Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Again, what I said was his positions post primary. Now, if you want to talk about pre-primary Romney, the only issue I am aware of is the abortion flip. He was once pro-choice, but he stated that he had a life changing moment while working in hospitals in Mass that changed his mind. But to be fair, regardless, it's still a flip flop.

Please show me the changes in his platform since winning the primary (all the things he's been campaigning on).

If you'd like, we can then discuss all the changes Obama made since becoming President. I've got a whole host of videos from him saying things like how he was against raising the debt ceiling, or Gitmo, etc...
More...
Oh you're talking about the new Romney since the last shake of the etch-a-sketch.
Gotcha :)
 
Quote from mrbill:

Easy enough google;
Presidential Debates 2012: Romney May Have Won on Word Count, But Left a Web of Lies Behind

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...ft-a-web-of-misstatements-and-contradictions.

Here are two from the list of 27
"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."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...ts-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
More...

Sorry Bill. What I said was "I have asked folks to show one point that was inconsistent in the debate from what Romney had earlier advocated post primary." What you're doing is taking a partisan site (think progress) and showing me how the numbers stated in Romney's debate wording are not considered accurate when put in a statistical vacuum.

For example, it is true that eliminating the estate tax, the AMT and "other tax reductions" would reduce federal revenue by $5 Trillion. What that study (and you) are conveniently leaving out is that Romney also talked about substantially reducing a whole host of income tax deductions to make up for it. He said this back in May of this year, and he reiterated it in the debate. He also said, quite clearly, he would not put in tax reductions that would cause the deficit to increase.

Here is Politifact's (also leaning left) comment on precisely what I was talking about, and points out the FLAW in your (and Obama's argument). But caution - reading it will neutralize your spin!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/obama-says-romneys-plan-5-trillion-tax-cut/

Now, if you want to go over the lies by BOTH candidates in the debate, I am happy to do so. But if you wish to address my original question, then it is not some "easy google" you can do.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

Oh you're talking about the new Romney since the last shake of the etch-a-sketch.
Gotcha :)
More...

So you can't point out where there are differences, then?

If not, then you're no different that Chris Matthews who claimed the same, but provided no examples at all.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Sorry Bill. What I said was "I have asked folks to show one point that was inconsistent in the debate from what Romney had earlier advocated post primary." What you're doing is taking a partisan site (think progress) and showing me how the numbers stated in Romney's debate wording are not considered accurate when put in a statistical vacuum.

For example, it is true that eliminating the estate tax, the AMT and "other tax reductions" would reduce federal revenue by $5 Trillion. What that study (and you) are conveniently leaving out is that Romney also talked about substantially reducing a whole host of income tax deductions to make up for it. He said this back in May of this year, and he reiterated it in the debate. He also said, quite clearly, he would not put in tax reductions that would cause the deficit to increase.

Here is Politifact's (also leaning left) comment on precisely what I was talking about, and points out the FLAW in your (and Obama's argument). But caution - reading it will neutralize your spin!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/obama-says-romneys-plan-5-trillion-tax-cut/

Now, if you want to go over the lies by BOTH candidates in the debate, I am happy to do so. But if you wish to address my original question, then it is not some "easy google" you can do.
More...

OK then, I'll go with your link:

;Our ruling

President Obama said Mitt Romney seeks a $5 trillion tax cut.

The $5 trillion figure accounts for only half of Romney’s plan -- and it's cumulative over 10 years. The governor says he will offset those lost revenues by reducing tax deductions and eliminating loopholes. However, he has never said what those changes would be.

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and Romney would not fill in the gaps.

We rate the statement Half True."

Again, no backup nor specifics.

Taking 4.8 vs. 5.0 trillion, not a big deal. Moving tax loopholes around, might be a big deal since some affect lower tax bracket, and some affect higher tax brackets. I would like to see more specifics.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

So you can't point out where there are differences, then?

If not, then you're no different that Chris Matthews who claimed the same, but provided no examples at all.
More...

I've already listed several flips of mr Romney of course that was pre etch-a-shetch so it doesn't count. And your smart enough Tao to do a google search of Romneys flips, it doesn't matter if someone here lists them or not. I think you just like pissing contests.
 
Quote from mrbill:

OK then, I'll go with your link:

;Our ruling

President Obama said Mitt Romney seeks a $5 trillion tax cut.

The $5 trillion figure accounts for only half of Romney’s plan -- and it's cumulative over 10 years. The governor says he will offset those lost revenues by reducing tax deductions and eliminating loopholes. However, he has never said what those changes would be.

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and Romney would not fill in the gaps.

We rate the statement Half True."

Again, no backup nor specifics.

Taking 4.8 vs. 5.0 trillion, not a big deal. Moving tax loopholes around, might be a big deal since some affect lower tax bracket, and some affect higher tax brackets. I would like to see more specifics.
More...

The thing is, he did mention some specifics, but cautioned them because he is not positive how they would play out until he sits down with Congress. But he mentioned limiting total deductions to some number like 50,000 or so (which would be a HUGE hit to the wealthy - something he admits openly). The point is, the $5T addition to the deficit is a lie. Romney stood up in front of 67MM people and stated he would not add to the deficit with his tax cuts - and this is something he has been stating all along in his campaign.

So once again, point out the inconsistencies between what he said in the debate vs. his campaign post primary like the media is claiming.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

I've already listed several flips of mr Romney of course that was pre etch-a-shetch so it doesn't count. And your smart enough Tao to do a google search of Romneys flips, it doesn't matter if someone here lists them or not. I think you just like pissing contests.
More...

No. What you did was type some text on a message forum. Anyone can do that. I can type that Big Bird is a communist, and that Bert is an evil conspirator trying to bring down the world. Unless you've got some facts or links of reputable information, all you are is a windbag.

I post my sources when I make a statement. You just...well, use wind.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

...Romney stood up in front of 67MM people and stated he would not add to the deficit with his tax cuts - and this is something he has been stating all along in his campaign...
More...
Yes, but aside from the closure of unspecified loopholes, he alluded to the improvement in the economy to pick up the slack and iron out any budgetary deficiencies attributed to the tax cuts. Listen to what he said. That was one of the variables upon which his balancing act is dependent. While we all want and expect the economy to improve materially in due course, it's rather pie-in-the-sky to account for it in a budgetary forecast. This gives him his out when the deficit increases under his watch. "Oh, perhaps we should have cuts taxes even more to even better stimulate the economy. My bad. Let's get 'er done."
 
jem, any intrade contracts? :D

I thought I would lose all of my money on intrade, but it looks like I will now make more % gain on intrade than any other trade. :eek: I sold Odumer at $70-$73.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top