The Official Willard Mitt Romney Thread

source: Boston Globe

Mitt Romney declines to answer whether he will release his tax returns

12/30/2011 10:43 PM


MERRIMACK, N.H. - More than 200 people crammed inside the Merrimack VFW Post 8641 and another 150 waited outside Friday night to catch a glimpse and listen to the Republican frontrunner, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Romney, who was accompanied by two of his sons, Matthew and Craig, was introduced by US Senator Kelly Ayotte. “He has, understands, he appreciates the American Dream,” she told the roaring crowd.

In a wide-ranging 30-minute speech Romney professed his love for the United States, reciting lyrics from “America the Beautiful,” while also stressing smaller government and less regulation. During the question and answer period, he said he would not rule out a military option against Iran, which is believed to be building a nuclear weapon. He also said he would eliminate the Affordable Care Act, which would extend health insurance to more than 30 million Americans. “Our first 100 days we’ll get rid of Obamacare,” said Romney.

Following his speech, Romney did not answer when asked if he planned to release his tax returns. On Thursday, his son Matthew alluded to a New Hampshire audience that the presidential candidate might release his tax returns if President Obama released his academic grades and birth certificate. Matthew Romney later said he was repeating a joke, and apologized.

Obama released his short-form birth certificate in 2008, and his long-form birth certificate in 2011.

In an interview, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said Romney had not questioned Obama’s birth certificate nor had he called for the president to release his college grades. He also said Romney might address the issue of releasing his tax returns in the future. “It’s an issue he’ll discuss if he becomes the Republican nominee,” said Williams.

Nancy Poltack, a Merrimack retiree, said she had met Romney twice before and called him the most moderate of all the Republican candidates. “The other candidates I think are a little too radical perhaps, decisive,” she said.

Larry Tighe, a Mont Vernon cabinetmaker, also said he planned to vote for Romney because he stood out from the rest of the Republican candidates. “He’s very presidential, he’s sure of himself, “ said Tighe.

Romney is scheduled to appear at a Hampton, N.H., breakfast tomorrow before returning to Iowa for two afternoon speaking appearances later in the day.
 
<iframe src="http://www.massresistance.org/romney/ampad_062607/index.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
 


iZx4qdn7RJ2xy.JPG

Romney Tax Plan Adds $600 Billion to Deficit


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/romney-plan-adds-600b-to-deficit-analysis.html

<img src="http://k.minus.com/iU8PqhLRkJ04P.JPG" width="600">

mitt-romney-tax1.jpg










Study: Romney Plan Raises Taxes On Poor Families


igLEaKvzp04z.jpg


Jan. 5th 2012

Republican Mitt Romney's tax plan would increase taxes on low-income families while cutting taxes for the middle-class and the rich, according to an independent study released Thursday.

On average, households making less than $20,000 would see their taxes increase by more than 60 percent, said the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group that studied the Romney plan.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 would get small tax cuts, averaging 2.2 percent, or about $250, the study said. People making more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging 15 percent, or about $146,000.

"Virtually everybody with a big income is getting a tax cut," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

http://news.yahoo.com/study-romney-plan-raises-taxes-poor-families-202138751.html

 
Last edited:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BdYx19temU8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
LOL. They are clearly trying to urge Republicans to jump on the "Bain" issue now - - which would soften Romney up, see how he will respond and set the table for an Obama assualt, later.
 
Romney should have never fucked with Newt....

That mofo doesn t even want to win now...he just wants to make sure Mitt doesn t win.

And truth be told...I don t think Newt would be as pissed if Romney did the negative ads himself....

and said he approved of the message....but Romney is a fraud...and weasled his way around getting his hands dirty....

Thats what pissed off Newt.
 
LOL. They are clearly trying to urge Republicans to jump on the "Bain" issue now - - which would soften Romney up, see how he will respond and set the table for an Obama assualt, later.


They are saving the President's re-election committee money. Citizen's United coming back to bite the republicans in the butt!:lol:
 


Newt Gingrich has launched a Blitz Against
Romney in South Carolina. Here's the Bain
Capital Attack Ad:



<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" width="480px" height="270px" src="http://specials.washingtonpost.com/mv/embed/?title='King%20of%20Bain'%20ads%20airing%20in%20South%20Carolina&stillURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2012%2F01%2F11%2FNational-Politics%2FVideos%2F01112012-92v%2F01112012-92v.jpg&flvURL=%2Fmedia%2F2012%2F01%2F11%2F01112012-92v.m4v&width=480&height=270&autoStart=0&clickThru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fking-of-bain-ads-airing-in-south-carolina%2F2012%2F01%2F11%2FgIQANCVrrP_video.html"></iframe>
 
Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'?

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'?
<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/c62_1326373715"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/c62_1326373715" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
 
Fuck a birth certificate. If both of your parents weren't born in america then u can't be a "natural citizen" and u shouldn't be eligible to be president. Doesn't matter if your Obama, Colin Powell, or Shirley Chisolm.


Lets see the birth certificate!


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/11Wk6DXvAf8" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>


Romney's father, born in Mexico, ran for president
 
MSNBC: Romney -Black Woman Cash

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/a1f_1326757352"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/a1f_1326757352" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
:hmm:
 
MITT,Newt & Barak

liveleak guy
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a4f04XoaUno?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a4f04XoaUno?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
 

Rachel Maddow goes in on Romney. As she exposes his lies she actually calls him "a liar" in her monologue. In fact she calls him "a liar" in her monologue about 100 times. This is rare even for cable television. Hosts are told by producers and the management "suits" to avoid calling politicians liars even when that term is 100% appropriate. As Maddow explains in her monologue, we all know politicians embellish, exaggerate and yes, they lie - but Mitt Romney is the world champion fucking liar of all time a dishonest, pathological liar. As she demonstrates during the video clip - every fucking thing this guy says is a fucking demonstrable lie. So Madddow concludes that Willard's lying is so pervasive that media has to use the "lie" word when covering his serial prevarications. Mitt is a fucking liar, Mitt is a fucking liar,.....repeat...Mitt is a fucking liar.


<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc520574"><param name="movie"/><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=46816690&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc520574" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=46816690&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a></p>

ib01SXm2h5G7bS.jpg

iRy2vZfT1R4GN.jpg

jbX5iyg8Miu09.jpg
 

More Romney Lies



<object classid=""><param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjQxNDctNTY3Nzk?color=c93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjQxNDctNTY3Nzk?color=c93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="520" height="329" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjQxNDctNTY3Nzk" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

mitt-voter-memory-meltdown.gif


jxCutTHzWY2rM.JPG


iXBU2kJJ9zSxT.gif

Mitt Romney, A Man Of Falsehoods

by Richard Cohen

April 16, 2012


Among the attributes I most envy in a public man (or woman) is the ability to lie. If that ability is coupled with no sense of humor, you have the sort of man who can be a successful football coach, a CEO or, when you come right down to it, a presidential candidate. Such a man is Mitt Romney.

Time and time again, Romney has been called a liar during this campaign. (The various fact-checking organizations have had to work overtime on him alone.) A significant moment, sure to surface in the general election campaign, came during a debate held in New Hampshire in January. David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” turned to Newt Gingrich and said, “You have agreed with the characterization that Governor Romney is a liar. Look at him now. Do you stand by that claim?”

Gingrich did not flinch. “Sure, governor,” he started off, and then accused Romney of running ads that were not true and, moreover, pretending he knew nothing about them. “It is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC. And you know some of the ads aren’t true. Just say that straightforward.”

Me, I would have confessed and begged for forgiveness. Not Romney, though — and herein is the reason he will be such a formidable general-election candidate. He concedes nothing. He had seen none of the ads, he said. They were done by others, he added. Of course, they are his supporters, but he had no control over them. All this time he was saying this rubbish, he seemed calm, sincere — matter of fact.

And then he brought up an ad he said he did see. It was about Gingrich’s heretical support for a climate-change bill. He dropped the name of the extremely evil Nancy Pelosi. He accused Gingrich of criticizing Paul Ryan’s first budget plan, an Ayn Randish document whose great virtue is a terrible honesty. (We are indeed going broke.) He added that Gingrich had been in ethics trouble in the House and ended with a promise to make sure his ads were as truthful as could be. Pow! Pow! Pow! Gingrich was on the canvas.

I watched, impressed. I admire a smooth liar, and Romney is among the best. His technique is to explain — that bit about not knowing what was in the ads — and then counterattack. He maintains the bulletproof demeanor of a man who is barely suffering fools, in this case Gingrich. His message is not so much what he says, but what he is: You cannot touch me. I have the organization and the money. Especially the money. (Even the hair.) You’re a loser.....

READ the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...re-the-truth/2012/04/16/gIQACwTUMT_print.html

 
source: Huffington Post

Obama Urges Mitt Romney To Release Past Tax Returns


WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has called on Republican Mitt Romney to release his past tax returns, saying that candidates for office need to be "as transparent as possible."

Obama told Univision in an interview conducted at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia that candidates need to disclose their tax records as a way of letting the public know their financial background. It was the first time Obama had made the request personally, His campaign has pressured Romney to release a trove of tax documents going back to the 1990s.

"I think that it's important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for, and you know, I think that this is just carrying on a tradition that has existed throughout the modern presidency," Obama said in an interview scheduled to air Sunday on Univision's "Al Punto" program.

Romney has released tax returns for 2010 and provided an estimate for 2011 as part of the release of hundreds of pages of tax documents. The former Massachusetts governor filed for an extension on Friday for last year's tax returns, a move he has made in the past.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Obama was trying to "distract Americans from the real issues with a series of sideshows." She said Romney would "release his full 2011 return when it's filed."

Obama has released tax returns for last year, showing that he paid more than $160,000 in federal taxes on nearly $790,000 in income. Obama's campaign has released tax information going back to 2000.

Romney earned $21.7 million in 2010 and paid about $3 million in taxes. In 2011, his campaign has estimated he earned about $21 million and will pay more than $3.2 million in taxes. His campaign has said he will file his tax returns before the 2012 election.
 
Well, it appears no matter who is elected in November 2012...

it will be yet another loser, baby boomer scumbag to run the United States right into the ground.

Clinton -> Bush -> Obama -> Romney

With leaders like that, it's no wonder the empire is collapsing.
 
Well, it appears no matter who is elected in November 2012...

it will be yet another loser, baby boomer scumbag to run the United States right into the ground.

Clinton -> Bush -> Obama -> Romney

With leaders like that, it's no wonder the empire is collapsing.

Clinton -> Bush -> Obama -> Romney


Reagan -> Bush...

Why did you begin at Clinton?


The ill informed!:smh:
 
Do you understand that they are not Baby Boomers?

Are you a product of the United States "education" system?

My question is what does being a baby boomer have to do with it? I would vote for Ralph Nader (born during trhe Great Depression) over Rick Santorum (Baby Boomer). Fucking things up has nothing to do when you were born.
 
My question is what does being a baby boomer have to do with it? I would vote for Ralph Nader (born during trhe Great Depression) over Rick Santorum (Baby Boomer). Fucking things up has nothing to do when you were born.

Exactly.

Baby boomers are selfish assholes as decision-makers.

They have no concept of sacrifice.

They brought us the "Me" generation in the 70s.
They brought the "Greed" generation of the 80s.

Baby boomers are spoiled, self-centered scum who squandered the sacrifices of their parents and wasted the inheritance of their children.

Yet, it is Baby Boomers who are still making the decisions that are driving this country into the ground.

Unfortunately, Baby Boomers vote.
 
inzAf98jMbrjV.gif


The Amnesia Candidate


by Paul Krugman

April 23, 2012


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/o...a-candidate.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are? If you’ve been following his campaign from the beginning, that’s a question you have probably asked many times.

But the question was raised with particular force last week, when Mr. Romney tried to make a closed drywall factory in Ohio a symbol of the Obama administration’s economic failure. It was a symbol, all right — but not in the way he intended.

First of all, many reporters quickly noted a point that Mr. Romney somehow failed to mention: George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, was president when the factory in question was closed. Does the Romney campaign expect Americans to blame President Obama for his predecessor’s policy failure?

Yes, it does. Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administration’s policies had time to take effect. So the Ohio speech was a perfect illustration of the way the Romney campaign is banking on amnesia, on the hope that voters don’t remember that Mr. Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall.

How does the campaign deal with people who point out the awkward reality that all of the “Obama” job losses took place before any Obama policies had taken effect? The fallback argument — which was rolled out when reporters asked about the factory closure — is that even though Mr. Obama inherited a deeply troubled economy, he should have fixed it by now. That factory is still closed, said a Romney adviser, because of the failure of Obama policies “to really get this economy going again.”

Actually, that factory would probably still be closed even if the economy had done better — drywall is mainly used in new houses, and while the economy may be coming back, the Bush-era housing bubble isn’t.

But Mr. Romney’s poor choice of a factory for his photo-op aside, I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.

For the Bush era didn’t just end in catastrophe; it started off badly, too. Yes, Mr. Obama’s jobs record has been disappointing — but it has been unambiguously better than Mr. Bush’s over the comparable period of his administration.

This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Mr. Bush took office.

Oh, and where have those mass layoffs of schoolteachers been taking place? Largely in states controlled by the G.O.P.: 70 percent of public job losses have been either in Texas or in states where Republicans recently took control.

Which brings me to another aspect of the amnesia campaign: Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office. Basically, the G.O.P. has blocked the administration’s efforts to the maximum extent possible, then turned around and blamed the administration for not doing enough.

So am I saying that Mr. Obama did everything he could, and that everything would have been fine if he hadn’t faced political opposition? By no means. Even given the political constraints, the administration did less than it could and should have in 2009, especially on housing. Furthermore, Mr. Obama was an active participant in Washington’s destructive “pivot” away from jobs to a focus on deficit reduction.

And the administration has suffered repeatedly from complacency — taking a few months of good news as an excuse to rest on its laurels rather than hammering home the need for more action. It did that in 2010, it did it in 2011, and to a certain extent it has been doing the same thing this year too. So there is a valid critique one can make of the administration’s handling of the economy.

But that’s not the critique Mr. Romney is making. Instead, he’s basically attacking Mr. Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people — and perhaps more to the point, the news media — forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we’ll find out.


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>

<img src="http://i.minus.com/jbu9Q0PIQ9NqoS.jpg" width="655">
 
Last edited:
Romney's dad spoke his mind in 1967 during the GOP primaries for president. How he qualified to run for president was a mystery because he was born in Mexico. He said the Viet Nam War was a lie. After that revelation his popularity nosedived against Nixon. So much for speaking the truth.

Mitt's dad, George Romney Brainwash interview on WKBD-TV, August 31, 1967.


<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fSdSiBehQpI&hl=tr_TR&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fSdSiBehQpI&hl=tr_TR&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>
 
source: New York Times


The Amnesia Candidate</NYT_HEADLINE>


Just how stupid does Mitt Romney think we are? If you’ve been following his campaign from the beginning, that’s a question you have probably asked many times.

But the question was raised with particular force last week, when Mr. Romney tried to make a closed drywall factory in Ohio a symbol of the Obama administration’s economic failure. It was a symbol, all right — but not in the way he intended.

First of all, many reporters quickly noted a point that Mr. Romney somehow failed to mention: George W. Bush, not Barack Obama, was president when the factory in question was closed. Does the Romney campaign expect Americans to blame President Obama for his predecessor’s policy failure?

Yes, it does. Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administration’s policies had time to take effect. So the Ohio speech was a perfect illustration of the way the Romney campaign is banking on amnesia, on the hope that voters don’t remember that Mr. Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall.

How does the campaign deal with people who point out the awkward reality that all of the “Obama” job losses took place before any Obama policies had taken effect? The fallback argument — which was rolled out when reporters asked about the factory closure — is that even though Mr. Obama inherited a deeply troubled economy, he should have fixed it by now. That factory is still closed, said a Romney adviser, because of the failure of Obama policies “to really get this economy going again.”

Actually, that factory would probably still be closed even if the economy had done better — drywall is mainly used in new houses, and while the economy may be coming back, the Bush-era housing bubble isn’t.

But Mr. Romney’s poor choice of a factory for his photo-op aside, I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.

For the Bush era didn’t just end in catastrophe; it started off badly, too. Yes, Mr. Obama’s jobs record has been disappointing — but it has been unambiguously better than Mr. Bush’s over the comparable period of his administration.

This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Mr. Bush took office.

Oh, and where have those mass layoffs of schoolteachers been taking place? Largely in states controlled by the G.O.P.: 70 percent of public job losses have been either in Texas or in states where Republicans recently took control.

Which brings me to another aspect of the amnesia campaign: Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office. Basically, the G.O.P. has blocked the administration’s efforts to the maximum extent possible, then turned around and blamed the administration for not doing enough.

So am I saying that Mr. Obama did everything he could, and that everything would have been fine if he hadn’t faced political opposition? By no means. Even given the political constraints, the administration did less than it could and should have in 2009, especially on housing. Furthermore, Mr. Obama was an active participant in Washington’s destructive “pivot” away from jobs to a focus on deficit reduction.

And the administration has suffered repeatedly from complacency — taking a few months of good news as an excuse to rest on its laurels rather than hammering home the need for more action. It did that in 2010, it did it in 2011, and to a certain extent it has been doing the same thing this year too. So there is a valid critique one can make of the administration’s handling of the economy.

But that’s not the critique Mr. Romney is making. Instead, he’s basically attacking Mr. Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people — and perhaps more to the point, the news media — forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we’ll find out.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ad_E8VXm4m0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qyvy3Ze_fqw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sWiSFwZJXwE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
irm3rsssMgH2c.png


In Debt Speech Mitt Romney Lies About Key Facts

FACT CHECK: Romney Oversimplifies Debt 'Inferno'



j3m4oi4J3fhRP.png


May 16, 2012

by Calvin Woodward and Tom Raum | Associated Press

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROMNEY_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney decried the "prairie fire" of U.S. debt Tuesday, he ignored some of the sparks that set it ablaze.

One was the Great Recession that took hold before Barack Obama became president. That landmark event went unmentioned in Romney's speech. Another was a series of Bush-era tax cuts that Romney wants to follow with even lower rates.

Instead he laid the blame on Obama, a president who has certainly increased the nation's eye-popping debt - but not, as Romney claimed, by nearly as much as all other presidents combined.

A look at some of Romney's assertions and how they compare with the facts:

---

ROMNEY:
"America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of your dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined."

THE FACTS.
Hardly. Presidents from George Washington through George W. Bush ran the national debt up to $10.62 trillion, the amount it was on the day Obama took office. Today, it is $15.67 trillion, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt. So it has gone up by $5.05 trillion under Obama. That's roughly half of the amount amassed by all the other presidents combined.
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"><b>
In short, the debt has gone up by about half under Obama. Under Ronald Reagan, it tripled.</b></font>

---

ROMNEY:
"I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno. We will stop borrowing unfathomable sums of money we can't even imagine, from foreign countries we'll never even visit. I will bring us together to put out the fire."

THE FACTS:
Romney's tax and spending plans don't support his vow to dampen the debt fire. He proposes to cut taxes and expand the armed forces, putting yet more stress on the budget, and his promise to slash domestic spending isn't backed by the big specifics. Romney's tax plan would cut the top income tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent and other rates by 20 percent each. He says he'd broaden the tax base and eliminate many deductions in the process, but details are missing.
<FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"><b>
A study by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concluded earlier this year that Romney's plans would not make a dent in deficits, and could worsen them considerably. That study was done before Romney upped his tax cuts, inviting even deeper debt.</b></font>

That's not to say he can't at some point lay out the spending cuts necessary to achieve his aims. But he would have to slash domestic programs by more than 20 percent - far more than the 5 percent in immediate cuts he has proposed. It is nearly unthinkable that Congress would approve the evisceration of basic federal functions such as food inspection, air traffic control, the Border Patrol, FBI, grants to local governments, health research, housing and heating aid for the poor, food aid for pregnant women, national parks and much more.

Nowhere in Tuesday's speech was there a new idea of how Romney would accomplish the promised deficit reduction. He spoke generally of reforming Social Security and Medicare, eliminating duplicative government programs, and transferring some functions to the states or the private sector, adding that he would "streamline everything that's left."

The closest he has come to laying out a specific spending plan has been in his endorsement of the budget blueprint passed this year by House Republicans, which also fails to produce his promised deficit reductions.

---

ROMNEY:
"The people of Iowa and America have watched President Obama for nearly four years, much of that time with Congress controlled by his own party. And rather than put out the spending fire, he has fed the fire. He has spent more and borrowed more. ... When you add up his policies, this president has increased the national debt by $5 trillion."

THE FACTS:
Much of the increase in the debt is due to lower tax revenues from depressed corporate and individual incomes and high joblessness in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The recession officially began in December 2007, when George W. Bush was president and the national debt stood at just over $9 trillion. Financial bailouts, stimulus programs and auto rescue spending that started under Bush and continued under Obama contributed to the run-up of the debt.

But so did the Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. With bipartisan support, Congress has extended the tax cuts until the end of this year, and Romney's proposals for big cuts of his own would risk another squeeze on revenue.

To be sure, Obama as a presidential candidate in 2008 was just as eager as Romney is now to pin blame for mounting debt on a president from the other party.

Ignoring economic circumstances and the role of both parties in Congress, Obama accused President George W. Bush in that campaign of driving up debt by $4 trillion "by his lonesome" and taking out "a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children."



<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr>

Mitt Romney The Ultimate Liar!

There Are Liars, There Are DAMNED Liars, and Then There's Mitt Romney


Holy crap. It will take about 19 minutes for you to watch the video below. If you had any doubts about Romney's utter lack of scruples and honesty, this will destroy them. My God, the depths of this guy's sheer mendacity are breath-taking.



http://romneytheliar.blogspot.com/


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
 
The wealthy/Republican party used to take regular folks and put them through a corporate re-education camp like Reagan, fund their campaigns. Push the buttons behind the scenes like the Koch brothers. It was designed to make Republican party look like it was for the common man.

Now the wealthy (Romneys, Bloomberg) are seizing direct political power, no more intermediaries or the appearance of being for the average person.
 
<img src="http://i.min.us/icVNHMdAo.PNG" width="500">
ijfzi0.JPG


Obama Spending Binge Never Happened

Government Outlays Rising At Slowest Pace Since 1950s




<img src="http://i.minus.com/idZkD4zuLD2Ut.png" width="700">

May 22, 2012


nutting_rex.jpg

by Rex Nutting

http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=D3522D2A-A37E-11E1-827E-002128049AD6


WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.


The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://i.minus.com/iHLf5qQw8pMZH.JPG" align="right">
</div>
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate.

Like in 2004, energizing the base will drive political victoryPresident Barack Obama doesn't normally dwell on similarities to his predecessor in the Oval Office, but Jerry Seib explains one area where Obama and George W. Bush have an awful lot in common.

Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That’s assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).

By the way, real government spending rose 12.3% a year in Hoover’s four years. Now there was a guy who knew how to attack a depression by spending government money!



<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
 
ifNhs602JMQTz.gif


How Mitt Romney gets away with his lying



By Greg Sargent

May 16, 2012

<br>Yesterday, Mitt Romney gave a big speech in which he accused Obama of lighting a &ldquo;prairie fire of debt.&rdquo; It&rsquo;s a good line, and it has received widespread media coverage.
<br>Romney&rsquo;s speech has already been dissected by Jonathan Chait and Steve Benen. They note that it&rsquo;s entirely at odds with conventional understanding of how deficits work, and utterly disconnected from context, rendering it almost unquantifiably misleading.
<br>But I wanted to make another point. If you scan through all the media attention Romney&rsquo;s speech received, you are hard-pressed to find any news accounts that tell readers the following rather relevant points:
<br>1) Nonpartisan experts believe Romney&rsquo;s plans <em>would increase the deficit far more than Obama&rsquo;s would</em>.
<br>2) George W. Bush&rsquo;s policies arguably <em>are more responsible for increasing the deficit than Obama's are</em>.

<br>Oh, sure, many of the news accounts contain the Obama campaign&rsquo;s response to Romney&rsquo;s speech; the Obama campaign put out a widely-reprinted statement arguing that Romney&rsquo;s plans would increase the deficit and that he&rsquo;d return to policies that created it in the first place.
<br>But this shouldn&rsquo;t be a matter of partisan opinion. On the first point, independent experts think an <em>actual set of facts</em> exists that can be used to determine what the impact of Romney&rsquo;s policies on the deficit would be. And according to those experts, based on what we know now, Romney&rsquo;s policies would explode the deficit far more than Obama&rsquo;s would.
<br>The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has taken a close look at this question. It has determined that relative to current policy — that is, if you keep the Bush tax cuts in place, as Romney wants to do — Romney&rsquo;s tax cutting plans would increase the deficit by nearly $5 trillion over 10 years. That&rsquo;s <em>on top</em> of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Romney has promised to close various loopholes to pay for his tax cuts, but he hasn&rsquo;t specified which ones. Until he does, the Tax Policy Center concludes, his plan would cost $5 trillion — which would be added, yes, to the deficit.
<br>By contrast, Obama&rsquo;s plans would not increase the deficit by anything close to that amount. Relative to current policy, the Tax Policy Center has found, Obama&rsquo;s plan would <em>reduce</em> the deficit by approximately $2 trillion over the next decade. Now, under Obama, the deficit would still increase. That&rsquo;s because current policy means we&rsquo;re forgoing the $4.5 trillion in revenues we&rsquo;d gain if we let all the Bush tax cuts expire. But neither candidate is going to do that. Obama, however, would end the Bush tax cuts for the rich and bring in revenues through a variety of other tax increases. Bottom line: relative to current policy, Obama&rsquo;s plan would reduce the deficit by bringing in $180 billion or more in revenues a year, or approximately $2 trillion over 10 years; Romeny&rsquo;s plan would increase the deficit by nearly $500 billion a year — $5 trillion over ten years.
<br>The Tax Policy Center&rsquo;s Roberton Williams summed it up perfectly in a quote to me:
<blockquote>&ldquo;The bottom line is that whatever baseline you use, until Romney makes good on his promise to pay for his tax cuts, he would increase the deficit far more than Obama would.&rdquo;</blockquote>
<br>On the second point, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has determined that the policies put in place under Bush are the main driver of the deficits that are projected over the next decade.
<br>The two bullet points above could not be more central to the debate over the debt that Romney&rsquo;s big speech set in motion yesterday. Yet the vast majority of news consumers who now know that Romney has accused Obama of lighting a &ldquo;prairie fire of debt&rdquo; that threatens to engulf our children and our future haven&rsquo;t been told about either of them.



<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="8"></hr>
 
Back
Top