Bill USA
Bill USA's JournalPolitifact says Obama statement re Romney's equating Trump to a small business gets a 'false' rating
Auditing the Fact-checkers for legitimacey (of their rationalization of their judgements)Are the people at Politifact playing dumb? Well, they're really stretching credulity with this one.
What I DO know they are doing, as they have in the past, is trying to find ways to judge statements by Demcrats as 'false' or 'questionable' so as to keep the balance (between Obama & the Democrats versus Romney and Republicans) from going too embarassingly hard against Romney and the Republicans. Thus, they have to come up with very questionable or outright fraudulent judgements against Obama and other Democrats.
In the review linked to below they say Obama gets a "false" for saying: "Under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business."
They go into a long discussion of technical definitions of what is a small business, going by number of employees or revenues. Then they say at the end of all this, Obama gets a 'false' because:
"Obama said that 'under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business.' But any tax cuts Trump would get from Romney would have nothing to do with whether hes a small business or not. We rate Obamas claim False."
THAT WAS OBAMA'S POINT! ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE YOU DON'T 'GET' THAT? Obama is saying that Romney's definition of a small business is so loose as to include someone like Trump or super wealthy Hedge-fund managers. [font size="+1"] And Obama's point is that this is fucking ridiculous[/font].
Politifact's Louis Jacobson also adds to his supposedly clinical analysis of the statement being examined that:
"The Obama campaign has often tried to remind voters of Romney's relationship with Trump, who has been the most prominent person to question where Obama was born. In TV ads, the Obama campaign has frequently shown a photo of Romney in front of a Trump jet. But was Obama correct when he said that "under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business"?"
[font size="+1"] ... is this part of your appraisal of the relevant facts Mr. Jacobson??[/font]
On this judgement call Politifact and Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact Senior Writer (really??), get a [font color="red"]FAIL[/font]
Barack Obama Says: "Under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business."
did Rmoney set a record in the debate: 27 lies in 38 minutes of prattling.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-38-minutesRomney won praise for his performance but only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers.
October 4, 2012 |
Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romneys strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obamas policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:
1) [G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs . Romneys 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 administrations new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.
2) I dont have a $5 trillion tax cut. I dont have a tax cut of a scale that youre talking about. A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romneys 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 Im 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.
<more>
... also: Romney consummate shape-shifter
Romney has assumed as many positions as a double-jointed streetwalker.
I really can't remember when I have seen anybody change positions with such alacrity or assert the opposite of a position he formerly propounded with such utter tranquility ("Pre-existing conditions?? my plan covers that!" ...Obama thought bubble: "Say WHAAAAT???!!!" .
<more>
10 Most Shameless Romney Debate Lies -- Debunked
October 4, 2012
The verdict is in: Mitt Romney handily won last nights debate, and did what he needed to do to have a fighting chance at winning the election. But what he didnt do, predictably, was tell the truth.
Romneys debate performance was chock full of lies, recalling his running mates address to the GOP convention, which was also chock full of lies. Hopefully, just as Ryans address was dissected and debunked by some media outlets, Romneys claims are as well, so the debate can move to substantive issues instead of stylistic ones.
Here are ten of Romneys fact-challenged claims from last night:
<more>
Romney, consummate shape-shifter (he's shifty alright)
Romney has assumed as many positions as a double-jointed streetwalker.
I really can't remember when I have seen anybody change positions with such alacrity or assert the opposite of a position he formerly propounded with such utter tranquility ("Pre-existing conditions?? my plan covers that!" ...Obama thought bubble: "Say WHAAAAT???!!!" .
Shapeshifting out of your stated positions may throw a debate opponenet off balance for a bit, but voters will sooner or later wonder if such a 'player' is on the level at all and punish him for it -- unless of course, the voters subconsciously think they deserve to be abused.
PolitiFact's guide to Mitt Romney's flip-flops (could not find a Politifact guide to Barack Obama flip-flops)
[DIV class="excerpt" style="width:460px"][font size=="+1" ]"STOP ME WHEN YOU'VE HEARD SOMETHING YOU LIKE"[/FONT]
Romney lied about Health Care cost increases being driven by the ACA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-in-denver-on-oct-3-running-transcript/2012/10/03/24d6eb6e-0d91-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_print.htmlThe two largest insurers in Connecticut recently submitted for very large rate increases. But the ACA was a tiny part of the causes for the increases.....
(emphasis my own)
Rising Health Costs, Not Obamacare, Are Increasing Insurance Rates In Connecticut
Filings from Connecticuts two largest health insurers, which both applied for double-digit rate increases this year, show that the insurance companies are not driving up their prices because Obamacare is leading them to do so. Rather, the rate increases are due to increasingly expensive health costs that are unaffected by the implementation of the health care law:
But the overwhelming reason for the rate increase requests is rising medical costs, the filings by Anthem, Aetna and ConnectiCare say. The companies say this is mainly because providers are raising their prices and patients are getting more care.
