Rock On Romney!

Byrnzie

badbrains wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

badbrains wrote:

Didn't GWB get smashed in all the debates vs Kerry??? Look how that election turned out. (Of course if you believe it was legit)

True. If that giddy little frat boy could make it through the debates and win the Presidency then it doesn't say much for their importance.

Does anybody remember the 04 debate vs Kerry when all the newspapers were trying to figure out what GWB had under his jacket, looked like some box as if he was a robot. That was some strange shit....

It was probably the book 'My Pet Goat'. It took him until 9/11 to make it to page 5.

inmytree

pandora wrote:

please be much more specific I fear your color is showing perhaps?
I am open to listening to exactly how he lied but please not half sentences or twists.

Whats so funny? not that I don't enjoy a good laugh.
I assume you are being sarcastic :?

I'm in the 54 to 57 age range which was said last evening I should listen closely.
I have read about the voucher system and personally am ok with it.

It won't be easy to fix our country, we all must take hardships and give a little.

my color...? um...yeah...

and glad you're ok with a voucher system...methinks that tune will change when you have to shop for insurance....

FattyFatCat

aerial wrote:

a brilliant business man talking to a street organizer with no idea about economy

Exactly.

Like a teacher and a student.

Another chapter to his "Historic" Presidency... An historic ass-handing that will go down for all time as the worst debate performance of all time.

FattyFatCat

$90 Billion to Solyndra....

Mitt tells Obama ,"You dont pick the winners and the losers, you just pick the losers!"




better than a paid day off...

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The Fixer wrote:

as we all know, the electoral college is the dumbest thing ever created. '

Uh... funny... 8 years ago, all the Republicans were saying "well.. this is why the electoral college was created... to give the smaller states a larger voice..."

Now it's the stupidest thing ever created.

I agree with that... it would have given us President Gore.

What's funny is you have taken 1 post by someone called "The Fixer" on a Pearl Jam messageboard to try and say that all republicans are hypocrites about the Electoral college. Now that is some fine spin!

inmytree

Big Bird Weighs in last night's debate....

pandora

inmytree wrote:

pandora wrote:

please be much more specific I fear your color is showing perhaps?
I am open to listening to exactly how he lied but please not half sentences or twists.

Whats so funny? not that I don't enjoy a good laugh.
I assume you are being sarcastic :?

I'm in the 54 to 57 age range which was said last evening I should listen closely.
I have read about the voucher system and personally am ok with it.

It won't be easy to fix our country, we all must take hardships and give a little.

my color...? um...yeah...

and glad you're ok with a voucher system...methinks that tune will change when you have to shop for insurance....

Please explain...
would it be because I have to pay more? My plan not as good?
You see, I don't think the Federal government should take care of me at any age.

pandora

FattyFatCat wrote:

$90 Billion to Solyndra....

Mitt tells Obama ,"You dont pick the winners and the losers, you just pick the losers!"




better than a paid day off...

This did look bad for our President and the remark about him being beholding to certain
companies. Of course the same is true for most all the past Presidents, I would assume...
being beholding.

Shawshank

FattyFatCat wrote:

$90 Billion to Solyndra....

Mitt tells Obama ,"You dont pick the winners and the losers, you just pick the losers!"

Obama lost this debate by his reactions more than anything else...when things like this were hurled at him on any topic he just kind of stood there...shaking his head like "yeah...you got me"...he seemed ashamed, embarrassed, weak, and incompetent...everything a President should NEVER exhibit. It was like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar and being dressed down by his father on why that was wrong. I'm hoping he turns it up in the next debates, because this was just beyond pathetic.

inmytree

FattyFatCat wrote:

$90 Billion to Solyndra....

Mitt tells Obama ,"You dont pick the winners and the losers, you just pick the losers!"




better than a paid day off...

facts:>>>> http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/10/04/r ... -solyndra/

(click on the link for a cleaner read)

Romney’s $90 billion lie about green jobs and Solyndra
OCTOBER 4, 2012
BY JEREMY BLOOM LEAVE A COMMENT


Of all the lies in last night’s debate, I think the one that annoyed me the most was Mitt Romney’s massive, overbearing lie about green jobs.
He claimed that Obama had put $90 billion in one year into loan guarantees for green energy companies like Solyndra, and that half of them had failed. Leaving debate listeners to think $45 billion in taxpayer money had been lost. (Full transcript is on the next page.)

It appears that, as with so many things, this factoid is the result of a garbled post from the right-wing blogosphere. In this case, it’s a July post based on research by a Heritage Foundation intern that took every failing green energy company that had gotten any government money from any source and lumped them all together.

In addition to Solyndra, these included:

