The Morning After: And Then The Fact-Checking Began

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
As is always necessary to point out: No, I'm not an Obama supporter. Ron Paul in '08 and Gary Johnson in 2012.

That said...

You can almost smell the pants-wetting by the giddy Romney devotees. But before you folks get too worked-up into a deification you might want to begin dissecting what was actually SAID rather than focus entirely on the kabuki theater we all watched last night. Others already have begun the post mortem:

Green Energy Claim

Oil and Gas

Senior Drug Costs

Job Creation

Donald Trump




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I said it last night right after the debates. Romney "won" the night because he didn't shove his foot in his mouth at any point. But once the fact checking begins and he starts having to defend all the lies he said on that stage, people will quickly realize that his "win" was purely cosmetic.

Last night, sure, you can say Romney "won". In the long run, it is a "loss" for Romney. I think it is neither a win or loss for Obama, he breaks even.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
you can't win a debate thats based on opinions.

if you agree with everything obama said, then for you obama won.

if you agree with everything romney said, then romney won.

romney can afford to make all this bold vague statements because he has nothing to lose.

obama has to be very careful because he's still president and will be held accountable.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
It doesn't matter which one wins, America loses, period.

Neither of them cares about the little guy.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Obama made an interesting claim regarding Social Security by stating that it was structurally sound. I wonder if he knows that S.S. faces $8.6 trillion in unfunded obligations.


“The open group unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $8.6 trillion in present value and is $2.1 trillion more than the measured level of a year ago,” said the trustees’ report. “If the assumptions, methods, starting values, and the law had all remained unchanged, the unfunded obligation would have risen to about $7.0 trillion due to the change in the valuation date. The remaining increase in the unfunded obligation is primarily due to updated data and economic assumptions.”

The trustees point out that a major legislative change that increased the unfunded obligation of Social Security was the cut in the Social Security payroll tax that had been advocated by President Obama. This payroll tax funds the Social Security program.



“In 2011, Social Security’s cost continued to exceed both the program’s tax income and its non-interest income, a trend that the Trustees project to continue throughout the short-range period and beyond,” the report said. “The 2011 deficit of tax income relative to cost was $148 billion, and the projected 2012 deficit is $165 billion. The sizes of these deficits are largely due to a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax for 2011 and 2012.

www.ssa.gov...

It appears that the foundation is rotting in Obama's "structurally sound" Social Security utopia... We've been warned about this for years.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
As is always necessary to point out: No, I'm not an Obama supporter. Ron Paul in '08 and Gary Johnson in 2012.

That said...

You can almost smell the pants-wetting by the giddy Romney devotees. But before you folks get too worked-up into a deification you might want to begin dissecting what was actually SAID rather than focus entirely on the kabuki theater we all watched last night. Others already have begun the post mortem:

Green Energy Claim

Oil and Gas

Senior Drug Costs

Job Creation

Donald Trump





Those are CNN "fact-check" hit pieces after the media just got slaughtered and you say I should believe even a single word out of a mortally wounded wolf. I choose no.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Well if you even bothered to read the links you'd see that CNN provided the source of the fact checking. I'm sure it would be hunky-dory if it was on FOX. You'd also see that Obama gets dinged as well.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Well if you even bothered to read the links you'd see that CNN provided the source of the fact checking. I'm sure it would be hunky-dory if it was on FOX. You'd also see that Obama gets dinged as well.

I did look through them and can post you other sites where the numbers are in the exact opposite direction in every case.

So much disinformation, so little conscience.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I think you don't understand what "structurally sound" means. And you also are leaving out an importan part of Obama's statement.

news.yahoo.com...

Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.


Structurally sound does not mean that it is perfectly funded or financially sound for the future. It means that the basic idea, the concept of social security is sound and we don't need a new system.
edit on 4-10-2012 by HostileApostle because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Well Social Security would have a much brighter future if Washington (going back to Reagan) had have kept their thieving hands out of it. You DO realize don't you that several trillion of the National Debt is money the Gov owes the people for robbing the Social Security fund in the past. The fund would have been generating interest on the money they stole and would have had a longer life expectancy.

Now granted...in the long term, it still needs work...like reducing the bureaucracy for starters. It's pain though, would have been much lessened had the Gov kept their sticky fingers off of it.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 



I did look through them and can post you other sites where the numbers are in the exact opposite direction in every case.


Then do it.

Less talk, more action.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Yes, words of wisdom sir! Star for you.

I wont waste valuable server space with any of my ramblings, you already said it as well as it can be said,



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I have seen and heard of these "fact-checkers" and have to laugh. Why? Because if you think that Romney doesn't have a team of his own "fact-checkers" who give him things to say that haven't been checked, double checked, re-checked, because they know that at this level of the game anything he says will be analyzed, checked, re-checked and torn apart then you are extremely naive. They know EXACTLY what they are doing...and for people to try to "fact-check" things he said at the debate is quite humorous and redundant to the point of ludicrousness. Common sense people...



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by jibeho
 


I think you don't understand what "structurally sound" means. And you also are leaving out an importan part of Obama's statement.

news.yahoo.com...

Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.


Structurally sound does not mean that it is perfectly funded or financially sound for the future. It means that the basic idea, the concept of social security is sound and we don't need a new system.
edit on 4-10-2012 by HostileApostle because: (no reason given)


Nice save!!
Try to catch the ball with two hands next time. I guess you didn't read the report did you. All 252 pages of it... Don't go building any "structurally sound" foundations in my neighborhood....

ETA
How does one "tweak" $8.6 trillion in unfunded obligations...
edit on 4-10-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


I am fully aware of the plundering. Which is why I support an effort to, at the very least, partially privatize social security. My account, my money, hands off!!.... It worked with great success in Chile...



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I think it is safe to say you really don't understand the meaning of structurally sound.

It has nothing to do with current funding.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Mitt did a great job dancing and reminded me of this politician
www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
But before you folks get too worked-up into a deification you might want to begin dissecting what was actually SAID rather than focus entirely on the kabuki theater we all watched last night.



Don't almost all politicians lie to skew things in their favor?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HostileApostle
 


Easy on the Kool Aid... Look at the numbers... Sure the premise of Social Security sounds great.... That's about it... It's called reality.... Welcome to reality!!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by HostileApostle
 


Easy on the Kool Aid... Look at the numbers... Sure the premise of Social Security sounds great.... That's about it... It's called reality.... Welcome to reality!!!!


Social Security has been a successful program for nearly 80 years, and now all of a sudden it doesn't work in reality?

Adjustments need to be made based on population demographics, but that is all. The statement that is structurally sound is still true, it has been structurally sound for nearly 80 years, and it will continue to be in the future as long as it is adjusted correctly to handle population demographics.

By the way, did you notice Romney didn't disagree with Obama on that?





top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join