It's Time To Change Pitchers People!

[P@triot]

The Obama Administration themselves are admitting it's a lie!!!

No they aren't -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTL9PB1oiF0&sns=em]Stephanie Cutter Admits Obamas $5 Trillion Attack on Romney Is Not True - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

Have you actually watched the video?

Please provide the sentence and time when the spokesperson uses the word "lie."


btw, Toyota having plants in the US does not mean a great deal in terms of job creation. Tax cuts do increase consumer spending to some extent - but a great deal of that money ends up in China and Japan because that's where the companies are based. Not difficult to check this stuff, you know.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

As I said earlier - you don't understand this, and I do realise that you don't understand it.

The figure of $5 trillion is correct - but it is a figure which does not include money earned by closing loopholes because Romney has not yet said which loopholes he will close - hence we don't know the value of those.

Both Business Week and WaPo explained this - presumably you didn't read either.

It's 100% inaccurate and you know it. No amount of back-pedaling now is going to restore your credibility. You claimed it would add $5 trillion to the debt over 10 years. It's in black & white for anybody to go back and read. Now your'e back-pedaling and changing your story to "well, it doesn't include other figures". Well then clearly it will NOT add your falsely stated amount to the debt.

Furthermore, your statement becomes exponentially more absurd when you're supporting Obama, who is on pace to add $15 trillion to the debt over 10 years. Since that's 3x's the amount you falsely claim Romney will add in the same time frame, it still means Romney is 3x's the better choice. So why aren't you supporting him?

Well, it's pretty clear it's not because of facts or that you care about the United States. It's clear you have a nefarious agenda here. And that's why you're so angry that I've posted indisputable FACTS that have made your propaganda irrelevant.

 

[Saigon]

Have you actually watched the video?

Please provide the sentence and time when the spokesperson uses the word "lie" or anything even remotely close to it.

 

[Saigon]

Right.

So we have established that, in fact, Obama's campaign people have not "admitted" it's a lie or anything even vaguely suggesting that - on the contrary, the spokesperson repeats and explains where the $5 trillion figure comes from, and refers to independent bodies who can confirm it.

I posted a couple of those a week back.

In which case, I think we're done.

 

[P@triot]

Have you actually watched the video?

Please provide the sentence and time when the spokesperson uses the word "lie" or anything even remotely close to it.

Why do they have to use the word "lie"?!?! They would NEVER do that. But anyone watching that video will hear Stephanie Cutter say at the 2:20 mark "But that still leaves you a trillion dollars short, and that's all I'm saying". You're actually sitting here trying to dispute what is on video, straight from the Obama camp itself.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the US has not been able to pay down its sovereign debt for 40 years - how will Romney's gigantic tax cuts help?

Because, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, more money in the pockets of people and/or corporations means more economic growth. More economic growth means more jobs. More jobs means more people earning money. More people earning money means a larger pool of people to tax.
.

Oh, right!

So when people pay less taxes, they won't just buy imported products?

How does a family buying a new Toyota, Nokia phone or Plystation help America, exactly?

Does it help to take money from people to give to other people so they can buy imports help America? Is it just who is doing the buying of cheap imports that makes a difference. Do the poor have some right to Toyota's (that are built here by the way) and Nokia phones that tax payers don't have?

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

Do you admit that nowhere in the video did Obama's spokesman say anything at all about lying, nor anything even remotely like that?

The spokesperson repeats and explains the $5 trillion figure, and at no point says anything different. If you had watched the video, that should have been clear.

 

[Saigon]

Does it help to take money from people to give to other people so they can buy imports help America? Is it just who is doing the buying of cheap imports that makes a difference. Do the poor have some right to Toyota's (that are built here by the way) and Nokia phones that tax payers don't have?

When you borrow money from a bank, you don't usually get to negotoiate whether it is fair that you have to pay it back.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

Do you admit that nowhere in the video did Obama's spokesman say anything at all about lying, nor anything even remotely like that?

The spokesperson repeats and explains the $5 trillion figure, and at no point says anything different. If you had watched the video, that should have been clear.

Saigon -

Do you admit that I have now exposed you for lying? When she acknowledges at the 2:20 mark that it will be more like $1 trillion rather than the $5 trillion they had previously be claiming, that is a flat out admission of lying. They don't actually need to use the word "lying" to admit that's what they were doing. The fact that you are so focused on that single word instead of her acknowledgement of the actual $1 trillion is evidence of your desperation and evidence of your immaturity in not being able to acknowledge you were wrong.

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

Please provide the actual words the woman uses in her admission of lying. The quotes.

Here is what I have "That STILL leaves you $1 trillion short.The maths does not work with what they are saying - and they won't name those deductions."

Is that really an admission of lying?

