Getty Images
After more than six months of marveling at Mitt Romney's propensity for falsehoods, I have to admit it was unsettling to see his campaign's new attack ad, launched yesterday. The spot accuses President Obama of making "untrue" claims about Romney shipping jobs overseas -- Obama's claims are actually quite credible -- and concludes that the president is running a "dishonest campaign."
Think about that for a moment. The candidate whose entire campaign has been built on one falsehood after another, the candidate whose dishonesty is routinely characterized as "almost pathological," the candidate whose near-constant lying puts him in a league of his own among modern politicians, is complaining that his rival is taking liberties with the facts.
There's dishonesty in politics, and then there's meta-dishonesty in politics.
Romney's spokesperson this week declared, "America deserves ... a president who's willing to tell the truth." That seems more than fair. Perhaps the Romney camp can reevaluate that demand after reading the 25th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity.
1. In an interview with Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto, Romney insisted, "Obamacare is killing jobs."
There is literally no evidence to support this claim in any way.
2. In the same interview, Romney, asked about his tax returns, said, "We have of course released all of the financial statements that are required by law and then released two years of tax returns."
Actually, he's only released his tax returns for one full year. Two years wouldn't be enough, but it'd be an improvement.
3. Romney also told Cavuto, of the existing disclosure, "So tax information is there and other financial disclosure is there."
I wish that were true, but the whole point of the recent controversy is that "other financial disclosure" isn't there. We learned about his shell corporation in Bermuda based on one year's tax returns, but we don't know what other disclosures exist because Romney has kept previous returns hidden from the public.
4. Also on Fox Business, Romney said his tax disclosures include "the same information" John Kerry released during his 2004 campaign.
That's plainly false. During his presidential run eight years ago, Kerry released five years of tax returns, and during his Senate campaigns, made a habit of releasing several years' worth of tax documents as part of a commitment to disclosure.
5. Criticizing President Obama's tax-cut plan, Romney said the proposal constitutes "a massive tax increase."
Well, that's obviously a subjective matter, but in reality, 98% of Americans would get a tax cut under the plan. [Update: Commenter VeryVerySad reminds of an important point: 100% of Americans would get a tax cut, but 2% of Americans would pay slightly more on income above $250,000.]
6. Attacking the same plan, Romney said the White House plan "is the sort of thing only an extreme liberal could come up with."
"Extreme liberals" aren't the only people who can think of middle-class tax cut, and there's really nothing "extreme" at all about the president's proposal.
7. At a town-hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colorado, Romney claimed Obama is "putting money into energy companies, solar and wind energy companies that end up making their products outside the United States."
Every aspect to this claim is patently untrue.
8. At the same event, Romney claimed, "This president has increased the rate of new major regulations by about threefold over his predecessor."
That's false. Obama approved fewer regulations in his first three years in office than Bush did in his first three years.
9. Romney added, "I'm going to look at all the programs we have in government and ask this question: Is this program so critical to America that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"
At a minimum, that's misleading. The implication here is that U.S. debt is financed by the Chinese, but this isn't true -- China only holds about 8% of the nation's debt.
10. Romney went on to say he's "going to get rid of ObamaCare" so the government won't have to borrow more money.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will save over $100 billion over the next decade, and over $1 trillion in the decade after that. Romney has it backwards -- we would need to borrow more money if he does "get rid of Obamacare."
11. He added that "dreams are being crushed when taxes go up and up and up on job creators."
Taxes haven't gone up; they've gone down. In fact, Americans' federal tax burden has down and down and down, reaching a 30-year low after Obama cut taxes in 2009.
12. At the same event, Romney said the Affordable Care Act "cuts Medicare by $500 billion."
Romney says this a lot. He's not telling the truth.
13. He also said "no, no, no" to the notion that he would "cut" Medicare.
Romney endorsed Paul Ryan's House Republican Budget plan, which ends the Medicare program and replaces it with a private voucher scheme.
14. In response to a question about the tax code, Romney argued, "For me ... this campaign is about the middle class, and about the poor. It's not about the rich. The rich are going to do fine, whosever elected."
