• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FactChecking the CNBC Republican Debate

ludin said:
here is his SS plan so you are not correct that he wants to get rid of both of them but maybe change how they are funded.
Click to expand...

They are funded with payroll taxes. That's the point. Eliminating payroll taxes means you eliminate the programs they fund. I don't know why you think it's something different than that. Denial, maybe?


the only thing that I found is that he would expand the child tax credit and allow people to use it to counter pay roll taxes.
Click to expand...

Payroll taxes pay for Medicare and Social Security, not the Child Tax Credit.



I found nothing that says he wants to get rid of either but your liberal dishonesty is noted.
Click to expand...

Of course he wants to get rid of them! Eliminating the funding mechanism for them is how you get rid of them. It is possible he intends to do that without explicitly saying it. If you're playing dumb, then that's on you.
 
cpwill said:
For Seniors, in order to boost their take-home pay. Nothing changes for current or soon-to-be retirees.
Click to expand...

Actually, everything changes! If you eliminate the payroll taxes that fund entitlements, you eliminate the entitlements. Payroll taxes are what funds Medicare and Social Security. So eliminating the payroll taxes eliminates entitlements.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, I didn't miss that, nor would anything I posted imply that I missed that. Did that link say "The numbers are accurate" or not? Yes, or no? This isn't hard. The answer is "yes it did". So if we're being factual, the fact is that the number was correct when Romney used it and the number was correct when Fiorina used it. Yes it can be interpreted many ways, and yes Obama certainly wasn't responsible for the job losses on day 1 or day 1 of year 2 and so on, and yes Obama's first term ended January of 2013. But none of that changes the accuracy of her quote. That's all.
Click to expand...

You listed several reasons why her quote was inaccurate and incomplete. Following that list up with, "she wasn't inaccurate," doesn't negate the fact that she was inaccurate.

Hell, the simple fact that women gained jobs by the end of Obama's first term would make her statement fundamentally flawed.

Now, she could have made an accurate statement by saying, "romney found that 92% of the job losses during part of Obama's tenure were women."
 
MrT said:
You listed several reasons why her quote was inaccurate and incomplete. Following that list up with, "she wasn't inaccurate," doesn't negate the fact that she was inaccurate.

Hell, the simple fact that women gained jobs by the end of Obama's first term would make her statement fundamentally flawed.

Now, she could have made an accurate statement by saying, "romney found that 92% of the job losses during part of Obama's tenure were women."
Click to expand...

I quoted from a fact checking site from 2012. If you don't like them saying "The numbers are accurate", I'd suggest taking it up with them.
 
tres borrachos said:
I quoted from a fact checking site from 2012. If you don't like them saying "The numbers are accurate", I'd suggest taking it up with them.
Click to expand...

Did Fiorina limit her quote to the same time line as Romney's?
 
MrT said:
Fact Checking from the Fox News Organization if you prefer to use them: AP FACT CHECK: The Republican debaters and the facts | Fox News
Click to expand...

An AP "fact check" posted on a Fox News website hardly advances the credibility needle.

To the first point they mention:

Ask anyone who does shopping about the price of food. Ask anyone paying the electric bills about the price of energy. 1/8th the population of the United States lives in California, and their electric bills have gone up

Your PG&E bill will rise in 2015: Here’s how much - SFGate

Prepare to pay more to PG&E.

Starting Thursday, the rates that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. charges for electricity and natural gas service will rise, pushing up monthly bills by 5.9 percent for the average home.​

Southern California Edison explains 8% rate increase for all customers

Southern California Edison explains 8% rate increase for all customers​
 
The Penguin said:
Actually, everything changes! If you eliminate the payroll taxes that fund entitlements, you eliminate the entitlements.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. Firstly, Social Security is already being paid out of the General Fund, and Medicare has to some degree for years. You could entirely eliminate FICA taxes and continue to fund both those programs.

Which isn't what Rubio does.

He gets rid of Payroll taxes FOR SENIORS ONLY so as to increase the total take-home for our elderly.

So no. Not getting rid of the entitlements. At all. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
No, you don't. Firstly, Social Security is already being paid out of the General Fund, and Medicare has to some degree for years. You could entirely eliminate FICA taxes and continue to fund both those programs
Click to expand...

Sigh...Payroll taxes (FICA) are what funds Social Security and Medicare. Eliminating FICA eliminates the revenue stream that funds those two programs. You are not replacing that revenue stream with anything. Your math, and Rubio's math, as usual is wrong.


He gets rid of Payroll taxes FOR SENIORS ONLY.
Click to expand...

Which speeds up the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security. All your'e doing is cutting taxes and not replacing that revenue stream with anything. So you're doing exactly what Conservatives always do...you deliberately create deficits and debt!
 
The Penguin said:
They are funded with payroll taxes. That's the point. Eliminating payroll taxes means you eliminate the programs they fund. I don't know why you think it's something different than that. Denial, maybe?
Click to expand...

Actually it's math, combined with an understanding of the basics of how government works. :)

Payroll taxes pay for Medicare and Social Security, not the Child Tax Credit.
Click to expand...

If you give $1,000 to the Social Security System, and then the IRS gives you $1,000, does Social Security still have the original $1,000 you gave them?

Of course he wants to get rid of them!
Click to expand...

That's an interesting claim. Where has he said that?
 
cpwill said:
Classic Politifact. The Republican's Claim Is Factually Correct, But We Disagree With Their Interpretation, So We Rate Them Factually Wrong.
Click to expand...

When you hear the words "jobs lost under Obama," which do you think of:

A. The result of subtracting the current workforce data from the workforce data from the day Obama took office.

B. Only the workforce data from the day Obama took office.

C. The average force of gas expelled when a cow goes "moo."

D. None of the above.

E. All of the above.



Would you be defending Hillary if she made such a misleading statement because there was one grain of truth in it? Or would you be calling her a liar?
 
The Penguin said:
Sigh...Payroll taxes (FICA) are what funds Social Security and Medicare
Click to expand...

No, it is part of what pays for Social Security and Medicare. They are also paid for through other taxes and (in the case of Medicare) fee's.

Eliminating FICA eliminates the revenue stream that funds those two programs.
Click to expand...

:) Marco Rubio has not called for eliminating FICA. He has called for not putting it on Seniors.

You are not replacing that revenue stream with anything.
Click to expand...

Sort of. It's part of an entire tax code overhaul. But if you would like to tell us how much FICA is paid for BY SENIORS, that'd be an interesting number to have. Can you do that?

Which speeds up the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security
Click to expand...

:shrug: which he also fixes by reducing social security payouts to the wealthy, increasing the retirement age for younger generations, and shifting medicare to premium support for younger generations.

What ACTUALLY sped up Social Security insolvency is the budget deal that just passed that put SSDI's gap into the regular SS fund.
 
MrT said:
How would you like to account for the fact that women had gained jobs by the end of Obama's first term in office?
Click to expand...

I would ignore it, because it makes Politifact's assessment accurate and I do not wish for that to be the case.


/sarcasm off.
 
cpwill said:
Actually it's math, combined with an understanding of the basics of how government works.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand that 1 + 0 does not equal 2.


If you give $1,000 to the Social Security System, and then the IRS gives you $1,000, does Social Security still have the original $1,000 you gave them?
Click to expand...

No! Because as you said, SS is paid out of the general fund...so you're taking that $1000 you paid into Social Security, and then you're getting it right back from the IRS. So it doesn't have that $1000. My god...I feel like you are being purposefully obtuse.



That's an interesting claim. Where has he said that?
Click to expand...

Eliminating payroll taxes eliminates entitlements because entitlements are funded by payroll taxes and you have not produced a revenue stream to make up the difference.
 
Mr Person said:
When you hear the words "jobs lost under Obama," which do you think of:

A. The result of subtracting the current workforce data from the workforce data from the day Obama took office.

B. Only the workforce data from the day Obama took office.

C. The average force of gas expelled when a cow goes "moo."

D. None of the above.

E. All of the above.
Click to expand...

I would think:

Women.

Who have lost Jobs.

Since January 2009.


Would you be defending Hillary if she made such a misleading statement because there was one grain of truth in it? Or would you be calling her a liar?
Click to expand...

As near as I can tell, the statement was not misleading. Even Politifact, a left-leaning website pretending to be a neutral party, agrees that it is accurate, they just don't like the use to which it is put. Which is typical for them.
 
MrT said:
Did Fiorina limit her quote to the same time line as Romney's?
Click to expand...

You didn't watch the debate last night? There are lots of places you can download it and watch. Or you can always email the Fiorina campaign and ask her to discuss her quote with you. I'm just talking about the number that people are claiming was incorrect. It wasn't then and it isn't now. Take partisan emotion out of it (if you're able) and focus to simple numbers.
 
I searched and searched, but couldn't find your counter "Fact checking the Democratic Debate" post. :shrug:
 
The Penguin said:
You don't seem to understand that 1 + 0 does not equal 2.

No! Because as you said, SS is paid out of the general fund...so you're taking that $1000 you paid into Social Security, and then you're getting it right back from the IRS. So it doesn't have that $1000.
Click to expand...

The monies go into the FICA taxes.

Unrelated to that exchange, a portion of your general tax bill is reduced.

Which no more speeds up the insolvency of Social Security or Medicare than you taking a mortgage-interest deduction does.

Eliminating payroll taxes eliminates entitlements because entitlements are funded by payroll taxes and you have not produced a revenue stream to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

No one is eliminating payroll taxes, and the claim that doing so would eliminate social security or medicare is demonstrably incorrect, as both of those programs already use revenue from non-payroll tax sources.
 
Mr Person said:
When you hear the words "jobs lost under Obama," which do you think of:

A. The result of subtracting the current workforce data from the workforce data from the day Obama took office.

B. Only the workforce data from the day Obama took office.

C. The average force of gas expelled when a cow goes "moo."

D. None of the above.

E. All of the above.



Would you be defending Hillary if she made such a misleading statement because there was one grain of truth in it? Or would you be calling her a liar?
Click to expand...

Cute. Dumb, but cute.

So if you lost your job as Business X today, and got a new job at Business Z 2 years later, does that mean you never actually lost your job at Business X? Apparently it does, if you're a left wing partisan.
 
tres borrachos said:
You're wasting your time. None of these hard left partisans would be voting in the Republican primary anyway, and they are no better than Politifact which actually admitted that the 92.3% number was accurate. As cpwill pointed out, Politifact (and the partisans in this thread) just don't like the interpretation so they pretend the accurate numbers are simply misunderstood.
Click to expand...

Do you guys know what the word "misleading" - a word they used - even means?

Or do you just not care that it was misleading because it was one of "your" team saying it?


The 92.3% figure applies to only the first few months of Obama's tenure. Millions of men lost jobs in the year or two before then and women have gained jobs back in the last several years. So if the claim is about "jobs lost under Obama," then any figure other than 1/09-10/15 is misleading.

Hillary makes a claim like that and it's "LIAR!"
 
Mr Person said:
Do you guys know what the word "misleading" - a word they used - even means?

Or do you just not care that it was misleading because it was one of "your" team saying it?


The 92.3% figure applies to only the first few months of Obama's tenure. Millions of men lost jobs in the year or two before then and women have gained jobs back in the last several years. So if the claim is about "jobs lost under Obama," then any figure other than 1/09-10/15 is misleading.

Hillary makes a claim like that and it's "LIAR!"
Click to expand...

So you admit that they are correct when they talk about jobs lost, but claim that they are lying because then they didn't talk about a completely different figure of jobs gained.


