By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Mitt Romney. 27 lies in 38 minutes.

MDMAlliance on 06 October 2012
HappySqurriel said:
MDMAlliance said:


Even if the chart were to be believed and is an accurate representation, my comment was made to those who make rash statements without even knowing anything for themselves.  The chart also shows that in 2008 unemployment rates increased exponentially fast and stopped its rapid growth around 2009.  On all parts it shows a rather steady unemployment rate rather than a rapidly increasing one.  It seems like there's a trend of the rates going up and down quickly, while it does seem to go up a little, doesn't it at least show some improvement over if nothing were done, the rate could have been significantly higher?  

I personally don't know too much about this, but when listening to certain news sources go on about this, I couldn't help but think that there were always people who weren't counted in unemployment.  This wouldn't have been much (if any) different if a Republican (or another candidate) were the President.

Realistically, the unemployment rate couldn't have gone much higher (at least for any significant amount of time) ...

If the banks were allowed to fail the mortgage backed securities that were "worthless" would probably have ended up selling for a tiny fraction of what their book value was. Small(ish) investors would have bought those mortgages, unwound them, resturctured the principle and interest to ensure that the people who held the mortgage could afford them, and sold them at a profit. The average person would have seen their mortgage payment decline significantly, the credit markets would have began to thaw in 2010 or 2011, and we would be seeing significant growth today.

Instead of this we have Zombie banks which can't afford to lend people money because their balance sheet is full of worthless paper, they can't sell this worthless paper because no one wants an asset that is going to decline in value, and they can't even write off their poor investment because doing so would force them into bankruptcy.

The government spent billions of dollars to make a banking system which was less viable in the long run.


Isn't that a little bit of a bold statement, don't you think?  



Around the Network
forevercloud3000 on 06 October 2012
spaceguy said:
forevercloud3000 said:
I do find it funny how Romney's entire stance on politics is kept promissory and vague. To be honest, that is exactly how Obama got into office in the first place. Make a bunch of bold promises that can't really be proven or at least have a dedicated plan to get there. This is why originally I was on board with Hilary, but then she joined his ticket and he started sounding a lot more promising. I think his run as president has been a good one...minus the Right wing spin to turn every accomplishment bad.

President Obama has done a great job putting the pieces back together that Bush left. Romney cannot change that there has only been positives since Obama's office.
-They want to talk about deficits, most of that money was already put into motion before he got there. Other amounts used for really good causes.
-Unemployment rate? Ask any conservative and they say Obama made it higher than it has been in decades. The truth? Rate was skyrocketing just before Obama took office and capped at the end of Obama's first year as his administration figured out what to do, Stopped it, and it has been in steady decline ever since.
-Lost jobs? Obama has done nothing but make jobs since his reign. The idea that the 1%, out of retaliation to Obama taxing them more, threaten to cut more jobs isn't something they can say out loud.

Romney and the entire GOP this election have literally been a bunch of clowns in suits. Bauchman? Seriously? Cain? For real america? I could not fathom a world where anyone of them could be a feasible candidate. They are so damn nutty, its practically funny...yet sad at the same time. For the first time I realized just how dilusional they were. Does Obama and the Democratic party have all the answers? No, but I assure you we will always be much better off than with those clowns.


Said very well.


Thanks. I personally always expect every politician to have their own "agenda", the game is not which one is good and the other bad. It is which is the lesser evil. In this case, I can without a doubt say Obama is. By Social policies alone, I cannot bare the thought of Romney being president. When it gets to economics it gets much more dicey, tho Obama has done a decent job getting us out of this mess(could be better but hey, we can't predict the future on which policy will work and which won't). I go on the merit that "Trickle down" has not worked for me in the past 7 or so years, ready for something new and that is Obama's plan.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

HappySqurriel on 07 October 2012
MDMAlliance said:
HappySqurriel said:
MDMAlliance said:


Even if the chart were to be believed and is an accurate representation, my comment was made to those who make rash statements without even knowing anything for themselves.  The chart also shows that in 2008 unemployment rates increased exponentially fast and stopped its rapid growth around 2009.  On all parts it shows a rather steady unemployment rate rather than a rapidly increasing one.  It seems like there's a trend of the rates going up and down quickly, while it does seem to go up a little, doesn't it at least show some improvement over if nothing were done, the rate could have been significantly higher?  

I personally don't know too much about this, but when listening to certain news sources go on about this, I couldn't help but think that there were always people who weren't counted in unemployment.  This wouldn't have been much (if any) different if a Republican (or another candidate) were the President.

Realistically, the unemployment rate couldn't have gone much higher (at least for any significant amount of time) ...

If the banks were allowed to fail the mortgage backed securities that were "worthless" would probably have ended up selling for a tiny fraction of what their book value was. Small(ish) investors would have bought those mortgages, unwound them, resturctured the principle and interest to ensure that the people who held the mortgage could afford them, and sold them at a profit. The average person would have seen their mortgage payment decline significantly, the credit markets would have began to thaw in 2010 or 2011, and we would be seeing significant growth today.

Instead of this we have Zombie banks which can't afford to lend people money because their balance sheet is full of worthless paper, they can't sell this worthless paper because no one wants an asset that is going to decline in value, and they can't even write off their poor investment because doing so would force them into bankruptcy.

The government spent billions of dollars to make a banking system which was less viable in the long run.


Isn't that a little bit of a bold statement, don't you think?  

Not really ... The financial melt-down we encountered was a classic liquidity trap. By bailing out the big investment banks the government only ensured that this liquidity trap would continue for years or decades rather than the weeks or months it should have lasted.



GameOver22 on 07 October 2012

I'll just say this is why I never declare a winner right after watching a debate. Candidates always throw out so many stats and statements, and it's basically impossible to know if what they're saying is true, unless you're very familiar with the issues.



Max King of the Wild on 07 October 2012
GameOver22 said:
I'll just say this is why I never declare a winner right after watching a debate. Candidates always throw out so many stats and statements, and it's basically impossible to know if what they're saying is true, unless you're very familiar with the issues.



Well, the other side should be very familiar with the issues so it would be their job know its untrue and explain why. if a side is getting away with lies its because the other side doesn't know enough... the lying side is still the winner in that situation



Around the Network
moondeep on 07 October 2012

This is a ridiculous post.  Romney was stating facts and Obama had no defense.  Just admit that Obama is one and done.



Hardware is only a means to enjoy great games!

GameOver22 on 07 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
GameOver22 said:
I'll just say this is why I never declare a winner right after watching a debate. Candidates always throw out so many stats and statements, and it's basically impossible to know if what they're saying is true, unless you're very familiar with the issues.



Well, the other side should be very familiar with the issues so it would be their job know its untrue and explain why. if a side is getting away with lies its because the other side doesn't know enough... the lying side is still the winner in that situation

Yes, but then the viewer has to be able to determine who is telling the truth, and the fact is, it's quite unrealistic to expect the average viewer to possess all the relevant knowledge to make these assessments. Just for example, there was the instance where Obama claimed Romney's plan didn't address pre-existing conditions. Romney countered that his plan did cover preexisting conditions. It turnout out that Obama was "more correct" with the argument, but I personally had no clue who was right at the time.

To summarize, it is not a question of whether the debaters can counter each others argument. It is whether viewers can decipher all the competing claims the candidates make while on stage. A rebuttal doesn't make much use if it is based on erroneous facts, but given the depth of the issues being discussed, viewers often don't have the information to determine which claims are true or false.



the2real4mafol on 08 October 2012

Lying the only thing Romney is good at! Also, he said coal was a clean energy source in that debate lol



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

spaceguy on 08 October 2012
moondeep said:

This is a ridiculous post.  Romney was stating facts and Obama had no defense.  Just admit that Obama is one and done.


LOL. You are clearly lost. Obama has  78% chance of winning and this is with the debate bump included. Also the bump has not done much and we have not seen what the economic numbers have done.  So in denial, you must admit that Romney lied non-stop, just because you can't fact check. What is obama suppost to do chase him around the stage challenging everything out of his mouth. Then they would have said obama lost because he was chasing romney all night. HE FLIPPED ON EVERYSINGLE ISSUE. HE WAS ONCE FOR SOMETHING, NOW HE IS AGAINST IT.



dj2one on 08 October 2012

Interesting read but as always with politics some of the infomation comes across extremely biased. I think nothing chnaged if you were voting or Obama you still are if you were a Mitt supporter you still are. Obama has done some good things but should have stood up more for his ideas instead of letting other people frame the arguments and he would have to respond. Death panel fear mongering from right wingers comes to mind when the Obamacare bill was being written.

This debate was not Obama's strongest and Mitt came across better than expected but the bar was pretty low. I do think that he was basically just saying what he thought people would like to hear. But he has done that before he has changed many of his stances since being part of the mostly democrat state of MA govt.