There were two people in the debate last night. How come this is only focused on what Romney said? What about what Obama said? Will he be fact checked just as much as Romney?

Its because this is MSNBC that's why. The Obama news network. What do you expect. I came here to see the response of MSNBC experts. Found what I expected to find. What ever happened to news reporting, just report the facts and let people decide on their own. Dont make it so obvious MSNBC, because people lose respect for you and tune out when they want the truth or facts. I love it when MSNBC considers Al Sharpton a political expert and puts him on this so called panel of experts making comments. He is a joke. Who the hell cares what this guy thinks. Oh I guess MSNBC does. Every black person I know says he doesnt speak for them and have no respect for him, yet somehow MSNBC thinks he does represent most views of blacks. Wrong. They are fools to put this guy on, but I would expect this from them. But the best part of this entire deal was just how mad the MSNBC folks were after Romney slaughtered Obama. Can't wait for te next debate. It was funny.

Last night, Romney unveiled his latest version upgrade...

Romney 10.0

"The Democratic candidate."

He's for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Teachers, the poor, the sick, veterans, students, seniors, Taxes for the rich, no taxes for the middle, will provide national health care, etc. etc.

WTF???

He will say anything.

Obama couldn't argue with him, there was nothing to argue about.

Fact checkers are going to enjoy his hyperbolic BS.

Romney was so hungry he just couldn't wait for his turn.

Obama was expecting lies and he dealt with them by not getting caught up in that web.

The President IMO did right and kept his cool, despite the obvious that he wanted to strangle Rongme.

You cannot argue with a pathological liar.

All Rongme did was cater to every policy the democrats support and Obama was shocked.

Romney didn't get challenged with the questions that matter.

People who like Romney are going to be proud of the lies, they're used to them.

Obama's supporters like me wanted to see Romney get beat up. Too bad for me.

Obama stayed Presidential on this first debate, good for Obama, good for the Nation.

Romney is going to get beat up by the fact checkers ...

• "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut" ~ Romney
• " I wouldn't cut taxes on the wealthy" ~ Romney
• "health care law cuts $716 billion from Medicare" ~ Romney
• "122 community and small banks have closed since the Dodd-Frank financial reform law passed " ~ Romney
• " Energy production is down on federal lands because of Obama" ~ Romney
• "I would not cut money for education" ~ Romney
• "will create 12 million new jobs during my first term" ~ Romney
• "Half of companies receiving energy breaks went out of business." ~! Romney
• "Health care costs have risen $2,500 per family per year under Obama" ~ Romney
• "The personal tax rates for the wealthy would kill jobs " ~ Romney
• "The President doubled the deficit" ~ Romney

Bottom line, no one likes a liar.

This was not a win - lose debate, it was a platform to send the most people your message.

Obama did it, and made Romney send more untrue messages.

Romney doubled down on vouchers, privatization and more tax discounts for the rich and corporations.

Mittens is a good used car sales person.

Only idiots will buy his lemons.

I've been nauseated for most of the day. I think Obama should have been prepared for a debate with the pathological liar.

Mitt Romney choices are simple: 1) remain the guy who gave the "47%" speech to Republican donors or 2) become a moderate Republican, a "compassionate conservative" if you will. If he chooses Option 1, he loses the election as indicated by the falling poll numbers over the past three weeks. If he chooses Option 2, he'll be labeled a flip-flopper by people who have paid attention to him this past year and who already don't like him. Option 2 makes getting elected possible. Clearly, during last night's debate, Romney has shown he is fully embracing Option 2. While the "flip-flopping" charge may sting, it doesn't necessarily lose him the election. His conservative friends won't complain too loudly about his shift to the left because they are well aware he has to do it to defeat Obama.

no wonder your station is last in ratings!!!! what a biased opinion about the debate! obama is selling the american public the same bs as he did in 09.name me one thing that he has done the last 3yrs, that he promised to accomplish in his term>obama talks the talk, but can't walk the walk!!! he's the biggest con man that's ever run for office!!! this chump could'nt run a lemonade stand!!!! bring a teleprompter with you,next time!!! i can't wait for the real clown, next week!!!! biden!!!!

Think Progress: Good name, but after decades of this babble too much

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

By Igor Volsky on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:08 am

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:

1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

Four millions jobs that will be doing what for whom? Romney seems to believe the Canadian Oil ruinously extracted from the beleaguered Earth, shipped in an American pipeline, destined for foreign markets? This will create jobs, yes in China, making solar equipment, and wind turbines, planting trees, and preserving the land; China needs this and China will do it using Canadian Oil. The American question is how much will this cost us when have to buy it from China. Apple iTurbines, iSolar, and iHeater?

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

I do, I don't, I will, I won't, I have a plan, I don't need you to see it? What plan? A mere warm trickle down without bladder control, Depends?

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

You view is clear, Romney tax relief comes at the expense of programs provided by the government that allow the middle class the freedom to take care of their elderly. What you cannot see is that this is expensive in another big way. But it is nonsense, since growing the economy, increasing employment, and producing income are the real solutions?