Raser Technology, the now-bankrupt darling of Utah’s GOP Senator Orin hatch that got a Treasury Dept. grant
Beacon Power, which did get a loan guarantee and did go bankrupt (but has since been sold, so the government is getting most of its money back),
Tiny Thomson River, which only got a piddling $5 million for a Montana power plant conversion (which the Treasury hopes to recoup).
Mountain Plaza Inc., a Tennessee company that only got $424,000 as part of an EPA program.
Romney appears to have get his “half have failed” claim by:
Taking the 12 assorted firms the Heritage Foundation listed that did fail.
Making an apples and oranges mixup with the 30 firms that got loan guarantees in the Solydra program (12 is almost half of 30, even though the two numbers have nothing to do with each other)
Finally, he mashed that into the full $90 billion clean energy stimulus program.
The facts:
The actual dollar amount that went to the loan guarantee program: $16.1 billion. Not $90 billion.
The actual number of failures: For the loan guarantee program, just 3, out of 30.
The actual cost to the taxpayer: Probably less than $2 billion by the time it’s all done. Not $45 billion.
And it was over 4 years, not one single year.
Far from being poured down the drain by failed companies, the$90 billion went to infrastructure and investment, so it created good jobs and led to long-term savings:
About $2 billion to Clean Energy Equipment Manufacturing to build plants that manufacture windmills and solar
$3 billion for research and development into capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide for “clean coal“.
$3 billion for job training for the green energy workforce
$6 billion to the auto industry to help establish factories to manufacture batteries for electric cars and other components of advanced vehicles
$10 billion for needed modernization of the electric grid
$18 billion for high-speed rail and mass transit
$21 billion for renewable electricity generation, including wind turbines and solar panels
$29 billion for energy efficient homes, including $5 billion for improvements in the homes and apartments of low-income households
Oh, and – guess what? The ARRA did hire teachers. $50 billion directly to schools, students, and worker training.
And what were the results of that spending? Stephen Lacey at Grist sums it up:
Renewable electricity production has doubled in the last four years
We’ve built some of the most innovative “first of a kind” renewable energy projects in the world
Content sourced from domestic wind manufacturing has doubled
We’ve created more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in the solar industry
And we’ve leveraged $100 billion in private investments.

Red Green & Blue (http://s.tt/1p7YL)

pandora

I don't like the electoral college either.
I think it can discourage voters so they don't go out and vote.

One can feel like their vote won't count or is not needed
depending on their ideology and the color of their home state.
Add in busy life, nasty weather and very long lines for Presidential elections
they might just blow it off.
All focus is on the few precious swing states.

usamamasan1

Command of the facts. Check

Depth of knowledge. Check

Winning.

FattyFatCat

inmytree wrote:

A) I can't wait for fact check....

It's hard to debate a liar.....

C) I don't want a voucher system for Medicaid....

Not if you have facts on your side...

Romney made it look easy.

inmytree

FattyFatCat wrote:

inmytree wrote:

A) I can't wait for fact check....

It's hard to debate a liar.....

C) I don't want a voucher system for Medicaid....

Not if you have facts on your side...

Romney made it look easy.

he he...facts...fact like he'll cover preexisting conditions...ooops...http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012 ... nt-rom.php

and that he changed his tax plan....

anyhooo.... I take comfort in knowing that John Kerry won his first debate and he was a great president...wait, what?

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

Command of the facts. Check

Depth of knowledge. Check

Winning.

Except his 'facts' were lies, and he isn't winning; he's behind in the poles and losing more ground every week.

inmytree

pandora wrote:

Please explain...
would it be because I have to pay more? My plan not as good?
You see, I don't think the Federal government should take care of me at any age.

I see....

you support a 90 year old women having to purchase her own insurance with a voucher...nice...I'm sure that will go smoothly...

I see...

you're ok with paying more for medical care when you in you later years, but whine about taxes now....

yes, I see...

inmytree

More facts...

About that $5 trillion tax cut...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ ... x-cut?lite

One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.

I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."

Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.

But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:

President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.

Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.

This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.

What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."

Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.

JonnyPistachio

What were Romney's comments about green energy sources? I'll google it too, but I was wondering what both sides though of his stance on this?

aerial

inmytree wrote:

More facts...

About that $5 trillion tax cut...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ ... x-cut?lite

One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.

I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."

Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.

But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:

President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.

Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.

This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.

What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."

Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.

First you say his Tax Plan will cost 5 Trillion. Then you say you don't have all the facts about his plan. So how can this 5 trillion be a fact?
Do to time limits there was no way he could explain all the details, so he made it real simple for everyone to understand...This is what he said, with more people working there will be more tax money coming in. Simple.

inmytree

aerial wrote:

inmytree wrote:

More facts...

About that $5 trillion tax cut...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/ ... x-cut?lite

One of the more contentious moments of the debate came fairly early on. President Obama noted, "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The Republican disagreed, insisting more than once that his plan carries a far smaller, though undefined, price tag.

I imagine many viewers at home weren't sure who to believe. Even some fact-checkers were left confused -- CNN's John Berman said Obama's charge is "false" if "you take [Romney] at his word."

Of course, by that standard, no one, anywhere, has ever lied about anything -- if we take someone at their word, and apply no additional scrutiny, dishonesty is literally impossible.

But those interested in understanding the facts, the policy details are indisputable. As Jonathan Cohn explained overnight:

President Obama repeatedly described Romney's tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it's possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost ... $5 trillion.

Last night, Romney simply asserted the figure is wrong, but up until yesterday, the Republican campaign has offered a different defense: the cost will be offset by closing tax loopholes and ending deductions.

This remains problematic, not just because Romney refuses to identify which loopholes and deductions, but because there aren't nearly enough loopholes and deductions to make up the difference.

What's more, in the debate, Romney cited "six other studies" that, according to him support the notion that he can slash tax rates without increasing the deficit or increasing the burden on the middle class. But that's wrong, too: "Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney's proposal -- as sketchy as it is -- would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions."

Those inclined to "take [Romney] at his word" are living in a fantasy world where calculators don't exist.

First you say his Tax Plan will cost 5 Trillion. Then you say you don't have all the facts about his plan. So how can this 5 trillion be a fact?
Do to time limits there was no way he could explain all the details, so he made it real simple for everyone to understand...This is what he said, with more people working there will be more tax money coming in. Simple.

so...tell me, what are the details of his tax plan...? you seem to know...please share, you have plenty of time...