[Nass]

I can't remember the last time that politics in the US was so immershed in name calling, extremism and hyperbole on both sides. It makes it difficult to take comments seriously.

[cardinal43]

He reminds me of the salesman who is just so slimey that he causes you to walk away from an ok deal on a used car you really wanted.

And Ryan reminds me of the same salesman. Lie, Lie, Lie. No specifics, and don't worry about the blanks on the sales contract. Go ahead and sign, and we'll fill in the blanks later. Trust me. Right, when you shake hands with him, you want to count your fingers to make sure you got all of them back.

[jeffkrol]

Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan and the entire right wing know that their most deeply held belief -- the one on which they won't compromise -- is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. That's their faith that every problem in the economy and in society can be solved by throwing more money at rich people through tax cuts.

Vice President Joe Biden kept Mr. Ryan on the defensive during most of Thursday night's debate precisely because he refused to let anything distract him from driving this central point home. Without pause and without mercy, Mr. Biden kept bringing viewers back to the obsession of the current Republican Party with "taking care of only the very wealthy."

Mr. Obama doesn't have to look angry or agitated in tomorrow's debate. He simply needs to invite voters to see that Mitt Romney, the product, will give them no clue as to what Mitt Romney, the person, might do as president. Mr. Romney keeps changing the packaging because he knows that the policies inside the box are not what voters are looking for.

Read more: E.J. Dionne Jr. / Mitt Romney, the brand - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[seacapt]

Can we get a definition of "very wealthy " here ?
And why do Barry and Biden continually discribe famillies with a joint gross income over $250K as "millionaires"?
A $250K joint gross is middle class in many parts of the Country today. Factor in cost of living and see how "very wealthy" these famillies are!
Don't get me wrong , I'd love to see a $200K gross that would be living pretty high on the hog for my area but not "wealthy".
Unfortunitely in the past 4 years I've dropped from "middle class" to " working poor" , the new shop I had been aproved for a loan on but decided to wait and watch couldn't be had now due to Dodd Fwanks even if business was better and the 3 additional full time jobs that the shop would have brought don't exist. .

---

Last edited by seacapt; 10-15-2012 at 04:46 AM.

[ihasa]

And Ryan reminds me of the same salesman. Lie, Lie, Lie. No specifics, and don't worry about the blanks on the sales contract. Go ahead and sign, and we'll fill in the blanks later. Trust me. Right, when you shake hands with him, you want to count your fingers to make sure you got all of them back.

Talking about his policies Ryan used phrases like 'guaranteed to work!' and '100% effective!'. He could get a job selling miracle stain removers on QVC.

[kswier]

Mainstream sources called BS on the same items.Can you dispute any of them?

Daily Kos: Paul Ryan Tells 24 'Myths' in 40 Minutes, USAToday Factchecks... Joe Biden

Wow! can 'fact checking' get more partisan? When sites like politifact came out, I was really happy because there was finally an organization willing to do real journalism and sift through the political fluff in a non-partisan way. We could trust fact-checking.

Now it appears as if fact checking has been hijacked by those with a political agenda (all you need to do is read the first paragraph of the Biden 'fact check' or the Paul Ryan 'fact check' to see that this is true). The facts themselves may be correct, but the overly political tone makes me think there are motives other than providing the truth at work. These motivations could have led to cherry picking statements, or even cherry picking studies to support the view of the world that the author want to convey (I don't know, unless someone is doing a non-partisan fact check of the 'fact checkers'). Truly a sad day when political motivations begin tainting one of the last venues the American people can use to determine the truth.

[seacapt]

Wow! can 'fact checking' get more partisan? When sites like politifact came out, I was really happy because there was finally an organization willing to do real journalism and sift through the political fluff in a non-partisan way. We could trust fact-checking.

Now it appears as if fact checking has been hijacked by those with a political agenda (all you need to do is read the first paragraph of the Biden 'fact check' or the Paul Ryan 'fact check' to see that this is true). The facts themselves may be correct, but the overly political tone makes me think there are motives other than providing the truth at work. These motivations could have led to cherry picking statements, or even cherry picking studies to support the view of the world that the author want to convey (I don't know, unless someone is doing a non-partisan fact check of the 'fact checkers'). Truly a sad day when political motivations begin tainting one of the last venues the American people can use to determine the truth.

First off although the list of Biden lies that I borrowed from another poster comes from an unquestionably biased source , can you dispute them ?
Second Boris' link is to another unquestionably biassed source commenting on part of the fact checking done by USA today.
Third as stated earlier mainstream news sources did do a pretty fair job of fact checking both sides
.
IMO the most blatant BS award went to Biden for:
"We will only raise taxes on people who make a milloion dollars per year" and "We had no knowledge that the staff at Benghazi thought security needed to be increased."

[jeffkrol]

First off although the list of Biden lies that I borrowed from another poster comes from an unquestionably biased source , can you dispute them ?
Second Boris' link is to another unquestionably biassed source commenting on part of the fact checking done by USA today.
Third as stated earlier mainstream news sources did do a pretty fair job of fact checking both sides
.
IMO the most blatant BS award went to Biden for:
"We will only raise taxes on people who make a million dollars per year"

So what is it? $250,000/yr per family correct??? Or $200,000.. AND isn't it a fact that it will ONLY be on income above that level....
At least that was the Original plan if I remember correctly..

and "We had no knowledge that the staff at Benghazi thought security needed to be increased."

How many organizations have you ever worked for/with who never communicated things to the top??.. Biden could be honest in his assessment.. WE don't know yet.. That "someone" had that info (request) is plausable.. Where it stopped is unknown and it is questionable as to blaming Biden/Obama at this point.. It is NOT a proven fact that THEY, personally knew..

how many CEO's were clueless to the machinations of their underlings ??

"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. "In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway."

BIG NOTE for thinking people...........

I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost

And I determine I'm worth a billion dollars..............and Lamb probably screwed up... Don't see Obama nor bidens names in those memos...........

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/biden_contradicts_state_d...ghazi_security

MORE:
Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.

"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said.

Also, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was a site security commander in Libya from February through August, testified that a regional security officer tried to obtain more personnel, but 'was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with." It was unclear whether he was talking about Nordstrom.

Five diplomatic security special agents were in Benghazi at the time of the attack, two of whom only happened to be there because they had traveled with Stevens from Tripoli, according to testimony.

Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy responded, at the hearing, to suggestions the State Department was responsible for a lack of preparedness: "We regularly assess risk and resource allocation, a process involving the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best available information."

On Tuesday, two senior State Department officials told reporters that U.S. and Libyan security personnel in Benghazi were out-manned, and that no reasonable security presence could have fended off the assault.(Unless "reasonable" is a battalion I suppose)

Conclusion: It's unclear how high Nordstrom's request got in the administration, but he says he did ask the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more security help at the Benghazi post.

don't get me wrong, I assume it was a mistake, but certainly worse i hindsight.. As to "culpability" there is some to go around but not enough to "pin" it on the big dogs...
EVEN IF a memo got to one of them, deferring the decision to "those in the direct know" is the probable course of action.........who then possibly misjudged the situation..
Gee that NEVER happens huh.........

riding Hordstrom's "musings" really isn't enough to prove complacency in and by itself... Especially when he is using his OWN ass-u-me-tions........

[seacapt]

So what is it? $250,000/yr per family correct??? Or $200,000.. AND isn't it a fact that it will ONLY be on income above that level....
At least that was the Original plan if I remember correctly..

How many organizations have you ever worked for/with who never communicated things to the top??.. Biden could be honest in his assessment.. WE don't know yet.. That "someone" had that info (request) is plausable.. Where it stopped is unknown and it is questionable as to blaming Biden/Obama at this point.. It is NOT a proven fact that THEY, personally knew..
how many CEO's were clueless to the machinations of their underlings ??
BIG NOTE for thinking people...........
And I determine I'm worth a billion dollars..............and Lamb probably screwed up... Don't see Obama nor bidens names in those memos...........
Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security | The Cable

You know perfectly well that the Obama plan is to increase tax on individuals grossing $200K or famillies with joint gross income of $250K and up.Both numbers are considerably less than the "million dollars" earners that Laughing Joe stated.
As to your other point...
Well if your premise is even remotely correct and Hilldog , Biden and Barry, had no knowledge , then that would mean they weren't doing their PH@CKING JOBS
Yes Embassy security is part of the job description of the SOS.

[jeffkrol]

You know perfectly well that the Obama plan is to increase tax on individuals grossing $200K or famillies with joint gross income of $250K and up.Both numbers are considerably less than the "million dollars" earners that Laughing Joe stated.
As to your other point...
Well if your premise is even remotely correct and Hilldog , Biden and Barry, had no knowledge , then that would mean they weren't doing their PH@CKING JOBS
Yes Embassy security is part of the job description of the SOS.

Matter of opinion as to "doing their job" which is usually not micromanaging... especially an entire country.. You do realize that is not physically possible..

And I stand by the "taxing income more above a threshold NOT dollar for dollar ..at least that was one of the ways it was hndled.. I promise to check out the "details"..

AS to pure economics..........

As the Bush-era tax cuts neared their first expiration date at the end of 2010, most economists (myself including) thought Congress should postpone the deadline. The economy, just recovering from the Great Recession, was too fragile to withstand a tax increase, even on only the highest incomes. Obama and the Republican House agreed to extend the tax cuts for two years.

That extension is now nearing its end, and we must decide whether to extend the current rate cuts for everyone again, or only for those making less than $250,000, or to cut taxes even more.

My answer: Extend the tax cuts for everyone except high-income taxpayers. The economy isn't great, but it is strong enough to handle higher tax rates on the wealthy. And we need the extra revenue, which under reasonable assumptions would reduce the federal deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

Raising taxes on high earners is sound policy - Philly.com

Fiscally responsible..........

AND if you raise the personal tax rate.. but cut on SMB taxes you use the favorite "conservative stick" approach to investing more in your business than pleasure profits for yourself..
See social engineering the the spirit of Capitalism..........

BESIDES even if you talk "marginal rates" few IF ANY actually pay that.......... so what is the point??


BTW: I have yet to confirm my belief.. Marginal rates are in the same fantasy realm as "revenue neutral" is................

good comparison here.. though the H.O.R will probably modify anything anyways........

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/14/obama-vs-romney-which...lan-works-for/