What was the biggest lie that re-elected Obama?

[UKRider]

What was the biggest lie that re-elected Obama?

47%

It pointed out just how kooky and out of touch his opposition had become.

That wasn't a lie, but surely Romney should have known better. He's young enough to know that the media records everything they can to get the Republican Presidential Nominees to fail.

He shouldn't have been tossing the bananas on the ground so that the media could take a picture of him tripping over his own banana peel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What was the biggest lie that re-elected Obama?

47%

It pointed out just how kooky and out of touch his opposition had become.

That wasn't a lie, but surely Romney should have known better. He's young enough to know that the media records everything they can to get the Republican Presidential Nominees to fail.

He shouldn't have been tossing the bananas on the ground so that the media could take a picture of him tripping over his own banana peel.

The 47% include Medicare and SS recipients who paid for the services, the VA retirees and DAV pensioners, and so forth and so on. How very stupid of Mitt.

 

[UKRider]

47%

It pointed out just how kooky and out of touch his opposition had become.

That wasn't a lie, but surely Romney should have known better. He's young enough to know that the media records everything they can to get the Republican Presidential Nominees to fail.

He shouldn't have been tossing the bananas on the ground so that the media could take a picture of him tripping over his own banana peel.

The 47% include Medicare and SS recipients who paid for the services, the VA retirees and DAV pensioners, and so forth and so on. How very stupid of Mitt.

I agree Jake. But it wasn't a lie.

 

[corazonroto]

Why did the Obama Administration knowingly keep this Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program ARRA Fraud scandal from the public before the election? They talked a great deal about how well their "recovery" has worked so far leading up to their election victory. I am sure that was one of the main factors in voters minds: who to trust with the "ongoing recovery efforts", after November 2012?

The same recovery related problem, that the White House failed to bring up during the campaign, is still under challenge and has been for the past year, and the same administration is doing all it can to avoid starting any investigations, nor making any comment, while ignoring my petition requests based on the evidence I have submitted that proved that one of the key parts of our "recovery" has been subverted by human error, abuses of authority and fraud, committed by numerous high level state and federal officials over the past four years+.

Obama First Since FDR Re-Elected With 7.9% Joblessness
Obama First Since FDR Re-Elected With 7.9% Joblessness - Bloomberg

We all listed very carefully during this past election farce. How could we not? Untold amounts of money were spent shoving the "message(s)" from the candidates down our throats 24/7. I heard a great deal of talk about the "recovery", the "unemployment rate" and "federal emergency extended unemployment compensation" (among many other primary topics). (Before the election) I did not hear President Obama mention a word about this Recovery Act program related Memorandum, sent to the White House on 10/21/11, by Dale Ziegler the Deputy Administrator of the Department of Labor's Employment & Training Administration:

White House Memorandums and related documents:
White House Notified About CUIAB Case A0-265448 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

You might think it would be shared with the Public or the Media, because it was specifically about serious problems with a Recovery Act program we have already pumped billions of dollars into (emergency unemployment compensation - EUC08). This memorandum to the White House, referred to me by name (I prefer to keep private and have redacted), and had attached with it my evidence, from the appeal victory I won in a California court of law, on 10/20/11 in California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Case A0-265448, along with several other documents from the Employment & Training Administration, addressed to President Obama (SIMS ID#663175) and Hilda Solis, (former) Secretary of the Department of Labor (SIMS ID #678331).

