Oh YEA! ITS ON!

[rob19]

Let’s all take a closer look at the goofy rationale behind the Left’s objection about Romney, based on a Harvard study they believe that Romney will have to break his pledge to lower tax rates for higher income people but keep the amount they pay static due to closures in loopholes and deductions. Of course this is a completely speculative argument and cannot be proven either way; however let’s just grant them this for the sake of argument. So Romney may have one campaign promise he won’t come through on; does the left really think this is enough to not vote for someone? This puts them in a real bind because if they say no then their objection is irrelevant, if they say yes then they cannot vote for Obama and here’s why. The following are examples of campaign promises Obama made in 2008…

PROMISE: I will close Gitmo in my first term. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will expand the child and dependent care credit. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will require automatic enrollment in 401k plans. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will require automatic enrollment in IRA plans. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will end no-bid contracts above $25,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will Sign the Employee Free Choice Act. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow imported prescription drugs. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will double funding for the Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability. NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). NEVER HAPPENED
PROMISE: I will bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda. NEVER HAPPENED

Couple that with the numerous promises he has broken since taking office (unemployment never going above 8 percent) and Obama supporters have a serious problem because they claim an apparent broken promise by Romney based solely on speculation is enough to disqualify him from getting a chance, and yet dozens of actual broken promises by Obama are enough to earn him re-election?

[rob19]

Actually by repealing Obamacare, which is the largest tax ever passed on the American people my taxes will go down a bit.

by Robert I. Field, Ph.D., J.D., M.P.H.

Mitt Romney says his Massachusetts health reform plan is much better than Obama’s. He claims it’s different in important ways.

If there are big differences, it’s difficult to find them.

In an interview last week with a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, Romney cited the key features that differentiate his reform approach from Obama’s.
He declared, “My health care plan I put in place in my state has everyone insured, but we didn’t go out and raise taxes on people and have a unelected board tell people what kind of health care they can have.”

Let’s do some quick fact checking.

Does Romneycare have everyone insured? Close, but not fully there. The plan cut the state’s rate of uninsurance by almost half. As of 2010, the rate was
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for the nonelderly population, the lowest of any state. That’s a huge accomplishment, but there is still a ways to go before everyone has coverage.

Did Romneycare raise taxes? No, but the state didn’t need to. It covered the cost of reform with larger payments that it negotiated from the federal government for its Medicaid program.

Does Romneycare have an unelected board that tells people what kinds of health care they can have? It does. The Massachusetts Connector Authority serves as the state’s insurance exchange. It sets standards for the types of plans that may be sold, thereby determining the kind of access residents will have to health care services.

Is Obamacare any different? Not really.
It will extend coverage to 30 million more people, which will reduce the country’s rate of uninsurance by about half to roughly 8 percent. Not too different from Romneycare.

It does raise taxes in a number of ways, including new levies on tanning salons, medical devices, and high-end insurance policies. But, unlike Massachusetts, it doesn’t have a higher level of government to turn to for help, so it needs a new source of revenue to cover the cost.
It does let unelected officials determine what kind of insurance people can receive by setting standards for coverage under the state exchanges that will
sell it. Just like Romneycare.

Romney’s comment about an unelected board was probably also a reference to a new board that Obamacare created called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It recommends cost-cutting measures under Medicare. Romney, along with several fellow Republicans, has
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
about the scope of its power. But Romneycare is a state-based program while Medicare is purely federal. It couldn’t have included an IPAB or any other measure concerning Medicare, even if Romney had wanted it to.

After all is said and done, these aspects of the plans are relatively minor, anyway. In their underlying structure, Obamacare and Romneycare are almost identical.

Both expand coverage in the same three ways. They reform the market for individual insurance by creating exchanges to sell it, subsidizing those with low incomes, and mandating that everyone maintain coverage in some form. They expand Medicaid to cover more people. And they penalize employers who don’t offer coverage to their workers.

Romney and his fellow Republicans should be proud that Obama copied their health reform approach. Instead of drawing false distinctions between the two plans, they should boast of leading on health reform and leaving Obama and Democrats to follow.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[Spesh]

U.S. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-Pa., put it this way:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"; and Alabama Republican Party chair Bill Armistead said that "
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
."

Then there's Limbaugh,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the way only he can.

Forget the United States,"Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world," he declared.

This claim is wrong.

While the health care law certainly is, on the whole, a tax increase, it’s not the largest in American history -- and as such -- cannot be the largest in the history of the world.

Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


What a socialist Reagan was.

[JamesBW43]

That’s not an error in reasoning; it’s an inductive argument arguing from specific observed instances to a general statement.

Simply defining an inductive argument doesn't mean yours isn't erroneous.

[Spesh]

In a surprise development, the unemployment rate, at 7.8 percent, now stands the same level as when
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
took office in January 2009.
On Friday, the Department of Labor reported the widely watched rate fell from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent in September.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[-=DolfanDave=-]

Hard to turn chicken **** into chicken salad when that's what was handed to you.

Maintaining or even increasing military spending is (one of) the main reasons why I would never vote for Romney. **** Romney.

Obama 2012!

[irish fin fan]

Oh my, unemployment rate is less than 8%. I can hear Romney now "I never said that that the unemployment rate under Obama never dropped below 8%, I said 7%".

[phins_4_ever]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anybody who thought that the unemployment rate eventually would not drop below 8% was hoping for this country to fail. Right Mr Romney.

Romney banked so heavily on unemployment rate of 8% and higher that he has to find a new shtick now. The entire Republican Party banked on unemployment otherwise they would have not blocked the American Jobs Act.

White House Fact Sheet:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Summary:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Moody Analysis:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

EPI Analysis:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


More analysis:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[jguig]

And you think that the unemployment number is credible? This is the same administration that said that Obamacare wouldn't raise the price of healthcare. It provided a number bases on a shell game to fabricate savings: they got the CBO to state the cost over a specific 10 year span, fully knowing that 4 of the 10 years were all tax revenues, while only 6 of those years would actually contain expenses. It was a deliberate attempt to misinform you and me. Now these good numbers come out within 2 days of all the headlines talking about how Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the debate. They are again attempting to own the headline and take control of the news stories to get Obama's failure off the map.

[phins_4_ever]

And you think that the unemployment number is credible? This is the same administration that said that Obamacare wouldn't raise the price of healthcare. It provided a number bases on a shell game to fabricate savings: they got the CBO to state the cost over a specific 10 year span, fully knowing that 4 of the 10 years were all tax revenues, while only 6 of those years would actually contain expenses. It was a deliberate attempt to misinform you and me. Now these good numbers come out within 2 days of all the headlines talking about how Romney cleaned Obama's clock in the debate. They are again attempting to own the headline and take control of the news stories to get Obama's failure off the map.

Oh sure, as long it was an unemployment rate above 8% it was credible number. Now its not. Figures.