First, Romney intends to give the wealthy a massive tax cut (while they keep their existing massive tax cut). Second, Romney said in February he's "not concerned about the very poor."
15. In his speech to the NAACP, Romney went off-script and said, "You know, there was a survey of the Chamber of Commerce. They carried out a survey of their members, about 1,500 surveyed. And they asked him what effect Obama care would have on their plans and three-quarters of them said it would make them less likely to hire people."
That's not what happened. The Chamber, a pro-Republican lobbying institution heavily invested in helping Romney, put up an unscientific online survey. Treating this as a legitimate poll of businesses is fundamentally dishonest.
16. Responding to an interview the president did with CBS, Romney argued, "President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story."
Based on what Obama actually said, there is no universe in which that makes any sense at all.
17. Romney's campaign claimed that health care premiums "are $4,893 higher per family than President Obama promised" in 2008.
The claim is both deeply foolish and completely untrue.
18. In a speech in New Hampshire, responding to the new jobs report, Romney complained, "The highest corporate tax rates in the world do not create jobs."
American corporations do not pay the highest tax rates in the world.
19. Describing economic policies that would improve matters, Romney added, "Opening up new markets in Latin America. The president hasn't done that in three and a half years -- no new trade agreements."
I don't know why Romney keeps telling this lie, but he does.
20. In the same speech, Romney added, "Failing to effectively crack down on China for cheating and stealing American jobs -- that has not helped."
Obama has already cracked down on China in ways Romney doesn't seem to understand.
21. Romney went on to say, "The president's policies have not gotten America working again."
22. Asked about his lack of specific ideas on the economy, Romney argued, "I don't think I've seen any from the president that -- that show what he's planning on doing."
Romney doesn't have to like the American Jobs Act, but he shouldn't get away with brazenly lying about its existence.
23. In response to a reporter's question about health care, Romney said, "You know, I've spoken about health care from the day we passed it in -- in Massachusetts and people said, is this something that you'd apply at the federal level? And I said no."
He's clearly not telling the truth.
24. Commenting on his plans to eliminate the deficit, Romney argued, "What I describe in my plan is a series of changes to programs and elimination of programs which save more and more money over time, so we're able to get America to a balanced budget in eight to 10 years -- not in the first year, but eight to 10 years."
There's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Romney says his plan "can't be scored," but independent budget analysts have found his agenda would make the deficit bigger, not smaller, and add trillions to the national debt.
25. At a fundraiser in Montana, Romney told supporters, "The great majority of small business -- 54% of American workers work in businesses taxed as individuals. So when the president wants to raise taxes on individuals as he's proposed from 35% to 40%, he kills jobs. If your priority is crushing people, vote for him."
Only about 3% of American small businesses would be affected by the higher rate, and there is literally no evidence to suggest Clinton-era top rates on the wealthy "kills jobs."
In conclusion, Jay Rosen argued yesterday that Romney and his team appear to be running a "post-truth" campaign, working under the assumption that the media isn't equipped to report the lies. It's a story that's "too big to tell."
It's a fair point, and with just 115 days until the election, it's a dynamic well worth watching.
Previous editions of Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity: Vol. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII,XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV
Leave a Comment:
The lies will be given an aura of truth if the media fails to do its job and confront all politicians with their lies. This should be the norm for interviews by the media. But that is not what is happening. Media outlets are more interested in getting a politician on camera so they treat the candidate with deference. The presidential debates should not be used for a candidate's talking points. An good trial attorney would make politicians sweat.
Ditto. Even the media hosts that try still get fewer answers than not, allowing the guest airtime to give a campaign speech. Any good debate club member would make them sweat, too.
What? The media do their job? Are you crazy?
The only way he will get in office is if the people come to the conclussion AKA wake up to the point that if Romney is elected, get ready people, jobs will be gone. Romney with all the hidden money he has will be purchasing every company he can, hide the monies they make...and don't forget, those companies will be out of the U.S. So, in short, the only family he will be looking out for is his own as he is wealthy to purchase healthcare for each member of his family as the money rolls in from out of the country. Do I think he has more than than the companies and monies hidden? You bet, he has been lying since day one. If or when the dam breaks, hold on everyone...yet I amnot sure it will. Any takers that feel the sameas I do? He must be paying people under the table too. Would that suprise me? No, just another one of his many lies. Not someone I will vote for, he sets a bad impression if a parent, grandparent, anyone votes for him. I am thinking of our future.
I agree. Air time is good, but let's hear something other than babbling out of Romney when he is asked a question. He owes us answers.
Did it ever occur to you that Romney KNOWS that what he "says" means absolutely NOTHING? This election will be decided by the Heritage Foundation and American Crossroads et al. and their propaganda machines jinning up as much Obama Derangement Syndrome as they can.
Romney knows he's a puppet - and he's appears to be OK with that, just as long as he get to do what his daddy couldn't do!! Romney's always been about "show" rather than "substance" anyway!
He's just muddying it up so the false equivalence cowboys in the press can justify their MO. And we all know they will.
As for taxes on the "job creators," lowest in 50 to 80 years:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/the-long-run-history-of-taxes-on-the-rich/
I suggest sending the article Steve linked to on Mitt "Post Truth" Romney to your favorite false-equivalence space cadets. I think especially useful are NYT and WP reporters:
For convenience, here it is: Post Truth Mitt
And yo believe Krugman is a reliable source?
The reality is ALL politicians lie. Maddow, Matthews, O'Donnell, Schultz, Limbaugh, O'Reilly ALL lie to further their candidate.
Why don't you numbnuts ever call on Obama for his mendacious comments?
They did not accuse the President of making 'untrue' claims. They called the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES a LIAR. This from a man that couldn't tell the TRUTH if it bit him on the a$$. He TESTIFIED before a committee in 2002 that he had taken a 'leave of absence' and that he intended to go back to work when he wanted to be Guv to establish his residency. We know for a FACT that he has been lying for 10 years all in the name of 'politics'.
I called Bush a liar several times while he was in office, I however was proven right.
He can't remember cutting the young man's hair, can't remember attending any board meetings or conducting business at Bain after he supposedly retired, can't remember exactly what he said, but stands by what he said, refuses to answer questions except on his own terms, signed documents that he knows full well attaches him materially to Bain corporation (he went to law school for crying out loud), thinks absolutely nothing of lying and even smirks as he does it, thinks he's entitled to ignore questions from the press, refuses to release his tax returns or disclose information on his off-shore holdings....this goes on and on, 24/7. How much is too much for his supporters? Really. Even the SCOTUS was complicit in starting the ball rolling with the Citizens United ruling. The train is out of control and is ready to jump the track. But, will it? Let's hope so, because if these people take over this country we're in for a frightening four years...the likes of which we've never fathomed or experienced.
I just want to congratulate Rachel, Steve, and the whole gang for going after Mitt's mendacity. You've been doing this regularly for months now and the rest of the media are just now trying to catch up. You started it all and you should be very proud. This is what journalism is supposed to be. WELL DONE guys and THANK YOU!
No idiot this is not "journalism". This is one-sided attack/distortion of facts. What of the other side`s slips? What of the extreme pandering to interest groups (both are guilty of this)? Stating Gov Romney is a liar is well and ok if you are telling the truth.
Justifying this with other "news" channels do the same to the Pres is not evening the field. Sadly that`s what journalism has come to, feel good op-eds.
Well, you sure are loud, LoudV. You are, of course, free to refute any of the list's items. Here's what will happen: you won't because you can't.
Did you notice this is Volume 26?
Yes, there is obviously bias. Guess what? Journalism should be biased towards that which is true and supportable. There are links to support the contention that Romney is a liar. These are not "slips". He's either profoundly dishonest, or profoundly stupid.
Possibly both.
Please point out which of the items on this list are lies. Not things you choose not to believe, but that you can provide concrete evidence of being wrong.
LoudV, I WISH all media would be like the old days - when public service announcements (which included candidates and issues) got equal time, so that people could make informed decisions. But NOW, the media is all "privately owned", and the FCC can't or won't make them adhere to the same policies that were previously administered to television and other media. There are NO "unbiased" news programs any more. So, if one side (say the FAUX News folks, who ADMIT that they lie and make up stories) can do it, it seems to me that in order to balance this, other news outlets will go the other way. If they were REGULATED -- ah, but then some right winger would get their knickers all in a knot about how regulation stifles "freedom." Meh.....
K n Kansas2,
Apparently you don't get how this works. Anything above that is bold and underlined contains links to the evidence refuting what Romney has said. Click on those to see the supporting information.
KJ, CR, IA: I think K n Kansas2 meant to say "on this list are NOT lies." Not sure, though.
Or "which items on this list are lies [about Romney lying]'.
No wonder there are no additional tax returns - they would show he kept getting a paycheck from Bain. Awkward.
I agree. Rachel is one smart lady, as are all on MSNBC. I watch them all day long. We are who we are and Mitt is a man who thinks his money can change his past. Sorry Mitt, but your past is there for all to see. I don't think this will change the republicans minds but maybe some of the Liberals. We can only hope.
Now we know why Mr. Romney will not provide his income tax information! They would either show the $100,000+ salary from Bain Capital which makes his claim of not being part of Bain Capital for those years undeniably false. Or, if the $100,000+ salary was not reported on his income tax, I think the IRS would sit up & take notice, prompting a revisit to as many of his income tax reports as possible. Did he get the $100,00+ salary from Bain but neither Bain nor Romney reported it to the IRS? Were Bains' reports to the SEC false? Deceit no matter how you look at it
This man's nose can poke a hole in the moon!
Exactly. Romney is unabashedly duplicitous. How many companies has Bain Capital baited, played, and hoodwinked? How many Americans are willingly fooled by Romney's current political fast-talk? He uses the same tactics in business and politics, and expects the same wild success.
Putting all his lies and deceit aside...my question is this.....do they really want a president who is willing to ride in the Bit*h Seat?
Steve- minor correction to #5: in reality, 100% of Americans would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan. On all income up to $250,000, the lower rates would remain in effect, even for those whose total income is greater than that. Their taxes would only rise on the portion greater than $250,000.
It's so very sad that so many people can't or won't see or believe this when it is so easy to check on. Someone must be putting L.S.D. in someones kool-aid. I've never been accused of being a republicon, but I used to know some that I admired, because I believed they were truly trying to do what they thought was right and good for the country. Sadly, that is no longer true!
Steve- keep it coming ! This series is terrific.
#19 gets me. I had no idea that one of the Presidents "jobs" was to create trade agreements with Latin America. I thought agencies like the State Department did that stuff. I mean, golly gee, I guess the President has a ton of free time to run around the world and try to open doors for corporate interests. One almost gets the idea (from Romney) that being President is like being the head cheerleader for capitalism. No wonder he wants the job.
I guess he forgets that there's more to being President than being a spokesperson for the ultra-rich.
like so many theists, Romney ignores his own religion. Guess he doesn't actually believe either.
2 Nephi 9: 34 Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.
and of course this one
2 Nephi 9: 30 But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their gtreasure shall perish with them also.
We cannot expect that Romney, a pathological liar -- not just a political spinmeister but a pathological liar -- will suddenly grow a conscience and start telling the truth. Considering that the founder of his religion was basically a con artist, it is not surprising that Romney thinks lying is okay because it is a means to an end. What we CAN expect and haven't gotten yet is CHALLENGING of this "facts" by those who would interview him or his surrogates. I have just watched Andrea Mitchell who quite frankly couldn't interview anyone if her life depended on it. She just sits there in a sleepy stupor and let's lies be repeated and then flatly says "Well, the other side would say," implicit in the lazy phraseology she uses that the other side is equally as mendacious as Romney. So unless the MEDIA steps up to the plate and starts INFORMING the electorate of what is found to be true and what isn't, these lies suddenly begin to be accepted as truth -- because surely if that were a lie, people like Andrea Mitchell would point out the fact that it is untrue -- except that she doesn't because she wants access and so she doesn't want to piss off Republican operatives who give her access.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LJwmeG5n2Zg
thank you for this service to your country.
Looks to me like all of the posters have forgotten about the magic underpants.
Ah, yes...but even those pants are on fire.
"So when the president wants to raise taxes on individuals as he's proposed from 35% to 40%"
this is misleading to say the least...obama isn't raising total taxes on individuals from 35% to 40% but raising the highest marginal rate, which only applies to TAXABLE income above a certain level [starting at $373K, if memory serves]
This seems to have a well thought out and comprehensive discussion of the controversy over when Romney was or wasn't at Bain....
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/
No, it's a "fact checker" unwilling to admit it was wrong. They apparently can't be bothered to check the definitions of CEO and President of a corporation.
Then they lied to the SEC, which is a felony.
Globe article: "Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney
filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002.
And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least
$100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment
earnings." Nothing to do with operations but is claiming he earned a salary as an executive in the range of $100K plus.
In 2002 whe he was running for Governor there were hearings held to determine Romney's eligibility to be Governor of Massachusetts, the Commission, as part of its ruling in favor of Romney’s residency eligibility, the panel noted Romney testified to the commission he traveled to Massachusetts where he sat on the board of one notable Bain-related company, the office supply chain, Staples. Romney “testified that he was a director of Staples, Marriott International and Life Like,” the commission’s finding states.
So when did he resign as director of Staples, Marriott International and LifeLike all three Bain related companies?
So this very astute businessman kept his name showing as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president”; which could make him legally liable and morally accountable for anything Bain Capital did, and you feel he had no input or control? That does not sound like a very smart businessman.
Grumpy - exactly. The article tries to soft-pedal the issue of whether it was a felony or not, but I'm sure that in the SEC's eyes if you tell them you're in charge of a company, you'd damn well better be or else you'd better be listing who IS in charge. That mumbo-jumbo about it taking time to "document ownerhsip and transfer control" is baloney. It may take a couple of months, sure, but not three years.
And they also try to shrug off Romney's own testimony that he traveled back to MA for board meetings at Staples and the doll company, as if those had nothing to do with Bain, the company that invested in them and listed Romney as the CEO/owner/president/sole shareholder.
I say make Romney or Bain produce the dated document showing when the ownership shares changed hands. Better yet, the minutes of all Bain board meetings showing attendance/participation during those three years. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't have any trouble producing those records.
By the way, folks, if you haven't been hounding factcheck.org, do. I keep giving them grief every time they give me the same lame excuse. Here's their e-address:
editor@factcheck.org
My god, I love going on MSNBC to see the people who line-up to read the political campaign that MSNBC has launched to re-elect President Obama. That's what it is, a political campaign.
Yes, it liberates you from thinking for yourself, to analyze the issues and help others who actually want to force both candidates to tell us what the policies they propose to avert the rapidly approaching financial armageddon that even the most bullish economic analysts say is approaching. Our deficit spending is June was over $60 billion - $20 billion more than last June. And don't tell me that Obama's "tax the rich" plan will do anything. It will service our date for about 1 day at current rates.
So, fall for the distractions - call Romney whatever you want. As far as I'm concerned, both parties have been corrupted by money. Sure, Obama gives a great speech (and OMG, is he good), but what will he do to help us avoid the economic disaster that is approaching? Declare class warfare! Divide the country, flame hatred and envy - yup that will help people feel better about an economic disaster that us unfolding before our eyes.
Think for yourself. Demand answers from BOTH candidates.
Or, just become another person who gets sucked-in by distractions (e.g., written by whoever this Steve Benen is), and let the soaring speeches of a gifted politician liberate you from thinking for yourself and say, "yes, this guy deserves another term because he is on the people's side."
Bob, - it's those of us who DO think for ourselves who support President Obama. I don't read this stuff and decide I agree with it; I read this stuff and realize it agrees with me.
In my estimation, that's a far cry from the folks who ape Fox News talking points.
And please, tell us about this financial disaster you claim is coming. Last I checked, the Dow is up about 5000 points from the end of 2008.
I truly can't make sense of your comment. Who is saying that Obama's policies shouldn't be examined. Indeed, it's Romney who refuses to give any specifics, as his plans may be politically unpopular, so he refuses to give them until "after the election." And how is Obama "declaring class warfare?" By letting the Bush tax cuts run out on 2% of earners' highest rate? Is it Obama going around the country calling it a "travesty that 47% of this country pays no federal taxes" or saying there's a coming civil war of the "makers versus takers?" Is it "flaming envy" by saying "no one begrudges success... we want everyone to be successful"? It's Obama who has put forward a specific debt plan - not "tax the rich," as you put it - while Romney says his plan can't be scored due to lack of specifics. Economists who have looked at his plan call it fundamentally unworkable and disastrous to the deficit.
The issue that is the subject of this series is Romney's stunning willingness to lie, even when called out on it. There's nothing in your comment relating to this. You seem willing to paint Obama with a false brush, and then chide readers for not "looking at both candidates." I'm guessing you haven't posted this "look at BOTH candidates" act at Fox or Red State.
I've spent enough time being sucked-in by your distraction, bob from austin, tx, whoever you are.
Notice the totally common little mendacity in Bob's comment: "the rapidly approaching economic armageddon which even the most bullish economic analysts say is approaching." Uh, no, the bullish ones tend to tell us that we're muddling through and probably will continue to do so. They may be wrong, of course. Thinking for yourself intelligently requires cognizance of facts and arguments, which is ideally what's happening here.
Answers FROM Obama on what? The man is pretty much an open book and has been throughout.
He's very competent as president and as a politician. I cannot fathom what it is you want the press to ask of him? his 'real birthplace'? Even his tax plan is, as experts now see, a way to prevent the 'fiscal cliff' the GOP demanded (the sequester).
Sad, I'll address your replies in their order to help you make sense of my comments.
Romney has not advanced a "plan" - and neither has Obama (other than "tax the rich" - watch the commercials, they are clearly aimed at making people pissed off at the small percentage of people who make a lot of money) - that's not class warfare? I think not. My point is that neither candidate has put forth a plan that will address the oncoming disaster (and, KJ, go ahead and feel free to go long in this sucker rally...come back in a year and let me know how that worked out).
I am not thrilled by Romney either. You said, Economists have looked at his plan and call[ed] is disastrous to the deficit. Would love to see those reports because - like Obama - Romney has proposed no plan.
And BTW, I post comments like this on all sorts of sites. I am an independent and have voted for more D's than R's for President in the last 20 years.
Obama had the chance to propose Simpson-Bowles and chose not to. Wouldn't have made much of a difference because both parties lack the poitical courage to pass it.
So go ahead, don't demand more. Don't get "sucked-in" by independents like me who want real answers. You seem perfectly content to drink the cool aid and vote for the one says just enough to make you think he will address our country's most pressing problem, one that your comment reflects you fundamentally even don't understand.
Tocqueville was right: "We get the government we deserve."
Bob - I promise to be here in a year. I'm not afraid of Obama getting re-elected. It's Romney I'm concerned about.
And yes, we do get the government we deserve. That's why we have a do-nothing Congress right now. Dems sat on their hands in the 2010 midterms and we got stuck with the Party of No.
Bob,
Romney's plan reviewed:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3658
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2012/0302/How-will-Romney-account-for-billions-of-lost-revenue
Obama's plan is not just "tax the rich." It involves $2.50 in cuts for every dollar in taxes. CBO's report:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42972
Noone should forget the AJA which has also been also been scored by independent analysis. To say that Obama hasn't offered economic plans is simply not true.
As for deciding who to believe? Good grief, on one side we have a party who has decided it is quite OK to decide to:
- discard the worldwide climate consensus as a hoax despite the near complete consensus of climate scientists and national academies of science over the world,
- to claim, contrary to all theory and evidence, that austerity in a deep recession will make economies grow,
- to claim, contrary to 30+ years of experience and untold numbers of studies showing differently, that tax cuts pay for themselves,
- to claim that Obama's policies are the reason for the deficits and debt despite the numerous studies to show it is not his policies but W's,
- to claim that Obama has increased regulation when the evidence shows differently,
- to claim that the ACA increases deficits and debt when the CBO claims otherwise,
- to claim that Wall Street should be unfettered from the Dodd-Frank law when deregulation was the primary reason the financial collapse could occur,
- ................
