Do you want to look at the Romney lies from last night?

Question

if so, good!

1. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." Romney flatly lied about the cost of his proposal to cut income-tax rates across the board by another 20 percent (undercutting even the low rates of the Bush tax cuts). Independent economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade.

2. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans." Romney has claimed that he will pay for his tax cuts by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions. The factual problem? Romney hasn't named a single loophole he's willing to close; worse, there's no way to offset $5 trillion in tax cuts even if you get rid of the entire universe of deductions for the wealthy that Romney has not put off the table (like the carried interest loophole or the 15 percent capital gains rate.) The Tax Policy Center report concludes that Romney's proposal would create a "net tax cut for high-income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower- and or middle-income taxpayers." Moreover, some of Romney's tax cuts are micro-targeted at American dynasties, particularly his proposal to eliminate the estate tax, which would reduce his own sons' tax burden by tens of millions of dollars.

3. "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work."

4. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have." Romney is reviving Sarah Palin's old death panels lie here. Obamacare does establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board to help constrain the growth of Medicare spending. The body has no authority to dictate the practices of the private insurance marketplace. And the law also makes explicit that this body is banned from rationing care or limiting medical benefits to seniors.

5. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." In the biggest whopper of the night, Romney suggested that his health care proposal would guarantee coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions. This is just not true. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you would be **** out of luck. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage, as even Romney's top adviser conceded after the debate was over.

Answer 1

I appreciate the research you've done to answer this question!

Answer 2

The only thing that Romney proved last night is that he is a cynical and dishonorable lying SOB.



I guess lying is the status quo in the Romney household since he told us last night his five sons lie all the time.



It is unbelievable to what extent this idiot will sink to - lie after lie after lie.



Example:



ROMNEY: "Let me repeat what I said, I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan."



The truth:



He has proposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent for all income levels -- then cutting all rates by an additional 20 percent. He would also repeal the alternative minimum tax and permanently repeal the estate tax.



The non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Romney's tax plan would cost $4.8 trillion over 10 years.





So "I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut" is ONE BIG FAT LIE.



I can't imagine anyone being okay with that.

Answer 3

Romney told 27 lies and half truths last night.



Romney’s Successful Debate Plan: Lying

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romneys-successful-debate-plan-lying.html



10 Most Shameless Romney Debate Lies – Debunked

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/10-most-shameless-romney-debate-lies-debunked



Mitt Fiction! A Rundown Of Romney's Lie-Ridden Debate Performance

http://newsone.com/2053690/mitt-romney-debate-lies/



The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004



The 12 Lies That Made Mitt Romney’s Debate Performance Pure Fiction

http://www.politicususa.com/12-lies-mitt-romneys-debate-performance-mostly-fiction.html



Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-romney-lied_n_1938926.html



Romney told 27 lies or half truths in a matter of just 38 minutes on stage last night.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/



##

Answer 4

OBAMA: "I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. ... The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue."



OBAMA: "Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it's true — but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we're already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate."



OBAMA: It's important "that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America."



OBAMA: "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that's another trillion dollars — and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign."



OBAMA: "Independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Gov. Romney's pledge of not ... adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more."



ROMNEY: "Simpson-Bowles, the president should have grabbed that."

OBAMA: "That's what we've done, made some adjustments to it, and we're putting it before Congress right now, a $4 trillion plan."

Answer 5

Nice cut and paste.



But let's take number 5 as an example. That is not a lie. It has been illegal to exclude individuals with a pre-existing condition since 1996. Legal mumbo jumbo, but here's the deal:



Regulation of pre-existing condition exclusions in individual (non-group) and small group (2 to 50 employees) health insurance plans in the United States is left to individual U.S. states as a result of the McCarran–Ferguson Act of 1945 which delegated insurance regulation to the states and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) which exempted self-insured large group health insurance plans from state regulation. After most states had by the early 1990s implemented some limits on pre-existing condition exclusions by small group (2 to 50 employees) health insurance plans, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Kassebaum-Kennedy Act) of 1996 (HIPAA) extended some minimal limits on pre-existing condition exclusions for all group health insurance plans—including the self-insured large group health insurance plans that cover half of those with employer-provided health insurance but are exempt from state insurance regulation.[6]



NOW, personally, I'm against this. If you don't have insurance and you get sick? Tough titties. You should have gotten insurance. If it isn't important enough to you to obtain insurance why should it be important to us when you get sick and need it. This is like waiting until your house is on fire to buy home owners insurance. The best example is a bad example.