People are accessing more services and hospitals, doctors and labs are charging us more, Aetna spokeswoman Susan Millerick said.
The costs associated with the Affordable Care Act account for only a tiny fraction of the requested increases less than 1 percent. These amounts cover the costs of the preventative womens care benefits and the changes in cost sharing, said Paul Lombardo, the actuary for the state Insurance Department who reviews the rate increase requests.
While health care spending did rise at double the rate of inflation in 2010, a report by the Health Care Cost Institute confirms Connecticuts findings and concludes the rising prices are due to the health costs that crept up during the recession. In fact, Obamacare will help address this very issue. The health care reform law represents part of the solution not the problem, as Republicans claim as it seeks to help make health insurance more affordable by reforming payment models, reducing payments to hospitals, and prioritizing quality of care.
Romney's debate performance is not surprising - since such a setting rewards bald faced liars.
Romney saying:
1) "my plan covers pre-existing conditions" (yeah, as of that moment) ..and...
2) "I don't have a $5 Trillion tax cut"... after the Tax Policy Center's analysis clearly established that a 20% cut in tax rates and repealing the estate tax entirely, along with a list of other changes, would produce a loss of revenues of $456 billion by 2015 - which over 10 years (this is usually the time frame discussed by policy wonks in making their estimates) gets you to a rounded figure of $5 trillion.
ON THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF BASE-BROADENING INCOME TAX REFORM (of the Romney tax plan)
This plan would extend the 2001-03 tax cuts,
reduce individual income tax rates by 20 percent, eliminate taxation of investment income of most taxpayers (including individuals earning less than $100,000, and married couples earning less than $200,000), eliminate the estate tax, reduce the corporate income tax rate, and repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the high-income taxes enacted in 2010s health-reform legislation.1 We estimate that these components would reduce revenues by $456 billion in 2015 relative to a current policy baseline.2 According to statements by Governor Romney and his advisors, the remainder of the plan will include policies to offset this revenue loss, although there are no details on how that would be achieved.
I think this kinda 'threw' Obama, who is a classy, reserved guy, and who no doubt thought but, balked at saying: "Don't give me that shit! Those are fucking facts!!"
Once the fact checking begins, a clearer picture will emerge as to who did better in the first debate. But the only problem is, I admitt, a significant fraction (or, should I say 'faction') of the population seems to place little importance on the facts in these matters.
debate transcript
..."FACTS?....FACTS??...WEEEEE DON'T NEEEED NO STINKING FACTS!!!"....Mitt Rmoney(?)
Romney claim Obamacare will "kill jobs" another RBL (Romney Big Lie) CBO says mimimal impact on jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/mitt-romney-obamacare-jobs_n_1937929.html?ref=topbarRepublican presidential nominee Mitt Romney repeated charges that President Barack Obama's health care law will kill jobs -- a claim at odds with Congressional Budget Office projections and the effects of Romney's own health care law in Massachusetts.
"I just don't know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the -- at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs," Romney said.
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees, FactCheck.org noted in June. According to the nonpartisan agency's estimates, health care reform will reduce the workforce by 0.5 percent. That's mostly because people would choose to retire early or work fewer hours, FactCheck.org reported.
If the national experience under Obamacare mirrors what happened in Massachusetts under Romney's similar health care law, job losses won't be a major issue. Employment trends in Massachusetts since Romneycare took effect have mirrored national trends, concluded a report issued by the Urban Institute in June. "The evidence from Massachusetts would suggest that national health reform does not imply job loss and stymied economic growth," said the report.
<more>
of course, Rmoney doesn't want to consider how big increases in health care costs to people - WITHOUT THE ACA in place - would impact sales of all companies. People spending a significantly greater amount of their income on health care will be spending much less for everything else. .... Huh, RMoney .... what the fuck about THAT!? Let's see you bullshit your way out of that one!
Actually, if ACA wasn't there and Health care costs kept going up like they have been the last decade, the impact on jobs due to depressed sales, on every sector BUT health care would be far greater than the cost of the ACA to employers.
Congressmen Call Hearing On Libya Security Measures - Darrell Issa leads charge
Congressmen Call Hearing On Libya Security Measures[font size="+1" color="gray"]Hearing comes as a new poll says voters still trust Obama over Romney on foreign policy.[/font]
[font size="+1"]Darrell Issa, Grand Inquisitor, has questions for Sec. Clinton[/font]
Republican lawmakers called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday to answer their questions on security shortcomings in Libya, also scheduling an emergency House Oversight and Government Reform hearing next week to discuss the administration's failures, even though Congress is not in session.