And no. Hillary gets called a liar when she says things like "Benghazi was about a video" and then gets caught admitting the same day that "Benghazi had nothing to do with a video", or when she says "there is no classified on my server". Those things are actually lies - they are factually false. You are complaining about presentation.
 
tres borrachos said:
So if you lost your job as Business X today, and got a new job at Business Z 2 years later, does that mean you never actually lost your job at Business X?
Click to expand...

Why don't we stick to the claim actually made, rather than making up different claims that move the goalposts?

If the claim is the number of women who lost jobs under Obama, then it is misleading if you do not also look at the number of jobs gained by women under Obama: the total number of lost vs gained, under his entire Presidency to date.

If the claim is the number of women who lost jobs under Obama, then it is misleading to ignore the last several years of economic data.

And you know it.
 
Mr Person said:
Do you guys know what the word "misleading" - a word they used - even means?

Or do you just not care that it was misleading because it was one of "your" team saying it?


The 92.3% figure applies to only the first few months of Obama's tenure. Millions of men lost jobs in the year or two before then and women have gained jobs back in the last several years. So if the claim is about "jobs lost under Obama," then any figure other than 1/09-10/15 is misleading.

Hillary makes a claim like that and it's "LIAR!"
Click to expand...

Who is talking about Hillary? Are you confusing her with Carly Fiorina?

Wait - I have a team? Like a football team? Do we have cheerleaders too? I was a cheerleader in high school. Maybe I can help coach the girls.

Psst by the way, that 92.3% was between January 2009 and March 2012. That isn't the "first few months". And his first term isn't still going on in October of 2015. How embarrassing for you.
 
cpwill said:
No, it is part of what pays for Social Security and Medicare. They are also paid for through other taxes and (in the case of Medicare) fee's.
Click to expand...

NO. Social Security is not funded by anything other than FICA. Medicare too. The Medicare "fees" you are talking about are reimbursements to providers for care. That's Medicare's function. Sheesh. Get a clue!


Marco Rubio has not called for eliminating FICA. He has called for not putting it on Seniors.
Click to expand...

In the debate last night, he did not say "just for seniors". He said he would eliminate the payroll tax. A couple other imbeciles up there said the exact same thing.


Sort of. It's part of an entire tax code overhaul.
Click to expand...

The tax code doesn't need an overhaul, it needs to end most deductions and raise rates on the wealthy. That's it. You all want to reduce revenues so you can screech about deficits that come from revenue reduction, then use those deficits created by your policies as an excuse to cut social spending you otherwise have no way of legislating away. That's what "starve the beast" means. And all you Conservatives have signed on to that.


But if you would like to tell us how much FICA is paid for BY SENIORS, that'd be an interesting number to have. Can you do that?
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you're asking here. Social Security is pay-go, meaning those paying into the system now support those currently on the system. So when you cut payroll taxes, you are speeding up insolvency. That's what you really want to do, isn't it? You want to make these programs insolvent so you can get rid of them. That's why you want to cut the revenue stream...you have no other legitimate way of eliminating these programs you are ideologically opposed to, but have no way of ever getting rid of legislatively.


:shrug: which he also fixes by reducing social security payouts to the wealthy, increasing the retirement age for younger generations, and shifting medicare to premium support for younger generations.
Click to expand...

Why? Medicare works fine and the Trust is funded through 2030 (thanks to Obama). Why is this something that needs to be done now?


hat ACTUALLY sped up Social Security insolvency is the budget deal that just passed that put SSDI's gap into the regular SS fund.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.
 
tres borrachos said:
You didn't watch the debate last night? There are lots of places you can download it and watch. Or you can always email the Fiorina campaign and ask her to discuss her quote with you. I'm just talking about the number that people are claiming was incorrect. It wasn't then and it isn't now. Take partisan emotion out of it (if you're able) and focus to simple numbers.
Click to expand...

Ugh, fine - if you won't say it, I will.

Fiorina: "92 percent -- 92 percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama's first term belonged to women."

The only way that statement is factually accurate is if you define "Barack Obama's first term" in a different manner from the ordinary January 2009 to January 2013 time frame that every other person associates with the time frame for Obama's first term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom