2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

This is your insight, outright lies and distortions of Ryan's plan by; the Center for American Progress, Ezra Klein and the Atlantic (plus an article from 2011), all left-wing hacks. LOL, again par for the course with you. How about I give you some insight so you can get your head out of your ass:

In the Ryan-Wyden (Dem, Oregon) plan:
1. No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way.
2. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain available for all. “Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will.
3. Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals.

This plan is the market giving seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the traditional program remaining an option.

Also, keep in mind that it was Obama and the dems who are gutting Medicare to the tune of $ 700B and will institute health care rationing for seniors under Obamacare.

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)

PAUL RYAN: Voted yes on fat federal subsidies to oil companies just before he told voters he was against them | Uppity Wisconsin (http://www.uppitywis.org/node/47368/view?destination=taxonomy%2Fterm%2F652%3Fpage%3D2)

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.
Would Paul Ryan's budget give Mitt Romney zero taxes? - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-would-paul-ryans-budget-give-mitt-romney-zero-taxes-20120812,0,464987.story)


Nothing in the Romney/Paul plan takes from the middle class and gives to the "rich",

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

How Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Measures Up For Americans - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/paul-ryans-tax-plan-measures-americans/story?id=16994803#.UCpVZqDNlQg)

While Mitt Romney would reportedly pay less than one percent of his income in taxes under Paul Ryan's previous tax plan, most Americans making less than $200,000 would see a tax hike under the budget of Ryan proposed before his selection to be Romney's running mate.

Remember now, Romney has been on record supporting Paul Ryan's budget.


Outright lie #1 from your link on Big Oil: "It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise."

So you have problem with this:

It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise. It slashes investments in education, infrastructure, and basic research, all of which are key drivers of economic growth and mobility. And it cuts taxes for those at the top, asking the middle class to pick up the tab. It’s a budget designed to benefit the top 1 percent at everyone else’s expense.

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.




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

:laughing-


GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan - Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html)


Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren’t being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington: Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right — and a huge chance of going horribly wrong.

In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives — old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike — the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/nazgull/lolpaulryan.jpg

I'm quite positive somebody up here said that Romney conceded the election by making this selection so grats to whoever that was.

Note: I am not saying that Romney will in fact lose. I don't know and will not be making bets, but I strongly feel that he'll lose now with the fact that Ryan and his budget are aboard.

:laughing-


GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan - Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html)




http://pages.suddenlink.net/nazgull/lolpaulryan.jpg

I'm quite positive somebody up here said that Romney conceded the election by making this selection so grats to whoever that was.

Note: I am not saying that Romney will in fact lose. I don't know and will not be making bets, but I strongly feel that he'll lose now with the fact that Ryan and his budget are aboard.

What else is your liberal media sources telling you. You post this stuff like its news when its just left wing media trying to spin everything. It would be like me posting Rush bashing Obama like that's news.

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 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443792604577574910276629448.html)

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 (http://www.nfib.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=OMV7uZczVaM%3D&tabid=1083) 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?...lolGuess in the end, I was correct.

What else is your liberal media sources telling you. You post this stuff like its news when its just left wing media trying to spin everything. It would be like me posting Rush bashing Obama like that's news.

Wait, so politico.com is now a "liberal media" source? :confused-



SO, if it isn't Fox News, it's liberal? :stop:

Wait, so politico.com is now a "liberal media" source? :confused-



SO, if it isn't Fox News, it's liberal? :stop:Yes, sir. Joe Scarborough and Michael Kinsley are opinion writers. John Harris is Editor-in-Chief, VandeHei is co-founder, both from WaPo. May not be Media Matters or Huff Post, but yes they lean to the left.

Politico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico)

Yes, sir. Joe Scarborough and Michael Kinsley are opinion writers. John Harris is Editor-in-Chief, VandeHei is co-founder, both from WaPo. May not be Media Matters or Huff Post, but yes they lean to the left.

Politico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico)


Funny, they were previously accused "of being a shill for Republicans."

Opinion: Media Matters Response - - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3013.html)

Your claims doesn't add up. Not in the slightest.

Funny, they were previously accused "of being a shill for Republicans."

Opinion: Media Matters Response - - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3013.html)

Your claims doesn't add up. Not in the slightest.By Media Matters....who's a few degrees left of the Beijing Times. You've got to be kidding me.

You're example would be like CBN calling Heritage a "shill for the Dems", then claiming Heritage is "down the middle".

Mitt Romney Miami Campaign Event Held At Juice Shop Owned By Convicted Cocaine Trafficker (PHOTOS, VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/romney-event-host-drug-dealer-miami_n_1774246.html)

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558)

From the link: "2010 was the second year in a row that GE recorded billions in profits (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167) and paid no taxes. During that same period, Immelt has been a close advisor to the president on the business community, a relationship that rubs some the wrong way. Immelt serves as the chairman of Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12727300)."

Interesting?