Quantcast
U.S. & World

Fact check: Obama-Romney presidential debate missteps

Comments

Return To Article
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:20 a.m.

    Re: A Scientist Provo, UT
    "Otherwise, you might be mistaken for a Republican!"

    Oh, there was no mistake as to who the Republican was in the first presidential debate. The other couldn't defend himself, his policies, or his party. An intelligent individual would have challenged Romney if he got the idea he was incorrect.

    Doesn't say much for our sitting president does it!!

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Oct. 5, 2012 7:06 a.m.

    jwarkentin

    What you described is called a "loss leader", a product the store sells at a loss in hopes it gets you in the door and you buy other things. In Romney's case, it will be a switch and bait. You go to buy it and the product is out of stock and you buy something anyway. You are recomending placing everything on sale, and you will bankrupt the company in no time.

    Anyone who thinks Romney is here to support the working family is wrong.

    Before yo decide on who you want to vote for, Google or Yahoo "Bain Capital American Pad and Paper" . This candidate has a broken moral compass. In a nut shell, Bain Capital bought a healthy company, loaded it up with $400 Million of debt, pulled $100 Million out of the company for "Debt Management fees" and walked away leaving investors and banks flat on the ground. Their skin in this game was $15 Million. This is his morals, people are of no consequence for a quick hundred million plus. He stole all benefits from the employees, cut wages, fired people and sucked the life out of the middle and working class. No remorse.

  • one day... South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 5, 2012 5:47 a.m.

    What about if we tax these two guys higher and they give all the money collected for their campaigns to the people of United States!
    How insane is the amount collected and money that they still asking from voters, I'm I crazy or we should get money from them, by jobs and benefits?

    Both of them are liars, it's all about power, you must be very arrogant and ambitious to take the lead of a country in crisis!

    We need more options, Dems or Reps its all the same history, same tale.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:37 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    I have to agree with worf, you should check your facts before you place blame.

    Otherwise, you might be mistaken for a Republican!

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 6:24 p.m.

    If Deseret News editorial staff are sincere and serious about what they are trying to do here, they will completely and consistently deny any comment that accuses another person of being "unAmerican" in any way, shape, or form. That's pernicious name calling if ever there was name calling!

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:48 p.m.

    That's A Good One says "Like buy other things, which in turn generates more revenue for other businesses, which in turn generates other opportunities to hire more "$100 dollar workers".

    Is that not the premise behind Government Stimulus plans? The government invests in an infrastructure and new private businesses spring up around that new piece of infrastructure. I would guess you'd say government stimulus is a failure, though we have seen examples that it works. History has shown "private stimulus" to be less successful. Given a tax break, it is more likely that a person or company will pocket the savings rather than hire employees.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    I've read several news services' fact checks of the debate: Washington Post, CNN, Politico, Salon.com, and others. What can we conclude from all this research? That neither politician is within a light-year of the truth. They both lie, obfuscate, misrepresent, and play fast and loose with bogus numbers. To say nothing of making outrageous claims.

    Overall, Rmoney's Pinocchio rating is a notch higher than Obama's, but they're both playing the same game. Voters deserve better. We need someone to tell us what is coming: cuts to many of our favorite programs, restrictions to mortgage interest and charitable contribution deductions, AND higher tax rates. It's time to pull these two candidates back from fantasyland and hold them accountable for their lies.

    By the way, if you're interested, those "studies" Rmoney cited, supporting his tax "plan"? Well, they're not studies. Some are articles written by economists who consult with Rmoney's campaign or who work at conservative think tanks. The others are op-ed pieces that appeared in the WSJ. Studies? Come on, Rmoney, stop insulting our intelligence.

  • That's A Good One Meridian, ID
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    Common sense goes out the window for spin. Moderate's "fuzzy math" is an example of only part of the story. Logic says that the person who just made the $100 and gave $25 of it to the government is going to do something with the other $75, right? Like buy other things, which in turn generates more revenue for other businesses, which in turn generates other opportunities to hire more "$100 dollar workers". And the process repeats itself. So, while you'd have us believe the government gets ripped off of $75, it doesn't when you consider the whole scenario. Wouldn't want to "fuzzy the math" with the whole story though.

    While I'm extremely fortunate to remain employed through this entire mess, my former neighbor, very well educated, unemployed for over a year now, who recently lost his home and now lives with his daughter while he contemplates starting all over again, would argue that whatever it is our current administration is calling "forward" hasn't worked too well.

    Always two sides to a story and Romney isn't the only one who would prefer not to tell them both. Obama's the master!

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    itsjstmeagain: I remember when Reagan cut taxes, congress worked a compromise, lower rates ion exchange for cutting out some deductions, interest on credit cards comes to mind. This would have worked well, because the actual income to the government in the form of taxes (real dollars) increased! Unfortunatley, Congress didn't follow up with a little wisdom and discretion in spending, they thought that the cash cow (taxpayer) would always pay up, and we did, therefore, not only did we trade lower rates for fewer deductions, but, after a few years, we got the higher rates and the lower deductions, due to congress and their improvident spending habits!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    "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"

    Well, probably, but, Mitt has managed to lay out that he would cut all tax rates by 20%. That is pretty specific and quick to say.

    He then says that he will close loopholes to keep net taxes the same. It would be pretty quick (less than 30 seconds) to list the top 5 loopholes that he would close. This would give us a general idea if his plan was mathematically feasible.

    The time-crunch argument used by Romney and previously by Ryan are a smoke screen. They know the cuts will either not be enough to offset the tax cuts or will be wildly unpopular.

  • That's A Good One Meridian, ID
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:26 p.m.

    Common sense goes out the window for spin. Moderate's "fuzzy math" is an example of only part of the story. Logic says that the person who just made the $100 and gave $25 of it to the government is going to do something with the other $75, right? Like buy other things, which in turn generates more revenue for other businesses, which in turn generates other opportunities to hire more "$100 dollar workers". And the process repeats itself. So, while you'd have us believe the government gets ripped off of $75, it doesn't when you consider the whole scenario. Wouldn't want to "fuzzy the math" with the whole story though.

    While I'm extremely fortunate to remain employed through this entire mess, my former neighbor, very well educated, unemployed for over a year now, who recently lost his home and now lives with his daughter while he contemplates starting all over again, would argue that whatever it is our current administration is calling "forward" hasn't worked too well.

    Always two sides to a story and Romney isn't the only one who would prefer not to tell them both. Obama's a master at it!

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    Oct. 4, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    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?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:26 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 11:03 a.m.

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

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    jwarkentin

    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!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 4, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    "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.

  • jwarkentin Riverton, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    @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.

  • jwarkentin Riverton, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    @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.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    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?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:25 a.m.

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

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    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?

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Dr. Fortuitous SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 9:07 a.m.

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

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 8:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Oct. 4, 2012 5:51 a.m.

    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.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 4, 2012 4:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    Oct. 4, 2012 3:21 a.m.

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

  • staypuffinpc Provo, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 9:05 p.m.

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