Two Republicans, California Rep. Darrell Issa and Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, have charged that the consulate in Benghazi faced multiple security threats prior to the September attacks, but that the Obama administration failed to appropriately respond.
<more>
Darrell Issa catching a nap in his office..
Gregory Beclowns Himself With Awful Performance Moderating Elizabeth Warren-Scott Brown Debate
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/david-gregory-beclowns-himself-awful-performance-moderating-elizabeth-warren-scottOctober 2, 2012 Monday nights Elizabeth Warren/Scott Brown debate turned out to be memorable. Not so much because of what the candidates said, but because of the bad reviews of the debate moderater, David Gregory. The NBC Meet the Press host used the badgering style of that show on both candidates, inserting himself heatedly into a hectic discussion that seemed to center on media talking points and playing gotcha rather than substantive issues. Viewers were neither amused nor informed.
Gregory got off to a bad start, opening the evening with a question about Warrens supposed Native American heritage, which was exactly the same question that opened the first debate. The utterly unenlightening discussion went on for a full ten minutes.
As he lobbed patronizing, irrelevant questions at both candidates, Twitter erupted into fury on both sides of the political aisle.
<more>
Gregory thinks if he talks real[font size="+1"] loud[/font], he will fool people so they won't know he is an air-head, .... and a dick.
Five Obscene Reasons the Rich Keep Getting Richer as Middle Class declines
http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-obscene-reasons-why-richest-americans-grow-richer-middle-class-declines?page=0%2C0&akid=9471.263688.Tt44KS&rd=1&src=newsletter719318&t=3The super-rich have learned a new lesson: it is far better to take than to make.
If you want to see whats wrong with America take a good look at the nauseating list of the 400 richest Americans the Forbes 400 . While the economy struggled to create jobs, it was another banner year for the super-rich. They increased their collective wealth by a whopping $200 billion, which is more than enough to provide every student in the country with free higher education.
Meanwhile, the median middle-class family the one smack in the middle of the income distribution -- saw its net worth (assets minus liabilities) drop from $102,844 in 2005 to $66,740 in 2010 according to the U.S. Census Bureau . So while the richest 400 Americans increased their wealth by 54 percent since 2005, the median middle-class family saw its wealth decline by 35 percent. Welcome to the new American math.
Its not easy to wrap our arms around so much financial fat. The numbers involved are truly mind-boggling. Heres more new math:
The richest 400 Americans have as much combined wealth as 25.5 million middle-income Americans. 400 = 25.5 million!
The average wealthy member of the Forbes 400 is 63,000 times as rich as the average middle-class family. One = 63,000!
It would take the median middle-class family 82,411 years to earn an amount equal to the wealth of the average person on the rich list. Thats the very definition of financial obscenity.
<more>
GOP Congress really does make the rich richer
[font size="+1"]A new study confirms what we figured all along -- a Republican Congress is good for the country's 1 percent [/font]
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/02/gop_congress_really_does_make_the_rich_richer/singleton/
Are you rich and want to get richer? Vote Republican! The stronger the GOP is in Congress, the larger the share of wealth the top 1 percent controls, according to a new study in the October issue of American Sociological Review, which confirms what we figured all along theres a direct connection between the rightward shift of Congress and the upward advance of the richest Americans net worths.
From 1949 through 2008, the impact of a 1 percentage point increase in the share of seats held by Republicans in the House (a little over five seats) raised the top 1 percents income share by about .08 percentage points. At first glance, this might seem negligible, said Thomas Volscho, a sociologist at CUNY-College of Staten Island who co-authored the study. But its not. Given that the estimated national income in 2008 was more than $7.8 trillion, an increase of only 1 percent in Republican seat share would raise the income of the top 1 percent by nearly $6.6 billion. That equates to about $6,600 per family in the top 1 percent.
The ASR study, The Rise of the Super-Rich, looks at the experience of the 1 percent from just after World War II to 2008 and identifies several other factors that have propelled the top tiers rise. The fact that the uber wealthy have gotten richer much faster than lower-income brackets has been well documented and helped spark the Occupy movement, but this research looks at the role that policy and other variables have played.
~~
~~
But the most surprising finding of the study may be the impact a GOP Congress has on income inequality. Based on our analysis, Democrats appear to favor an economic system that produces more egalitarian outcomes even before any redistribution occurs, the study concludes. In essence, the market is not completely beyond the influence of politics and policy, and it is not just in the realm of explicit redistribution that political parties produce divergent distributional outcomes. Political decisions in part make the market.
<more>
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436