|
|
Quite a few pages back (seems to gain 15 pages after I get home from work!), I responded to someone commenting on how businesses should really love the PPACA for all the tax breaks in it for businesses, and the supposed help it brings to providing health care insurance to their employees. Here's a news writeup about why I said businesses aren't all that enthused.
80 million hours needed to tackle Obamacare tax rules
A week after small businesses warned that Obamacare taxes will eat up to half of their profits, a new government report reveals that simply complying with the new tax rules in the health care act will cost American families and businesses nearly 80 million hours--essentially a whole new tax.
Based on Internal Revenue Service figures, the House Committee on Ways and Means has compiled an estimate of the total amount of hours it will take to comply with the tax rules. The bottom line: 79,229,503 hours, most of which will fall on small businesses.
For fun, the committee gave a comparative example.
"So, what can be done in 79,229,503 hours? The Empire State building, which took 7 million man-hours to build, could be constructed 11 times. The Curiosity Lander could travel from Earth to Mars 13,048 times. Halley's comet, seen from Earth once every 76 years, could be spotted 119 times."
The committee said that Obamacare has resulted in thousands of pages in IRS and Treasury rules including 17 regulations, 5 revenue procedures, 2 revenue rulings, and 14 Treasury decisions.
"Given the enormous impact the regulations will have on job creators, it is no wonder that a recent survey found that over 70 percent of small businesses cite the health care law as a major obstacle to job creation," said the panel headed by Rep. David Camp.
source house ways and means committee report
I mean entire industries came up around the complexity of the IRS tax code ... people who literally make a living helping others comply with excessive government demands on their time. Additional cost to businesses paying these people, who might find more productive jobs elsewhere. Well here's more complicated paperwork to throw at both big corporations and small business to hire people to do. The US Chamber of Commerce found that 72% of small business executives said that the PPACA is a major obstacle to job creation. They just don't know what its gonna cost them to comply with the numerous regulations in there. And we already have unemployment numbers showing how important it is for businesses to seek growth and create jobs.
Small Aside:
The opposite of Obama is Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, I think Mitt Romney is very similar to Obama in MANY ways, but is still a far more appealing choice than Obama is.
So very true. Romney played the moderate card for the primary, but talks the conservative talk for the election. In many hearts, he remains the blemished moderate only cheered on for the necessity of defeating Obama (Conservatives out there, you know how many times you've heard, "I'd vote in a glass of orange juice to office if it meant getting rid of Obama" from friends). A minor exception to this in that Obama and Paul on foreign policy profess to bring troops home etc, interventionist attitude, even if Obama has not done so. But Paul aint the nominee, only serving to show how moderate Romney stands by comparison.
|
On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
...
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 Wolvmatt. wrote:On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant.
Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him. You can't give everybody everything. Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states).
It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state.
Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said.
Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas.
Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning.
Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed.
Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican.
Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example.
|
On September 19 2012 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
So, if Obama wins re-election, and the Republicans retain control of the House, what will happen over the next 4 years ? Does anyone think that Obama will give in to the Republicans or that the House Republicans will give in to him ? The only time I can remember of a compromise between them was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. They couldn't even compromise on the debt ceiling extension without blowing everything up with the looming cuts.
I don't know. Obama wins it takes a lot of the steam out of the republicans. I mean they can't run on "we will not let Obama have a second term" anymore. They definitely could completely wipe out their strategy. That could lead to more compromise, and possibly moderate the republican party. It's hard to say.
I feel like the Republicans want to go even more right-wing than they currently are but all the demographics and popular support are telling them to go the other direction.
|
On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country.
Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
|
On September 19 2012 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:19 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change. Businesses have plenty of opportunities to grow. Most only have a tiny fraction of market share - for an individual business there's tons and tons of demand out there to be had. No there isn't. Economists from across the board have argued that one of the most important problems right now is a lack of consumer demand. In fact, in a survey published in February of this year, small business owners pointed to "weak consumer demand" as the most important problem they were facing - and by far. Businesses can create demand. They can lower prices or change the products / services they offer. Ex. 1 Apple has the products people want and sees plenty of demand. Ex. 2 Nat gas prices have fallen very low and that has spurred new demand.
I wonder why small business owners did not think of magically solving the weak demand problem by selling something else or lowering their prices. Hmm...
|
On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Wow. Those politifact ratings are terrible, lol. "Promise Broken" on DOMA. Obama promised to oppose it. Continues to oppose it. You mean the Republican-controlled house won't repeal DOMA? Nooooo, you don't say? Better blame Obama!
Promise to secure the borders: rated "compromise".
Politifact admits borders are more secure but Republicans haven't congratulated Obama on a good job? Noooo, you don't say. Borders more secure - mostly a fail!?!
Not to mention Politico is so anti-liberal.
No mention of promising to close Guantanamo but not doing so.
No mention of promising to end warrantless-wiretapping and the erosion of civil liberties but continuing the Bush-era initiatives.
Both major liberal gripes with Obama.
|
Watching Fox News it is really quite sad. They are spending more time talking about a 1998 tape of Obama saying "I like redistribution" than talking about the Romney tape.
Fair and balanced yo.
|
On September 19 2012 11:24 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Wow. Those politifact ratings are terrible, lol. "Promise Broken" on DOMA. Obama promised to oppose it. Continues to oppose it. You mean the Republican-controlled house won't repeal DOMA? Nooooo, you don't say? Better blame Obama! Promise to secure the borders: rated "compromise". Politifact admits borders are more secure but Republicans haven't congratulated Obama on a good job? Noooo, you don't say. Borders more secure - mostly a fail!?! Not to mention Politico is so anti-liberal. No mention of promising to close Guantanamo but not doing so. No mention of promising to end warrantless-wiretapping and the erosion of civil liberties but continuing the Bush-era initiatives. Both major liberal gripes with Obama.
Politifact is biased in favor of the democrats, it is extremely obvious based on their "truth-o-meters", but thats besides the point. Despite that, they still paint a pretty scary picture for Obama, in addition to their scary picture of Romney.
|
On September 19 2012 11:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Watching Fox News it is really quite sad. They are spending more time talking about a 1998 tape of Obama saying "I like redistribution" than talking about the Romney tape.
Fair and balanced yo.
news at 6, pun intended
|
On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Nice try, politifact is liberally biased.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
Compare, decide for yourself.
Also, their truth-o-meter is totally flawed. Here is just one of their many misfires on their "truth/false" rating.
"Romney repeats claim that Obama promised unemployment would not exceed 8 percent"
Rated mostly false, under the pretense that he technically didn't "promise it", he only said that it would go up 8 percent WITHOUT the stimulus package. Yes, Obama said unemployment would exceed 8% without stimulus efforts, so (you have to use your brain now) it's implied that Obama was saying the stimulus was his way of keeping unemployment under 8%.
Sounds like Romney's comment is "Mostly true"
|
On September 19 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 10:19 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change. Businesses have plenty of opportunities to grow. Most only have a tiny fraction of market share - for an individual business there's tons and tons of demand out there to be had. No there isn't. Economists from across the board have argued that one of the most important problems right now is a lack of consumer demand. In fact, in a survey published in February of this year, small business owners pointed to "weak consumer demand" as the most important problem they were facing - and by far. Businesses can create demand. They can lower prices or change the products / services they offer. Ex. 1 Apple has the products people want and sees plenty of demand. Ex. 2 Nat gas prices have fallen very low and that has spurred new demand. I wonder why small business owners did not think of magically solving the weak demand problem by selling something else or lowering their prices. Hmm...
Because its not "magic" - changing your product and service offerings isn't cheap and isn't easy. Cutting prices carries risk of a profit destroying price war. Some will pull it off and succeed and others will either follow or stagnate / die.
|
On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself.
No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009, one for politifact. What a rag.
|
On September 19 2012 11:48 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009. What a rag.
http://www.politifactbias.com/
Here you go
|
On September 19 2012 11:50 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:48 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009. What a rag. http://www.politifactbias.com/Here you go
And I suppose I won't find any conservative bias here. Has this site won a Pulitzer prize?
|
On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. Also, their truth-o-meter is totally flawed. Here is just one of their many misfires on their "truth/false" rating. "Romney repeats claim that Obama promised unemployment would not exceed 8 percent" Rated mostly false, under the pretense that he technically didn't "promise it", he only said that it would go up 8 percent WITHOUT the stimulus package. Yes, Obama said unemployment would exceed 8% without stimulus efforts, so (you have to use your brain now) it's implied that Obama was saying the stimulus was his way of keeping unemployment under 8%. Sounds like Romney's comment is "Mostly true"
That's pretty clearly an implicature and not something entailed by what Obama literally said, though. Does politifact have an official, explicit policy concerning entailments vs implicatures?
|
On September 19 2012 11:51 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:50 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:48 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009. What a rag. http://www.politifactbias.com/Here you go And I suppose I won't find any conservative bias here. Has this site won a Pulitzer prize?
It is a blog exposing bias. Great example I'll C+P for you since you won't read anything that doesn't have a "Pulitzer prize" or on TL.net. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few weeks in office for things he was "expected to do", does that mean he deserved it?
"Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart.com's Big Peace, pre-emptively steals my thunder on PolitiFact's ridiculous story on Mitt Romney and the statement from the American embassy in Libya.
Shapiro:
Just when you think Politifact can’t make any more of a mockery of itself than it already has – over and over and over and over again – they wade into the breach today on foreign policy. More specifically, they took issue with Mitt Romney’s statement today that “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”
PolitiFact has a history of denying that things Mitt Romney says are apologies are, in fact, apologies. Shapiro has fun with PolitiFact's method of undercutting Romney in this case:
So, what did Politifact have to say? They interviewed three “apology experts.” Seriously. First, they interviewed Professor John Murphy, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who said it wasn’t an apology because “the statement does not use the word ‘apology’ or ‘apologize’ and does not use any synonym for that word.” Second, they interviewed Lauren Bloom, “an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology.” What did she say? Romney’s “once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment.” Finally, they interviewed Professor Rhoda E. Howard-Hassman, who said the statement was “not an apology.”
But is that PolitiFact's fault? PolitiFact tried to contact a fourth expert who did not respond. By looking at the earlier fact checks we can confirm that the expert was conservative foreign policy analyst Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.
What did Gardiner have to say in PolitiFact's original story? Here it is:
Nile Gardiner, a foreign policy analyst with the the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama is definitely apologizing, and it's not good. He co-wrote the Heritage analysis, "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."
"Apologizing for your own country projects an image of weakness before both allies and enemies," Gardiner said. "It sends a very clear signal that the U.S. is to blame for some major developments on the world stage. This can be used to the advanage of those who wish to undermine American global leadership."
He noted that Obama tends to be most apologetic about how the U.S. has fought terrorism and its approach to the Iraq war. "There is a very strong partisan element to his apologies, but the biggest driving factor is Obama's personal belief that the U.S. is not an exceptional, uniquely great nation," he said.
As I noted in an earlier analysis, PolitiFact completely discounted Gardiner's statement in ruling Romney "Pants on Fire" for saying Mr. Obama went on an apology tour. PolitiFact did not explain its reasons for discounting Gardiner's expertise. If partisanship was a problem then we should expect PolitiFact to find an entirely new set of experts. Choosing the expert opinion of three liberals over one conservative looks simply like an expression of partisan bias by the fact checker when unaccompanied by a solid rationale.
In the latest apology for Obama, PolitiFact's three experts make a show of distinguishing between condemnation and apology. But that approach obscures a potential relationship between condemnation and apology.
One cannot condemn an entity and apologize for that same entity at the same time with the same statement. Those aims work against each other. But very clearly, one can easily work a condemnation into an apology: "My son was bad, bad, bad, bad, bad--a thousand times bad for breaking your window, Mrs. Jones."
In the above example we have an apology and a condemnation in the same sentence. It works because the apology is directed at one entity (Mrs. Jones) while the condemnation is directed at a third party (the son). By throwing a natural ally under the bus for breaking the window, the condemner sends a clear implicit message of regret to the offended party, Mrs. Smith.
It's important to emphasize the role of an apology in both personal and international relations: An apology is an attempt to smooth things over with the offended party. Condemning the breaking of the window sends a message to Mrs. Jones that something will be done to the window breaker to help balance the scales of justice. Absent that implication, condemning the window-breaker isn't likely to sooth Mrs. Jones' ire.
In the case of the Libyan embassy, embassy officials clearly released the statement with the aim of defusing anger at the United States. One can claim that it was a condemnation rather than an apology, but that's obfuscation.
It was a classic apology, delivered by implicit means."
|
On September 19 2012 11:53 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. Also, their truth-o-meter is totally flawed. Here is just one of their many misfires on their "truth/false" rating. "Romney repeats claim that Obama promised unemployment would not exceed 8 percent" Rated mostly false, under the pretense that he technically didn't "promise it", he only said that it would go up 8 percent WITHOUT the stimulus package. Yes, Obama said unemployment would exceed 8% without stimulus efforts, so (you have to use your brain now) it's implied that Obama was saying the stimulus was his way of keeping unemployment under 8%. Sounds like Romney's comment is "Mostly true" That's pretty clearly an implicature and not something entailed by what Obama literally said, though. Does politifact have an official, explicit policy concerning entailments vs implicatures?
It is very inconsistent.
|
On September 19 2012 11:53 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:51 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:50 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:48 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009. What a rag. http://www.politifactbias.com/Here you go And I suppose I won't find any conservative bias here. Has this site won a Pulitzer prize? It is a blog exposing bias. + Show Spoiler +Great example I'll C+P for you since you won't read anything that doesn't have a "Pulitzer prize". Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few weeks in office for things he was "expected to do", does that mean he deserved it?
"Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart.com's Big Peace, pre-emptively steals my thunder on PolitiFact's ridiculous story on Mitt Romney and the statement from the American embassy in Libya.
Shapiro:
Just when you think Politifact can’t make any more of a mockery of itself than it already has – over and over and over and over again – they wade into the breach today on foreign policy. More specifically, they took issue with Mitt Romney’s statement today that “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”
PolitiFact has a history of denying that things Mitt Romney says are apologies are, in fact, apologies. Shapiro has fun with PolitiFact's method of undercutting Romney in this case:
So, what did Politifact have to say? They interviewed three “apology experts.” Seriously. First, they interviewed Professor John Murphy, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who said it wasn’t an apology because “the statement does not use the word ‘apology’ or ‘apologize’ and does not use any synonym for that word.” Second, they interviewed Lauren Bloom, “an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology.” What did she say? Romney’s “once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment.” Finally, they interviewed Professor Rhoda E. Howard-Hassman, who said the statement was “not an apology.”
But is that PolitiFact's fault? PolitiFact tried to contact a fourth expert who did not respond. By looking at the earlier fact checks we can confirm that the expert was conservative foreign policy analyst Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.
What did Gardiner have to say in PolitiFact's original story? Here it is:
Nile Gardiner, a foreign policy analyst with the the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama is definitely apologizing, and it's not good. He co-wrote the Heritage analysis, "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."
"Apologizing for your own country projects an image of weakness before both allies and enemies," Gardiner said. "It sends a very clear signal that the U.S. is to blame for some major developments on the world stage. This can be used to the advanage of those who wish to undermine American global leadership."
He noted that Obama tends to be most apologetic about how the U.S. has fought terrorism and its approach to the Iraq war. "There is a very strong partisan element to his apologies, but the biggest driving factor is Obama's personal belief that the U.S. is not an exceptional, uniquely great nation," he said.
As I noted in an earlier analysis, PolitiFact completely discounted Gardiner's statement in ruling Romney "Pants on Fire" for saying Mr. Obama went on an apology tour. PolitiFact did not explain its reasons for discounting Gardiner's expertise. If partisanship was a problem then we should expect PolitiFact to find an entirely new set of experts. Choosing the expert opinion of three liberals over one conservative looks simply like an expression of partisan bias by the fact checker when unaccompanied by a solid rationale.
In the latest apology for Obama, PolitiFact's three experts make a show of distinguishing between condemnation and apology. But that approach obscures a potential relationship between condemnation and apology.
One cannot condemn an entity and apologize for that same entity at the same time with the same statement. Those aims work against each other. But very clearly, one can easily work a condemnation into an apology: "My son was bad, bad, bad, bad, bad--a thousand times bad for breaking your window, Mrs. Jones."
In the above example we have an apology and a condemnation in the same sentence. It works because the apology is directed at one entity (Mrs. Jones) while the condemnation is directed at a third party (the son). By throwing a natural ally under the bus for breaking the window, the condemner sends a clear implicit message of regret to the offended party, Mrs. Smith.
It's important to emphasize the role of an apology in both personal and international relations: An apology is an attempt to smooth things over with the offended party. Condemning the breaking of the window sends a message to Mrs. Jones that something will be done to the window breaker to help balance the scales of justice. Absent that implication, condemning the window-breaker isn't likely to sooth Mrs. Jones' ire.
In the case of the Libyan embassy, embassy officials clearly released the statement with the aim of defusing anger at the United States. One can claim that it was a condemnation rather than an apology, but that's obfuscation.
It was a classic apology, delivered by implicit means."
And it's biased itself. Not arguing it's a perfect website. You say politifact has liberal bias. I say your blog has conservative bias. What's the difference?
You're arguing Obama made a bunch of promises he didn't keep and is a liar. This site suggests that you at best are oversimplifying things, and at worst don't have your facts straight. Not only that, you aren't even contesting the facts they put forth, you're very generally implying a bias, and trying to put forth a conservative-biased critique as evidence. Not a very compelling defense of your claim per Obama. Notwithstanding the "liberal biased" website has won a Pulitzer prize, which isn't exactly handed out like toilet paper.
|
On September 19 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 10:19 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??
Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america)
So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us.
Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change. Businesses have plenty of opportunities to grow. Most only have a tiny fraction of market share - for an individual business there's tons and tons of demand out there to be had. No there isn't. Economists from across the board have argued that one of the most important problems right now is a lack of consumer demand. In fact, in a survey published in February of this year, small business owners pointed to "weak consumer demand" as the most important problem they were facing - and by far. Businesses can create demand. They can lower prices or change the products / services they offer. Ex. 1 Apple has the products people want and sees plenty of demand. Ex. 2 Nat gas prices have fallen very low and that has spurred new demand. I wonder why small business owners did not think of magically solving the weak demand problem by selling something else or lowering their prices. Hmm... Because its not "magic" - changing your product and service offerings isn't cheap and isn't easy. Cutting prices carries risk of a profit destroying price war. Some will pull it off and succeed and others will either follow or stagnate / die.
I was being sarcastic to point out that your "solution" to weak consumer demand isn't a real solution at all.
|
On September 19 2012 12:01 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:53 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:51 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:50 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:48 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 11:44 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 11:18 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 19 2012 09:59 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. I think that people are more concerned with Obama's failed policies, particularly to do with the economy and foreign policy, than they are of Mitt Romney's lack of concern for dissuading Obama supporters. Maybe they are more worried about what DIDN'T happen when Obama got elected. Things he PROMISED America (where good or bad, important or unimportant, he still made them). No excuse for not fulfilling them either because he controlled the House for the first 2 years of his term, and the Senate for all of it. Here you go.. Barack Obama PROMISED to: *list of things* Now I am pretty glad that SOME of these promises were broken, but that is a pretty big list of things to promise the country. Oh, here you go. Personally, I'd say he's doing alright. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Nice try, politifact is liberally biased. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/Compare, decide for yourself. No particularly compelling evidence of liberal bias. Interestingly, the Tampa Bay Times has won 8 Pulitzer prizes since 1964, winning two in the year 2009. What a rag. http://www.politifactbias.com/Here you go And I suppose I won't find any conservative bias here. Has this site won a Pulitzer prize? It is a blog exposing bias. + Show Spoiler +Great example I'll C+P for you since you won't read anything that doesn't have a "Pulitzer prize". Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few weeks in office for things he was "expected to do", does that mean he deserved it?
"Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart.com's Big Peace, pre-emptively steals my thunder on PolitiFact's ridiculous story on Mitt Romney and the statement from the American embassy in Libya.
Shapiro:
Just when you think Politifact can’t make any more of a mockery of itself than it already has – over and over and over and over again – they wade into the breach today on foreign policy. More specifically, they took issue with Mitt Romney’s statement today that “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”
PolitiFact has a history of denying that things Mitt Romney says are apologies are, in fact, apologies. Shapiro has fun with PolitiFact's method of undercutting Romney in this case:
So, what did Politifact have to say? They interviewed three “apology experts.” Seriously. First, they interviewed Professor John Murphy, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who said it wasn’t an apology because “the statement does not use the word ‘apology’ or ‘apologize’ and does not use any synonym for that word.” Second, they interviewed Lauren Bloom, “an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology.” What did she say? Romney’s “once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment.” Finally, they interviewed Professor Rhoda E. Howard-Hassman, who said the statement was “not an apology.”
But is that PolitiFact's fault? PolitiFact tried to contact a fourth expert who did not respond. By looking at the earlier fact checks we can confirm that the expert was conservative foreign policy analyst Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.
What did Gardiner have to say in PolitiFact's original story? Here it is:
Nile Gardiner, a foreign policy analyst with the the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama is definitely apologizing, and it's not good. He co-wrote the Heritage analysis, "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."
"Apologizing for your own country projects an image of weakness before both allies and enemies," Gardiner said. "It sends a very clear signal that the U.S. is to blame for some major developments on the world stage. This can be used to the advanage of those who wish to undermine American global leadership."
He noted that Obama tends to be most apologetic about how the U.S. has fought terrorism and its approach to the Iraq war. "There is a very strong partisan element to his apologies, but the biggest driving factor is Obama's personal belief that the U.S. is not an exceptional, uniquely great nation," he said.
As I noted in an earlier analysis, PolitiFact completely discounted Gardiner's statement in ruling Romney "Pants on Fire" for saying Mr. Obama went on an apology tour. PolitiFact did not explain its reasons for discounting Gardiner's expertise. If partisanship was a problem then we should expect PolitiFact to find an entirely new set of experts. Choosing the expert opinion of three liberals over one conservative looks simply like an expression of partisan bias by the fact checker when unaccompanied by a solid rationale.
In the latest apology for Obama, PolitiFact's three experts make a show of distinguishing between condemnation and apology. But that approach obscures a potential relationship between condemnation and apology.
One cannot condemn an entity and apologize for that same entity at the same time with the same statement. Those aims work against each other. But very clearly, one can easily work a condemnation into an apology: "My son was bad, bad, bad, bad, bad--a thousand times bad for breaking your window, Mrs. Jones."
In the above example we have an apology and a condemnation in the same sentence. It works because the apology is directed at one entity (Mrs. Jones) while the condemnation is directed at a third party (the son). By throwing a natural ally under the bus for breaking the window, the condemner sends a clear implicit message of regret to the offended party, Mrs. Smith.
It's important to emphasize the role of an apology in both personal and international relations: An apology is an attempt to smooth things over with the offended party. Condemning the breaking of the window sends a message to Mrs. Jones that something will be done to the window breaker to help balance the scales of justice. Absent that implication, condemning the window-breaker isn't likely to sooth Mrs. Jones' ire.
In the case of the Libyan embassy, embassy officials clearly released the statement with the aim of defusing anger at the United States. One can claim that it was a condemnation rather than an apology, but that's obfuscation.
It was a classic apology, delivered by implicit means." And it's biased itself. Not arguing it's a perfect website. You say politifact has liberal bias. I say your blog has conservative bias. What's the difference? You're arguing Obama made a bunch of promises he didn't keep and is a liar. This site suggests that you at best are oversimplifying things, and at worst don't have your facts straight. Not only that, you aren't even contesting the facts they put forth, you're very generally implying a bias, and trying to put forth a conservative-biased critique as evidence. Not a very compelling defense of your claim per Obama. Notwithstanding the "liberal biased" website has won a Pulitzer prize, which isn't exactly handed out like toilet paper.
No, I was responding to the person who said "Paul Ryan is a liar" with a "well what does that make Obama with all of these unkept promises?" quip. I was not immediately suspicious of bias from the website and have actually found some really good information on it once you look past the truth-o-meters, but they're CLEARLY making a strong case for Obama when you go to the pants on fire page and see like 30 republicans to every 3 or 4 democrats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
