2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm still trying to figure out which of those articles were outright lies.

True - He supports subsidies for big oil. (look at the voting record I posted)

Distortion - Here's the detail on what libs (and any website that says "progress" or "progressive" is left-wing) call "Big Oil Subsidies".

All manufacturers except the oil and gas industry get to deduct 9 percent of their revenues before calculating their tax bills. (It’s worth noting that “manufacturing” is so broadly defined that it includes newspapers and software companies in addition to producers of wind turbines and solar panels.) Though oil and gas producers get the deduction, they are singled out for a lower 6 percent deduction.
Let’s review that. The oil and gas industry gets a deduction that is only two-thirds as generous as for all other manufacturers (wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers and even The New York Times, for example), yet the deduction is called a subsidy to oil and gas. The President’s proposal does not eliminate the deduction for any other industry.

Ryan is for closing corporate tax loopholes. Obama and the libs like to point to his votes on Continuing Resolutions to keep the gov't running as supporting big oil....intentional gross distortions are lies in my book.

True- Mitt Romney will pay very little (if any) taxes under the Ryan budget. (even Mitt Romney said this in the earlier debate with Newt Gingrich.

False - the article even mentions that Obama / Dems are pointing to a 2010 budget plan that eliminated capital gains....for ALL Americans. The current plan reduces the CG rate, not eliminates it. The claim that Romney would pay no taxes (or 0.82%) under the current plan is a lie.

So essentially they'll be raising taxes on the middle class yet lowering it for the upper elite.

I've posted this before....it would help if you'd read and understand it. On financial matters, I'll take the Wall Street Journal over ABC or some XYZ for Progress blog.

Review & Outlook: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale - WSJ.com

Romney's at the top of the ticket, here's his plan and it reduces Federal Tax Rates for ALL Americans. "
The heart of Mr. Romney's actual proposal is a 20% rate cut for anyone who pays income taxes. This means, for example, that the 10% rate would fall to 8%, the 35% rate would fall to 28% and all the brackets in between would fall as well. The corporate tax would fall to 25% from 35%.
The plan says these cuts would be financed in a revenue-neutral way. First, by "broadening the tax base," which means reducing or eliminating tax deductions and loopholes as in the tax reform of 1986. The Romney campaign doesn't specify which deductions—no campaign ever does—but it has been explicit in saying that the burden would fall most on higher tax brackets. So in return for paying lower rates, the wealthy get fewer deductions."

Oh and this on Obama's plan: A report commissioned by pro-business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce and prepared by accounting firm Ernst and Young found raising tax rates for high-income taxpayers could decrease output in the long-run by 1.3 percent of $200 billion and lead to a drop in employment by 0.5 percent or 710,000 jobs.

So you have problem with this:

Now this isn't a outright lie as you claim. Notice it says "decent" before insurance, so definitions of decent are subjective. Romney and crew may think you having to pay 50% of costs is decent, where as a person making 25k per year may think paying 5% costs is decent. (using this as an example so don't go all apeshit here ..kk thnx) Also, I don't think he states that it breaks that Medicare promise for current seniors, just that it does or will and it's factual. You may argue he is presenting hyperbole, but to say he's lying is not correct at all.

But the rest of the article? Yeah, didn't think so.

Unless you consider the existing Medicare system "decent" (which I assume Obama and the Dems do because they want to leave it as-is to go bankrupt in 10 years), absolutely a problem. What part of, "No one over 55 will be affected in any way", and "Traditional Medicare fee for service will be available". Another flat out lie that no matter how you try to spin it is a lie.

Guess in the end, those articles ARE correct regardless of your claims of left wing hacks. You presented ONE case for potential hyperbole from one sentence out of a huge article. Really?...lol

Guess in the end, I was correct.