Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Friday, October 5, 2012

October 5, 2012 - Morning Headlines

- President Obama, in his first campaign events since Wednesday night's defeat, claims that during the debate Mitt Romney was dishonest (CNN):

- GOP nominee Mitt Romney claimed that his video-taped comments about the "47%" were completely wrong in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity (ABC News):

- Economists are expecting the September Jobs report to show only modest job creation. This will be posted on the blog at 8:30 (USA Today):


  1. Romney did lie as it relates to the $90B he kept mentioning. Lying is to be expected, it is what both candidates do. However, the part I find more sad than that is that Obama couldn't call Romney on the lie because he didn't have his facts straight. He should have been able to debunk that and instead let Romney run with it all night long. (Also, on an unrelated note, I saw a couple of people mention their like for the zinger Mitt had relating to not knowing what Obama was talking about regarding the tax credit for shipping jobs overseas. In this zinger, Mitt seems to insinuate that he has shipped jobs overseas and never received a tax credit - not saying he has or not but his quote insinuates he had. Otherwise, why would he need a new accountant other than to make sure he received that credit. Anyway, a savvy Obama would have been able to turn that around and he didn't... Just wanted to make that point as it came to me while typing this post).

    As far as Mitt backtracking on the 47% comment... This shows weakness in my mind. Though I disagree with the statement he made it wasn't "completely wrong".. it was a poorly expressed statement and one of exclusion but it wasn't completely invalid. He said he couldn't convince that 47% and he is likely right. I just don't think he should exclude those folks and not try. As I said before, the position lacks presidentiality (I know it's not a word but it should be!)

    See Anna, Obama is not my god (in fact, nobody is my god), I just call it like I see it!

    1. Hi Whatsamatta.

      I don't see how you're calling $90B in wasted taxpayer dollars a lie. The TRUTH is: that money, 'stimulus' borrowed (from China?) is GONE - w/NOTHING to show for it.

      That $90B went to Obama donors/bundlers/friends for failed 'green energy' companies. Adding insult to injury, in the case of Solyndra's bankruptcy, the loan was re-written and the taxpayers were shoved to the back of the line, BEHIND Obama's donor buddy.

      Romney was RIGHT. Companies who 'outsource' do NOT get 'tax breaks' for 'shipping jobs overseas'... they do NOT repatriate those dollars BECAUSE our tax system DOUBLE TAXES that money. At ONE point - even OBAMA spoke of a one time waive of that tax... IF and only IF those companies would agree to 'invest' the 'savings' in HIS made up 'infrastructure bank'.

      With Obama's abysmal 'record' of colossal, mind-boggling waste ($5T+ and counting) broken promises and blatant, bald-faced LIES - I don't blame them ONE bit for NOT taking him up on that 'deal'.

      I'm disappointed that Romney is backing off the 47% thing too. I'd have preferred he explained himself - exactly the way he did in the WHOLE 'secret' tape... the part that was NOT played - over and over and over - on the Lame Stream Media.

      I do believe the concept was/is correct. Those people who pay zero federal taxes are not likely to be swayed by someone who says they'll lower tax rates; those same people WOULD be put off by someone who says they'll ALSO delete loopholes and deductions... particularly those on numerous govt. programs and/or with numerous children... so in essence - Romney was right. Those people would never vote for him and his campaign money would be better spent in attempts to reach those more likely to support him and his ideas.

  2. Dara -

    You are misled -

    Romney did lie and there really doesn't seem to be any realistic way to say he didn't. sure there was wasted money on solar and wind but it wasn't $90B. Unless my link is incorrect, the number is $21B (alot of loss but less than a quarter of what Mitt stated).

    As for the tax break for shipping jobs offshore, you missed my point entirely. I didn't say anyone was right or wrong because I just don't know for a fact. What I said was that if Obama were savvy he could have turned that around on Mitt as his comment insinuates he does it but doesn't get a credit (whether that credit exists in reality or not). I am simply pointing out a missed opportunity by Obama.

    And even though they may not get an actual tax break, as I understand it (and I'm not saying my understanding is right or wrong), corporations pay ZERO taxes on the money they don't bring back into the country. That is tantamount to a tax break, in my opinion.

    1. Whether it ALL went to 'clean energy,' electric cars (that tend to burst into flame), bird and bat destroying wind farms (many of which now stand idle - due to neglect) or unicorn farts - that $90B 'stimulus' WAS wasted. It's gone/kaput; Obama did it and we have nada to show for it.

      As Obama was getting busy, banging his 'we need more teachers/roads/bridges/etc, etc.' drum - Romney simply stated ways in which THAT $90B could have been better spent.

