Well, Willard won the debate , right ? at least he won with republicans . He won by telling people he wants to fire Big Bird who costs the country 14 cents out of every $10,000 in the federal budget - because that will fix all the problems !
And how did he win ? By lying for the Lord ! For some examples, click here .
He tells the big whoppers :
Tim Dickinson
October 4, 2012 9:32 AM ET
Mitt Romney turned in a polished performance in last night's presidential debate – and revealed himself to be an accomplished and unapologetic liar. In an evening where he sought to slice and dice the president with statistics, Romney baldly misrepresented his own policy prescriptions, made up numbers to fit his attacks and buried clear contrasts with the president under a heaping pile of horseshit.
Here are mendacious Mitt's five most outrageous statements:
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.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/...
These guys are professionals and not partisans
Willard averaged a lie about every 80 seconds - that is remarkable - even for him.
The truth eventually wins out
Mitt Romney has a tax plan that promises $5 trillion in tax cuts weighted towards the wealthy—which can only be paid for by raising taxes on middle-class families with kids by more than $2,000. At the first presidential debate, Romney tried to walk away from his plan, making the impossible promise that it would neither add to the deficit nor raise taxes on the middle class. Unsurprisingly, he failed to offer any details on how he’d accomplish this.
Noting that Romney is “long on promises and short on details,” Bloomberg News had tax experts delve into the specifics of one option Romney proposed to find out how it would impact American families. Here’s what they found:
[Romney’s] tax plan, however, would upend financial planning for millions of middle-class households, denying them thousands of dollars in annual deductions. Earlier this week, after months of refusing to specify which tax breaks he would curtail, Romney said taxpayers might be able to take a total of no more than $17,000 in deductions each year.
That won’t bring in enough revenue to make up for almost $5 trillion the government will lose over 10 years once tax rates are reduced by 20 percent as Romney has proposed, according to economist William Gale of the Brookings Institution in Washington.
“It doesn’t come close to paying for the $5 trillion,” said Gale, who co-authored a study of Romney’s tax plan for the non-partisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
This
number is not going to down after today's news.
The President will make adjustments for the next debate
But, top staffers for the president argued, Romney only succeeded by being dishonest, and Obama will adjust for the Oct. 16th debate.
Romney “may win the Oscar for his performance last night but he’s not going to win the presidency,” senior strategist David Axelrod said. Romney “came to give a performance. And he gave a good performance. The problem was none of it was rooted in fact.”
Axelrod described Romney as an “artful dodger,” which “makes it a more challenging kind of event.” For the next debate, the long-time Obama adviser suggested, the president will recalibrate.
But, he said, “there are some strategic judgments that have to be made and we will make them.”
The president “made a choice last night to answer the questions that were asked … and not get into serial fact-checking with Governor Romney,” he said. ”We’re going to take a hard look at this and we’re going to have to make some judgments about where to draw the lines.”
As Axelrod pointed out to The Hill
"We thought he did a very theatrically aggressive performance," Plouffe said, according to a White House pool report. "Is that going to change minds in places like Ohio, Nevada, and Virginia? We'll have to see, but that's the measure."
"Is he going to take the lead in Ohio," he continued. "If he doesn't, he's not going to be president."
He added of the debate: "We don't think it fundamentally alters the race."
The President will do much better in the next debate. And there are only three opportunities left for willard to try to catch up. This is similar to the primaries. President Obama was way ahead in the delegate count. Hillary saw a few big states coming up. She would win them. However, the math got worse for her. Why ? Because she did not get nearly enough delegates out of these big states and she was left with one fewer opportunity to catch up. So, a win that did not alter the math was not enough. That was all that she got. That is also all that willard got. His "debate win" did not alter the math (the deficits he faces in the swing states , the number of ways that President Obama can get to 270 electoral votes).
And then: Boom went the dynamite !
This leads them to paranoia, ignorance, a land of pure fantasy and conspiracy
This is similar to : We never landed on the moon !
This projection from people who use the Gish Gallop
They should all become members of this organization .
The lowering of the unemployment rate is far more important to most voters than the staged theatrics of the other night. This relates to the everyday lives of people. A recent poll showed that 57% of registered voters think that the economy is improving.
The unemployment rate is now lower than it was when President Obama took office. We remember that the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month at that time. And the effects of that crash carried over. The economy shrank 9 full percent. The stimulus stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs. We have continued to add jobs for about 2 and a half straight years now. And we are better off than where we were, not just in terms of trajectory, but in the unemployment rate as well. Voters remember where the economy was when President Obama took office. And they know that it was the fault of Mitt Romney type economic policies. They care about the direction that we are going. And they know that President Obama has righted the ship. With President Obama's large lead among women and latinos see here :
In Nevada, President Barack Obama leads Romney 78-17 percent among Latino voters, according to the latest survey from Latino Decisions, a political opinion research firm.
, this effectively ends the rationale for willard's candidacy.
All that is left is for us to: vote, get people registered to vote, talk to friends, neighbors, coworkers, relatives, get our voters to the polls, make calls and donate !