jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (54 posts)

It never Ends For the Obama Campaign

  1. American View profile image54
    American Viewposted 4 years ago

    Obama Campaing never learn, keep taking things out of context, spinning them and then present them in a false light.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 … political/

    1. autumn18 profile image66
      autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm pretty sure both sides have been doing that for like ever. So the Romney/Ryan supporter who asked the question is satisfied now...even though it really was a non answer? Also it's not very surprising that Foxnews was the source of this story.

      1. American View profile image54
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this
        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ugh. Wish I hadn't read the ABC link - participation at only 63%, the lowest in 20 years.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi AV. Hope you are feeling okay!

      The lady asked Mr. Ryan, "Where are the answers? I mean, why aren't you more specific? I heard you, was it Sunday when you were on Fox, and you didn't answer his question about how we're going to -- you know, what are your plans?"

      Now, AV, that sounds like a legitimate question from a concerned voter. Where are the answers, AV? If you know, please share your knowledge with an electorate begging to know. Please, please tell us where the cuts will be and how much. Also, tell us which tax deductions, exemptions, and credits will be cut so we can calculate if the “revenue-neutral” tax reform plan will work. The fact is there are not enough answers and the Gov. refuses to provide them.  Remember August 2012 when Paul Ryan said he and Gov. Romney would wait until after the election to disclose what tax loopholes they plan to close. Ho! Ho! Let’s not lose any votes by revealing our “plan” does not add up! I think if Gov. Romney had a plan that would actually work, he would be shouting the details to anyone who would listen.

      Stay well, AV; we need you around here.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://ryot.org/ryan-and-romney-will-wa … loopholes/

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, kinda like when Pelosi said they had to pass the ACA so they could find out what's in it. Is Nancy coaching Mitt?? lol. I do think Romney should be more specific with his plan. I understand that Congress would iron out the details, but still, Romney could be more forthcoming, at least with some "guidelines" that were more specific. Some of Romney's ideas are posted on his website, but I'd still like to know more.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are right about Pelosi, Habee. It was a foolish statement.

          America is asking for details BEFORE the election.  Personally, I believe every tax deduction, exemption, and credit has a powerful constituency ready to fight any attempts to eliminate their “pet” benefits.  I can imagine the gridlock the Tea Party will create if Romney leaves it up the folks on the hill. The prospects for another "Super Committee" so Congressmen can mimic Pontius Pilate are almost comical. Congressmen do not give up anything without getting something greater in return. I also believe he can not corral enough broad support in either party to make any of his “plans” work.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Quill, like you addressed in the other thread... getting rid of deductions is going to make people upset, right?

            That should answer your own question about Romney's approval rating as governor. He did what needed to be done. He signed off on progressive ideas, and conservative ideas alike, to get the job done. Every time he did, someone got upset.

            Shouldn't the fact that his gubernatorial history shows he made the hard, unpopular choices bolster the likelihood that he will get things done, rather than take away from it?

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not to mention 800 vetoes as governor.
              Many of which were unanimously rejected.
              Meaning, he made unilateral decisions that were not passed into law (to put it as kindly as possible).
              Seems his old Bain dictatorial habits were not so easy to break.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Romney made 250 vetoes on the last budget, which were all overturned.

                State law requires a balanced budget, but the legislation passed an unbalanced budget. They broke the law, Romney vetoed to try and fix it. They overturned his vetoes, so he used his executive power to cut spending anyway.

                Yeah, sometimes he had to upset people. That's the thing about being a moderate, every decision you make will basically upset people on at least one side, if not both.

                What's your point? Romney was willing to use his executive power to get the job done?

              2. American View profile image54
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                MM,

                You Stated " Meaning, he made unilateral decisions that were not passed into law"

                Are you saying As Governor, Romney made laws, 800 as you mentioned, that were vetoed and therefore did not become law? That is how it reads.

                Actually, Romney vetoed 800 bills that were sent to his desk from a Democratically controlled legislative branch, which overrode his veto so they in fact became law.Remember, this is Massachusetts,major Democrat territory. A  Republican Govenors veto will be overridden everyday of the week.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image91
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Like I said earlier, Jaxson, he got things done for whom? Clearly you think he is a hero for satisfying one-third of the electorate and ignoring the rest. In fact, the Romney fundraiser video revealed a candidate who cares very little for 47% of American citizens he labeled "dependent" on government. An approval rating below 50% indicates a failure to meet voter expectations. There is no way you can spin that performance rating.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Quill, what matters most? The results, or approval rating? Would you rather have a candidate everyone loves, who doesn't fix things, or a candidate that most people don't like, that fixes things?

                Let's talk specifics. I made a thread you might want to address.

              2. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sure Romney got things done for some and not for others as governor, but what Americans should be asking themselves today is what did Obama get done?

                Compare his promises to his results.

                That's the clincher.

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  obamaachievements.org gives a huge list of the accomplishments of his Presidency:)

        2. American View profile image54
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you think Romney should be more specific, do you think Obama should be more specific?

          1. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think Obama has shown us his plan for the last four years, and I'm not impressed.

            1. American View profile image54
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I totally agree. But he is making claims of cuts, closing loopholes, and noone seems to want the specifics from him.  Why will nobody ask Obama the question "since your policies are not working, what do you pan to do different?"

              1. habee profile image90
                habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Good point.

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I believe his policies are working and that it takes time to see the ripple benifit, but it is there, we are seeing unemployment falling, the stock market doing well, consumer spending on the rise. I believe that Romney will not tell us about his "loopholes and deductions" because they will likely affect the middle class, such as, the mortgage interest deduction, chilld tax credits(probabaly including the earned income credit for the poor households) deductions for interest on student loans,etc. Even if he cuts taxes on the middle but removes all such deductions, are you getting a tax break or paying more? Who knows, he won't tell.

                  1. American View profile image54
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am sorry but I disagree that his policies are working. You mention unemployment falling, people can argue the statistics all day including the fact that this months report the numbers do not add up. But the reality is that there were 111.9 million people working when Obama took office. There are only 111 million working today, a net loss of one million people. I know he claim he created 5 million jobs, but take a close look as to what he includes in those numbers. He counts every person returning to work after a strike, that is not a new job created. A stimulus project here in Texas that cost 4.5 million dollars and employed 40 people. Thing is, those 40 people were already working for the company that won the project, you cannot count people who are already working as new jobs. I could go on but the list is long.

                    Consumer spending is stagnant at best. There are up months and down months. But overall, it is way below where it needs to be.

                    Salaries have gone down 5.7% since Obama took office

                    As for the deductions you cited as a concern, remember, Romney is for keeping the Bush tax breaks in place as is. The issues you are concerned of are included in the Bush breaks and would not change.

      2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Romney changes plans once a month. That's what stumped Obama. It was a new Romney with a new plan with no specifics taking pieces of Obama's healhcare plan and saying he'd keep it, and on and on, after say he'd deny it totally.

        Different guy than two weeks ago where 50 percent of Americans were dependent slackers, who should use the ER, not get health insurance.

        Romney lost to Kennedy for the Senate over this same flim flam man stuff. There just doesn't seem to be real Mitt Romney to step forward, except the one who hates Big Bird..

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is there a limit to the number of walk-backs one campaign is allowed?
          I swear, if Team Obama made an ad exclusively made up of the public statements issued by Team Romney the day after he says things he wasn't supposed to say... the ad would monopolize the airwaves 24/7 from now till election day.

          I mean, really.
          How can you tell when Romney's lying?
          His lips are moving.

        2. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There was really nothing new in Romney's "plan" but Obama had been misconstruing the facts for so long - he didn't have a way out.

        3. Genna East profile image88
          Genna Eastposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As a Massachusetts resident, I can assure you that many of us don't know who this guy on the campaign trail.  So many flip flops and moving back and forth; it's become a bizarre thing to watch.  He won the debate, hands down, on performance and presence, but not on facts.  I don't know what Obama's problem was...it appears that he didn't bother to show up.

      3. American View profile image54
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Quill,

        I hope all is well. Been felling under the weather lately, but overall things are fine.

        I do not disagree with you that she aske a legitamite question, the point to this posting is how the Obama campaign continues to take things out of context and outright lie about it, then the left media spreads it and adds to it making it worse.

        The person who asked the question responded and did CNN or MSNBC respond? No they ignored it. She in fact was pleased with his "complete direct answer". From the article:

        "The Obama campaign seized on the question, claiming Ryan "can't attend his own campaign rallies without being called out for failing to provide specifics."
        But Morrison, writing in the Quad-City Times, said she wasn't calling anybody out.
        "Needless to say, I was quite shocked to learn the Obama campaign seized my question," she wrote. "I was not calling Ryan out. I had the opportunity to ask a direct question to Paul Ryan and what I got was a complete direct answer with no spin."

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama spins and Romney outright lies.

  2. Wayne Brown profile image89
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Romney may well need to give up more details on his plan.  For now, I am certainly assured that it fits within the culture and history of our nation as a democratic republic.  I cannot say the say for Obama.  In fact, "his plan" if he truly has one only promise four more years of what we have experienced....a large growing, over-spending, federal government where the practice of checks and balances have been thrown under the bus as we slowly creep toward a socialist utopia.  We need to be less concerned with the details of Mitt's plan and clearly understand that Obama's plan does not include the America that we have known through history.  For some of those of the younger generations, that might sound good, but I assure you that it bodes for a total demise of America as we know it.  ~WB

  3. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    You can't rationally support an argumentation with a foxnews link. Come on, it is indecent and it is insultingto  any form of intelligence. I can't belittle myself in reading, watching or listening anything that comes from trashy fox!

  4. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    @tammy Did you actually watch the debate? Romney did NOT say he wanted to cut funding to PBS. He was asked about government spending, how cuts would be decided. He said if he had to borrow money from China then it would have to merit that importance. PBS would not necessarily meet that criteria. It was not a "oh I'm cutting funding to PBS" statement.

    Further, on oil companies. I guess you completely missed the part that Obama has already given $90 billion dollars to green companies that are bankrupt. That figure equals 50 years worth of the oil companies' subsidy. Furthermore, it is not a subsidy as the Democrats are painting it. It is a corporate tax break, just like all other corporations receive.

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-cl … -whoppers/ ...Many have told me that do not believe these fact checkers, so I guess that's up to you and what you believe. Yes I watched the Debate and he clearly said he would not fund PBS, interesting to me because the poor who do not have cable depend on PBS for news as well as their children learning from "Sesame Street"...Myself, I prefer PBS news over mainstream corporate owned shows calling themselves "news."

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry tammy, I missed this response earlier. Alright, so it was $90 billion in 2 years instead of 1. We'll even break it down to the $21 billion. That still comes to 10 years worth of oil subsidies. Companies that go out of business are not employing anyone. And who is it do you believe will pay when that subsidy is cut? Do you think the oil company is going to just say "okay, we'll take less profit" and move on? Of course not. Gas, which has already risen over 123% since Obama took office, will rise even more as we, the people, eat that tax hike. PBS does not live on federal subsidies alone. Only 15% to 20% of their funding comes from the federal government. So the very idea that Big Bird will die is inaccurate, while we're fact checking.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, that .012% of the budget will go a long way to help the homeless or the unemployed.

          1. American View profile image54
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            UN,

            So if I was to give you $445 million dollars, you are telling me you would turn it away?

            Those who say it will not make a differnce are the same ones who put us where we are. "Oh spend the money it's only 500 million". 500 million here, 500 million there, and before you know it, we are 16 trillion dollars in debt. We cutting the debt will have to occur the same way, step by step, brick by brick.

        2. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sassy, I understand exactly what you are saying here, yes, oil companies will pass it on, however, in the long run, the benefits associated with new energy technologies will create the competition needed to drive prices of oil and gas down which is the beauty of the free market.And yes it's true Big Bird will not die, I have long been a contributor of PBS and believe others will fill this gap, but the why? Why cut this tiny amount? I just do not see the benefit.

  5. rebekahELLE profile image86
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    Did you read the transcript?  He quite plainly said he will stop the subsidy to PBS. 
    Reading the transcript is different than media talk points. 
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/po … wanted=all  [transcript]

    Overview of PBS audience and influence
    http://www.pbs.org/about/background/

    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I actually watched the debate. I don't need a transcript. You keep taking the funding cut out of context completely, it begins here where he was talking about spending cuts:

      "Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test -- if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. “Obamacare” is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President. I use that term with all respect. "

      Then, continues:
      "o I’ll get rid of that. I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to -- I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That’s number one.

      Number two, I’ll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to state. "

      I do so love how we're focusing on Big Bird as we bleed jobs and people suffer. It does prove how this President had nothing of substance to offer in the debate however, when this is the topic of choice of his supporters.

      1. tammybarnette profile image61
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office, that's bleeding jobs.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image86
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    That one does cause a chuckle.

    Obviously, we look at this through different lenses.  I'm honest.  I don't like Romney, nor do I believe what he says.   This isn't about Big Bird. That's why it's being discussed.  He wants to cut funding to valuable educational, informative programming and in another breath says he's focused on supporting education.  He undermines his audience when he continually changes what he says or has to explain what he meant when he offends half the country.  We could go on and on, but here it is, he's in full etch a sketch mode.

  7. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    The hard truth Tammy is that cuts need to be made. No one is going to like them. That is just fact and the point that Romney was trying to make. Obama talks a good game about the deficit but caters to everyone saying he won't cut this or that. The only cut he is comfortable making at all is to our military. Not a wise move at this time IMO. It is the same with Medicare. Obama wants to slap a band aid on it that will keep it funded for 8 years. Then what? We have to do this all over again? No one likes it, and change is definitely frightening, but Medicare does not work in its current form anymore. We are living longer and growing older as a population. It is not sustainable. It must change and that is the hard truth that Obama is avoiding. You might not like Romney's plan for Medicare, but at least he has one that will help make sure it is still around when you and I need it.
    On the green energy thing, that didn't work out that way though did it? And it will not work out that way in any near future. No one is against green energy at all but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are not in a position to compete in the global market and that is just fact. Right now, we need to not only develop new energy sources but also make efforts to increase our domestic oil production. Furthermore, not sure if you noticed how little money was designated for developing clean coal and natural gas, resources our country has in abundance. This is where we should be spending the bulk of our alternative energy money.

    1. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sassy, I agree 100% that hard cuts must be made, however, I also believe that Obama recognizes this and does not try to pretend any different. He just states that it must be a balanced approach. If taxes are set at the levels of the Clinton Administration this will not cause the job loss that Romney projects, the historical evidence is there to prove this to be a myth. It will create an influx of revenue to balance the cuts. I think the point is morale is higher when we all feel the burden is shared collectively. It is just a lot to ask for a nation in recovery that the hardest hit shoulder all of the burden.

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wake up Tammy. The top earners are already carrying over 70% of the entire Federal tax burden. Raising taxes on them only funds the government for about one month if that. It will not make one dent into the deficit. it is a fantasy. An independent group already studied both plans and Obama's will raise taxes on the middle class of over $4000 a year. And Biden has already admitted such. No denial has come from the Obama camp because it is a fact. We had a healthy economy under Clinton, that he inherited I might add. Raising taxes under that scenario is quite a different story than raising them under the current economic conditions. It WILL lead to those job losses. It WILL curtail any economic growth. There is no proof otherwise. And we all will be paying higher taxes that we can hardly afford in the current economic climate.

        1. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sassy, I understand that you believe what you say, but it's just not true. They pay the most taxes because they make 80% of the money. Their are many studies, but basic understanding of economics and math is really all you need to know. I can see your hard core republican, so there is really no need to talk further. I mean no disrespect, have a nice evening:)

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No they don't make 80% of the money. They account for 43% of the income of the country and cover 70% of the taxes. Some recommended reading:

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 … 68040.html

            "The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes."

            http://taxfoundation.org/article/summar … tax-data-0

            This one shows you the earnings and share of taxes. (you just have to click the buttons on the chart to change it)

            http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/t … me-earners

            Your "math" is incorrect. You have been deceived by the Democrats rhetoric about fair share and have not actually done any research of your own. It would be quite enlightening for you.

            Have a nice evening as well.

            1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
              Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why are all the poor people so worried about taxing the rich people at the rate they paid under Clinton? The wealthy are making twice as much as they made then. And they own twice as much. The 6 WalMark kids own as much as 100 million of us. And they're lobbying to take away our unions and our guaranteed health care. I guess masocists won't be satisfied until they're dead.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They whine about redistribution, failing to recognize that there has already been a huge redistribution over the past 30 years or so--from the poor and middle class to the ultra-rich.

            2. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              www.huffington.post Used this earlier in a hub I am writing, that is why I said goodnight, not being mean, I used their site earlier researching information about who pays what in taxes, the article used credible sources. I will look at your links when I finish this hub Sassy, sincerely do not mean to be disrespectful in any way, you are one of the nicest conservatives I have spoken with and I can tell you do your research. Typed words don't convey tone, but I will be back to read your links:)

              1. profile image0
                SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Tammy, I'll take a look at your Hub when you're finished. Not much for the Huffington post as a reliable source though. They tend to be pretty biased. I try to steer away from biased sources as much as possible. It is why included the first link. it is a pretty objective piece and also discusses the difference between the few who get their income almost solely from capital gains and those whose income is earned.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Go to the horse's mouth...

                  http://taxfoundation.org/article/summar … tax-data-0

                  Tax foundation takes the information from this page

                  http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats--- … tile#_grp2

                  and makes it easier to read. There is no better data than what you find there. It's true, if you take the income share of the top 1%, their tax share is double that, meaning they pay double what a flat, fair share would be.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image61
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sassy I gave you the wrong link, I was writing and into it,LOL, but this site is credible and pulled the numbers from the sites listed above in Jax reply:)www.cbpp.org, Finally got that new hub up, my computer freaked out on me so I hope you will take a look, going to check out the links you sent now, hope you had a nice Sunday:)

                    1. tammybarnette profile image61
                      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Sassy, I see what you mean, maybe the taxes on capital gains are the taxes that need to be raised...good point:) I have always said that I would support a flat tax, that seems fair to me.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "The top earners are already carrying over 70% of the entire Federal tax burden."

            That's a meaningless figure. The gap in wealth and income between the top earners has gotten wider and wider for the past 30 years or so. Yet the top earners are continually whining "redistribution" while grabbing a bigger and bigger share for themselves to the point where more and more Americans are losing faith in our democratic capitalist system.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If they earn 35% of the income, then they have a right to complain about paying 70% of the taxes. That is redistribution, pure and simple.

     
    working