Saturday, October 6, 2012

Liberals Cry That Romney Lies for 38 minutes straight...

HELP!!! This task is too daunting for just me, so I need to solicit the help of my friends at Commentarama. I have been having an ongoing (and pointless) disagreement with a liberal "friends" on Facebook - an irrational Obama supporter.

On one of his posts that was directed at me specifically, he posted the 27 lies that Romney told in the debate on Wednesday. Well, none of these were his original observations. He lifted them verbatim from a website - readersupportednews.org - and used it as his own. Well, feel free to read through them.

My favorite is #26:

26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”

It was the easiest to refute since "We The People" lost $627 million on Solyndra alone. My friend and the writers of #26 just plain forgot about the 14 other (and counting) "green companies" that have filed for bankruptcy since Solyndra in February 2012.

But here are 1 through 10 of his 27 point diatribe on the dishonesty of Mitt Romney.
Please feel free to refute away:

1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

8) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.

Or in the alternative, I could sure use some tips on how to get my puppy not to bark at 2am...

Oh, just for the record, my FB "friend" is a clown...no, really, he's a professional clown.

21 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

Bev - I used to get really pissed at people who do politics on FB, but given the seriousness of the consequences, I understand. My advice will be 1) call him out on his plagiarism in a sarasti matter. 2) Refute a few of his points; those that can quickly and easily be dispatched as examples. State you could go on and refute the others off line, but don't want to waste energy doing so to someone who can't even offer their own original thoughts.

That's just the way I would approach it though.

BevfromNYC said...

Funny, TennJ, that is pretty much what I have done with a very long response to #26 listing all of the "green" companies that have gone bankrupt and how much we have lost...

tryanmax said...

#1 Doesn't even address whether Romney lied about anything. I don't understand the claim.

#2 Is based on zero-sum-gain economics. Romney refuted those in the debate, as well, pointing out that lowering taxes increases revenues. Basic, proven Laffer curve stuff that libs refuse to believe. Stretching the cuts out over a decade to reach $5 trillion is also dishonest b/c a) Romney can't be president for a decade and b) using that method, you can extend to any time-frame to get any figure you want.

#3 Suddenly Dems are worried about the effect of the deficit on the middle class? Will wonders ever cease!? This point assumes the false point made in #2. Ignorance of the Laffer curve makes the math behind Obama's proposal unworkable. It all comes down to whether one chooses to believe in real-life economic phenomena or not.

#4 If this is a fact-check, it is straining to raise the number of "lies." This is the third entry in a row that assumes the Laffer curve is a fairy tale. Besides, even if it were a lie, it's dirty pool to count the same idea more than once just b/c it gets repeated.

#5 How can anyone know? This entry and the quote therein do not name any of the studies in question. Pretty slick, putting no facts in the fact check.

#6 WTF? Is this in defense of Obama? B/c it makes it pretty clear that Obama isn't planning on paying down the debt in any fashion. Furthermore, the refutation (if it can be called that) shifts the subject. It doesn't address how much Obama plans to raise or lower taxes, it simply states that less of what people are taxed will go against the debt. That means Obama could raise the rate by as much as Romney states or more and just spend the money on other things. This is a total side-step which answers nothing.

#7 Again, slight-of-hand. Romney references "America's workers." That's typical short hand for wage and salary earners. And in that sense, the ~50/50 figure is correct (last I checked). They can only call Romney's statement a lie by first lying about what he said.

#8 This is playing semantics in the worst way. This point claims that the issuance of permits equates to an increase in actual production. That is just silly. As the item points out, many of the permits are for exploration: meaning there is no guarantee of oil even if they start drilling. Also, in political parlance, "sitting" on a permit generally means they aren't drawing any oil. I just gave one reason why that might be that doesn't involve any actual sitting. There are many others.

#9 That's pretty impossible b/c it depends on how you want to do the math.

#10 Oh, so it's okay to cite studies they like, but not ones they don't. To be fair, Obama hasn't proposed much of anything in the way of policy, so organizations wishing to analyze the president's plans must take scant information from his speeches and make reasonable assumptions as to the rest. I would venture that policy groups' assumptions are far more reasonable than any ideas floating around in Obama's head, meaning that whatever he has in mind is far less workable than even the wonks are saying it is.

(P.S. You probably noticed that I only responded to the claims as written and didn't drag in much outside info. This "fact check" is shockingly bereft of any facts. Your friend is quite insulting, if you were to ask me.)

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I've stopped arguing with liberals because they don't accept facts they don't like. People like that aren't worth arguing with.

Not to mention, I'm not interested in "fact checking" Romney until they fact check Obama first.... for the first time in their lives. i won't play their game of letting them trying to debunk our side while they ignore obvious lies on their side. Those aren't people worth talking to.

ScottDS said...

I don't have much to add, except I usually ignore the political stuff from both sides on Facebook. On one hand, I'm always surprised when a friend comes out to support a conservative politician (I just assume most of my friends lean left)...

...on the other hand, I'm really surprised by how many friends aren't just left, but far left... to the point where they bash, not just Fox News, but all the networks (a.k.a. "the corporate media") and mention various stories about the environment and racism - stories that I would just assume they'd ordinarily not care about.

Tam said...

Say, asking for specifics from supporters of a guy who ran on "hope" and "change" is a bit rich. (Credit to Drew at Ace of Spades)

K said...

Here's a complete answer to number 2.
LINK

tryanmax said...

K, that pretty much takes care of #3 and #4, too.

wahsatchmo said...

#2 was already refuted by both Factcheck.org and CNN. Romney's plan includes reducing certain deductions to offset the rate cuts, which he hasn't specifically identified yet. So it's hard to make any claim until that portion of his policy is made clear.

I would also point out that the Tax Policy Center is hardly neutral, considering that it is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute, which are funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. Last I checked, these foundations give heavily to liberal causes.

Since #2 isn't true, #3 through #5 can't be true either since they are dependent on #2.

As tyranmax points out, #6 and #7 are just silly. #7's just a collection of meaningless speculation and stupid examples.

I'll do one more, and that's it.

#9 Notice what he said: "debt held by the public". That's specific. There are nonmarketable US obligations in the debt (like for Social Security, they basically just represent IOUs since nobody can actually buy them) that are excluded from the public debt calculation, because they represent obligations the government owes to itself.

So honest to goodness marketable debt not held by Federal Reserve Banks was somewhere around $5.893 trillion in Dec 2008. In June 2012, it was $9.8 trillion. It's higher now, but you can see that Obama's piled on $4 trillion in marketable debt held by the public, when previously it was under $6 trillion before his administration. If we go back to 2007, the marketable debt held by the public was $4.4 trillion, which was when the Democrats seized control of Congress and then quickly added $1.5 trillion in one year.

It's pretty clear that Romney's comment was essentially correct as he stated.

But really, we could do this all day. When you have wild, partisan claims that deliberately ignore what Romney said or conveniently leave out portions of his policies, they're just trying to create a talking point and make you waste time doing the research they didn't do. This is why Obama was so shocked in the debate; he'd make a wild accusation about Romney's policies, and Romney would say "That's not true."

How could Obama respond to that? "But I want it to be true? Why can't you say it's true?"

"Because it's not."

So really, the best way to respond to something like this is to be Romney and say "that's not true." When they ask you to prove it, simply say, "At a glance, I can spot false assumptions and mischaracterizations in the first few alone. That means you're just doing this to waste my time responding, which is a known Alinsky tactic. I will not be goaded into playing by those rules."

wahsatchmo said...

I see K beat me to #2 while I was typing out my response. Here's where I got the information for #9, it's a publication of the Treasury:

wahsatchmo said...

Heck, it's hard to beat Jeff Goldstein for this kind of stuff. Finally, the definitive definitive reason for Obama’s poor debate performance is revealed.

tryanmax said...

wahsatchmo, LOL! Thanks for sharing. That thing is hyper-linked to he hilt! I'll be combing through that for a while. LOL!

I can't recall the last time I saw such colorful political discourse as, "that lying rich Honky motherf****r." I think it was about...oh....never ago! LOL!

BevfromNYC said...

Wahsatchmo - Love it! My favorite line.

"...The American people deserve no less. The lying lies of lying liars who lie in order to build lies onto which they can map the lying lies of lying, can not be allowed to stand!"

BevfromNYC said...

Tryanmax I copied you r responses verbatim and gave you full credit. Let's see if the clown responds. He never does. One of his friends responded to my #26 - he said that the numbers didn't matter because it was still a lie. Ugh...why do I bother.

BevfromNYC said...

Say, asking for specifics from supporters of a guy who ran on "hope" and "change" is a bit rich. (Credit to Drew at Ace of Spades)

Tam- very good point! They really do get confused if there are more than three words in a sentence. That's why when Obama uses all those words, he never actually has to say anything. His obedient servants don' really hear anything but the "hope and change" tone anyway. Kind of like the adults talking in Charlie Brown cartoons - "Waa wawaa Hope wawaa change wawaa"

ambisinistral said...

Answering his questions allows him to set the limits of the discussion. Don't fall for it. Instead point out that you think the differences between Obama and Romney are policy differences, and not one side or the other telling lies.

Ask them why they are such a drama queen that they can't credit the other side in being sincere in their beliefs?

Don't play whack-a-mole trying to dispute every "lie" they allege. Instead attack them for being so small minded and intolerant that they would even belief such slander.

In other words, seize the initiative and make them defend their intolerance of other views.

T-Rav said...

As far as Claim #2 goes, even Obama hack Stephanie Cutter admitted it was bogus, so I don't see much stock in these talking points.

And for #9, that's a bit like a soda company claiming their prices will never be as high as their competitors', then jacking them up to a penny or two below that point and crying, "See? Still not as low!" That's not really the point, is it?

Individualist said...

Bev #2

Who ever did the study evidently put no time or thought into it. Tax Revenues today are 2.25 trillion (actrually somewhat less than that). To get 450 billion just multiply that number by 20%. Gee did they get paid 100K for that two second analysis.

Ridiculous for several reasons. One the upper tax rate will probably not be dropped that much. Second that means the person doing the study never gave any consideration to the fact that Romney wanted to justify lower rates by phasing out loopholes and deductions.

Not to mention that those revenues do not all come from income tax. They include SSN, Medicare, Corporate income tax, estate tax and tariffs and customs. A reduction in personal income tax rates does not reduce the monies collected from other than personal income tax.

That statement can be best described as ... what's the diplomatic word, intellectually challenged.... Yeah let's go with that.

Individualist said...

Bev #1

So what fuel efficiency standards in Romney supposed to use. If the projected fuel demand is based on prior policies he assumes Romney has to use projections based on fuel efficiency statndards that were never implemented.

Is it this individuals assumption that electing a President does not just change future policy but actually reorders the Universe and changes the past.

Fact of the matter is to get energy independent we have to start drilling for oil, mining coal and build the pipline from Canada. Since Obama won't do these things we won't get energy efficient. The only point he can be making is that if Obama is wrong on his Demand then it will be even harder to get independent. Which means that under Obama things will get even worse.

Uh ... let's go with Intellectually chanllenged on that one too.

Individualist said...

# 3 is a non sequitor

Just because you say Romney wants a five trillion tax cut does not make it so. Since Romney is not expecting to cut five trillion in revenue and given the fact that the 450 billion in 10 year nubmer is uh intellectually challenged well the statement has no bearing to the discussion.

However, while it is ture that the wealthy have fewer deductions in the sense the itemized and standard deductions are limited and finally removed to a flat rate there are in fact several loopholes even today that have been added back by Obama that can be eleiminated. So the statement does not consider all the facts.

Individualist said...

#4

As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral.

Why? How come it is the Tax Policy Center only has to make a statement but does not have to justify it?

But even so the statement is incorrect. If you phase out itemized deductions and the standard dedution you can offer a reduction in the tax rate that equals this amount. It is a matter of being able to do basic algebra which I guess is an arcane skill that surpasses the combined experience of people at the Tax Policy Center.

Romeny clearly stated hee wanted lower rates and less complicated tax returns.

By the way you save one more way. By eliminating thousands of line of tax code and simplifying the overall tax return it becomes easier to fill out the form, calculate the tax, plan for the tax, math check the tax returns and you need fewer IRS agents to collect the tax. Not only that there are less avenues for tax lawyers to find loopholes meaning that overall the amount of tax litigation necessary is reduced alleviating stress on the judicial system.

Post a Comment