Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

[punked]

I'm just glad you're finally acknowledging that Obama's lies were called out by places like the Washington Post long ago. Before you pretended it didn't happen. Anyways, them stating that "a case could be made" is hardly anything definitive. Keep trying to distract from Obama's terrible record. Did you know he's added 4 billion dollars of debt every day since he took office? 4 billion every day!!!

Now the Washington post has walked back its claim and says it wasn't a lie at all. Guess I am just a better fact checker then you or the fact checkers. Guess from here on out I get to be the go to fact checker because we already know you don't know what is a lie.

[Shady]

Now the Washington post has walked back its claim and says it wasn't a lie at all. Guess I am just a better fact checker then you or the fact checkers. Guess from here on out I get to be the go to fact checker because we already know you don't know what is a lie.

Nope, saying "a case could be made" doesn't disprove anything. Stop the lying. Oh, I forgot, you're an Obama supporter. You can't stop.

[punked]

Nope, saying "a case could be made" doesn't disprove anything. Stop the lying. Oh, I forgot, you're an Obama supporter. You can't stop.

How about saying "We aren't giving any Pinocchios or calling this claim a lie in the least". What that says to me is that you they WOT CALL THIS A LIE.

[Shady]

How about saying "We aren't giving any Pinocchios or calling this claim a lie in the least". What that says to me is that you they WOT CALL THIS A LIE.

From punked's own link:

neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign.

Read that punked? You and your Chicago style policiticans have the burden of proof, in which you have nothing. Stop your lying already.

[punked]

From punked's own link:

Read that punked? You and your Chicago style policiticans have the burden of proof, in which you have nothing. Stop your lying already.

But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response....

So we are at an impasse. Because of the ambiguity, there is considerable room for interpretation of known facts. Going forward, unless new evidence emerges, on a case-by-case basis we may withhold the awarding of Pinocchios when the claim rests mostly on the question of when Romney stopped managing Bain Capital.

It says it right there Shady they will award no Pinocchios, and they wont call it even a little bit of a lie.

[Shady]

It says it right there Shady they will award no Pinocchios, and they wont call it even a little bit of a lie.

neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign

[punked]

What is the next line Shady? This is one of those cases where you pick 6 words from a 10000 word speech or essay and pretend that is all that was written or said. Out of context quotes are as good as lies. Here is the next lines.

But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response.

[uPDATE: The Boston Globe on July 20 published a lengthy article looking into this period. The reporters did not find evidence Romney was involved in specific deals but reveal a Palm Beach, Fla. meeting that he attended with his partners. The newspaper reported that “by remaining CEO and sole shareholder, Romney held on to his leverage in the talks that resulted in his generous 10-year retirement package…Before he left, tasks were doled out to other partners, including work on an investment committee and a compensation committee. He was not a partner in the new private equity funds launched in 2000 and 2001, meaning he had no role in assessing new investments, his partners said, a departure from his having previously had the final say on every deal….But Romney still had a lot of money on the table; much of his personal wealth was tied up in Bain. And he was still technically in charge.”]

So as we see the fact checkers are walking back Shadys claim and all he had was the fact checkers. So now that claim stands on nothing but the facts. Romney's name on the SEC reports, his sworn statements in a court of law, and the fact Bain wont release records of who was at board meetings in that time.

Edited July 21, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

What is the next line Shady? This is one of those cases where you pick 6 words from a 10000 word speech or essay and pretend that is all that was written or said. Out of context quotes are as good as lies. Here is the next lines.

So as we see the fact checkers are walking back Shadys claim and all he had was the fact checkers. So now that claim stands on nothing but the facts. Romney's name on the SEC reports, his sworn statements in a court of law, and the fact Bain wont release records of who was at board meetings in that time.

neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign

[punked]

Yah I read that Shady then they go on to explain why they have deviated from their "general position" You know the other 1000 words in the article that aren't found in that one sentence you keep quoting out of context.

[Shady]

Yah I read that Shady then they go on to explain why they have deviated from their "general position" You know the other 1000 words in the article that aren't found in that one sentence you keep quoting out of context.

You didn't link to the full article. You just selectively edited and pasted. Anyways, this is not out of context.

While we cannot definitely prove that Romney did not play a role in Bain deals in 1999, neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign.

This just proves what I've been saying for a while. It's a he-said/she-said type of thing. Unprovable. Just a distraction from Obama's horrible record. Do you know that he's added 4 billion dollars of debt every day since taking office?

4 billion dollars a day!

[punked]

You didn't link to the full article. You just selectively edited and pasted. Anyways, this is not out of context.

This just proves what I've been saying for a while. It's a he-said/she-said type of thing. Unprovable. Just a distraction from Obama's horrible record. Do you know that he's added 4 billion dollars of debt every day since taking office?

4 billion dollars a day!

Then they go on to bring to light details which have made them walk back their original fact check, state they have asked Romney and Bain to show them something that negates those facts and haven't gotten a response. So they have changed their original call to No Pinocchios. BTW in this thread I have quoted much much more of the article then you so I think we know who is selectively quoting. Sorry now you got nothing the fact checkers wont even call it a lie like you want.

[Shady]

Then they go on to bring to light details which have made them walk back their original fact check, state they have asked Romney and Bain to show them something that negates those facts and haven't gotten a response. So they have changed their original call to No Pinocchios. BTW in this thread I have quoted much much more of the article then you so I think we know who is selectively quoting. Sorry now you got nothing the fact checkers wont even call it a lie like you want.

Just more distractions. Pathetic.

While we cannot definitely prove that Romney did not play a role in Bain deals in 1999, neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Shady

[punked]

Just more distractions. Pathetic.

What are the next three paragraphs? That is a great paragraph explaining why they originally went for the call you kept quoting but it doesn't explain why they have chosen to no longer call the claim a lie. Why did they change their mind? Well it is explained in the next three paragraphs you wont read. That is ok, all I know is that the fact checkers wont call it a lie Shady so now all we have is the actual evidence.

[Shady]

What are the next three paragraphs? That is a great paragraph explaining why they originally went for the call you kept quoting but it doesn't explain why they have chosen to no longer call the claim a lie. Why did they change their mind? Well it is explained in the next three paragraphs you wont read. That is ok, all I know is that the fact checkers wont call it a lie Shady so now all we have is the actual evidence.

They changed their mind because it's what I said long ago. It's a he-said, she-said type of situation, which is unprovable. It was only meant as a distraction from Obama's terrible record. Which doesn't suprise me.

[bleeding heart]

This is the false narrative of socialists like bleeding heart, and you're right in the boat with him.

[

Nope. Argus and I have several points of convergence, and several diverging opinions as well. This is the usual state of affairs when it comes to political opinions.

However, and unlike yourself, neither Argus nor me is absolutely doctrinaire in our "leftwing" or "rightwing" opinions.

Which is why a person can have a sensible debate with a person like Argus. Certain...other posters....not so much.

[Pliny]

I'm sure they didn't pay the full 92% just like rich people today don't pay the full rate. But the rate today is a third of what it was in the fifties. That would imply they pay one third what they did in the fifties, would it not?

In either instance you would have to know what they claimed as taxable income.

And yet, the fifties were a time of real economic growth, which kind of renders the above statement, uhm, wrong.

Only if you think that people actually paid 92% of their income in taxes. Wahaha...

Sure. Same thing today. And I disagree it's less of a problem. It's so easy to move money around today it's probably more of a problem.

Big brother is watching more closely if you have checked into or even read the few media items about government closing offshore opportunities and tightening banking regulations. You keep making suggestions about something being more probable, it seems out of the fact they fit your concept of corporate capitalism. We live in an economic fascist style of corporatism at present not a free market where corporations are unfettered, freewheeling enterprises doing exactly as they please which is what most leftists like to claim.

My ideology is pragmatism. I look at the system of taxation in place in the US today and it's blindingly obvious that it's not working. There were always rich people in the US, but nothing like today. The disparity in wealth and power is becoming dangerously high, and the wealthy few are basically buying the country, its politicians, and its media organs. You are seeing the rise of what looks like a future ruling oligarchy similar to what we might see in science fiction books, where democracy is a sham front for the super wealthy who control everything.

Today 50% of Americans pay no income tax for whatever reason, whether they are poor, or they have personal deductions or investment loopholes or corporate subsidies. Quite frankly, income tax is more about the redistribution of wealth than it is about government revenues. Obama's plan to tax the rich is proof of that. The new tax levels he proposes for the rich would only buy about 8 days of government spending. Hardly worth the resultant necessary expansion of the IRS.

Taxing income is one of the worst forms of taxation.

[Argus]

In either instance you would have to know what they claimed as taxable income.

You could just say yes. I think we all know that's the case. It would make you seem more reasonable.

Big brother is watching more closely if you have checked into or even read the few media items about government closing offshore opportunities and tightening banking regulations.

A global super-rich elite had at least $21 trillion (£13tn) hidden in secret tax havens by the end of 2010, according to a major study.

The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined.

Wealthy hiding Trillions

it seems out of the fact they fit your concept of corporate capitalism. We live in an economic fascist style of corporatism at present not a free market where corporations are unfettered, freewheeling enterprises doing exactly as they please which is what most leftists like to claim

.

The drumbeat of controversy is far more than an image problem for the banking industry. Four years after the financial crisis began, the pile-up of bad behaviour is feeding a sense that something remains deeply awry inside banks, despite efforts by governments to reform them.

Banking suffers another blow as scandals pile up

Sorry if I’m sounding a bit cynical, but really: If you decided to enjoy the summer and skip the business pages, you’re missing a humdinger of a crime story. Just four years after they helped send the global economy into a chasm it has yet to escape, the world’s corporate and financial leaders are back with a sequel. There’s greed on a monumental scale. Cheating and lying. Dishonesty, incompetence and theft. Hubris like you’ve rarely seen. Arrogance, lots of arrogance. Plus fraud, embezzlement, conspiracies and money-grubbing on a monumental scale, by a host of breathtakingly high-paid bankers, financiers and corporate kingpins.

National Post

Edited July 22, 2012 by Argus

[Pliny]

You could just say yes. I think we all know that's the case. It would make you seem more reasonable.

You haven't made the case.

A global super-rich elite had at least $21 trillion (£13tn) hidden in secret tax havens by the end of 2010, according to a major study.

The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined.

Wealthy hiding Trillions

Your article highlights what I said: "If the suggestion is that such amounts are actively hidden and never accessed, that seems odd - not least in terms of what the tax authorities are doing. In fact, the US, UK and German authorities are doing a lot.

He said that in 2011-12 HM Revenue & Customs' High Net Worth Unit secured £200m in additional tax through its compliance work with the very wealthy.

He said that agreements reached with Liechtenstein and Switzerland will bring in £3bn and between £4bn and £7bn respectively."

It's probably still less in percentage of and in real dollar value than when the tax rate was 92%. I have never seen anyone argue this point it is so obvious and if you care to look honestly you will find that to be the case. I doubt even Paul Krugman would argue the point.

The drumbeat of controversy is far more than an image problem for the banking industry. Four years after the financial crisis began, the pile-up of bad behaviour is feeding a sense that something remains deeply awry inside banks, despite efforts by governments to reform them.

Banking suffers another blow as scandals pile up

That the banking system has some flaws is not arguable. It starts with the central bank, a fiat currency and a government with a 16 trillon dollar debt. Bank scandals are a deflection from real economic problems.

Sorry if I’m sounding a bit cynical, but really: If you decided to enjoy the summer and skip the business pages, you’re missing a humdinger of a crime story. Just four years after they helped send the global economy into a chasm it has yet to escape, the world’s corporate and financial leaders are back with a sequel. There’s greed on a monumental scale. Cheating and lying. Dishonesty, incompetence and theft. Hubris like you’ve rarely seen. Arrogance, lots of arrogance. Plus fraud, embezzlement, conspiracies and money-grubbing on a monumental scale, by a host of breathtakingly high-paid bankers, financiers and corporate kingpins.

National Post

I don't know what you would expect from scoundrels that the government bailed out... for some reason.....some politicians must have had their investments there.

The difference is seeing cause and effect. Banks didn't just decide in 2008 to get greedy. They have been greedy all along but knowing they'll be bailed out of any messes because they are too big to fail allows them to act quite arrogant and very greedy.

You aren't agreeing with Obama are you that "the private sector is doing fine and the economy is improving but not fast enough."

It isn't improving and it hasn't been improving. The actions taken by the Obama administration will not heal the economy, restore jobs or instill economic confidence in the people they will only delay what should have happened in 2008 - a market correction of mal-investment and a gross mis-allocation of resources. The longer the government band-aids the real problems the bigger the economic fall. It won't matter if there are $21 trillion in offshore bank accounts, really - if that's in fact true but I doubt it. It's just another hit piece on banks that deflects from the ineptness of politicians.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Pliny

[Argus]

You haven't made the case.

Elementary logic makes the case.

It's probably still less in percentage of and in real dollar value than when the tax rate was 92%. I have never seen anyone argue this point it is so obvious and if you care to look honestly you will find that to be the case. I doubt even Paul Krugman would argue the point.

And to repeat: It is MUCH easier to move money around today, and MUCH easier to both hide and access that money.

That the banking system has some flaws is not arguable. It starts with the central bank, a fiat currency and a government with a 16 trillon dollar debt. Bank scandals are a deflection from real economic problems.

I don't know what you would expect from scoundrels that the government bailed out... for some reason.....some politicians must have had their investments there.

Oh come on. I'm the first to acknowledge governments are far from perfect, but attributing corporate greed and malfeasance to government intervention is absurd. You're suggesting that if it weren't for the government the corporate world would be full of honest choir boys who would only do what was morally proper to do?

The difference is seeing cause and effect. Banks didn't just decide in 2008 to get greedy. They have been greedy all along but knowing they'll be bailed out of any messes because they are too big to fail allows them to act quite arrogant and very greedy.

That is why all the leading powers in the banking world whose institutions needed bailing out should have been stripped of 100% of their assets, including their private dwellings, automobiles, and, in fact, the clothes from their backs. They could be given castoffs from Sally Ann to wear.

Unfortunately, the government, and thus the laws, are controlled by these individuals, who basically own most of the politicians. That is why few are ever punished, not in 2008, not in the Savings and Loan disaster, not ever. You simply blame the politicians for being corrupt. I blame them, but also the corporations and the wealthy for corrupting them.

The actions taken by the Obama administration will not heal the economy, restore jobs or instill economic confidence in the people they will only delay what should have happened in 2008 - a market correction of mal-investment and a gross mis-allocation of resource

Caused in large part by the Republican Party and George Bush. And to reiterate, the major problems facing the economy are not of Obama's creation (ie, Europe, the holdover debt, Corporations hoarding cash).

[Pliny]

Elementary logic makes the case.

ha ha

And to repeat: It is MUCH easier to move money around today, and MUCH easier to both hide and access that money.

Repeating does not make something so.

Oh come on. I'm the first to acknowledge governments are far from perfect, but attributing corporate greed and malfeasance to government intervention is absurd. You're suggesting that if it weren't for the government the corporate world would be full of honest choir boys who would only do what was morally proper to do?

Why do you say it is absurd in this paragraph and in the next say that Wall St. "controls most of the politicians"?

Consumers control corporations better than governments. Consumers are not going to bail them out for poor/fraudulent management practices so you can bet that if they wish to remain players they better devise good/honest practices that offer products and services that are in demand.

Consumers today are also quite naive expecting government wouldn't allow fraudulent players, so few of them ever do proper due diligence - Checking government credentials and licences are not doing due diligence.

That is why all the leading powers in the banking world whose institutions needed bailing out should have been stripped of 100% of their assets, including their private dwellings, automobiles, and, in fact, the clothes from their backs. They could be given castoffs from Sally Ann to wear.

But that is impossible in your world because Wall St. owns the politicians. I don't argue that point because half the politicians invest on Wall Street and they scratch each other's back.

Unfortunately, the government, and thus the laws, are controlled by these individuals, who basically own most of the politicians. That is why few are ever punished, not in 2008, not in the Savings and Loan disaster, not ever. You simply blame the politicians for being corrupt. I blame them, but also the corporations and the wealthy for corrupting them.

But the politician's should be held to a higher standard. After all, they are the legislators and they look after the nation's interests. They should never be corrupted but they are because they want your vote and won't get it unless they deliver bread and circuses. It is the voter's that must essentially have the nation's interests not their own special interests and entitlements in mind when they vote at the national level. Unions, corporations, the welfare industry, environmentalists, multi-culturalism, the government bureaucracies, are all special interests among many others and are tearing the nation apart. Which is why limited government makes more sense, government's mandate should be restricted to national concerns, not whether gays should legally marry, or what the minimum wage is or whether twelve year old's should be supplied condoms in school.

Caused in large part by the Republican Party and George Bush. And to reiterate, the major problems facing the economy are not of Obama's creation (ie, Europe, the holdover debt, Corporations hoarding cash).

Obama helped and certainly continues a lot of the policies created before him as well as spending more in his first term than Bush did in his two terms.

You have the general picture of the economy and its structure that the media paints it to be and government likes it to be seen. It is filled with inconsistencies and obfuscations, not dissimilar to your post here that states corporations control government and thus government can never be blamed for corporate failure, yet you say attributing corporate greed and malfeasance to corporate controlled politicians is absurd?

I thought you were a little more of a centrist than you express here. I guess Kraychik must be right - just another dyed in the wool socialist.

[punked]

Oh no Shady now Politico has picked up the story and is leading with this headline.

AP: Romney had multiple Bain meetings after '99

Now that you don't have the "fact checkers" to hid behind I wonder what you line will be now. It is simple Romney is a liar who loved to lie about the big things and little things. It is to bad the start of this thread isn't around they could change the title to "Romney is a Liar. Obama's team just right before the media does their job and figures it all out."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/ap-romney-had-multiple-bain-meetings-after-130071.html

Edited July 25, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

Oh no Shady now Politico has picked up the story and is leading with this headline.

Now that you don't have the "fact checkers" to hid behind I wonder what you line will be now. It is simple Romney is a liar who loved to lie about the big things and little things. It is to bad the start of this thread isn't around they could change the title to "Romney is a Liar. Obama's team just right before the media does their job and figures it all out."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/ap-romney-had-multiple-bain-meetings-after-130071.html

Omg! A meeting?! He must have still been CEO!

Anyways, back to the thread topic of the Obama campaign. A new poll finds that by a 2 to 1 margin, voters think Obama is running the most negative campaign. No suprise.

[punked]

Omg! A meeting?! He must have still been CEO!

Anyways, back to the thread topic of the Obama campaign. A new poll finds that by a 2 to 1 margin, voters think Obama is running the most negative campaign. No suprise.

Not a meeting several meetings. I am sure Republicans care so much over who is running a negative campaign Shady. If you think Romney is going to win the election by telling the most lies then crying about when Obama and then the media say they are lies. Well I think that is a poor strategy.

[Shady]

Not a meeting several meetings.

Omg! Several meetings? Then he must have been CEO! Because somebody simply on the board of directors wouldnt be invloved in any regular meetings. Oh wait, nevermind.

[punked]

Omg! Several meetings? Then he must have been CEO! Because somebody simply on the board of directors wouldnt be invloved in any regular meetings. Oh wait, nevermind.

That is what team Obama was saying when you were defending him. Glad to see you agree Romney is a liar and Obama isn't. Great!