      Corporations ALREADY paid tax in the 'county of origin' - and the U.S. tax code would tax them AGAIN... who - in their right mind - wants to get taxed TWICE on the same money?

      The REASON they moved overseas in the first place, was the cost of doing business. Between the unions, federal, state and local taxes, government regs, department of labor, etc. etc. - they couldn't do it HERE anymore and make a profit. And there's NO reason to HAVE a business unless you're making a profit... the larger companies ALSO have to worry about their investors, who risk their OWN post tax dollars.

      ...and the investment tax that Obama wants to raise... they ALREADY paid taxes when they EARNED the money; then, when they invest(risk their OWN POST-tax money)if they make a profit - it gets taxed AGAIN... even at the lower rate - it's STILL a second tax on the same money.

      Estate tax is the same way... the guy pays taxes on his earnings EVERY YEAR when he's alive - then when he dies - the government wants to levy a whole NEW tax on the SAME money - against his heirs!

      You know, this whole 'tax and spend' deal would be a whole lot easier to figure out if we could just get Demon-crat Dingy Harry Reid to pull even ONE of those budgets the House has passed OUT of his pocket VETO and bring it to the Senate floor for a vote....

      I can't run my home w/o a budget for a month, at the risk of ending up in the red....yet Obama has spent money we don't have, willy-nilly - affecting the whole country - w/o one for FOUR years! Crazy!

      I know... Congress makes the budget - but a GOOD president would have done whatever it took to 'persuade' them to do their Constitutional duty and 'git 'er done'... Obama has done nothing but demonize them and threaten to veto whatever they DID pass - while sitting on his thumbs - spending money!

      That FACT - ALONE - should make ANYONE think twice about giving the guy four more!

    2. Whatsamattausa, you said:

      "Romney did lie as it relates to the $90B he kept mentioning. Lying is to be expected, it is what both candidates do. However, the part I find more sad than that is that Obama couldn't call Romney on the lie because he didn't have his facts straight. "

      I think maybe one reason 0bama didn't pounce on Romney over what you call Romney's "lie" is because of this:

      Look at A. 1.

      1. Clean Energy. A central piece of the ARRA is more than $90 billion in government investment and tax incentives to lay the foundation for the clean energy economy of the future.

      Look at the website address. WHITEHOUSE.GOV.

      So if Romney is lying when he uses that number, does that man the White House is a liar too? How does that work?

      I find it amusing that Politfact rates it as false, your source rates it as false, the New York Times however says the number is correct but it's Bush's fault (actually I think the headline said an Asterisk, but read the article, Bush is the asterisk) and all the while Romney is quoting

      Thank goodness those places are "non-partisan", LOL. (Actually I am implying that they are not "non-partisan" at all.)

    3. Good morning Slim. Hope you enjoyed your weekend. As the article states, only $21B went to wind and solar... Romney stated the entire $90B did.

    4. Whatsamattausa, yes I had a great weekend. Neither my Vols nor my Cowboys lost this weekend, having a bye week (both teams)greatly improved our odds of not losing. I hope your weekend was good (other than that last second field of course, I hate the Steelers too).

      As far as Romney goes, to keep it context, Romney first referred to it as "the green energy world" a few moments later he said "wind and energy" as he was setting up his slam on Solyndra and whatever other companies he mentioned. The $90 Billion Romney was referring to is the same $90 Billion the website was boasting about.

      Since LME already has the link to the debate transcript:

      "And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world.

      Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

      But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent.

      But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?"

      Now when he only mentioned Solyndra, Fisker, Tester & Ener1 I don't think he was saying the entire $90 Billion was spent on those 4 companies.

      Like I said, take the context, not the soundbite from MSLSD.

    5. Slim -

      The companies listed really has nothing to do with anything other than they are specific examples of the Solar and Wind companies he's talking about. What he said was a lie because those companies, nor solely solar and wind, received the $90B. That part of the grant was only (only?) $21B. Thus, it's a lie. The full $90B included money for high speed rail, current infrastructure improvement, etc. that had nothing to do with solar or wind.

    6. OK Whatsamattausa, I see, context only applies to libtards (Like Barry, you know, you didn't build THAT bridges and roads). Got it. Forget the fact that 0bama brags about "investing" $90 Billion in a green energy economy of the future (which includes the $21 Billion for wind and solar). When Romney addressed the issue in a debate he should have spent more time (of his only 2 minutes) clarifying and breaking down the spending. That way after he satisfactorily worded his response to keep liberals thongs from getting in a bunch, he wouldn't have any time left. LOL

    7. Or, instead of saying $90B he could have said $21B without having to break anything down... just so, you know, he could have told the truth. It has nothing to do with liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. It has only to do with truth. And I've acknowledged they all do it. This was a clear case and I'm surprised you seem to be defending him. My point wasn't about anything that Obama said though I did raise, as a side point, what he didn't say (which I found pathetic). The main point is that Romney made a false statement. He could just as easily given the factual number, which would have saved him the time for explanation and would have satisfied everyone but chose not to.

    8. I am not defending Romney. I am defending the truth. The man said at the very beginning of the point, "And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world." That statement is true, or at least claims that they "invested" $90 Billion in green energy.

      Yes he later said you gave $90 billion to "wind and solar". I don't think he was trying to mislead or lying. Perhaps, he meant to say "things LIKE wind and solar". Wind and Solar were part of the $90 Billion that he referred to in his opening line (on this point). Like I said to read it in proper context and consider it was a live debate where one can accidentally mis-speak, true but inaccurate maybe, a lie, I don't think so. Yes, the actual number for the wind and solar portion of the total $90 BILLION "investment" was $21 Billion. I am not arguing that. But the truth is 0bama and his Stimulus bill "invested" or "bet" (as 0bama likes to say) $90 BILLION on green energy and what do we have to show for it?

      Sure 0bama got to count everybody that worked there (at all those failed companies that got pieces of that $90 Billion) as "jobs created or saved" and then never deducted them 6 months later when the companies failed. But aside from that, what do we have to show for that $90 Billion. I believe that was Mittens' point.

      I guess the bottom line is some people are smart enough to see what he meant and some aren't. It's not as if he referenced some imaginary program. Even the 0bama regime admits they spent $90 billion on green energy.

      Have a great rest of the day Whatsamattausa.

    9. So, because I disagree with you I am not smart? As you said, you don't "think" but you certainly don't KNOW. So it is a simple disagreement that apparently makes you feel like you need to reach into your little bag of belittlement for what appears to be no reason other than that is generally where people go when they take a position which can't, in reality, be defended. But it's your opinion all the same and, although I find it ludicrous, I respect it.

      The context that he spoke in was trying to make a point. One he could have made honestly and clearly. He chose not to and I guess if that makes me stupid so be it. I guess Romney, unlike Obama, is entitled to his own facts.

      So let me ask you this simple question which was my point to begin with - Is the following a true statement "But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. "?

      No need to waste your time posting a one word, two letter answer. There's only one truthful way to answer that question.

    10. Actually Whatsamattausa, my "not smart enough to see it" was a shot at your source of news that forms your opinion for you. You already told me you turned the debate off about the time I tuned it in (about 20 minutes in). If your source is Rachel Maddow, she is smart enough to see it, but dishonest enough to distort it. The rest of the MSDNC cast ain't smart enough to see it. Although, they are all dishonest enough to distort it should they see it.

    11. I make my own determinations. Although I love Rachel, I haven't watched her show (or any show on MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc.) in at least a year. As I've mentioned before, I've decided to get my news from the net (mainly from Twitter) where I can read it and research it on my own and also to read competing articles which helps to raise questions. In this case, my source is Romney and the opinion I've formed for myself is that he lied to make his point seem stronger than it was.

      One thing I'm noticing on this blog is that you, Dara, and Anna love to make affirmative false assumptions. I don't get it but perhaps that's because nobody has given me my opinion on that yet!

    12. You do a pretty good of making your own "affirmative false assumptions" too whatsamatta. By the way, what do Dara and Anna have to do with this? Why have you gotta throw a jab at them? I am the one that got under your skin, not them. That seems like a cheap and petty shot at two people who haven't done squat to you. Keep your jabs directed toward me and leave the innocent bystanders alone.

    13. How valiant of you!

      Examples of where I have stated or insinuated that "Slim _________________"? You know, just as you have insinuated: Whatsamattausa can't form his own opinions AND Whatsamattausa is stupid.

  3. Dara -

    How do you figure we have 'nothing' to show for the $90B? Romney stated that the $90B was spent on wind and solar energy which is simply untrue. That's the only point I made in that regard.

    Who said anything about giving him 4 more? Certainly not me!

    1. All I know (for sure) is that we're $5T+ deeper in debt than when Obama was hired. I, personally, can see NO return on ANY of that money for ANY American.

      I don't think MOST of the people who've been forced onto welfare and food stamps by the pie-in-the-sky, unsustainable 'dreams' and mismanagement by Obama and his administration would disagree w/me.

      Ha ha... what I meant was: I don't get that there ARE some people out there who ARE considering giving him 4 more... I think I saw some on TV yesterday!