Washington Post Fact-Checks CNBC Debate. It's not pretty.

[jknowgood]

Really?

Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on Fire: 27 Hillary Fibs and Lies

A failed attempt to deflect.

Understandable given the propensity of most on the right to lie.

So Hillary hasn't lied?

 

[washamericom]

The whole bunch of them are liars.


Fact-checking the third round of GOP debates

Just a taste of the lies that fall so easily from Republican lips:



“The socialist [Sen. Bernie Sanders] says they’re going to pay for everything and give you everything for free, except they don’t say they’re going to raise it through taxes to 90 percent to do it.”

— Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.)

This is false, though it has increasingly emerged as a GOP talking point. Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has not yet released a tax plan, but has repeatedly denied that he would increase taxes from the current marginal rate of 39.6 percent to 90 percent. (The margin rate is what you pay on each additional dollar earned.)

The United States had a marginal tax rate of 90 percent in the Dwight Eisenhower administration, and then John F. Kennedy proposed to reduce it to 70 percent. (The tax cut was passed after his assassination.) But even such rates would not take 90 percent of a person’s income.

really ?? what are you the snopes hall monitor here now ??... back away from the halloween candy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The whole bunch of them are liars.


Fact-checking the third round of GOP debates

Just a taste of the lies that fall so easily from Republican lips:



“The socialist [Sen. Bernie Sanders] says they’re going to pay for everything and give you everything for free, except they don’t say they’re going to raise it through taxes to 90 percent to do it.”

— Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.)

This is false, though it has increasingly emerged as a GOP talking point. Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has not yet released a tax plan, but has repeatedly denied that he would increase taxes from the current marginal rate of 39.6 percent to 90 percent. (The margin rate is what you pay on each additional dollar earned.)

The United States had a marginal tax rate of 90 percent in the Dwight Eisenhower administration, and then John F. Kennedy proposed to reduce it to 70 percent. (The tax cut was passed after his assassination.) But even such rates would not take 90 percent of a person’s income.

ROFLMNAO!

Now how ADORABLE is THAT nonsense?

 

[Nyvin]

My bad. It's really hard for me to take you Liberal Wingnuts seriously. I mostly just glance at your posts for personal amusement.

That is another way of saying that what we write is too complex for you to grasp. Well done.

He made a small error. Owned up to it and apologized. Don't see that same human decency from Commies/leftist types infesting this site.

Silly nutter. That wasn't an apology. Not in any way.

My bad. Maybe it was not a great Apology, but much better than I have seen elsewhere. None is more likely. Or Change subject. Or insults. Or the classic, "yeah but GWB did worse"

I said I wasn't paying attention to the OP. One can usually answer any Liberal OP without bothering to read it. They're all pretty much the same.

Your avatar suits you....you just give unintelligent troll responses to everything.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Washington Post needs to be fact checked.

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

No such fallacy exists... LOL! But even if it did, YOU wouldn't understand what it means. SO don't sweat it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That is another way of saying that what we write is too complex for you to grasp. Well done.

He made a small error. Owned up to it and apologized. Don't see that same human decency from Commies/leftist types infesting this site.

Silly nutter. That wasn't an apology. Not in any way.

My bad. Maybe it was not a great Apology, but much better than I have seen elsewhere. None is more likely. Or Change subject. Or insults. Or the classic, "yeah but GWB did worse"

I said I wasn't paying attention to the OP. One can usually answer any Liberal OP without bothering to read it. They're all pretty much the same.

Your avatar suits you....you just give unintelligent troll responses to everything.

 

[Nyvin]

He made a small error. Owned up to it and apologized. Don't see that same human decency from Commies/leftist types infesting this site.

Silly nutter. That wasn't an apology. Not in any way.

My bad. Maybe it was not a great Apology, but much better than I have seen elsewhere. None is more likely. Or Change subject. Or insults. Or the classic, "yeah but GWB did worse"

I said I wasn't paying attention to the OP. One can usually answer any Liberal OP without bothering to read it. They're all pretty much the same.

Your avatar suits you....you just give unintelligent troll responses to everything.

No, I actually go out of my way to try to educate people on here without becoming personal. It's getting to be harder and harder not to be with the kind of people on this forum lately though.

 

[hazlnut]

Really?

Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on Fire: 27 Hillary Fibs and Lies

Breitbart???

Fuck off with your Breitbart.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'“They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago. And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.”

— Christie

Christie loves to say this but that doesn’t make it true. And he significantly misstates the date for when Social Security’s trust funds will be depleted; that will not happen for another 20 years (and even then Social Security can pay partial benefits).'

Lies and misstatements, the essence of conservative politics.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really?

Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on Fire: 27 Hillary Fibs and Lies

Breitbart???

Fuck off with your Breitbart.

ROFLMNAO! What a LOVELY, feckless retreat.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

'“They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago. And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.”

— Christie

Christie loves to say this but that doesn’t make it true...

It is absolutely true.

There is no SS 'Trust Fund' with a cent in it.

SS monies are spent in the same year that they are confiscated. Then the government sets up a Bond, the proceeds from which it spends as quickly as they are sold. The Government then pays the interests over and above the principle value of the bonds, when they come due.

So, the government spends your SS money, borrows money to pay the current year's payment, and spends anything above the principle in that same year... creating an exponential growth in never ending, ever increasing, mind-numbing debt.

What the above idiot wants you to believe is that the Government takes you SS 'contribution', and buys bonds with those monies... thus you believe that those monies are 'invested'.

See the difference?

In reality, the US Federal government has ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY IN ANY ACCOUNT WHICH THEY USE TO PAY SS... The US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS SS WITH THE FEDERAL REVENUES THAT THEY RECEIVE IN WHATEVER YEAR THEY ARE PAYING.

That is why the Government cannot sustain itself on 3.2 trillion dollars in revenue and why the government MUST borrow money to continue to operate.

 

[Clementine]

'“They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago. And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.”

— Christie

Christie loves to say this but that doesn’t make it true. And he significantly misstates the date for when Social Security’s trust funds will be depleted; that will not happen for another 20 years (and even then Social Security can pay partial benefits).'

Lies and misstatements, the essence of conservative politics.

If they keep robbing the fund, it could happen sooner. Both sides agree it's in trouble and I wonder how many predictions take into account the amount they are continuing to steal from the fund and how much will continue to get paid into it.

 

[tinydancer]

Really?

Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on Fire: 27 Hillary Fibs and Lies

Breitbart???

Fuck off with your Breitbart.

Look at the best of days I can put out cry little sister and demo you left wing fanatics.

If I put up a right wing website. Deal with it because I can give you the opposite as well.

Fuck you back.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Really?

Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on Fire: 27 Hillary Fibs and Lies

A failed attempt to deflect.

Understandable given the propensity of most on the right to lie.

Saul Alinsky at his finest.

Read much ?

 

[bripat9643]

'“They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago. And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.”

— Christie

Christie loves to say this but that doesn’t make it true. And he significantly misstates the date for when Social Security’s trust funds will be depleted; that will not happen for another 20 years (and even then Social Security can pay partial benefits).'

Lies and misstatements, the essence of conservative politics.

Social Security doesn't have a dime, so how can it pay anything?

 

[Blackrook]

Carson tried to disown Mannatech.
Rubio tried to disown his autobiography.
Trump tried to disown his own website.
Christie lied about Bernie Sanders.
Want more?

What a fool you are. All you care about is making sure Hillary Clinton gets elected, despite the fact that if she was any other person, she would be serving time at a federal prison.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So you're relying on a "fact check" done by one of the most biased, misleading liberal newspapers in the country? Big mistake.

Just a few months ago, in May, Bernie Sanders said that he did not think a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent was too high. He said this in an interview on CNBC, ironically enough ( Bernie Sanders: A 90 Percent Tax Rate Isn't Too High ).

What's more, even MSNBC and the New York Times have noted that Sanders “doesn’t flinch over returning to the 90 percent personal income tax rates of the 1950s for top earners” ( The tax rates that don't cause Bernie Sanders to 'flinch' ; http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...evolution-with-an-eye-on-the-hungry-children/ ).

So it's not just Republicans who say that Sanders has indicated that he would not shrink from returning to a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent. Next time you might wanna do a little research before you run with something printed in the Washington Post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you're relying on a "fact check" done by one of the most biased, misleading liberal newspapers in the country? Big mistake.

