At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

I was wondering when I was going to get to see the first complete list of Romney's lies during the debate. I caught a couple myself without having to look up the figures. Anyway, consider this, he tugged the heartstrings with... wait for it... hope and change appeals. Sadly, he does not have data to support, his ideas are unworkable. Obama may not be as effective as one would like, but his ideas do have evidence to support.

correct... we have evidence to support the complete failure of Obama's leftist his ideas- to return us to job growth (not accounting growth) re employment with good wages (not mc jobs) , a balanced budget, a decently growing economy, a sense that the future will be better for our kids.

 

[jem]

Quote from Free Thinker:

holy cow. are you guys all drunk on romney juice from the after debate party? does this sound anything like it doesnt add up:
"It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new?"
you are assuming that the changes he would have to make would be favorable to the deficit. when has a republican ever cut spending?

so you just conceded it was total bullshit for Obama and the left to try and claim Romney's plan would cause 5 trillion in debt.

 

[nutmeg]

Romney lies (myths).

So far

Romneys lies are only words at this point and accusations of the Dems of beiing lies. We can have hope and confidence that perhaps conditions will improve and Romney tells better lies.

Obama has had a few lies which have had consequences and were actionable lies. Vote of no confidence of Obama. He'll do it again. Obama has been lying to me for 4 years. Romney has only been lying to me since wed night.

 

[stoic]

Quote from Free Thinker:



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.

Over 230 years to get to $10.626 trillion...... 3.6 years to add another $5.374......

and some people want another 4 years.....mmmmm

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stoic:

Over 230 years to get to $10.626 trillion...... 3.6 years to add another $5.374......

and some people want another 4 years.....mmmmm

We can't afford more years.

 

[Epic]

Quote from Free Thinker:

...............
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.

...............

Were there several partial truths from both candidates? Yes. BUt you have to realize how funny the above statement sounds to conservatives.

Every day they see Obama/Biden out there chiding that our tax system is so unfair because the rich have so many deductions and loopholes that they pay almost no tax.

Now you (and many other liberals) are claiming that Romney was lying in the above statement because, "There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people...".

So which is it? So many loopholes that they evade the majority of taxes that they rightfully owe, or so few loopholes that they couldn't possibly offset $400B in rate cuts?

I'll throw some numbers out to suggest which might be the correct one. The top 2% constitute about 55% of federal income taxes. So in 2013 that would be about $1.2trillion and then increasing with wage growth. The common claim is that even though the rich have an marginal rate of 35% they only actually pay about 17% because of all the loopholes.

The reality is that just because someone is in a 35% bracket, they wouldn't be expected to pay a 35% effective rate, because the brackets are progressive. So for someone earning $250K annual the effective income rate with no special deductions is actually 23%. For someone making $1MM annual it would be about 31%. So for the bulk of the top 2% earners the effective rate without any deductions would be about 26%.

So we can rephrase this to mean that if the 17% figure is correct, then the rich are underpaying by about 1/3 of where they would be if there were zero deductions. By extension then, deductions currently result in about $600billion annual, and that is just income tax loopholes.

So if liberals are correct, and the rich pay less than 17% effective rate, then there seems to be more than enough loopholes available to offset the proposed $400billion that would result from rate reduction in 2013, and that only counts the amount the rich pay in income taxes. If we include other federal taxes (social, fees, corporate, etc) then there are absolutely enough loopholes to close.

OTOH, if there aren't enough loopholes to close, then that effectively means that the rich are paying much closer to the effective rate that our already very progressive tax system requires of them, meaning that they are arguably already paying their fair share and aren't doing a whole lot to avoid taxes in the first place.

Like I said. You have to pick one or the other.

 

[jem]

now that is a an epic post.

Quote from Epic:

Were there several partial truths from both candidates? Yes. BUt you have to realize how funny the above statement sounds to conservatives.

Every day they see Obama/Biden out there chiding that our tax system is so unfair because the rich have so many deductions and loopholes that they pay almost no tax.

Now you (and many other liberals) are claiming that Romney was lying in the above statement because, "There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people...".

So which is it? So many loopholes that they evade the majority of taxes that they rightfully owe, or so few loopholes that they couldn't possibly offset $400B in rate cuts?

I'll throw some numbers out to suggest which might be the correct one. The top 2% constitute about 55% of federal income taxes. So in 2013 that would be about $1.2trillion and then increasing with wage growth. The common claim is that even though the rich have an marginal rate of 35% they only actually pay about 17% because of all the loopholes.

The reality is that just because someone is in a 35% bracket, they wouldn't be expected to pay a 35% effective rate, because the brackets are progressive. So for someone earning $250K annual the effective income rate with no special deductions is actually 23%. For someone making $1MM annual it would be about 31%. So for the bulk of the top 2% earners the effective rate without any deductions would be about 26%.

So we can rephrase this to mean that if the 17% figure is correct, then the rich are underpaying by about 1/3 of where they would be if there we zero deductions. By extension then, deductions currently result in about $600billion annual, and that is just income tax loopholes.

So if liberals are correct, and the rich pay less than 17% effective rate, then there seems to be more than enough loopholes available to offset the proposed $400billion that would result from rate reduction in 2013, and that only counts the amount the rich pay in income taxes. If we include other federal taxes (social, fees, corporate, etc) then there are absolutely enough loopholes to close.

OTOH, if there aren't enough loopholes to close, then that effectively means that the rich are paying much closer to the effective rate that our already very progressive tax system requires of them, meaning that they are arguably already paying their fair share and aren't doing a whole lot to avoid taxes in the first place.

Like I said. You have to pick one or the other.

 

[Epic]

Interestingly, if you add up the top 10 tax deductions, the portion attributable to the top 2% equals about $450-475 billion annually. Could we get rid of these deductions? Yes, but do we really want to get rid of the deduction for charitable giving? What about the deduction for employer provided health benefits? The latter is the single biggest tax deduction available.

Oh and BTW, the numbers above include the loophole of claiming income as long term capital gains.

 

[wjk]

Quote from tradingjournals:

...so that america would not see a liar appearing in future debates.

No liars? That's going to create a mighty lonely debate. Moderator only...wait...the mods are all left wing journalists. Call off the debates.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Epic:

...Like I said. You have to pick one or the other.

Dumb fuck lying bleeding heart liberals? Oh no they don't.