A loud, bullying liar is still a liar.It is jaw-dropping that the nominee of a major political party can lie so completely and consistently... and get away with it. No matter how easily fact-checkers can debunk the crap romney spewed, no matter how many times he contradicted himself within the debate and compared to his, oft-rebooted, campaign; somehow the republican brand just refuses to suffer for it. One "good" night and somehow this liar stepped over enough shredded reality to climb back into contention. The gloom on the left was thick enough to cut with a knife.
The first presidential debate should have been the perfect chance for the incumbent president to finally put this plutocratic, morally bankrupt member of the 1% back in his mansion to play with his car elevator, dancing horse, and whatever other completely superfluous, superficial rich guy toys he has. Then perhaps, just maybe we can finally get back to fixing the mess romney and his ilk inflicted on the American people. But, several factors were working against President Obama.
First, it was his anniversary.
Second, the sitting president has actual responsibilities.
Finally, the fascist gop booby-trapped the debate.
![I went to a number of fact-checking pages and found that they all exhibit some form of bias... usually by leaving out some of the candidate statements they checked that were a little iffy.
If you want a complete picture, read the links below:
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/03/fact-checks-and-analysis/gUsQaIslLte7Znlr17V1oL/story.html
"$716 BILLION MEDICARE CUT. The number is an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office of how much Medicare spending can be reduced between 2013 and 2022 by making health care more efficient for seniors. Romney calls it cuts, Obama calls it savings. This article from the Washington Post, citing Harvard professor John McDonough’s great book “Inside National Health Reform,” explains it well."
"50 percent of doctors will stop taking Medicare patients because Obamacare reduces payments by $716 billion over 10 years: This claim comes from a very small and informal poll. From a Forbes article in August:
“Steve Daniels, a reporter with WTVD, led an investigation into problems with Medicare access in North Carolina. A team of volunteers used the ‘mystery shopper’ method, posing as Medicare beneficiaries looking for a new doctor. Of the 200 family physicians they called, nearly half said that they were no longer accepting new Medicare patients.”"
"Romney adamantly rejects idea he has proposed more tax cuts for the wealthy and that he wants to lower individual tax rates because it could benefit small business. While this is much debated, Romney’s plan would cut taxes but also eliminate tax deductions, which he has said make it revenue neutral. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has drawn a different conclusion, saying it would decrease taxes for the wealthy but increase taxes for the middle class."
"Do lower tax rates lead to more jobs? Here’s what Paul Egerman, founder of the digital medical transcription company eScription, told the Globe in April:
He estimated that tax cuts under President George W. Bush have saved him roughly $10 million over the last decade and asserted the money has helped no one but himself. “It’s not like I took the tax cuts and went out and hired people,” Egerman said."
"Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut: The figure comes from an analysis of Romney’s tax plan by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center."
------------------------------------------------
http://nationaljournal.com/politics/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-20121003
"Romney claimed that middle-income Americans are spending $2,500 more for health care now than they did when Obama took office in 2008. While Americans are spending more for their insurance and overall health spending since 2008, the difference is closer to $1,000, not $2,500"
"Obama also twisted the truth when he repeated the claim that his proposals would reduce the 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that Obama’s budget would increase cumulative deficits by well over $2 trillion over that time period.
But the CBO bases its measurements on a metric that assumes the expiration of all the Bush-era tax cuts and the implementation of significant across-the-board spending cuts--an incredibly unlikely scenario politically. Obama takes his number from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Politifact points out in its own fact-check, and the center uses a more flattering baseline to compare the results of his policies to an extension of the status quo.
Compared to a baseline drafted by the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, though, Obama’s proposals would save about $2.4 trillion over 10 years. The remaining savings would come from the deficit reduction included in the debt-ceiling deal last summer, not Obama’s policies."
"Romney’s claim that Obama’s health reform law includes a Medicare board that can “tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have” was one of the biggest whoppers of the night. It’s a line that Republicans used during debate on the health reform law, when they regularly and inaccurately called the Medicare spending board a “death panel.”
Under the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare board would have the job of keeping Medicare spending within a specific target: GDP plus 1 percent by 2020. The board, which would be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, is explicitly restricted from directly cutting Medicare benefits. In other words, they must cut hospital, doctor, and nursing home payment rates, and they are not allowed to restrict what kinds of treatments those providers can offer to treat seniors."
"Obama said Romney’s plan would result in “effectively a 30 percent cut” in the federal health program that covers health care for poor children and seniors receiving long-term care. Romney wants to give states complete control over their Medicaid spending (currently the federal government sets a lot of rules for Medicaid spending, because it contributes an average of half of the Medicare dollars in each state), and has pledged to hold spending to 20 percent of GDP.
