Comments about ‘Fact check: Obama-Romney presidential debate missteps’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 3 2012 8:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Provo, UT

Darn, I came looking for a fact check and found only two guys' opinions that could've been written before the debate.

Mesa, AZ

Exactly, highly predictable AP diatribe. This article has no fact-checking, only Obama cheer-leading.


This kind of reporting from the Associated Press is always slanted towards the take-over by big government of all the means of production and distribution of goods and services....Marxism.

Elite tax exempt foundations control the editorial content of the tripe that is constantly being fed the US citizens to allow the private international banking dynasty, which the Fed Reserve is a part, to profit from making slaves of US citizens to an international collective.

Merritt Island, Fl

Pumping up Defense spending is not necessary and is wasteful. Defense contractor burden rate on costs are out of sight, it is simply a Republican jobs program. Every man hour spent building things we don't need could buy 2 manhours or more rebuilding the infrastructure, schools, and creating jobs for middle America and not payouts to Wall Street.
Every cut Romney stated will attack the middle class. A college degree for your children will now be out of reach. The well being of the next generation is lost, unless of course you are wealthy. Remember, if you want to start a business or go to college, ask your parents otherwise you're out of luck.
Remember, Regan cut taxes for the wealthy, only to add 3 or more tax increases early in his second term. Trickle down just does not work unless your work is watching your stocks.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

I think we can safely say that fact checkers are just spinners, not unlike the candidates themselves.
A Media Matters fact checker will tell you something different than a Fox News fact checker. It's all about spinning the numbers. It is very difficult to create apples-to-apples comparisons.
When all sources have a bias that leaves the voters to look at character and past performance. On that basis Romney wins.

Dr. Fortuitous

And this is exactly what I would expect coming out of California!

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Romney won the debate hands down. No question about it.

I have to say, that was one of the best debates I have seen in a long time. It was refreshing to have the candidates not try and belittle each other. But rather present their plans and ideas, question the opponents plans and ideas and have time to give rebuttals.

They both allowed each other ample time to speak, respond and explain in more detail what their plan is. Rather than giving us a 30 second ad which could never cover details or go into depth.

I would love to see 5-7 of these types of debates leading up to an election. One set with the president and the president opponent. Another set of debates between the VP and the VP opponent.

How refreshing would it be to spend 1.5 hours on 5-7 different topics or issues and actually get a feel for where the candidate sits?

Keep the moderator there to start the debate, end the debate, and ensure both sides get equal time. Don't interrupt or try to help one of the candidates by explaining the policies to him.

Salt Lake City, UT

To the "fact checkers are spinners" crowd, I understand your pain. Perhaps you can help all of us by providing the true facts.

How can Romney increase defense spending, reduce taxes, restore Medicaid Advantage AND reduce the national debt? The "spinners" say that isn't possible, but of course you know what Romney says is true. Could you walk us through how we can reduce revenue and pay down debt?

Is it a multi-level marketing kind of a deal, where as long as the US remains at the top of pyramid, everything is cool?

Far East USA, SC

If an article does not lean far far right, it is called "Obama cheer-leading."

Provo, UT

Andrew Taylor and Stephen Ohlemacher did a pathetic job of rehashing arguments each candidate has made multiple times against the other candidate.

But there was NO "fact checking" whatsoever in this article!

And there was also NO "left-wing" "Obama-cheer leading!" Where on earth do you people get such nonsense? Is it paranoia? Or political ideology envy?

Riverton, UT

@Moderate Let me explain how it works. There's this narrow minded idea among people without business smarts that the only way to increase revenue is by increasing prices. Consequently, Obama thinks that to increase our countries revenue we must increase taxes. So if that's the case, then why on earth do stores ever have sales? Wait a second, let's think this through. If I lower prices, then more people buy my product. Though it's a lower profit margin per sell, there is more revenue overall. How does this apply to taxes? Well, if instead of raising them, we lower them allowing businesses to hire more people and create more jobs the government may make less money per person in taxes, but they make more money overall by having more people paying taxes. That's Romney's proposal. It makes perfect sense if you think about it.

Riverton, UT

@Moderate Let me break it down for you. The concept is really quite simple. Instead of increasing taxes on the increasingly fewer that are paying taxes, which is just a downward spiral, Romney has proposed to decrease taxes which produces more jobs and instead gets more people paying taxes. His plan still increases tax revenue, it just lowers the tax burden. This is the exact same thing as stores do when they have a sale. They lower prices and increase revenue. It makes great business sense.

Far East USA, SC

"That's Romney's proposal. It makes perfect sense if you think about it."

Well, we hear that over and over. Bush said it. Now we are at Bush level taxes. But, now, those taxes are not low enough.

So, the GOP says "LOWER! LOWER!"

Can someone, anyone, on the right tell me what is the acceptable tax rate? What tax rate allows for business to hire and the country to flourish?

From what I can determine, the acceptable tax rate is one that is lower than whatever the current rate is.

A Scientist
Provo, UT


You just described trickle-down economics 101.

That is exactly the thinking that got us into this mess, has resulted in corporations making record profits during one of the worst recessions in history, and has the gap between rich and poor, between executives and workers setting records as well!

And that is exactly what is wrong with Romney, the sleek used car salesman who will sell you what is in his own best interests, but which sticks you, the middleclass citizen and taxpayer, with a sour lemon!

Salt Lake City, UT

To all of you complaining about this fact-checking... care to explain what's false in it? Or are you just annoyed by reality?

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It's from Associations [with Obama] Press. Not much more needs to be said about it, other than it diminishes the credibility of the Deseret News to continue to pay for and print their AP propaganda.

It is blindingly obvious that the mainstream media is incredibly biased and activist on behalf of the liberal Democrat party, and many people now realize this and are fed up with it. As a paying subscriber to the print edition of this paper, I think it is not as bad as most in the business, but far from accurate or impartial (i.e. skewed left, but not as badly as the wretched T*****e). I really do no think it is good to subsidize propaganda organs and am close to cancelling my subscription, but I still like the comics and ads.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

GE makes $6 Billion profit annually, and pays ZERO in taxes.
BP makes $40 Billion profits annually, pays ZERO taxes, and gets $1 billion in Corporate welfare.

Grandma gets $600 a month to buy pills, and groceries - and is part of the same 47% who doesn't pay pay taxes.

Somehow I'm not buying into all the lies about the rich needing lower tax rates.

Salt Lake City, UT

jwarkentin, I struggle with your example. The math seems fuzzy.

Let's say you owe the government $100 in taxes. Romney's government says "keep the $100, but hire someone". You hire someone for $100. That person now pays the government $25 in taxes. The example is simplistic, but reveals the point. The Romney government how has 2 tax payers (you and new guy), but has 75% LESS revenue.

Blue AZ Cougar

The problem here is that even if Romney laid out his plan item by item (an impossibility given the 2-minute speaking windows during the debate), people would nit-pick those too. So either way he's gonna get hammered, either because he's not detailed enough or because people think his plan wouldn't work.

One question, though -- when Obama ran for prez, did he have everything figured out? Did he lay out every detail? Of the plans and initiatives he discussed last night, was he as specific as everyone is claiming Romney failed to be?

Cinci Man

Can any Democrat or Republican explain why Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase should have a tax break? He creates no jobs with his income and in his professional position send thousands of jobs overseas and spend the profits made from American consumers to pay severances as he boots American workers out the door, and also to build multi-million dollar facilities to house the workers he hires in other countries. American who bank with Chase pay for the loss of jobs. And Jamie take 20+ million dollars in bonus pay for such business practices.

Why do both parties NOT hike the taxes of such people and businesses? I agree with tax breaks for those who create jobs, but not for these guys.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments