• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

VP debates: Energetic lively debate, one man lied like his life depended on it.

Seriously? The "thousands of IRS agents" canard has been debunked so many times.


It has? Where?

The number of new employees the IRS will need to hire varies widely, depending on who asks: Republican Congressmen estimate 16,500, but the IRS says this is inaccurate, and that the budget calls for no more than 1,200. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, plans to hold a hearing next week in the hopes of finding a more concrete estimate of what the IRS will need.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehi...g_irs_gets_ready_for_obamacare_implementation
 
Last edited:
Contrary to what many are clamoring for, neither side is proposing the closing of social security. This is an important program that although it has the looks of a ponzi scheme we need it.

We as Americans are pathetic savers. If left on their own, the majority would not save for retirement and when they approached that age would become everyone's problem. At least with social security they do have to pay into it.

Evidence of the poor saving habits of Americans is shown in the July 2012 household debt and credit card of average American household.
Average Indebted Household Debt is $15,325 with the credit card debit being $7,149. That is just the average.

As far as the debate it was awful with lies from both sides. I propose a debate with a bipartisan team armed with a computer to evaluate each candidate's statement for validity instantaneous live. Of course neither party would ever agree to something as that. Oh , but would that be fun to call them on it at the moment they say it.
 
One thing I am not sure it totally true, but if it is, we can probably agree on this point....It is my understanding that the cut off for SS withholding is something like $110K. My question is why do I have to pay withholding on 100% of my pay, when someone making say $200K only has to pay on a little more than half of what they make? I say eliminate those caps and see where we are.

I agree, and that would probably extend the life of SS quite a bit.


There are two problematic things in this section...

1. Obamacare is cutting compensation to doctors and hospitals, that have been reported to be a potential cause for Hospitals, and Doctors no longer taking on new Medicare patients.

That is partly true. Cuts to doctors and hospitals make up about a third of the total reduction. The other big chunk addresses rising costs of Medicare Advantage. This is the private alternative to Medicare that was supposed to be affordable ... because the private market is so efficient compared to government. Unfortunately that hasn't turned out to be the case. Medicare Advantage costs are running about 20% higher than regular Medicare per patient. The cuts are designed to bring those costs back in line.

It's true that provider cuts could lead to a reduction in the number of providers who accept Medicare, but the fact is that something has to give. Either you lower payments and deal with fewer providers, or you lower benefits and deal with less medical care. Romney/Ryan choose the latter.

2. Romney/Ryan's plan doesn't just eliminate those cuts, what it says is that the $716Billion that Obama/Biden stole from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and puts it back into Medicare increasing stability, and they do that by repeal, and replacing Obamacare which is on the whole unpopular with the majority of Americans today.

Again, that is just misrepresentation. Ryan pulled his support because according to Ryan, the final draft of the bill had changed to not address Medicare, and entitlements in it.

Looked into this, and you are right -- I was mistaken. In fact the $716 billion cuts are in BOTH of Ryan's budgets and Ryan is simply disingenuous in trying to explain them away.

Paul Ryan’s budget keeps Obama’s Medicare cuts. Full stop.

Ryan Pressed On $716 Billion, 10-Year Medicare Cut - Kaiser Health News

In other words, Romney and Ryan are slamming Obama for making the exact same cuts that they would make.

I don't know how you do business, but I don't make a deal, then change it at the end and think that the other party is just going to say 'ok, we had a deal', no. It was a dishonest way of trying to backdoor what Obama couldn't get in negotiation.

I don't know what you're referring to there.
 
Crosscheck: "We as Americans are pathetic savers. If left on their own, the majority would not save for retirement and when they approached that age would become everyone's problem. At least with social security they do have to pay into it."

We are pathetic at providing for ourselves precisely because the government says they'll take care of it. People no longer take care of disabled family members. President Obama doesn't even help his beloved auntie. People actually think they can screw around and then live on Social Security or screw around and live on welfare or screw around and get "free" health care.

I'm amazed at the problems caused by government who then try to take care of solving the problem.
 
I thought the debate was close. Much livelier and fun to watch than the first presidential debate. Biden did a little better than Ryan. Ryan seemed to agree a little too much.

The most striking thing about this debate was not so much who won. But how much Ryan lied. His (Ryan's) presentation was fine, but the problem was he dodged left and right on answering questions directly and hardly said anything that was true.

He never really explained how the arithmetic would work out on tax cuts and what loopholes can be cut to even come close to compensating for the tax cuts.

He lied like his boss on medicare. Using words like projected to save himself some room for retreat.

He lied about tax hikes for the middle class, there's no such thing.

...there's something big I don't remember, and a few other things that were blatant lies.


There's usually not much new to these debates but one thing that struck me was when Biden pointed out that setting a deadline means the countries we're fighting wars in will feel a sense of urgency and step up as needed. Something I've never thought of.

You stated repeatedly that he lied above. Can you please point out the actual lies?
 
Crosscheck: People actually think they can screw around and then live on Social Security or screw around and live on welfare or screw around and get "free" health care.

So what do with these people who never prepare for the future. But also keep in mind some do work hard and save for the future to only have it taken away by a crook like Ken Lays of Enron.
Should these people at least have a backstop?

I don't own a dime in credit card debit and imagine neither do you or for that matter probably a majority of the posters here. But unless you are in favor of the "death panels" described by Sara Palin what do we do with these people. At least with Social Security they do have to contribute.
 
Oh look, politicians are liars.
 
So what do with these people who never prepare for the future. But also keep in mind some do work hard and save for the future to only have it taken away by a crook like Ken Lays of Enron.
Should these people at least have a backstop?

I don't own a dime in credit card debit and imagine neither do you or for that matter probably a majority of the posters here. But unless you are in favor of the "death panels" described by Sara Palin what do we do with these people. At least with Social Security they do have to contribute.

Enron and Ken Lay "take" nothing. It's given to them. The only entity that can legally "take" is the government. And, who was a vital accomplice for Ken Lay and Enron? The government. Remember their shill Paul Krugman? He's still blathering.

So, the government forces you to "donate" and then gives you a crappy ROI and you think it's a good plan. The government takes 15% of your gross income and pisses it away and it's a good plan? The government takes the 15% and guarantees what? Nothing. That's what's guaranteed. The government can raise the age, reduce the amount received, or give you nothing whenever they want.

I had a job. I did not have to pay into SS. I had a 401k through my employer and another tax-deferred account that I contributed to. I'm retired and that's what I live on now. I have to pay taxes now, too, so I'm still a productive member of society.

Your position on SS is not unlike a defender of slavery saying, "Hey, they have a home, food to eat, and work to do. If left on their own they'd starve."

Two commissions have concluded that to remain solvent SS will have to increase the tax above 15%, reduce benefits, privatize, or a combination of all three.

Isn't it time we look at something else instead of going with the left's insistence on SS or nothing?

Where I worked the employees demanded a shift from a mismanaged defined-benefit pension to a 401k. People very close to retirement were given the option of staying with the old plan or going with the 401k. There were basic classes on investing, we hired investment managers to handle our 401k and we had, initially, a half-dozen options for investments. The options expanded as we got more experience. New employees also had classes in investing. Some invested stupidly. No one went broke. Some did better than others. The first year, we could only shift our investments once a month. Except for one guy. Our finance director was allowed to shift his whenever he wanted. After the first year I was talking with someone from the management company and he said that only one person had less in his portfolio at the end of the year than he did at the beginning. Guess who?

I'm living on my 401k. Not too many years ago I was living on just the interest and my investments were increasing each year. Of course, that's not true today. If I don't get too old, and the socialist government doesn't seize my 401k, my children will inherit it.

If I had been run over by a bus the day before I quit working, my children would have gotten it all.

It's been twenty years now and the employees don't remember the criminally mismanaged defined-benefit pension and they have gotten a union. We'll have to see what they do.
 
Last edited:
As I answered in another thread, I rather think Biden took it.

No tax hike on the Middle Class? Ask those people who got their health insurance bills at the first of the year. And ask them again in January.

As for the reason one sets a deadline being so that our ally knows when we're going and that they need to step up? I doubt one has to announce that on CSPAN and NBC in order for that to happen.

My insurance didn't go up any, and for the first time ever I got a rebate check.
 
My insurance didn't go up any, and for the first time ever I got a rebate check.

That's pretty rare. My insurance went up quite a bit last year, but my company covered the increase, and it is going up a lot this year - which my company is not covering. I recieved a letter about a week ago, stating that as enough premium was going towards care, we would not be getting a rebate.
 
You're buying into scare tactics... but the fact is we ALL have a reason to be afraid.

Medicare and Social Security are in BIG trouble and denying the problem is not going to fix them. The fact is something has to be done. I applaud Romney/Ryan for at least putting the issue on the table. The Democrats won't even go there which tells me that their plan is to ignore it right up until the point where we are starring into the abyss and then at the last second thrusting a massive tax hike on all of us in the name of averting a "crisis".


Most of it is created trouble...like corporations create whatever they want like gas shortages...its all bs
 
Forgive me for interjecting some actual sourced facts into a ranting hyper partisan opinion piece declaring that one side "lied like his life depended on it", but as what will surely come to a surprise to those hyper partisans who think only the other side can only do wrong BOTH individuals played fast and loose with the facts throughout the debate.

The Fact Checker

The Politico

FactCheck.org

Politicians being dishonest, hyperbolic, or misleading during a debate? That NEVER happens except by the other side :roll:
 
Last edited:
You stated repeatedly that he lied above. Can you please point out the actual lies?

FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations
Summary
The Biden-Ryan debate was marked by some spirited claims that didn’t always match the facts.

■Ryan said Obama’s proposal to let tax rates rise for high-income individuals would “tax about 53 percent of small-business income.” Wrong. Ryan is counting giant hedge funds and thousands of other multimillion-dollar enterprises as “small” businesses.
■Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.
■Ryan was wrong when he said a rise in the jobless rate in Biden’s hometown was “how it’s going all around America.” The rate nationally has sunk back to where it was when Obama took office. And in Ryan’s hometown, it’s more than 4 percentage points lower that it was at the start of Obama’s term.
■Biden seemed to question Ryan’s assertion that administration officials called Syrian President Bashar Assad “a reformer” even when he was killing his own civilian countrymen. Ryan was right. Early in the bloody Syrian uprising Hillary Clinton called Assad a “different leader” who many in Congress believe is “a reformer.”
■Ryan claimed the Obama administration spent stimulus money on “electric cars in Finland.” Not true. Although the cars have been assembled in Finland, the money went for work in the United States.
■Biden quoted Romney as saying that he would not “move heaven and earth” to get Osama bin Laden. What Romney said was that he’d go after other terrorists as well.
■Ryan misquoted a Medicare official as saying “one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business” as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Not quite. The official said that many could become “unprofitable,” and the the situation could be monitored to head off bad outcomes.
■Ryan claimed that the ACA contains “taxpayer funding” of abortion. In fact the law provides no direct funding of abortion except in cases of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life. And it’s a matter of interpretation whether subsidized private insurance would amount to indirect federal support for abortion.
■Ryan was off base when he said of a cost-saving panel created by the Affordable Care Act, “not one of them even has to have medical training.” Actually, the board must include physicians and other health care professionals among its members.
Ryan at one point ground out a collection of shopworn misstatements about the health care law that we’ve had to rebut time and again, claiming “20 million people … are projected to lose their health insurance” (not true), that premiums have gone up $3,000 (no, they haven’t) and that 7.4 million seniors “are going to lose” Medicare Advantage plans (maybe, but they’d still be covered by traditional Medicare).

And both Biden and Ryan continued to twist the facts about Romney’s tax plan. Biden again misrepresented the findings of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, and Ryan repeated a misleading claim that “six studies have verified” that the plan is mathematically possible.
 
Biden made a mockery of the debate with his arrogance and laughter as his record of failure was recited to him. He interrupted Ryan 82 times. He was rude and smirking into the camera. It will not go over well with the public.

The only thing people are going to take away from this debate is that Biden is not fit the hold office. He looked unstable and off his meds.

Did you find it rude when Romney smirked the whole way through the debate with Obama?
 
That's pretty rare. My insurance went up quite a bit last year, but my company covered the increase, and it is going up a lot this year - which my company is not covering. I recieved a letter about a week ago, stating that as enough premium was going towards care, we would not be getting a rebate.

My insurance stayed the same...I didn't get any rebate but saw no increase in premium and neither did my employer.
 
That's pretty rare. My insurance went up quite a bit last year, but my company covered the increase, and it is going up a lot this year - which my company is not covering. I recieved a letter about a week ago, stating that as enough premium was going towards care, we would not be getting a rebate.

You do realize that (1) insurance premiums have been going up quite a bit every year for the past couple of decades now, at least a lot faster than the rate of inflation, and (2) the mandate to have insurance or pay a fine (tax) hasn't kicked in yet, don't you?
 
I agree, and that would probably extend the life of SS quite a bit.

And it would give that wonderful catch phrase that democrats love to use today, which is fairness.

That is partly true. Cuts to doctors and hospitals make up about a third of the total reduction. The other big chunk addresses rising costs of Medicare Advantage. This is the private alternative to Medicare that was supposed to be affordable ... because the private market is so efficient compared to government. Unfortunately that hasn't turned out to be the case. Medicare Advantage costs are running about 20% higher than regular Medicare per patient. The cuts are designed to bring those costs back in line.

Yet, as Biden pointed out last night, Medicare advantage roles have risen by 30% in the past year...Certainly not the picture of a failing program...In fact, couldn't you say that the 20% increase that you cite be directly correlated to the rise in enrollment? At least in part if not in whole?

It's true that provider cuts could lead to a reduction in the number of providers who accept Medicare, but the fact is that something has to give. Either you lower payments and deal with fewer providers, or you lower benefits and deal with less medical care. Romney/Ryan choose the latter.

But wait, I thought the whole pitch to us was that it would make things better? Remember, 'you can keep your doctor'? Now, you seem to be saying 'yeah, that was then...we had to lie to get it passed'...

Looked into this, and you are right -- I was mistaken. In fact the $716 billion cuts are in BOTH of Ryan's budgets and Ryan is simply disingenuous in trying to explain them away.

Paul Ryan’s budget keeps Obama’s Medicare cuts. Full stop.

Ryan Pressed On $716 Billion, 10-Year Medicare Cut - Kaiser Health News

In other words, Romney and Ryan are slamming Obama for making the exact same cuts that they would make.

I don't think it is a matter of either side saying that something doesn't have to be done, nor that it isn't going to be painful. But, one vision, Obama's, takes that money from seniors, and redistributes it in his Obamacare law. Romney on the other hand, would take that money back and put it at the back end, allowing increased time to address the overall picture. So, my understanding is that one steals it, one shifts it.....Not the same.

I don't know what you're referring to there.

My bad, I thought you had shifted to the deal between Boehner, and Obama on the debt crisis last year....You know, where they had a deal, then overnight Obama changed it to add $500 Billion in raised taxes.
 
Bottom line-----do you want an aging buffoon one heartbeat away from the presidency? Its really that simple.
 
Forgive me for interjecting some actual sourced facts into a ranting hyper partisan opinion piece declaring that one side "lied like his life depended on it", but as what will surely come to a surprise to those hyper partisans who think only the other side can only do wrong BOTH individuals played fast and loose with the facts throughout the debate.

The Fact Checker

The Politico

FactCheck.org

Politicians being dishonest, hyperbolic, or misleading during a debate? That NEVER happens except by the other side :roll:

Being dishonest, hyperbolic, and misleading is how elections are won.

Reading over the responses, it seems that Biden is a better debater than the president. At least, the Democrats seem to think that he won. Hardly anyone from either side thought Obama won.
 
Most of it is created trouble...like corporations create whatever they want like gas shortages...its all bs


:shock: What the? Corporations create gas shortages? :lamo Oh my, please do tell....:roll:
 
My insurance didn't go up any, and for the first time ever I got a rebate check.

It'll be the last time you get a rebate check as insurance companies get their act together. If you didn't get an increase in your health insurance costs, you are in the distinct minority. Do you work in the private sector? Are you in a union?

9% in 2011; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/b...ply-this-year-study-shows.html?pagewanted=all

You might find this interesting:

A nationwide study conducted by Milliman Inc. for the Society of Actuaries found that nationwide the premiums in the individual market would increase from 8 to 37 percent in 2014 — with a cumulative increase of as much as 122 percent between 2013 and 2017.

Indiana determined the law would boost premiums in the individual market on average by 75 to 95 percent and in the small employer market by 5-10 percent in 2014.
Ohio found rates would go up 55 to 85 percent above current rates, before tax credits.
Minnesota concluded that individual market premiums will increase between 26 to 42 percent
Maine said individual premiums will increase on average by 40 percent and premiums in the small group market are likely to increase 8 to 9 percent. About 20 percent of the individual market would still experience premium increases even after subsidies.
Maryland concluded individual premiums will go up on average by 34 to 36 percent and in the small employer market on average by 2 percent
Wisconsin found that before tax credits, the average premium increase in the individual market will be 30 percent.
Colorado said individual premiums will go up on average 19 percent.
Rhode Island found that before tax subsidies, premiums for individuals will increase on average by 8 percent.

President Obama’s claim that insurance premiums ‘will go down’ - The Washington Post
 
(1) insurance premiums have been going up quite a bit every year for the past couple of decades now, at least a lot faster than the rate of inflation,
I can only speak of my experience. They have not gone up at the rate they had over the past 2 years. But even if they had, obama is the one that indicated he would stop it.. he didn't. Which I assume is why you bring up number 2. That's not going to stop it either. We can look at MA premiumsto see that.

Mass. Health Insurance Premiums On The Rise | WBUR

Blue Cross is telling medium to large firms their premiums will increase 4 to 6 percent. At Tufts Health Plan the range is a 5 to 8 percent rise and at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care it’s a 5 to 10 percent increase. Keep in mind that employers will have higher and lower increases depending on the type of plan they buy and how much care employees used in the recent past.

These rates are down a few points from last year, but they are still climbing much faster than the expected inflation rate of 1.6 percent in Massachusetts.

Harvard Pilgrim’s Senior Vice President of Sales Vin Capozzi points to two reasons premiums aren’t rising as fast this year. First, said Capozzi, insurers are negotiating tougher contracts with doctors and hospitals who are also under pressure to cut costs. And second, patients aren’t getting as much care.
 
So Obama once attended Martha Raddatz wedding and appointed her husband to head up the FCC?

That's passes the smell test these days for objective journalism these days. Interesting.
 
I thought the debate was close. Much livelier and fun to watch than the first presidential debate. Biden did a little better than Ryan. Ryan seemed to agree a little too much.

The most striking thing about this debate was not so much who won. But how much Ryan lied. His (Ryan's) presentation was fine, but the problem was he dodged left and right on answering questions directly and hardly said anything that was true.

He never really explained how the arithmetic would work out on tax cuts and what loopholes can be cut to even come close to compensating for the tax cuts.

He lied like his boss on medicare. Using words like projected to save himself some room for retreat.

He lied about tax hikes for the middle class, there's no such thing.

...there's something big I don't remember, and a few other things that were blatant lies.


There's usually not much new to these debates but one thing that struck me was when Biden pointed out that setting a deadline means the countries we're fighting wars in will feel a sense of urgency and step up as needed. Something I've never thought of.

This bull**** talking point about Romney/Ryan lack of details was bought (hook, line and sinker) by the moderator, who attempted to pummel Ryan with it, while asking Biden for no details at all. That was a total failure on the part of the moderator. Only once or twice did the moderator put Biden on the spot, while hammering Ryan repeatedly. She also allowed Biden to constantly interupt Ryan, while he was trying to make a point or answer a question. They were asking for details like Ryan was supposed to have a detailed bill in his hand. That's a load of bull****, and no one has ever been expected to submit details to that level. Biden said that Reagan had a detailed plan, but never gave a single example to back up that allegation. If the moderator hadn't helped Biden on that, the whole "lack of details" ploy would have failed. Ryan is the only one of the two men who has actually written a plan to reduce the deficit in the latest congressional sessions. His name has been all over the news for years regarding these budget plans, so to say that this man can't put forth details is hogwash. Asking him for the exact budget line items he would cut is nothing but a debate ploy, because no one could succeed at answering that kind of question. Debates are always about general principles regarding the main budget categories.

Biden complained about talk time, and guess what. He ended up getting at least a full minute more than Ryan by the end.
 
Back
Top Bottom