Just a few months ago, in May, Bernie Sanders said that he did not think a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent was too high. He said this in an interview on CNBC, ironically enough ( Bernie Sanders: A 90 Percent Tax Rate Isn't Too High ).

What's more, even MSNBC and the New York Times have noted that Sanders “doesn’t flinch over returning to the 90 percent personal income tax rates of the 1950s for top earners” ( The tax rates that don't cause Bernie Sanders to 'flinch' ; http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...evolution-with-an-eye-on-the-hungry-children/ ).

So it's not just Republicans who say that Sanders has indicated that he would not shrink from returning to a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent. Next time you might wanna do a little research before you run with something printed in the Washington Post.

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

It's also a failed attempt to deflect – the thread topic is about the lies propagated by the GOP candidates during the third 'debate,' not Bernie Sanders.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So you're relying on a "fact check" done by one of the most biased, misleading liberal newspapers in the country? Big mistake.

Just a few months ago, in May, Bernie Sanders said that he did not think a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent was too high. He said this in an interview on CNBC, ironically enough ( Bernie Sanders: A 90 Percent Tax Rate Isn't Too High ).

What's more, even MSNBC and the New York Times have noted that Sanders “doesn’t flinch over returning to the 90 percent personal income tax rates of the 1950s for top earners” ( The tax rates that don't cause Bernie Sanders to 'flinch' ; http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...evolution-with-an-eye-on-the-hungry-children/ ).

So it's not just Republicans who say that Sanders has indicated that he would not shrink from returning to a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent. Next time you might wanna do a little research before you run with something printed in the Washington Post.

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

It's also a failed attempt to deflect – the thread topic is about the lies propagated by the GOP candidates during the third 'debate,' not Bernie Sanders.

Huh? Can you read? I pointed out that it is not a "lie" to say that Bernie Sanders would be willing to return to a tax rate of 90 percent to fund the trillions in extra spending that he's proposing. The point is that Gov. Christie did not "lie" when he accused Sanders of being willing to jack up the top tax rate back to 90 percent to fund his new spending.

That is not a "deflection"; that's a refutation.

 

[Camp]

'“They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago. And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.”

— Christie

Christie loves to say this but that doesn’t make it true...

It is absolutely true.

There is no SS 'Trust Fund' with a cent in it.

SS monies are spent in the same year that they are confiscated. Then the government sets up a Bond, the proceeds from which it spends as quickly as they are sold. The Government then pays the interests over and above the principle value of the bonds, when they come due.

So, the government spends your SS money, borrows money to pay the current year's payment, and spends anything above the principle in that same year... creating an exponential growth in never ending, ever increasing, mind-numbing debt.

What the above idiot wants you to believe is that the Government takes you SS 'contribution', and buys bonds with those monies... thus you believe that those monies are 'invested'.

See the difference?

In reality, the US Federal government has ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY IN ANY ACCOUNT WHICH THEY USE TO PAY SS... The US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS SS WITH THE FEDERAL REVENUES THAT THEY RECEIVE IN WHATEVER YEAR THEY ARE PAYING.

That is why the Government cannot sustain itself on 3.2 trillion dollars in revenue and why the government MUST borrow money to continue to operate.

There is no money in private trust funds or investment portfolios either. Who thinks the funds in these funds are hoarded away in a vault. Does anyone really believe that if the US government crashes in an economic catastrophe private funds will somehow survive and be able to pay off the trust funds, private portfolios and investments?

The government has options to save and protect Social Security funds. Those options include some actions that may be unpopular with some, but they are options that can be quickly put into place. There may be some objections by a minority, but the majority will win out to protect themselves.
Got a big income of a million dollars a year or even hundreds of thousands per year, no SS for you. When and if you lose that substantial income, you can let us know, we will sign you up. People paying taxes into SS expecting a cut-off amount after specific income, forget it, no more cut off. Last resort, we have real estate all over America. Some of it is the most valuable real estate in the world. We can pass a few laws and start selling off some of our surplus assets. The US is not going to go broke and be unable to pay it's bills in the long run. Some fools may hand the USA a temporary setback, but those fools will be quickly tossed out on their asses in the next election when the consequences of their foolishness are realized.