Lying Ryan lie #.. well, who can keep count...
"REP. RYAN: Absolutely. Six studies have guaranteed -- six studies have verified that this math adds up, but here’s the other point --"
Let's see what Lying Ryan considers "studies", shall we?
From back when he and Romney were just touting it as "five 'studies'":
The study that matters, the one by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (and Romney Campaign considered them non-partisan too, and quoted other studies they have done... until this research came out, then... flipflopMitt):
"Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks – like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance – are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality– the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households."
It comes down to this-- who would YOU want a heartbeat away from the Presidency?
It is pretty clear who wins that race in my mind: Biden kicks butt and doesn't put up with Ryan or anyone's lying BS, laughs at it and then factchecks it on the fly instead. Ryan got schooled.
In a phrase:
That time when Ryan was revealed to be the out-of-touch dauphin of BS Mountain.
Amazing-- just when you think a rightwing editorialist is going to get it right, he/she (purposefully?) leaves out the part immediately following what President Obama said above, which puts it all in perspective as a very all-American and patriotic speech. One has to wonder-- did the editorialist just not bother to read it all, or was he/she being disengenuous by sly editing? Here is much of the REST of the speech, immediately after the part quoted above, emphasis mine:
((("The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.)))
There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon.
((( We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."))) President Obama
Radical rightwing spinmeisters out-of-context editing clearly is getting ridiculously desperate. Such Atwater-Rove tactics will fail miserably in the modern age, as finding the facts and data is as close by as Google and Bing. We independents and past independents -- yep, I was independent until McCain chose Palin and the Republican party doubled-down, at the expense of the working poor and middleclasses, on the failed trick(le)down experiment-- do not appreciate being lied to, and although both parties do lie from time to time, it seems to be the complete foundation of the Romney Campaign.
Seriously, rightwing editorialist of the TFP? You seriously are arguing that people who ACTUALLY are in extreme poverty and hungry (and their kids), who are the citizens who the food stamp program SHOULD be serving and whose historic regional abject poverty is one of the main reasons we have a food stamp proram in the first place, people who even that ultralib Eisenhower tried to help, people who are so desperately poor that the first step in overcoming their "mountain pride" is convincing them to take the food stamps and BUY SEEDS... you are actually arguing that it is alright for them to have so much "mountain pride" that their kids become malnourished? How about if the kids develop rickets? How about if they starve to death, is that okay too, since this alleged "mountain pride" is so important?
Wow. Just... wow.
PS-- the number of people on foodstamps nearly doubled during Bush2's terms-- and a lot of it in his FIRST TERM, before the economic crisis. He must have really been pushing hard to get those people on food stamps, huh, to get "Americans reliant on government handouts"... right?
"in part because of the tax cuts he implemented in response to the country’s economic downturn"
Exactly, and within 6-8 months of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passing, just a few weeks after Obama took over, unemployment peaked and started dropping (and, for those who will blather about unemployment percentages being "gamed", the Total Number Employed, a concrete number, started rising again after hitting bottom) and the recovery started. A large part of the reason the recovery has slowed is rightwing obstructionism in Congress since rightwingers took control of the House in late 2010-- for one example, see: the reasons S&P gave for the USA credit downgrade.
A very important thing for all, and especially independents, to remember when going to the polls in November-- not a single Republican in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the bill which did the most to start the recovery.
This is the classic strawman falsehood way of arguing, throwing out something almost no one is arguing for as if it is something else that many are pushing for. Almost no one is currently arguing for raising the taxes of the poor or middleclasses (well, no one except Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman, according to tax plans they have proposed or statements they have made).
Most who understand economics are pushing for the rates on the wealthy and very wealthy (those making say $250,000 a year and up) to be raised to at least Clinton era rates, and preferably 1960s rates. There is a serious imbalance in tax rates in this nation when TRUE small businessmen (those making say $60,000- $200,000 a year)-- many dentists, doctors, lawyers, plumbers and electricians, and many other middle class to slightly wealthy people-- pay a higher average federal tax rate than the Forbes Top400 in income do. The best answer to save our economy and in the long run our nation is to get the rates on the wealthy back up high enough to encourage job creation (deductible cost) and deductible business investments before it is too late.
"Besides, the merchants didn't need protection from big transaction fees"
In reality, we all need protection from fees charged by card processors, banks, and Visa/MC/etc., because these fees amount to a roughly 1-3% price increase on everything one purchases at any business which accepts credit cards, whether one pays cash or not, as the card companies do not allow businesses to charge the fees directly to credit card users.
Because of the card comapnies not allowing the exact fees to be passed on to just those who use the cards, it basically amounts to credit card company tax on everyone, and most people do not realize it because the never see the fees (3.2% + $0.30 per transaction for my business).
So banks are going to charge for something that is cheaper for everyone involved than using/processing checks?
Pretty obvious moneygrab using the new regulations as a cover, otherwise they would charge for the labor-intensive processing of checks instead.
Unfortunately, since they let the Making Work Pay credits ($400 ind., $800 couple) expire, that is a gain of $0 for individuals making $20,000 or couples making $40,000, and for individuals making less than $20,000 and couples making less than $40,000, it is a net loss when compared to last year's tax return (all other things remaining the same). So basically it comes down to the working poor and lower middle class getting less, the middle class (above $40,000 per couple) making a hair more ($200 for every $10,000 above $40,000 up to the SSI limit of $106,800), and the wealthiest 1% making away like bandits (their total overall average taxes paid --local, state, federal-- is a smaller percentage of their income than the middle classes' percentage of income paid). Watch "Franken's Floor Statement on Tax Cuts" on Youtube for more data and truth.
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
This statement is a rewording of a passage from page 261 of The Audacity of Hope, in which Barack Obama spoke of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed into confinement, as was done with Japanese-Americans during World War II. The original contains no specific mention of "Muslims":
Om, don't try and mutate facts to fit your desired outcome-- Obama is not a Muslim, he is a professed Christian, and has professed that in the USA and wordlwide, even before Muslim audiences-- "I'm a Christian..." (Cairo speech, 2009).