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

You just cut taxes and then ignored which loop holes; that sells. The problem with moving forward is that you cannot do that if you are in NEUTRAL, yet you propose that we do this for 10 years, when the brakes the republicans have on fail; the economy being in neutral will only allow you roll backwards down the hill.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

You view is nonsense, since employment, and income are the real solutions, the tax relief proposed, will not match the cost of those same services the middle class will have to buy to replace them. What Romney needs is a business where he can collect the fees and does not have to call them taxes.

6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

You have no plan to pay down the debt, jobs and income are the answer you are avoiding?

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

Very few businesses in reality pay any taxes, it is deliberate legerdemain to shift small business into personal income, and you're hiding something. The fact that for all business owners can file either way, is quite a clever ploy for the big businesses to recruit support for big boys of the US Chamber of Commerce (con me).

8) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

Incorrect, there is more drilling on than ever, the delay since 1974 has been solved, but there is no point to draining America first, unless you are purchasing Congressional Drilling rights.

9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

The previous administration took the wars off budget, this administration put them back. Take another chance, spin the dial again.

10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.

This grossly wrong, the problem is that we have 9 million named business that have no employees, empty positions are held for Loop Holes?

11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.

This is statement of business malpractice; this is done to avoid income being reported for taxation, and allow foreign corporations to avoid taxes all together. The tragedy is that we are sold the GNP (national) as booming, but GDP (domestic) is doomed, by allowing for this curious exemption. The government some time ago found it necessary to recognize foreign revenues in include with the GDP, this is one reason that we are confused by growth when it is mostly foreign. Like many excuses foreign income and H-1B visa are quite the scam.

12) “I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant would significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found.

This is just to dilute federal power and efficiency, to make 50 duplicate state plans produces more overhead charged as profit and donations.

13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul, when Peter is the thief, you just like Paul better, he makes campaign donations?

14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

This duplicates government programs, waste and inefficient to have too many plans. We do want to eliminate overhead, even when insurance companies and health providers costing enough.

15) “Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.

You're just dividing up the vote, when it is the economy you just don't get.

16) “And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach — which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.

The pot, the kettle, both filled with the same stew.

17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

Why? You invented it? But didn't your lobbyist slip in the goody provisions for you already, greed has no limits?

18) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.

You idiot, your whole business 'success' has been base on killing small businesses, local and regional banks, are an endangered species.

19) “And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable.

It is quite possible to make profit from losing proposition, granting profits of 20% above cost, doesn't save anything, and adds 20% guaranteed profits. The insurance company need not even exist.

20) “[I]t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.

The whole of the political problem is when politicians hold on to that power, if the authority were properly delegated, politicians could affect the policy but not the execution that would have been granted to the authority not the politician. Congress interferes calling it oversight, but it actually contradicts good governance, granting the authority to department heads to execute and then hold the department heads accountable for results. Congressional interference is the death of good governance; they should stick to polishing brass and cleaning marble.

21) “Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.

The key is mandatory participation, your plans works because it has mandatory participation the ACA does not because does have mandatory enforcement. The problem is obvious, fix mandatory.

22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.

First you argue one way, and then argue another way, the way to pay is to boost the economy, and just call a tax or a fee the real money.

23) “It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.

This not true, the republicans wanted the government to require health insurance, but to give the business to them.

24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

This is the problem with persisting plans, they still preexist, and still cause the problem, solutions; accept preexisting conditions when they are addressed and not ignored, it is called normal. Carving out some detail to make it profitable just tries to make profit, and not address the problem, the preexisting condition is just the cost of doing business on the planet. Your self-defensive solution is just to ignore the problem, making you sound so grand and wise, but ignores the problem, and forces the cost to go off budget. Solve the problem by not addressing the problem!

25) “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.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”

This is a catastrophic lie; lies being lies are no good. The catastrophe is that we know that the way we produce energy now needs an investment in energy alternatives, whistling past the grave yard of spent oil derricks, and taking excess profits now, does not make a prudent and timely investment needed. Prudent and timely, means that ample investments, well place in time, and delivering energy where is needed, sometime taking years of tactics

26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”

This is a tactical loss for a strategic gain; to see that simple solutions using conventional thinking would work like shot gun blast, when the don't work, then back to the drawing board. It too bad that this was not tried 40 years ago, when we would have across decades of strategy to arrive near the destination even if it is too hard to see. How hard can it be to have seen 40 years pass by without ounce of progress? Budget 2.5% of revenues for 40 years, and we can live energy independent forever.

learned from it, instead we are still 39 years behind. It is not the general idea that we have a problem with; but the very conventional thinking process that we have to change.

27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger.

The deal was a deal, representing a dysfunctional government. What to fix? The deal, the government or the dysfunction?

Instead of taking on Wall Street Mr Bain Capitol is taking on Sesame Street. I'm sure that one act will have a huge impact on the debt. What a scam.

Is the expenditure worth borrowing more money from China? That is the benchmark to be applied. PBS will have to get on with more fund raising campaigns, and sales of products, and maybe get into some advertising to make up the difference. But the party is surely over of looking to Washington DC for every dollar that can be drummed up for special interests in this nation. Long since gone!

Interesting read: http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord. Does he ever stop or is it ingrained? The far-right Mitt. A lie. Moderate Mitt. A pack of lies. What next?

WWW.Romneylies.com

Take some of that trove of contributions and set up a website of cahrts and graphs of Romney lies. Have Obama say check it out at.........