Fox News
On Tuesday, I was pleased to report the Romney/Ryan welfare lie, which falsely accuses President Obama of "gutting" existing welfare law and "dropping work requirements," had suddenly disappeared. After weeks of constant repetition, the Republicans' ridiculous, racially-charged attack had vanished.
Regrettably, it appears I spoke too soon. Paul Ryan, reinforcing his "Lyin' Ryan" moniker, brought the lie back yesterday in Iowa, and a few hours later, Romney himself pushed the lie after being prompted by Fox News' Carl Cameron.
Cameron predicted that former President Clinton would take Romney "to task" over the bogus welfare claim, and asked the Republican to preemptively "react."
"Well, I'm not sure exactly what President Clinton will say, but there's no question that President Obama's decision to say that we're going to allow waivers or excuses from work requirements in welfare was designed to shore up part of his base that may not be inclined to go out and vote in the same kind of energy and passion as they did four years ago.
"And, I think putting a measure that would take work out of welfare and waiving the work requirement in welfare is an extraordinary political move on his part, and one which I disagree with. My own view is that we should have greater work requirements with welfare, not less."
In every possible way, Romney's simply lying, and he's doing so in a racially-inflammatory way. The reference to the Democratic "base" is especially ridiculous -- Romney is asking voters to believe the president's most ardent supporters want welfare checks without work requirements. How subtle.
The rest of this is just garbage, and Romney knows it. The work requirement hasn't been waived; what the candidate is saying is the exact opposite of reality. The Republican just doesn't give a damn -- he knows he's lying; he knows that we know he's lying; but he's confident just enough voters will be ignorant enough to fall for his con.
When the lie briefly disappeared, I'd hoped, naively, that the pressure surrounding a racially-charged falsehood might force Romney to shift his strategy. Alas, the reprieve was brief and Romney is back to flaunting his deception, carefully extending his middle finger in reality's face.
Leave a Comment:
these people are noting but liars i mean republican entirely they have problem of telling truth, new report shows that us health care is noting now but the best in the world thanks to president Obama and the democrats,i have been in this country for more than three decade therefore when i see racist or hater i knew look at tea party they are noting but racist, let compare republican convention to democrat, what i am seeing in democrat side is inspiration,happiness and energetic crowd on the other side(republican) i saw hatred as usual and unhappy look these crowds were there because they hate president Obama however they dislike Mitt Romney,that's the case let vote and re-elect president Obama and democrats more in both houses.
Jay - The waivers will only be granted if the Republican Govs who asked for it can put forward a plan to create 20% more jobs than the current system does for their state. If they cannot come up with one, the waiver will not be granted. Romney and Ryan are blatantly lying, getting called out, and smiling while flipping us off.
Why don't they bring a libel charge against them? THAT would be interesting!
During the Reagan era there was an explosion of political attacks on the welfare recipient. People began to feel that people on welfare abused the system for hedonistic benefit rather than need. The negative sentiment was directed toward Reagan's bogus portrayal of the "welfare queen." There was a demonization of poor people and the social credibility of people of color deteriorated. Those who agree with these attacks feel that welfare needs to be reformed because "the Blacks" with the image of the "welfare queen" have become complacent and dependent on a system that owes them nothing.
Since the allocation of welfare funds is only 0.44% of the national budget, it would be difficult to believe that the government is really interested in reforming welfare because they care about the burden of taxation on the people. If the government really cared about the burden of taxation on the U.S. middle class and working class people they would cut defense spending and increase taxation on the richer 1%.
Actually welfare is 12% of federal budget, currently about 452 Billion Dollars. Plus the states have to "match" federal spending. Healthcare is 22% of federal budget, to the tune of 846 Billion. The US government borrows about 40 cents for every dollar it spends. These are facts hot hot air rhetoric. I highly recommend you research. Would you be able able to borrow 40% of your household budget, year after year and not worry about creditors calling in your debts?
Heh so we create a 12% figure out of thin air? Good to know.
Welfare is a made up term used to denigrate certain public assistance programs. Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, student loans and grants, the Veteran's Administration- all of these programs fall under the umbrella term "welfare." In recent years, however, welfare as a term has been narrowed to refer to food stamps, public housing or section 8 housing, WIC, and unemployment. Of course if you started telling people that all welfare is actually attributed through Social Security and that welfare as a budgetary issue doesn't actually exist, then people would go crazy. They'd go even crazier if you told them that if they take an SS check or us their local VA for medical treatment they're using welfare. Ahh ignorance is bliss!
Score one for messaging over substance. And now PK has predictably fallen into that pile of hay.
As for the debt: government doesn't "borrow" money in the way you are thinking. You are thinking that it works like with your home mortgage. That someone goes to China and says give us a billion dollars and China says OK and now the US owes China that money. This isn't how borrowing works at the governmental level. For the last damn time people you CANNOT make comparisons between how GOVERNMENTS work and how, say, your business works. The two are NOT the same.
Governments don't "borrow" money; they sell bonds. Other countries buy up their bonds and in exchange for that the government who sells the bond agrees to pay them so much or agrees to some other deal. More often than not other countries don't actually buy bonds for monetary purposes. Usually they purchase bonds for the gains they will make in things like international trade, peace treaties, etc. Remember additionally that debt is a projected indicator. When you hear someone say the US is $16trillion in debt what they are saying is that we expect to owe so much money over X many years. This does not mean that we have actively "borrowed" that amount. Change any factor (like oh gee I dunno- increase taxes) and suddenly the debt decreases. That's because it's a projection of what could be owed, not a statement as to what is owed.
Where did you get .044%? Have you taken a look at the US federal budget spending breakdown? This information is freely available from reliable sources.
Bonds (whether government issued, or issued by companies) are monetary instruments with "maturity" dates, they incur interest. Bonds have to be redeemed by their maturity date. Period. No one buys US treasury notes as a gesture of "goodwill" or as a part of some international treaty. They buy US treasury papers to safely locate their money. This year, we have paid 6% of the total federal budget, or 224 Billion dollars just to pay interest on 16 Trillion debt we own.
The national debt will not decrease if you rise taxes. It only means the total debt will increase slower, because you have to borrow less. Even if you balance the budget next year, you will still have 16 Trillion in debt. This works kind of like revolving credit card debt. What is different is that the interest rate is much lower. You still incur interest, you still have to pay it back.
And yes, the 12 % does not include Pensions. Pensions (it includes Social Security) is a 22% expense in federal budget, to the tune of 819 Billion.
The 12% also does not include VA. VA budget is part of Defense appropriations.
The 12% does include unemployment benefits, which last year was a 109 Billion a year item.
You mentioned: "Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, student loans and grants, the Veteran's Administration" These are items you had for the lack of a better word "work for". Student loans need to be repaid.
In theory bonds are promised at say 20 years out with interest and are usually sold at better rates than what you could with, say, stocks. But this is not how bonds work when other countries buy them usually. That's part of what I don't think people understand. Bonds at the federal level when issued for the printing of money don't usually work the same way. Hypothetically speaking they continue to accrue interest because nations just continuously re-purchase and re-invest. But usually that's not the point of purchasing bonds. Bonds hold wayyy more power over nations than anything else since it's the only way for one country to maintain dollar value in the eyes of another.
Yes it will. The 16 trillion that you are referring to is projected debt. Changing any of the factors used when computing the projection and you change the outcome (just like with any math problem). Change unemployment: have unemployment go to 2% for 5 years. You'd eliminate half the projected debt. Have the basic wage go up by 50% and the debt goes away by half. That's because it's a projected number. The current debt (meaning how much we have spent this year) is calculated in the deficit and the deficit is what you are referring to (and confusing) here. The deficit will go down as we change measures in both spending and taxation. Once we get the deficit balanced that will also change the projected deficit (for instance if you had no deficit for 5 years you'd halve the projected debt as well). But these are two segregate subjects.
No. Debt at the federal level does NOT work like personal debt. It is a bad idea to use personal analogies to explain how debt works at the federal level because then people confuse- in this instance their credit card- the personal analogy with how it actually works. The US isn't lent money in the same way that you are lent money when you go and get a loan from the bank. The bank gives you direct cash (or representative cash I.E. a check) and that money is borrowed at an interest rate. You then have to make payments on this at such and such time at such and such a rate.
While the US does make payments on the bonds that it has sold, it often has it's debt wiped clean (and likely will in the case of China and it will in the case of Japan and Mexico) in exchange for political favors. You have to understand that the federal government does not and I repeat does NOT operate like yours and my credit card. No one gives the US money: that would be impossible since the US is the only entity that can print US dollars. I mean use some common sense here.
All welfare programs have to be earned in some way. By definition government assistance programs require that you meet a certain threshold before you can gain access to them. This myth that exists with welfare is that you can just walk into a welfare office and get a check. A. this would be fraud and is a federal crime prosecutable for at minimum 10 years in federal jail and B. it preys on people who have had the fortune of never having to actually go into a social security office and ask for benefits. I always tell people to actually go to a social security office and try applying for things like food stamps or unemployment when they are perfectly healthy and capable of working. I think if people actually did this in person it would show them just how hard it is to commit fraud. That's not to say that fraud won't happen (nothing is 100%), but it's very hard. There is no such thing as a government check that goes out to you in exchange for nothing. Either you have to be disabled, or a veteran, or you have to be in school full time, or you have to be low-income, or you have to be mentally ill, or you have to be unemployed, or some other requirement before the government gives you the benefit. The people who defraud the welfare system are people who intentionally lie about their problems (i.e. claim to be disabled and present forged documents to back up the disability claim). Welfare fraud is actually a far more sophisticated scheme than I think people realize.
Here's hoping that David Gregory will bring this up when Mitt appears on Meet The Press this Sunday...
Don't hope. Send an email to MTP or their FB page and demand he do so or have robme state his sources. Man up Gregory and others. Loved how Madeline Albright stood down Wolf last night. Anyone else see that? It was great.
Did I just read that Romney needs fox network to tell him how to write his lies for him. I thought he was doing a fine lyin' job all by himself.
Just keep telling the truth about Romney. That's whats hurting him. Pure and simple, Romney and Ryan are liars.
When you "CAN'T" rely on Truth to get you the job... you're left with nothing but lies !
Must see: Mitt's mother video
http://www.politicususa.com/shame-liar-mitt-romneys-mother-talks-father-welfare.html
Let's get out the vote, period!
So tired of this divisive style of reporting. I wish we could go back a little in time but only in respect to our news sources...when they cared about bringing us the facts and allowing us to make our own judgments on those facts. I'm sick of being spoon fed how I ought to feel about what's happening.
What happened to at least TRYING to be objective??? I just can't read the drivel put out by either "side" of this coin anymore. Bye for now Rachel.
How sad, a Romney lover who can't stand the truth...and tells us a makebelive story about how bad both sides are but doesn't say good bye to Romney. Awwww.
Lizzratt. This was an awesome comment. Both Reps and Dems are using their media channels to for their own devices. The more outrageous statement the better. Then, follow the statement with some emotionally charged comments and you are all set. No objectivity is needed. Unfortunately, the people are falling for the media antics.
Who is denying you the ability to make your own judgement on those facts? Who is telling you how to feel about something? How does a person tell you how to feel? What facts are you upset about? What facts aren't being objectively presented and how does one present facts in an objective way?
Quote:
The Republican just doesn't give a damn -- he knows he's lying; he knows that we know he's lying; but he's confident just enough voters will be ignorant enough to fall for his con.
I would call this a very personal, emotionally charged attack. How does the author know that Romney "doesn't give a damn"? Or how does author know Romney "is lying"?
Whether or not something is personal or emotional is dependent upon you as a person and your emotions. You are projecting your subjective reality onto everyone else and pretending that it is objective fact. It is not. If you perceive what someone says as emotional and personal that is your deal.
How do you know that the author wasn't expressing his own personal opinion? The author knows that Romney is lying because a "lie" by definition is when you assert something to be true (I.E. empirically or historically provable) when it is not true (does not meet the criteria of the first two). Romney's claim is not true and therefore is a "lie." If the author states that this makes him believe that Romney doesn't give a damn then that is the author's opinion. To the author, Romney's behavior doesn't show that he "gives a damn" since Romney has not made any efforts to correct for the lie.
I did not read anything emotional. I just read an article. You apparently read something emotional. That's between you and article; don't project it as fact when it is not. This, for the record, constitutes as a lie on your part.
Definition of lie: "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally".
You say that it does not matter if the author knows he is conveying untrue statement. If someone believes they are telling the truth, then that is not a lie. Buy your own definition you have just lied by omitting the "intention" part of the definition.
Also, if the author wanted to convey his own opinion, he/she should have said: "I believe Romney is a liar".
A. This is such a stupid argument I don't even know how to respond. No. My definition was that a lie is when someone states X to be true without empirical evidence of X and it turns out the empirical evidence is otherwise than X. That means my statement was as such- no more no less. If you wanted to attack me on this venue you would've asked for empirical evidence to prove my assertion. What you did here, instead, was to provide a counter definition and then attempt to make this weird paradoxical logic leap where you attempted to argue by my own logic I was lying even though you weren't holding me to my logic you were holding me to your logic. This isn't a lie so much as it's just mind-numbingly stupid.
2. I didn't say that the author thought Romney was lying (although I will admit I didn't word it well adding it to the second paragraph came across as misleading- duly noted I will not do that again). Romney was lying by the definition I put forward. What I said was that the author might have been expressing his opinion when it came to stating that Romney doesn't give a damn. Again since this is about the 7th article Benen has written on the issue and you aren't new here you do not get to make the appeal to ignorance fallacy here. You don't get to whine that because you're too lazy and/or incompetent to read Benen's other articles that this therefore means that when you came to this article and read it- and noted Benen's omission- that this therefore means Benen was making a false accusation. You are straw manning the argument (another fallacy) instead of debating it on it's logical merit.
C. I do love the Seinfeld reference though. If you just believe it to be true then it's not a lie! OK so you're a child molester. This isn't a lie- I believe it to be true! See how stupid that argument is?
Webster Dictionary: "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive".
So you admit to being a child molester then? Good to know!
I believe it therefore it's true! Wee!
I think it's so telling that someone on the right makes this claim. Lol.
Bring on the debates. After Pres. Clinton told the facts, I can't wait to hear Romney stammer and stutter as he tries to get around his lies with more lies.
Clinton's wife works for Obama. I could see a slight conflict of interest, no?
No, just because you are married to someone doesn't always mean you have a conflict of interest. What I call a conflict of interest is when you tell an outtright lie and you know you have done the same thing. That is a real conflict of interest.
Whoa, what lie did I tell? I asked if there could be a conflict of interest.
No one said you lied. But we know who do.
Muck Fitt
I googled "Lying for the Lord" and yes, it's okay to do so in the Mormon church as a "protective" measure. Huh.
http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm
While getting caught up in all the excitement to debunk the welfare lie, there's a big picture item that appears to be largely overlooked.
Mitt's quote:
"...there's no question that President Obama's decision to say that we're going to allow waivers or excuses from work requirements in welfare was designed to shore up part of his base..."
Really? That's how President Obama fires up his base? By releasing a memo through the Department of Health and Human Services?
I suppose the memo is rather scintillating. You can read it here but please make sure you sit down first:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html
Nobody would have heard about this policy, let alone been fired up by it, if Romney did not bring it to the forefront of his campaign.
Sure, the claim that the president gutted the welfare work requirement is a lie, but the premise that he did so intentionally to fire up anybody defies even the tiniest, tinyest, glimmer of something that could be true.
Is ANY reporter on camera going to say to Mitt Romney. "I'm sorry, Governor Romney, but what you have just said about the President's plans for Medicare have been fact checked and found to be a untrue by numerous independent sources. So knowing this why do you continue to repeat what you know to be false to voters?
THEN YOU PAUSE AND LET HIM RESPOND.
How on Earth he plans to answer for this at a debate in front of millions of viewers with Obama standing next to him and not come off as a total fraud escapes me.
Enlighten me. How is this "racially-charged"?
Do not understand the racial undertones to Romney's "message"
I do not. But I could say Obama has "communist" undertones in what he does.
Haha, yes that communist Obama with his republican-created ideas for healthcare reform and his presiding over the most prosperous stock market in history. Damn that communist!
I don't even understand how the GOP can claim that the economy is doing badly. Unemployment is high because of a few states with high unemployment, not because the economy is bad.
The private sector is booming, the financial industry is booming, the only thing that we need to get the rest of the economy going is a bit more stimulus to increase demand, and a bit of higher revenues for the government to pay for it.
Which is exactly why the GOP has a vested interest in making sure that none of that happens. Can't have OBLAMEO in the White House, blaming the recession on the President and party who deserve the blame for that mess. But, of course, it's okay to blame Obama for things that he can't control because IOKIYAR.
Unemployment is low because more people choose to go on welfare instead looking for work. Therefore they drop off unemployment statistics. Just today there was an article in the news stating that over 46 Million people in the US were on Food Stamps. The federal government borrows 40 cents on each dollar that it spends. How much longer will we be able to afford the "welfare state'?
This is not how unemployment works
This is the opposite of how it works
Yeah what a surprise in the greatest recession since the great depression. Wonder how many would've been on food stamps then? Wait how did food stamps get started again? Oh nevermind! It'll all get better if they pull themselves up by the boot straps! I mean that's what we did in the Great Depression and that worked out perfectly!
I also love the complete lack of factual contextualization here. We can assert facts when it comes to "borrowed" money, but we can't when it comes to a cost-benefit analysis as to what the pro's and con's would be. Of course the biggest irony is that even in the private sector we'd do that so this must be it's own level of wingnuttery.
Fact: Welfare recipients are not included in unemployment statistics. Only those who seek employment or receive unemployment benefits. Prove me wrong here please.
Didn't you just say in the paragraph above that "The private sector is booming, the financial industry is booming" Why are you now saying that there is: "greatest recession since the great depression". Which one is it then?
What do you think is going to happen to the economy when the Chinese stop buying our national debt?
I really don't mind people getting food stamps. I also believe health care on the basic level should be nationalized. However, I do take an issue with people on "temporary assistance" since the cradle to the grave who are perfectly healthy and physically and mentally fit for work.
I want whatever you're smoking- it seems nice. No I did not say this. Please learn to read names before responding to them. I've noticed people are most apt to make errors when they are so eager to win the argument they don't bother to stop, take a breath, and actually read what the other person wrote.
Both are true. You attempted to make an assertion of contradiction with 2 statements that aren't mutually exclusive. The greatest recession since the great depression started in 2007 and ended in 2009. We are now lagging on from that recession as our economy grows. The private sector has experienced growth every year since 2009 with no month passing where we haven't added jobs since Obama's policies have taken effect. The private sector is, for all intents and purposes, doing well. However this doesn't automatically deplete the effects of that recession. You make a complaint about how many people are on welfare without stopping to think about the context of that statement. Only in a crazy world would you think it logical to argue that a nation that will likely not fully rebound until 2016 have less people on welfare than more. I guess you think the unemployed kill themselves during recessions?
Well my first question would be what welfare are we talking about? I suppose food stamps wouldn't be considered, no. But unemployment would be considered. In which case you just created a logical paradox by your own argument. Welfare recipients (people on unemployment) aren't counted unless they are on unemployment. Seems legit.
Unemployment as a term (at least in the way you're using it) refers to those who are looking for work, but haven't found it. These are people who are eligible to work, but people who, for whatever reason, have not found work. In order to be counted on this roll they have to be actively seeking work. People who fall off the roles are people considered ineligible for work (which would apply to some welfare such as social security (for retirees and the disabled)) because they have been looking for work so long without finding work that they've given up OR because they have found employment (or done something else like gone back to school). People who are on unemployment assistance get counted as those who are unemployed. Wow paradoxes are fun. I'm assuming you didn't think that one through before saying it.
They do not buy our national debt. They buy treasury bonds so that we can print more money or what happens more often than not so that our government can adjust money already in circulation without having to print more (deflation). The Chinese are on a long list of those who have purchased treasury bonds in the past few years. The Japanese have too; so has Mexico. The US sells treasury bonds on a routine basis. In fact US treasury bonds are considered the safest in the world. If the US were smart it would be marketing it's own bonds more aggressively to the American worker since a bond is guaranteed and backed by the federal government (makes for a far more efficient retirement program than a 401k). But I suppose that would violate some non-competition agreement (/snark). Additionally what does this have to do with anything? You made factual claims that were true; I corrected your factual inaccuracies.
Provide empirical evidence that a. this happens b. at what rate (as a percent) of recipients this applies to and c. how you would possibly cut them off assistance without automatically taking people off who meet your criteria for getting assistance.
After that please explain to me why you think that you are entitled to judge whether or not a person is capable of working.
It is difficult to understand why the Romney Campaign persists in this obvious lie. Sooner or later, Romney is going to face Obama in a debate and when Romney trots out this whopper Obama is going to take his lunch money from him in front of the entire nation.
what lie? no one on this forum provided a shred of evidence that the "work requirement" was not lifted by Obama administration. And btw saying "Romney is racist" is not evidence, its smokescreen.
Steve Benen has, multiple times, provided proof that the work requirement is not lifted. Go read any of the recent "Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity" posts and you'll find it.
It's not our job to do the work of finding facts for you. You have a computer with high-speed internet access and Google.
Here, let me Google that for you!
Whoa, it turns out that Obama didn't end Welfare to Work! Who knew? (The answer is everyone who cares about politics and the truth!)
if you make a statement, then provide evidence. I read your article and I quote the line from the link you sent:
Obama, it says, "hopes states will consider approaches that remove work participation rate requirements all together."
States are being given leniency in how they are applying welfare to work from that of what the law otherwise states they must do. They can only get this leniency in enforcement if they can show evidence that their plan will increase the amount of people working by at least 20%.
You don't get to jump to a new thread where Benen didn't link a reference to his old one and then cry foul that you don't see any direct links debunking it. This is like saying that because someone is wearing a blue shirt today you now believe that they've never worn a red shirt in their life. It's an exaggerated way of misrepresenting the argument so that you don't have to fact-check it. This particular line of debunktion (on behalf of Benen) has been up on Maddowblog several times over the past month and you are not a new blogger here at Newsvine. Am I to presume you just magically now decided to start griping about this issue instead of when he did link the sourcing and you couldn't play the appeal to ignorance fallacy?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/fact-check-welfare/index.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/romney-obama-welfare_n_1772151.html
http://thinkprogress.org/tag/welfare/
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-santorum-welfare-obama-20120828,0,1255653.story
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/29/766141/brownback-romney-ads-fals/
Thank you for providing all these links. LA Times, Huffington Post, CNN, think progress? Are you really citing the most left wing sources there are to prove your point? You have gotta be kidding me.
I am brand new here. No conspiracy theory. I am off work today due to illness. I have found this "beacon of objective truth" on Google news. I have decided to entertain myself while recuperating from illness by posting rebukes to obvious exaggerations and half-truth perpetrated by this article. Don't worry, I am going back to work tomorrow, so you are free to bask in its own version of reality.
CNN and LA Times aren't left wing. Secondly please provide evidence that the sourcing is inaccurate or unreliable. Have they been proven to have a bias? Provide evidence for this claim. Have they been proven to factually misrepresent truth and not correct for it or do so with the intention of manipulation? Provide evidence for these assertions. Provide evidence for any of your assertions.
Well I do hope that you get better, but you haven't rebuked anything. You've made assertions while hypocritically saying that other people need to provide evidence (never providing your own). When you are provided evidence you assert they aren't reliable without giving a reason as to why they aren't reliable. I agree with you that there are or aren't reliable sources. Heritage is an example of a reliable source. But that is because they intentionally lie, they intentionally do not retract statements they make that are lies, they do not mind manipulating information as it's presented to the public (and have been proven to do as much), and they have a stated bias as a conservative agency working to advance Republican policies and conservative ideology. Contrast this with CNN who hires people from both sides of the political isle, doesn't have a stated political bias, doesn't intentional misrepresent facts, apologizes when it is wrong, doesn't spin information to benefit one side or the other, and provides empirical evidence for it's assertions.
The only thing you've proven here is that you don't like being told you're wrong. You complain about partisanship, yet you are clearly partisan. You complain that other people aren't coherent, yet you make incoherent arguments. You complain that others don't provide evidence, yet you provide none yourself. You are the definition of hypocrite and I'm not saying that to be rude. None of your actions so far have been factual or non-contradictory/paradoxical/or just plain lies.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120905/COLUMNIST0150/309050062/Fact-checking-is-beneath-Romney-campaign
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-09-05/news/bs-ed-reich-republican-lies-20120905_1_romney-campaign-mitt-romney-romney-pollster
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/22/159791065/despite-fact-checks-romney-escalates-welfare-work-requirement-charge
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/fact-check-president-obama-gutted-welfare-reform/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-fact-check-did-obama-really-eliminate-work-requirement-for-welfare/2012/08/29/f8873c50-f218-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_video.html
You honestly thought I just had one type of source? Again provide counter evidence or admit you are (yet again) lying. And you accuse me of living in a false reality.
Man, Romney looks like hell. I guess that's what fighting a losing battle and giving yourself over to the Dark Side of the Force will do to a person. He looks like Emperor Palpatine after a bender.
In that case, I'll vote for the other candidate, may the force be with him.
My own view is that we should have greater tax requirements with being a millionaire, not less.
Tax code is progressive. There are 0, 10, 15, 33 percent tax brackets. The more you earn, the more taxes you pay.
No 0% on regular income. 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, with long term capital gains rates at 0% and 15%. This applies to AGI.
See? That is objective statement. You have corrected my obviously incorrect statement by providing objective numbers. Way to go StlSaxist.
On the more conciliatory note: The politics are not black-or-white affair. There are various shades of grey. Obama (and the Democrats) are not always right. Romney ( and the Republicans) are not always wrong. Lets support issues, rather than blindly lead our support behind leaders and parties. I support simplifying tax code and taking away lots of weird tax loopholes that allow many wealthy individuals to pay little in taxes. But I also support taking people off public assistance. Let's face is there are millions that abuse the welfare system. They need to go and find work not expecting taxpayers to pay for them and their families. And before you call me racist, yes, there are more whites on welfare, than others.
Provide evidence for this claim. For someone who complains about not seeing a lot of empirical proof you sure do love making fact-free claims a lot.
I did say I am in favor of getting rid of tax loopholes and I am in favor of nationalized health care? Isn't it something republicans are dead set against?
You prove there aren't any abusers and we call it even. What other statements have I made that you call "a lot"?
YOU made the claim PK. The burden of evidence is on YOU. When you say X is true it is upon you to prove that you are correct. YOU made an assertion of fact so I will ask again: please provide any evidence that this assertion is true. Otherwise you have no reason to assume a or b. You have already decided that it is true that people receive welfare who you feel entitled to say should not receive welfare, but you have not provided evidence that they do or do not. For the record asking you to provide evidence for YOUR claims isn't a counter argument or a defense. That's called "fact checking." Apparently you interpret bias as being anyone who doesn't not their head in complete agreement with you and whatever brilliant statement you have to say.
False claims about welfare, false representation of what welfare is, false claims about the work requirement, false claims about debt, false claims about how debt works, false claims of subjectivity presented as objectivity, false claims about news sources
Seriously?
So all the numbers about US budget I provided are false? You are also totally wrong about how the federal budget works. I still don't know how you can claim o.44%. Also, enjoy the economy when no one will buy US Treasury bonds and inflation hits, eating whatever savings people have. You might kiss your 401k goodbye.