Because it sounds to me like a re-assertion of the same position again.

You have been told at least 5 or 6 times on this thread now that the figure of $5 trillion is over 10 years, and is the gross figure. We can not use a net figure because Romney will not tell anyone which loopholes he might close - hence we can not calculate what money they might bring in. If you don't understand this - just say so.

btw. PLEASE post honestly. You claimed that the Obama adminsitration had "admitted that they had lied". I want to see the exact quote of that admission.

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

Just post the quote, thanks.

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

The Obama Administration themselves are admitting it's a lie!!!

Asking for the third time now - just post the quote, thanks. Please post the exact words of this admission.


Nothing has changed about the $5 trillion figure. The calculation was described in detail in the Business Week and Washington Post stories linked a week ago - it remains the same calcultion.

 

[MisterBeale]

Oddball -

This is not about spending per se - because the money has already been spent. Its gone.

And what you have to show for it is the deficit.

The question is how yoy pay back what you owe.

Romney's solution is to ask wealthy Americans to pay less tax than they do now.

Apparently, you think the various Chinese banks you owe money to will accept IOU's.

What we owe to foreigners is but a fraction of our liabilities, the promises that we have made to the nanny state, the police state, the corporate welfare system, the military industrial complex. Payment on interest, yes, it is approaching an intolerable tenth of the budget, however, unfunded liabilities and spending are the biggest problem. People say Obama is a big spender, well hell, isn't half as bad as he could be. With a crippled economy, and crippling debt, there isn't any money for new programs.

For his grand Obama Care initiative he did some crafty accounting and the bulk of the cost he laid at the feet of the American tax payer and the rest at the feet of the corporations and from other losers.

But yes, it has everything to do with spending, that is all it has do with. The more government spends, the more power it has. I don't ever remember hearing yet any candidate say, "What we could use is less government." Last politician that said that was. . . well, I guess it was Ron Paul, before that it was probably Reagan.

Sure, those Social Security promises have been made, those military contracts have been signed, those medicare programs have been projected, and all sorts of other non-discretionary funded items in the budget beyond that 7 or 8 percent that are the interest payments have already been allocated many years in the future. However, that spending CAN be changed. It can be restructured, it could be cut. If everyone educated their kids at home, we would have no need for a department of education. Part of that money that you think is already spent? This spending automatically has a percentage increase in the budget every year, didn't you know? Boop, that would be gone. Local communities would now entirely have to deal with it through their mileages.

But no. The educational progress in Alabama has to be the business of progressives in Massachusetts and Northern California. This is just one example of centralized bureaucracy and authority gone awry. Increase taxes? BULLSHIT SMOKESCREEN. Government needs to be reduced, to do that, spending needs to be slashed, starting with those services that are most oppressive to the people. Those that snoop, incarcerate, and get this country into war overseas.

Your understanding of government is narrow and short. Like Oddball stated, you attempt to control the terms of the debate though your limited notions.

 

[MisterBeale]

When you borrow money from a bank, you don't usually get to negotoiate whether it is fair that you have to pay it back.

If you don't spend it, you don't have to borrow it.

 

[Saigon]

When you borrow money from a bank, you don't usually get to negotoiate whether it is fair that you have to pay it back.

If you don't spend it, you don't have to borrow it.

It's already been spent.

Honestly - is this really a difficult point to grasp?

 

[Saigon]

what we owe to foreigners is but a fraction of our liabilities,

Well, you are right in that only one third of the debt is off-shore, but you do owe China 1,153.6 billion dollars, and Japan 1,121.5 billion. You owe Switzerland more than 200 billion dollars.

Of course spending needs to be cut dramatically whoever wins the election to ensure the debt level does not rise further, but the more urgent question is how to pay back what has already been borrowed.

Romney's solution of tax cuts will potentially reduce federal revenues by a further $5 trillion over 10 years - I don't see how that helps.

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

Asking for a 4th time now - please provide the exact quote and time stamp from the video where the Obama administration "are admitting it's a lie!!!"

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

Asking for a 4th time now - please provide the exact quote and time stamp from the video where the Obama administration "are admitting it's a lie!!!"

Asking for the 5th time now - at the pace Obama is currently at, he will add an additional $15 trillion over 10 years. Would you rather add $5 trillion to the debt, or $15 trillion to the debt?

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

And when you provide a source for the $15 trillion figure, I'll be happy to answer it.

Based on this chart, which shows debt as a % of GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I don't see where you are getting such a huge increase from.

As for the other matter, this is the Clean Debate Zone, so we do need to remain civil, but in the interests of integrity, I am going to ask you to admit that you lied when you claimed:

The Obama Administration themselves are admitting it's a lie!!!

No such quote exists.