According to the CBO, giving states total control of just a portion of Medicaid—often called “block granting”—would cut lots of money from the program. The federal government would save $287 billion over 10 years if long-term Medicaid care was given straight to states, more than Medicaid spent in total in 2010. The liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that for Romney to reach his pledge to keep spending within the 20 percent of GDP threshold, Medicaid would have to be reduced by at least 44 percent by 2022."
"At one point, the candidates sparred over whether business owners can currently take advantage of a tax credit to “send jobs overseas.”
Obama’s claim that such a credit exists is partly true, as Politifact found in its investigation of a similar issue last year: Business owners can deduct the costs of closing down U.S. operations as standard business expenses as they move to foreign-based operations."
"Romney says he will create 12 million new jobs during his first term. The Washington Post examined this claim after Romney’s speech at the Republican National Convention and concluded it “is a fairly safe bet by Romney, even if he has a somewhat fuzzy plan for action.” “…[T]he number is less impressive than it sounds. This pledge amounts to an average of 250,000 jobs a month, a far cry from the 500,000 jobs a month that Romney claimed would be created in a ‘normal recovery.’ In recent months, the economy has averaged about 150,000 jobs a month,” the Post said.
Moody’s Analytics expects the economy to gain 12 million jobs by 2016 no matter who wins in November."
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82002.html
"Independent analysts say Romney’s numbers don’t add up. The rate cuts and other changes he’s proposing would indeed total almost $5 trillion over 10 years, and though he said Wednesday he’d pay for those cuts by reducing deductions and credits, a study by the Tax Policy Center found that it was “mathematically impossible” to cover the $5 trillion reduction by eliminating tax breaks solely on high-income taxpayers."
"Romney’s health care plan covers “individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage.” That’s an important caveat: It doesn’t help sick people who have had a break in coverage or couldn’t get it before. It’s also fairly close to what the law already provided before “Obamacare” — people who moved from job to job were already covered.
Romney’s advisers have said he would expand those protections to the individual and small group markets, so his plan would go beyond current law. But there’s another significant issue his plan hasn’t addressed: Coverage can be expensive for people with pre-existing conditions, and he hasn’t said how he would make sure they don’t get charged premiums they can’t afford."
"Romney has said he’d repeal the 2010 Dodd-Frank reform law. Wednesday he argued that this was in part because he didn’t think the law was tough enough because it’s actually a gift to big banks by setting up a system that could bail them out in the future.
But Dodd-Frank provides no promise that too-big-to-fail banks will be bailed out. Only Congress could take such a step by passing a new law like TARP — and there is almost no chance of that happening, since the law has remained politically unpopular since it passed in 2008.
Romney seems to be hanging his argument on the idea that big banks do get some benefits under the law by virtue of new regulation. The law singles out large banks for increased regulation and oversight by regulators. This special treatment includes a new process, run by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., for liquidating the biggest banks if they were to run into trouble outside of bankruptcy courts. This translates into lower borrowing costs for these banks, the argument goes, because markets believe that if one of these banks wobbled, the government would ultimately step in and bail out investors as Washington did during the financial crisis.
But critics of Wall Street say Dodd-Frank actually does crack down on the big banks — and want the law kept in place for that reason."
Romney: “I think about half of [the green energy projects the federal government has] invested in, have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who are contributors to your campaigns.”
"Not quite half. Not even close. Of the 26 winners of Department of Energy loan guarantees under the stimulus, a total of three have gone belly up: Solyndra, Abound Solar and Beacon Power.
Several of the others, in fact, have thrived, including the maker of a Kansas cellulosic ethanol plant and one of the world’s largest wind projects in Oregon. About a dozen of the companies just got their awards in the fall of 2011, so the projects are still getting off the ground.
Romney’s campaign explained that he was including other troubled stimulus grant winners in his claim, including Raser Technologies, a Utah company that filed for bankruptcy protection despite winning $33 million in stimulus grants and ECOtality, an electric vehicle charging station manufacturer and developer that has acknowledged its under an SEC investigation.
Then there’s Solyndra. Not only was the loss huge — $535 million in taxpayer money to the now bankrupt California solar company — but the ties to the Obama campaign are deep. One of its private investors, George Kaiser, was an Obama ’08 bundler, though none of the internal emails released by the administration have showed favoritism toward the Tulsa oil billionaire. Other campaign contributors landed jobs handling stimulus money for the Energy Department, but they weren’t owners of any of the winning companies."
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/3/fact-check-presidential-debate-missteps/?page=all#pagebreak
"The rise in health insurance premiums has not been the slowest in 50 years, as Obama stated. Far from it. And there are not 23 million unemployed, as Romney asserted."
"OBAMA: “I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.”
THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those “cuts” away and Obama’s $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases.
Obama’s February budget offered proposals that would cut deficits over the coming decade by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion. Of that deficit reduction, tax increases accounted for $1.6 trillion. He promises relatively small spending cuts of $597 billion from big federal benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He also proposed higher spending on infrastructure projects."
"OBAMA: “Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it’s true — but they’ve gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we’re already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you’re already getting a rebate.”
THE FACTS: Not so, concerning premiums. Obama is mixing overall health care spending, which has been growing at historically low levels, and health insurance premiums, which have continued to rise faster than wages and overall economic growth. Premiums for job-based family coverage have risen by nearly $2,400 since 2009 when Obama took office, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent. This year’s 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.
When it comes to insurance rebates under Obama’s health care law, less than 10 percent of people with private health insurance are benefiting.
More than 160 million Americans under 65 have private insurance through their jobs and by buying their own policies. According to the administration, about 13 million people will benefit from rebates. And nearly two-thirds of that number will only be entitled to a share of it, since they are covered under job-based plans where their employer pays most of the premium and will get most of the rebate."
"ROMNEY: “At the same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up.”
THE FACTS: He’s right that the average price has doubled, and a little more, since Obama was sworn in. But presidents have almost no influence on gasoline prices, and certainly not in the near term. Gasoline prices are set on financial exchanges around the world and are based on a host of factors, most importantly the price of crude oil used to make gasoline, the amount of finished gasoline ready to be shipped and the capacity of refiners to make enough to meet market demand.
Retail electricity prices have risen since Obama took office — barely. They’ve grown by an average of less than 1 percent per year, less than the rate of inflation and slower than the historical growth in electricity prices. The unexpectedly modest rise in electricity prices is because of the plummeting cost of natural gas, which is used to generate electricity."
"ROMNEY: “What would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?”
THE FACTS:China continues to be portrayed by Romney and many other Republicans as the poster child for runaway federal deficits. It’s true that China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, but it only represents about an 8 percent stake. And China has recently been decreasing its holdings, according to the Treasury Department. Some two-thirds of the $16 trillion national debt is owed to the federal government, with the largest single stake the Federal Reserve, as well as American investors and the Social Security Trust Fund."
----------------------------------------------
Oddly enough, FOX News doesn't have a fact-check, but they do have this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/romney-energizes-campaign-with-feisty-debate-performance/
And a couple of other "tidbit" pieces on their companion sites:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-debate/2012/10/04/fact-check-destroys-obama-s-deficit-claim-debate
This is their most complete analysis; it's pretty good:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/04/fox-news-fact-check-presidential-debate-romney-obama/
"Romney claim: “And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.”
FALSE. Romney improperly compares loans, grants and tax breaks in the stimulus – a percentage of which goes to coal – to tax breaks for oil & gas companies. The $90 billion is also a 10-year number and he compares it to a single year of oil & gas company tax breaks. This is an apple to orange comparison.
* The approximately $90 billion allocated in the stimulus for “green energy” breaks down to $60.7 billion in spending (relatively immediate) and tax breaks worth $29.5 billion over a 10-year period.
* Of the approximately $90 billion, about $51.9 billion (57.66%) is for projects that are outside what most people would consider the “green energy world” compared to oil & gas companies:"
------------------------------------------------
A transcript of the entire debate: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/first_presidential_debate_transcript/](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/155288_475243982509533_636054131_n.jpg)
I missed it at the time, so did the actual liberal media such as MSNBC and the blogosphere. The mainstream media sleepwalked it as usual. Dingleberries like drudge "released" a "damning" video of the president from years ago sounding "aggressively black." Turns out, this may have been the one rovian political jujitsu move we have seen in this campaign so far.
Rachel Maddow's blog said this at the time: "The new, explosive video that was going to change the election wasn't new, wasn't explosive, and wasn't even interesting."Now, if the video was ignored or ridiculed at the time by "the left" and the knuckle-dragging teabags are too slow to pick up on it, what was the point? Apparently, the real target audience for this video by the mouth-breathing "strange sort of triumvirate" (drudge, hannity, and tucker carlson) was the Obama campaign team itself. Who took it waaaay too seriously and turned the president into a punching bag for mendacious mitt to commence the "gish gallop" all over the president and Jim Lehrer. Basically, the fascist pigs set up a booby-trap and the president walked right into it. Obama guarded his left when he needed to be aggressive, ugh.
And despite running one of the worst campaigns in the history of American politics, team robme actually caught up in the polls. Americans really are the most clueless people on the planet. I am sick. The gloom is total.
Now of course, the Obama team will overcompensate and get pegged as the angry black man we all "knew" him to be in the first place. R(money) will go back to playing the victim and the whole wingnut universe will throw a pity party all the way to election day.
Voila! Another stolen election and the beatings will resume their normal velocity.
No comments:
Post a Comment