Documents I obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that from October 2011 through March 2012 to present day, our government was made specifically aware of the EUC08 program implementation disaster and that "Claimants (were being) Harmed by Recovery Act Fraud Being Committed by DOL & UI Agencies" (SIMS ID#678331, Hilda Solis DOL, 3/21/12). The White House was informed about my challenge, in a California court of law (10/21/11), that prevailed against policy implementation mistakes/fraud in the multi-billion dollar federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program (EUC08). They and the Department of Labor's Hilda Solis, among many others were made aware of this ongoing scandal, that I have "reported about" in these forums in great detail:

EUC08 Program Economic Stimulus Fraud and Abuses of Authority
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...c-stimulus-fraud-and-abuses-of-authority.html

Official Misconduct by State and Federal Officials?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...isconduct-by-state-and-federal-officials.html

The White House knew about this appeal case and the evidence against the government policy:

CUIAB Case A0-265448 10/20/11
CUIAB Case A0265448 Victory On October 20 2011 Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

They also knew that this appeal victory had refuted the specific mistakes in the EUC08 program guidelines that had been issued to all states nationwide by the Federal Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration (starting with UIPL 23-08 Change 1 August 15, 2008). These are the mistakes in the EUC08 policy, that I was able to obtain in writing (summary), on 10/7/11, from the Chief of Special Benefits Robert Wagner, through Dale Ziegler and Gay Gilbert of the Employment & Training Administration:

The 10/7/11 Incorrect Statement of the EUC08 Program Policy (that was refuted in court later on 10/20/11)
The Illegal Noncompliant EUC08 Policy In Writing Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

Those statement of policy, from the heads of the involved federal agency, were refuted in my state court, and the illegal and harmful determinations based on them were reversed in that court of law. That significant legal decision in my favor, still stands despite the subsequent illegal actions that were taken by both state and federal officials, in an attempt to cover up and subvert the proof that our government had made damaging and costly mistake in their "recovery efforts", while ignoring all my subsequent petitions for them to set my case as a precedent and to investigate to help the millions of other victim, who suffered from the same policy blunders:

The Federal Abuses of Authority
http://s1359.beta.photobucket.com/user/corazonroto512/library/Department of Labor Abuse of Authority

The State Abuses of Authority
California EDD And CUIAB Abuse Of Authority Photos by corazonroto512 | Photobucket

A lie by omission, is still lie:
"Lying by omission. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission."
-wikipedia
Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help me do something about this problem, through this petition:
https://www.change.org/petitions/de...re-robbing-the-unemployed-out-of-recovery-aid

Maybe this will help pressure the Obama Administration to start obeying these Open Government Directives, they so boldly issued years ago, that have not been put to much practical use despite these lofty proclamations:

The President’s Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government
Transparency and Open Government | The White House

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

You can add these broken promises to the lies of omission revealed above....too bad our media can't see the sense in reporting this "news". I am stuck on "the soapbox" until I can find help for the many victims nationwide, who were denied emergency designated ARRA funds, by our corrupt government that refuses to admit they made any mistake, despite being proved wrong in a court of law over a year ago.

Funny...none of this came up before the election...go figure?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That wasn't a lie, but surely Romney should have known better. He's young enough to know that the media records everything they can to get the Republican Presidential Nominees to fail.

He shouldn't have been tossing the bananas on the ground so that the media could take a picture of him tripping over his own banana peel.

The 47% include Medicare and SS recipients who paid for the services, the VA retirees and DAV pensioners, and so forth and so on. How very stupid of Mitt.

I agree Jake. But it wasn't a lie.

What he implied (that they were worthless and living off the teat) was dishonest. I still voted for him because I was committed, but I will never vote for him again if he runs.

 

[Dubya]

What was the biggest lie that re-elected Obama?

47%

It pointed out just how kooky and out of touch his opposition had become.

That wasn't a lie, but surely Romney should have known better. He's young enough to know that the media records everything they can to get the Republican Presidential Nominees to fail.

He shouldn't have been tossing the bananas on the ground so that the media could take a picture of him tripping over his own banana peel.

Did Romney say taxes or did he specify which tax? A dollar sent to the federal government looks and spends the same regardless of how it is sent there. Only people who are head of households with enough children can get an earned income tax credit large enough to not pay federal taxes, with the exception of someone living like a hermit.

If Romney was talking about federal income tax, isn't it true that he had times being part of his 47% who didn't pay federal income taxes, because all his income was from investments? What makes his capital gains off of investments a tax while people buying gasoline aren't paying a federal tax? Can Romney claim he has paid more in federal taxes than the 47% people buying gasoline and cigarettes have?

Now, let's consider again those people who get refunds enough to offset all taxes sent to the federal government and we will exclude payroll taxes. Is there any good reason why these people should pay no taxes and be on the government's dole? The obvious reason is they have children and children represent the age group with the highest poverty levels. When it comes to payroll taxes, has the person paid a federal tax if they die before receiving the benefits those payroll taxes are collected for? Even when there are survivor benefits, wouldn't the amounts of benefits be reduced?

There is another poverty statistic that should interest someone concerned about Americans paying federal taxes, whether from any source, including Romney's cherry picked federal income tax. There are less people in poverty age 65 and older than there are people 18 to 64 or working age. If Romney is concerned about Americans not paying income taxes, maybe their wages are too low to pay income taxes and that's why so many working age Americans live in poverty.

Romney, like many Republicans, is just an elitist scum who has built a system that only benefits the rich, creates poverty and his so-called 47%, which he likes to bitch about. Since Republicans object so strongly to social programs and people not paying federal income taxes, they need to work for a system that allows people to earn enough to pay that federal income taxes and stop abusing the working man. The fact is when it comes to welfare and social services, the Republicans put people in need of those programs. The Republicans generate the poverty in America.

Romney and I are two different kinds of people. I allow my dog to hop in my bed to stay warm, while Romney sticks his dog on the roof of his car and heads north. If you can't even treat your dog right, why would treat a stranger any better?

 

[UKRider]

The 47% include Medicare and SS recipients who paid for the services, the VA retirees and DAV pensioners, and so forth and so on. How very stupid of Mitt.

I agree Jake. But it wasn't a lie.

What he implied (that they were worthless and living off the teat) was dishonest. I still voted for him because I was committed, but I will never vote for him again if he runs.

I don't believe he will run again. The election was his to lose and he did.

 

[HUGGY]

This thread is stupid. It's premis is stupid. Mittens didn't lose because of a Dem lie. He lost because he is a high placed member of a cult AKA The Mormans. He believes wack shit. We don't need a POTUS that believes wack shit.

 

[Londoner]

Why did the Obama Administration knowingly keep this Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program ARRA Fraud scandal from the public before the election?

I just read through all your stuff. It sounds like your claim for damages is based on government's failure to provide the promised welfare to you.

Here is what I find interesting.

Republicans who read your thread title will ironically side with you, because you don't make it clear that you are basically suing the government for their failure to meet their welfare promise to you.

Capital only invests when their is demand. I side with you. Why? Because your unemployment insurance is more stimulative than tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy. Meaning: you are likely to spend all your welfare payouts. And when you buy things, the capitalist can better afford to retain his workers. On the flip-side, when you don't have enough money to buy things, the capitalist has to layoff his workers, which removes even more consumers from the economy, which leads to a spiral of more layoffs > fewer consumers > more layoffs.

Meaning: economic growth is impossible unless you have money to spend. But the Republicans would rather use your payout as a taxbreak for the wealthy because they think the wealthy will invest that money in the economy. Problem is: the capitalist will not reinvest until consumers like you have enough money to buy his goods. This is why our strongest economic growth was during the postwar years - because the government taxed the dynastic wealth frozen at the top so they could give more money/opportunity to the middle class consumer. The goose that laid the golden egg is the middle class consumer. When the middle class consumer has money to spend, capital has an incentive to innovate, add jobs and lower prices in order to get those consumption dollars. Reaganomics misses this point. Reaganomics doesn't understand that government has always been responsible for demand because the market's drive for cheap labor results in lowering the purchasing power of consumers (-you understand this right. If the capitalist pays you lower wages or ships your job to cheaper labor markets in communist China, than you have less money with which to buy his goods. This failure of demand means he has to layoff even more workers. Meaning: economic growth starts from a well paid middle class that has the money to buy things.)

Don't try explaining this to a talk radio republican. They don't understand how an over-application of Supply Side Economics leads to a failure of demand in the same way that an over-application of Keynesian policies leads to inflation. Our economic policies used to reflect both these concepts . . . until Reagan and Thatcher convinced the world that Supply Side policies could solve both inflation and deflation.

And how do you think they were able to convince the world of this? Because they built a coalition out of paranoid stupid people who have been lead to believe that a gay, mexican, terrorist, marxist was hiding under the bad.

The problem with Supply Side Economics and Keynesian Economics is that they both become disastrous when over applied. In the 70s we suffered from an over-application of Keynesian policies. The result was terrible inflation, which destroyed the purchasing power of the very people government was trying to help. In the 2000's we are suffering from an over-application of Reaganomics. The result is a disproportionate amount of capital on top with no where to go because the consumer has no money (-because Reaganomics has cut his wages/benefits in order to provide better incentives to investors). Again: don't try explaining this to a Republican: they have been conditioned with cliches and anger to not see any of this.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Gee whiz, Dante. Hoped to give your claim Willard's biggest lie was the claim he cared about people a thumbs up, but that isn't possible for some reason.

Tut, tut.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

unemployment insurance is more stimulative than tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy. Meaning: you are likely to spend all your welfare payouts.

too stupid but perfectly liberal. You've confused stimulate with churn. If you drop money from a helicopter or hand out one time welfare all agree it will churn an economy or create a bubble that will burst and cause a recession, much like the liberal housing bubble.

However, we got from stone age to here through new inventions and that requires Republican supply siders like Ford Gates and Jobs who actually can stimulate an economy and actually can use money to create real growth. Over a libturds head??

If as a Liberal you're not intelligent enough to be here why are you here??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the capitalist will not reinvest until consumers like you have enough money to buy his goods.

too completely stupid and 100% liberal !! Supply creates demand. Its called Says Law in econ 101. Mankind always wanted main frame computing power but didn't have the money to buy it until Gates and Jobs introduced the PC.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow. so very very slow!!!

 

[Dubya]

unemployment insurance is more stimulative than tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy. Meaning: you are likely to spend all your welfare payouts.

too stupid but perfectly liberal. You've confused stimulate with churn. If you drop money from a helicopter or hand out one time welfare all agree it will churn an economy or create a bubble that will burst and cause a recession, much like the liberal housing bubble.

However, we got from stone age to here through new inventions and that requires Republican supply siders like Ford Gates and Jobs who actually can stimulate an economy and actually can use money to create real growth. Over a libturds head??

If as a Liberal you're not intelligent enough to be here why are you here??

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Stimulus just gets money circulating in an economy and the best way is to allow the money to be spent on what the natural need is and to be quickly spent.

You Republicans have ruined economies since Hoover and before, making recessions and depressions. You have never had a good economy, because you would never do what's required to have a good economy. It isn't that the Republicans don't know how to have a good economy, they just don't do what's required.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem with Supply Side Economics and Keynesian Economics is that they both become disastrous when over applied..

Honestly, are you running for idiot liberal of the century?? How can supply side economics be over applied?? Is that when the supply of goods is too great and people want to go back to the supply of goods available 100 years ago???

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow. Have you ever had Econ 101???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stimulus just gets money circulating in an economy and the best way is to allow the money to be spent on what the natural need is and to be quickly spent.

as I said dear thats call churning. If all we had to do is drop money from a helicopter to stimulate the economy don't you think recessions would have been a thing of the past 100 years ago!! Helicopter money
1) causes inflation
2) creates a bubble and then a recession as soon as the drug is no longer freely given.


Got it now??

 

[JRK]

47%

It pointed out just how kooky and out of touch his opposition had become.

That wasn't a lie, but surely Romney should have known better. He's young enough to know that the media records everything they can to get the Republican Presidential Nominees to fail.

He shouldn't have been tossing the bananas on the ground so that the media could take a picture of him tripping over his own banana peel.

Did Romney say taxes or did he specify which tax? A dollar sent to the federal government looks and spends the same regardless of how it is sent there. Only people who are head of households with enough children can get an earned income tax credit large enough to not pay federal taxes, with the exception of someone living like a hermit.

If Romney was talking about federal income tax, isn't it true that he had times being part of his 47% who didn't pay federal income taxes, because all his income was from investments? What makes his capital gains off of investments a tax while people buying gasoline aren't paying a federal tax? Can Romney claim he has paid more in federal taxes than the 47% people buying gasoline and cigarettes have?

Now, let's consider again those people who get refunds enough to offset all taxes sent to the federal government and we will exclude payroll taxes. Is there any good reason why these people should pay no taxes and be on the government's dole? The obvious reason is they have children and children represent the age group with the highest poverty levels. When it comes to payroll taxes, has the person paid a federal tax if they die before receiving the benefits those payroll taxes are collected for? Even when there are survivor benefits, wouldn't the amounts of benefits be reduced?

There is another poverty statistic that should interest someone concerned about Americans paying federal taxes, whether from any source, including Romney's cherry picked federal income tax. There are less people in poverty age 65 and older than there are people 18 to 64 or working age. If Romney is concerned about Americans not paying income taxes, maybe their wages are too low to pay income taxes and that's why so many working age Americans live in poverty.

Romney, like many Republicans, is just an elitist scum who has built a system that only benefits the rich, creates poverty and his so-called 47%, which he likes to bitch about. Since Republicans object so strongly to social programs and people not paying federal income taxes, they need to work for a system that allows people to earn enough to pay that federal income taxes and stop abusing the working man. The fact is when it comes to welfare and social services, the Republicans put people in need of those programs. The Republicans generate the poverty in America.

Romney and I are two different kinds of people. I allow my dog to hop in my bed to stay warm, while Romney sticks his dog on the roof of his car and heads north. If you can't even treat your dog right, why would treat a stranger any better?

you libs just do not get it
its not about Romney
BHO lied about
Benghazi
Taxes
obama-care
deficits
GM
Jobs
UBL and who really was resp. for finding UBL

You can graph the fucking moon dude and it is not going to change the non stop lying about everything that re-elected BHO
The 47% comment was stupid
Romney had stupid people advising him
Romney is so much smarter than that, it cost him the election (those advising him)

The truth wins
the media could only ignore the truth so long

my god your talking about a dog?
We have 4 million fewer people working today than in late 07
we have 8 million fewer people in the work force in the last 4 years
we are spending over 1 trillion dollars more today than we have
in 2007 that number was 162 billion

 

[JakeStarkey]

JeRK gets it, so he obfuscates. Obama was elected because of the voters' reaction to the hatred of the neo-cons and the reactionary right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can Romney claim he has paid more in federal taxes than the 47% people buying gasoline and cigarettes have?

dear, are you nuts. Romney pays millions each year in tax!! while those in the 47% dont even earn $50,000 and pay almost no tax!!

Whats wrong with you??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Republicans generate the poverty in America.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Why be so afraid to give us your best example?? What does your fear tell us??

 

[JRK]

The Republicans generate the poverty in America.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Why be so afraid to give us your best example?? What does your fear tell us??

The Gop with the exception of the senate in 00-02 had congress from 94 through 06
we had an avg of 5% UE
we had balanced budgets
we were within 162 billion in 07 of the same

Sense we have had more than 4 million private sector jobs lost
in the last 4 years we have had 8 million people leave the same
The poverty rate today is the highest sense 1965
US Poverty Rate to Hit Highest Level Since 1965, Economists Say
This insanity makes no sense