Answer 6

Of course not. They have proven time and again they don't like to read. Try putting an absolute fact in an answer and they will not look it up. They like to listen, it's easier, and when the orator is always smiling - well, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, the medicine go down.......

Answer 7

Listening to Romney is a waste of my precious time...lies on top of more lies. He's a fast talking snake oil salesman who wants to do want every Republican does, attack the poor and weak first.

Answer 8

I was aware of most of those lies the moment they were given. Sadly, there's a lot of ignorant people that aren't looking for honesty. They're only looking for victory.



I can honestly say that If Obama told half as many lies as Romney did last night, I'd drop my support in a heartbeat. But, there's no GOP in Integrity.



Here's another interesting prospective



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Answer 9

1. The TPC is a partisan institution (from the left-wing Brookings Institute, no less) and the report your citing has been debunked a number of times. In fact, your reference to issue 2 is one of the lines challenging the report - the plan is to remove exemptions and deductions to get a more streamlined tax code. The tax cuts are there to balance out the effect of removing the exemptions, etc.



2. Your essentially contending that the TPC's partisan points should be given more weight than Romney's contentions. Since the TPC is no less partisan than the Romney campaign, calling this a Romney lie is simply you asserting your opinion. It's not a factual rebut at all. And Romney only needs to $360 billion per year. Part of that plan depends on improving the anemic GDP that we've seen under Obama. The TPC is simply putting their finger on the scale and calling it balanced. (And as far as specifics, Romney's a lot more specific than Obama, who won't even confirm whether he'll let the middle class tax cuts expire or not.)



3. You only get half credit here because Romney's inclusion of part-timers is part-timers looking for full time jobs (in other words, people scraping together income part time who would rather have full time jobs.) So, you're spinning a bit here, but it's not particularly helpful given the number of times the left has made a similar argument about part time work to attack Republicans.



4. Slippery, aren't you. No rationing for seniors (but that doesn't say anything about other types of rationing). Plus, you ignore that many Democrats have essentially called for rationing. Indeed, Obama himself implied as much when he suggested in a town hall meeting during the ACA debate that some forms of care were unnecessary or excessive. Almost no one on either side believes that this panel would not develop into something akin to a rationing panel. Indeed, given the limitations you cite in your point, the panel is next to useless without some type of power to affect the level and amount of care. And, as we've seen with WARN and illegal immigration, the Obama administration doesn't let the law stand in the way of their concepts of progress.



5. A half point (and a dodgy link) from RS here. Romney's plan calls for the states to address pre-existing conditions. That would require a lot of state action, but given the fiscal challenges of opening up any insurance to all pre-existing conditions (many people would simply wait until they became sick to buy insurance) it's a more realistic view. People with current pre-existing conditions who have not gotten insurance would be the ones most affected. Those with preexisting conditions who already have insurance would be covered by the current or similar laws preventing insurance companies from dropping them, if they get insurance in a timely fashion. And people who lose their jobs and have reduce income would be covered by Medicaid.



So, not nearly the home run RS thinks. Now, we can all sit back and await their debunking of Obama's claims (cricket sounds).





Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#ixzz28LvzHGLF

Answer 10

Ew...patheric crapo... Look at all this pooping and urine on your floor from last night! Yuck!



Just picking up my 2 points, and leaving... PUKE!

Answer 11

Well the truth has never seemed to matter to Republicans at all but maybe there are some decent people out there who still appreciate the truth

Answer 12

romney was aiming at very very low info voters. let me just say it, actually saliva-drooling stupid voters. can't help stupid. vote for obama to improve our education.

Answer 13

Maybe we should fact check the one topic Obama did well on, the Obama wedding anniversary.

Answer 14

Sooooo no one cares if romney was lying....they just think he won cause of his preformance? Lol! This is exactly why you dumbass republicans voted bush into office. Romney is a dirty ****** liar.

Answer 15

I agree Obama won.

Answer 16

Are you going to also question the Obama lies and hypocrisies as well, or are you a biased, liberal stooge?

Answer 17

no, not really. I know he's lying but I also know that Obama has been lying for four years now.



It's time for a new liar. The old lies are tired.

Answer 18

And who is going to fact check the fact checker?



BTW.......The Tax Policy Center did an update on that report and said Romney is accurate. You wouldn't know that thought, and apparently your "fact checker" doesn't know it either.



Here you go.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Romney-plan.cfm

Answer 19

your very first one is a lie from you.CNN debunked your claim last night.

Answer 20

If you are on defense you are losing.

Answer 21

You don't take getting routed well. do you?

Answer 22

Obama lost.





Get over it.

Answer 23

Obama = Solyndra

Romney = Staples



Defend THAT lib. I will take my chances with Romney