Reading comprehension fail. Go back and read again. I didn't make the .044% claim.
OK so now what you are doing is taking an argument from an earlier posting and pushing it down the thread. This is a straw man. You do not want to debate me on the issue I cornered you on about THIS post so you are attempting to corner me on some other subject. You're attempting to change the subject here by intentionally misrepresenting my argument. You were not talking about the budget here you were talking about welfare abuse. Provide evidence that your claims are true.
Another logical fallacy. Now you are completely changing the subject away from what I said. You do not have evidence to back up your claims about welfare yet you still insist on asserting them as true. You are intentionally lying about this issue.
As Joseph Goebbels (NAZI Propagandist) said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
But with these two GOP contenders it only takes two repetitions for them believe the lie. My only hope is that "We the People" are not so gullible to believe it even if this lie is repeated over and over again.
Its great that you study Nazi tactics. Did they say how to disprove your opponent through use of some kind of empiric proof, instead making up a lot of emotionally charged statements? I personally stay away from anything as demonic as studying nazi tactics.
PK-2496421--
It would do you well to study history, so that you will not fall to the failings of those that tread similar paths. History repeats itself to those that are ignorant of it. And God help "We the People" if we fall ignorant of history and those failings of the past. NAZI's were evil, no doubt, but I fear that we are heading for something far worse.
Go to Youtube and look up "Enemy Within-A Global Conspiracy" and "America-Freedom to Fascism" to get a clue.
Study works of Marx and Engels then. Both agree that a really well developed capitalist society is needed before a communist "utopia" is achieved. A communist society is where everyone is given what "they need" according to their needs. There is no private property and to achieve the communist society, the wealthy need to be destroyed. Marx postulates forceful "redistribution of wealth", ie taking the property from the ones who have it to the ones who "need" it. I would not worry about fascism in the USA. Communism on the other hand, is much more frightening.
PK-2486421,
You don't worry about Fascism in the USA? Don't worry about that evil? You obviously don't know history very well. Fascism vs Communism are two different sides of the same evil coin. Both accounting for the deaths of millions.
How about the Constitution of the United States? It begins with "We the People"?
Read the rest of it. That is what is at stake in the United States. And should the United States go either Fascist (which you by your admission don't fear) or communist (which I assume you do fear), then the U. S. Constitution is then null and void.
The U. S. Constitution is the greatest document of human freedom ever drafted. A light to the entire world. And it is being chipped away bit by bit and what will replace it?
Fascism; Communism?
Emperors, Dictators... Kings... ?
God help us if we go any of those historically tried and tested paths.
The Founding Fathers drafted a Constitution to guide us away from those paths and to light our way.
I do not worry about fascism in the USA because I do not believe there is a chance it will will be instituted here, in the USA. At least in the form that we know from the past. And while I cherish the Constitution of the United States, its the most valuable part: the Bill of Rights was not originally part of it. Creation of the first 10 Amendments required bipartisan compromises and political will to compromise. The will to compromise is just not there among our politicians. They would rather call each other liars and point finders than sit down and solve common problems.
On the fact that the 10 Amendments were made by compromise in our political process, and that now there is no compromise with our politicians, this I agree fully with you.
But I don't hold your confidence that we will avoid some form of Fascism or Socialism (communism?).
Our Nation is in a very deep hole now, and I don't see the current politicians DEM or GOP offering a reasonable way out of it. Both Parties are trending away from the Constitution, and the farther they go away from it's precepts and the views of our Founding Fathers the harder it will be for us and future generations to recapture the Founding Father's vision.
And that is what I fear most.
See? We have a common ground. Now if only we could sit down somewhere, have a few beverages, we could discuss our points of view like normal people.
Please please please -- someone post the letter Mitt and other GOP governors signed asking for a similar waiver! Please! We need to show that R&R are the "brass" brothers.
How can it be that the truth doesn't matter at all... how is it possible to build on that... how is it likely that one can feel secure... how can it remotely last?