And on the other side, nobody believes any of that garbage. Yeah, real tough call on who it is we should believe. Real tough, indeed.
Seriously, anybody still not knowing who to believe is either stupid, has an agenda, or simply hasn't been paying attention and has no business asking the question and demanding answers of others. End of discussion.
End of discussion
I guess so lol
Let's not forget the party that is trying to suppress voting of people that will almost surely vote for Obama in 2012 in almost every state. The party that wants smaller government that will get out of our lives, as long as they can still control women's choices on their own bodies. As Robme is so fond of saying, "What's good for the gander is good for the goose".
This site, @LeanForward is truely evolving into an exceptionally superb site for informative and thought-out conversation. The article/Op-Ed writers have been fantastic. Thank you!
Bob from Austin, tx, and I just love going on FOX and watching THEIR political campaign to elect ultra-conservative right-wing Tea Party Republicans. So, what's the difference? As I said in my earlier comment above, there are really NO unbiased "news" programs these days. They are basically opinion and commentary and the "news" they publish backs up their opinion and commentary. Give the FCC TEETH again...get them to regulate news again to separating news/fact from opinion/commentary, and we MIGHT get something unbiased again. So, only FOX and its ilk should be biased? If that is the playing field that we have (and it IS), then only by balancing the right's biased media with the left's biased media, AND if the people actually watch both, THEN perhaps we will get the balance that we would get only if we had the type of regulation we used to have in the media. You, sir, show your OWN bias by your comment.
Read my last post and you will see that you are incorrect about you assumption that I am biased. I agree that both do a disservice to the American people and only do what they do to cater to their segment of a highly polarized country. They probably love viewers who don't want unbiased commentary because it solidifies their respective viewer bases.
I tend to think the bland infotainment reporting and false equivalence talk segments of the major news networks and CNN are worse for the country than analysis of the candidates from a particular political perspective (unless its Fox, where the problem isn't really bias, it's lying or misleading). There's no easy solution to any of these issues. Folks ultimately have to be the judges of the quality of the stuff provided for them, and they can't do that unless they already have the capacity to analyze news, at least to some degree.
People are not stupid, Romney can say whatever he wants, but he can't hide. that is why he is going down on in the swing state polls and he is not even doing better nationally. Here is the proof: http://www.pollheadlines.com/poll-category.php?category=obama-vs-romney
So going back to top tax rates that are still around 50% of the historical average of the last 100 years is extremely liberal? Come on media, nail him on this. From 1941 to 1986 the top tax rate was between 50% and 94%. going to 39.5% and calling it extremely liberal is a complete mockery of using language.
Romney was still actively affiliated with Bain Capital from 1999 until 2003. He received money as an executive at the firm. It was during this time that Bain Capital was involved with the acquisition of four firms that resulted in the outsourcing of 6,000 jobs overseas. It is also completely disingenuous for Romney to sit and claim he had nothing to do with Bain management during this time because he was paid $100,000 in 2003 for his "executive" duties. We can have a discussion about whether Romney did or did not commit a felony when reporting his paperwork to the feds or not. I will leave that discussion up to the lawyers and legal analysts.
My main point is what has all of this outsourcing left in the minds of struggling blue collar workers in the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Florida? Will the stressed out blue collar workers in these states feel comfortable electing Romney as "outsourcer in chief?" Romney wants more tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent so you can bet that those tax cuts for outsourcing will remain in place. Don't kid yourself about Romney he is a greedy cunning poisonous snake waiting to bite the middle class. He does this so the richest one percent can make more profits and get more tax cuts. These kickbacks are what those who are trying to buy this election for Romney expect in return for their investments. If you believe anything better about this man than you are an uninformed idiot.
steve, i continue to be impressed by your ability to avoid ending every item with a simple "that's a @!$%#ing lie."
i guess i found out why: it won't let you say "@!$%#ing."
well, your ability to find new ways to call a lie something else is still pretty impressive.
Dude. You just did. Twice.
no, vvs. apparently i said "@!$%#ing."
Try "fu king." Only the most pedantic will be confused and demand better spelling.
So you really think that the outsourcing or off-shoring of jobs is the result of private equity? Just proves my point: absurdly uniformed one of the sheeple who are blindly supporting Obama. My point: Demand more answers from BOTH candidates.
Not for nothing, @bob from austin, tx - in my book "this guy" deserves re-election because he showed courage in pursuing bin Laden where his predecessors for eight years lacked the gumption to do it; he ended the misguided Iraq War; he steered the American economy from crash-and-burn to established recovery; on his watch some five million jobs have been created, enough to start to plug the hole that Bush left - in spite of Republicans doing everything in their power to halt job creation. On "this guy's" watch, our auto industry, nearly left for scrap metal on Bush's watch, is now booming, thriving - hiring thousands of people and opening up new plants all over the country. On "this guy's" watch, government spending is at its lowest in decades; on "this guy's watch," millions of Americans have taken home a payroll tax cut for the past three years; on "this guy's" watch, access to healthcare is no longer a fantasy - millions of young people are already covered where they wouldn't have been, and many Americans - who would have been sentenced to bankruptcy and death under Romney's "repeal Obamacare," instead still have their lives and peace of mind because they have affordable healthcare; on "this guy's" watch, a sitting American president won a Nobel Peace Prize, improved our global standing in the world, negotiated new international trade agreements and does us proud whenever he represents us abroad. Oh, yes - and he does give a soaring speech now and again that reminds us all what the best of this country can look like and inspires some of us think of ways we can participate in creating it. That's for starters. If a Republican president had done any ONE of these things, Republicans would push to name every newborn baby in the country after them - instead, we see nothing but their relentless disrespect for "this guy" and further, how they remain masters at getting people to buy into complete nonsense.
And as to your later post, Pres. Obama's "plan" is an actual 2013 budget, which would shrink the deficit from over $1 trillion this year to $901 billion next year. (You can Google it). Romney's "plan" is Paul Ryan's budget, which would explode the budget. (You can also Google it.)
Pres. Obama's plan also included offering the GOP $4.3 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts - more than called for by Simpson-Bowles - but when it was time to put their money where their mouth is, the GOP backed away. To equate Romney's equivocating, secrecy and outright lies with the practical goals this president has laid out time and again really makes little sense.
Obama's "budget" proposal was a cynical political play - the Democratic Senate joined the Republicans and voted it down 99-0. Do you really think the White House would send a serious budget proposal without getting a vote count from Harry Reid?
Bob, that certainly doesn't sound very "independent" of you. And that's moving the goal post as well. The point is, the 2013 budget is part-and-parcel of the plan the President has laid out, just as Mitt Romney has embraced Paul Ryan's budget as "marvelous." There is a clear choice between their two plans.
Bob,
The 99-0 vote was NOT on Obama's budget. It was a procedural smokescreen to get people who don't know what actually happened to say "the Democratic Senate joined the Republicans and voted it down 99-0."
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-it-means-that-the-presidents-budget-went-down-to-99-0-in-the-senate-2012-5
bob from austin, tx,,,,,
Please do not preach to people about honesty , and then lie your ass off , you end up sounding just like the fox news you claim to be critical of ...This is SO SOP GOP / CONSERVATIVE TALK ,,,,, they claim they are the only ones being unbiased , while presenting biased views ...... major disconnect and inability to connect the dots , liberals admit they are dem biased , stick to the facts and present their positions , cons do the exact opposite
June-1636030, if only we could all be so well informed and able to remember and state all these facts as well as you do. You truly have my admiration. It is so easy to get sucked into the republicons lies and twisting of facts that a lot of us loose our temper and find ourselves stooping to their level. I hope you are posting on more than just this one site. President Obama should really appreciate people like you, who can so eloquently help him in reminding the public of the facts! Now if we can only convince people to check these facts for themselves, we should have no problem in Nov.. But as we have seen, checking facts is the last thing some people want to do. My God, that could put faux "news" out of business!