ... Obama said he put forward 'a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.' That's true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we've previously found his claim that his budget plan would 'cut our deficits by $4 trillion' Half True.)"

— As for Obama's claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR's John Ydstie says that's true. But it also ignores an inconvenient truth (for the president), that about the same number of jobs were lost during Obama's first year in office.

— And on a lighter note, the debate opened with a tender moment and a fact that soon was disputed on Twitter. In acknowledging his wedding anniversary, Obama said that "20 years ago I became the luckiest man on earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me." An astute tweeter noted that 20 years ago, the first lady's last name was Robinson.

I sense desperation from the left.

 

[Stephanie]

and funny this was in the article

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

BUT THIS is the Npr title

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks

NO BIAS THERE FOLKS

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I sense desperation from the left.

Better KEEP your eyes closed....​

Romney Faces
Formidable Gender Gap​

​

 

[LilOlLady]

Fact checkers will hammer Romney's distortions and lies.

End the end, this is what matter the most. Not the one most likely to kick the shit around. and that's all Romney did last night. Kick the shit around as usual. Obama won on honesty, integrity and facts. That makes him the winner last night

 

[Stephanie]

Fact checkers will hammer Romney's distortions and lies.

End the end, this is what matter the most. Not the one most likely to kick the shit around. and that's all Romney did last night. Kick the shit around as usual. Obama won on honesty, integrity and facts. That makes him the winner last night

lol, Obama didn't win shit from what I'm reading on the Internet..

but if it helps you all go on lying to yourselves

 

[Avatar4321]

They are claiming that Obama fulfilled his promise to cut the deficit in half and expect us to believe they are being honest?

Read, goddamnyou.

I did. Which is exactly why the "fact checker" isn't credible.

 

[lukelk]

You know at othe end of the day,who won the debate does not matter, what matters is does it effect voters. I can say this. My wife grew up in a consertive home, she is catholic and has traditionally voted red. Now I have been trying to get her to open her eyes, lol after watching the debate, she has decided to vote for Obama. How is this, you ask me? Well I. Her opinion. Romney came off as rude, interrupting both Obama and the moderator. She said that his personal demeanor was of someone who was amped up on speed, also she did not like the fact that he seemed to be double talking his own positions and the positions od his running mate. So you can say he won the debate all you want, but in doing so I the manner he did, he lost a voter who has voted republican her whole life.

 

[Old Rocks]

Romney won on style and delivery. Obama won on substance. So Romney gets two out of three. But now the voters consider what was said. Do we wish to sacrifice education, healthcare, and public broadcasting on the alter of another two trillion for the military industrial complex? Do we wish to give the wealthy a 20% tax break, paid for with with the tax deduction for the average homeowner mortgage deduction? Even when it costs the middle income American $2000 a year, and still won't make up for the tax break to the wealthy?

 

[Old Rocks]

This is what Romney has to change. I don't think this debate did that.

President Obama 269 Governor Romney 181

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

 

[beretta304]

You know at othe end of the day,who won the debate does not matter, what matters is does it effect voters. I can say this. My wife grew up in a consertive home, she is catholic and has traditionally voted red. Now I have been trying to get her to open her eyes, lol after watching the debate, she has decided to vote for Obama. How is this, you ask me? Well I. Her opinion. Romney came off as rude, interrupting both Obama and the moderator. She said that his personal demeanor was of someone who was amped up on speed, also she did not like the fact that he seemed to be double talking his own positions and the positions od his running mate. So you can say he won the debate all you want, but in doing so I the manner he did, he lost a voter who has voted republican her whole life.

Yeah and unicorns still exist too!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Everyone knows politifact is in obamas pocket.

Only fools actually consider them honest

 

[Babbleon]

Pretty piss poor debate IMO. Romney did win (on assertiveness) but both candidates in my eyes did not look presidential.. A president should look the public in the eyes and tell them the hard truths.

Cutting spending alone is not going to be enough to make a dent in this deficit. More tax cuts while we are still spending millions of dollars daily overseas is not the answer and in the short term it will cause less revenue to be generated by the government (more borrowing for military efforts and programs that already exist).. This is where that 5 trillion estimation comes from. Long term, it puts us at the mercy of big business, and if there is no hiring or expansion these tax cuts will tank the economy even further. The problem is that there are companies right now that are experiencing adequate profit enough to expand but still aren't doing so.

Calling Romney's plan a vast tax decrease is disingenuous because if loopholes, deductions, and exemptions are eliminated, more income becomes taxable so this isn't as cut and dry as most of you people are putting it.

Did everyone watch with the intention of cheerleading? I personally wanted the details and as a voter that has never voted for either prominent party I was left just as unsure as I was before.

I want specifics on where waste will be abolished, where cuts will take place and what loopholes and exemptions will be eliminated.. so far all I've heard about was some obscure mention of a private jet loophole from either candidate.. got to be frickin' kidding me..

 

[Leweman]

Obama did really bad. And he lied his ass off the few times he was coherent. He's just not competent enough to be President. It's scary we elected him once ... it's okay to make mistakes but it's obvious we won't do it again.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Mittens is still a shape shifter but rw's don't mind that he lies. Actually, it looks as though they want and expect lies from both Mitt and Ryan.

 

[DiamondDave]

Obamalama was destroyed by fact checking... and it will only get worse the more he gets hammered

FACT CHECK: Presidential debate missteps - Yahoo! News

 

[Oddball]

Everyone knows politifact is in obamas pocket.

Only fools actually consider them honest

Might as well call it "Politifluff".

 

[bripat9643]

The so-called "fact check" organizations are all run by Soros or left-wing propaganda outlets. Their facts are no more valid than the propaganda printed in the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks


by Mark Memmott and Scott Montgomery


In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney "traded barbs" and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.
Here a sample of what's being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:
— One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.

Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."

PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney's charge is "half true."

"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.

The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."

Still, as NPR's Julie Rovner has reported, "some of the money does indeed reduce future Medical spending, and the fact is, you can't reduce health care spending and preserve Medicare for 78 million baby boomers without slowing its growth."

— In listing his objections to the Affordable Health Care Act, Romney said it "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."
But the Times and National Journal have reported that the board in question wouldn't make treatment decisions, a point Obama made during the debate. National Journal called Romney's characterization of what this board would do "one of the biggest whoppers of the night." PolitiFact gave Romney's claim a "mostly false" rating.
Under the law, the board's job would be to keep Medicare spending within a particular target (not a dollar figure, but as a factor of GDP) but the board is prohibited from choosing the benefits to be restricted to achieve savings so it cannot make treatment decisions.

FactCheck.org, which has likened the charge about this panel to the earlier claim from Republicans that Obama would create "death panels," writes that "the board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, cannot, by law, 'ration' care or determine which treatments Medicare covers. In fact, the IPAB is limited in what it can do to curb the growth of Medicare spending."

— On cutting the federal deficit, PolitiFact writes, "Romney claimed that Obama had said he would 'cut the deficit in half.' That's the case. ... Obama said he put forward 'a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.' That's true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we've previously found his claim that his budget plan would 'cut our deficits by $4 trillion' Half True.)"

— As for Obama's claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR's John Ydstie says that's true. But it also ignores an inconvenient truth (for the president), that about the same number of jobs were lost during Obama's first year in office.

— And on a lighter note, the debate opened with a tender moment and a fact that soon was disputed on Twitter. In acknowledging his wedding anniversary, Obama said that "20 years ago I became the luckiest man on earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me." An astute tweeter noted that 20 years ago, the first lady's last name was Robinson.