Associated Press
Romney stops by Middlesex Truck & Coach, which exists thanks to public aid.
Since Tuesday, Mitt Romney and his campaign team have tried to push a simple argument: businesses' success is the result of private-sector dynamism, not government. It's a campaign offensive based entirely on an out-of-context quote from President Obama, which Romney happens to agree with.
But a curious thing happened yesterday when the Republican appeared at a Massachusetts business in order to really drive the point home.
"This is not the result of government," Romney told reporters, referring to Middlesex Truck & Coach after he toured the shop. "This is the result of people who take risk, who have dreams, who build for themselves and for their families."
Company owner Brian Maloney, 69, agreed with Romney's assessment. "I take umbrage at the suggestion that people don't start and build businesses," Maloney said. "I started out with 500 bucks and worked with my hands to afford grad school at night. My wife supported me. Started a little body shop and was able to bring together people, one at a time."
Maloney added, in reference to his business, "The government didn't help -- at all."
But as it turns out, the backstory for Middlesex Truck & Coach is a little more complicated. Maloney later told the local CBS affiliate that he didn't have the capital to get his business off the ground, so he relied on an industrial-revenue bond through the government, giving the small business a low-interest loan that made the shop possible.
In other words, hoping to prove government doesn't help make small businesses possible, Mitt Romney picked a small business that wouldn't exist were it not for government. Perfect.
In fact, given all of the government assistance Romney's own businesses have received over the years, the entire line of attack appears focused on confusing uninformed voters.
Leave a Comment:
The big sissy let his WIFE support him?
What kind of panty-waist passes as a proper strong Republican man these days?
(using the O man's context giving credit to those that make businesses happen, this fellow's wife reinforces Obama's simple, ordinary observation TWICE)
We won't go into whether the grad school this guy is so proud of received any tax breaks.
I mean, there IS such a thing as "mercy rule."
Does the Romney campaign vet anyone? Ever? Even Romney?
I think it was O'Donnell last night who explained it best: This is what happens when a campaign is panicked. They start putting out stuff impulsively without sufficient preparation.
But it doesn't really matter because Romney's voters won't ever hear the truth and even if told the truth will call the truth a lie. He put it out there on the air waves and there it remains.
The owner himself doesn't "get it"! They don't listen and are predisposed to hear what they want to hear - so Romney tells them what they already believe.
It reinforces the reputation he acquired in the primaries as being spineless, say anything to win guy. People of deep convictions find it hard to get motivated to go out of their way to help such hypocrites.
Romney's voters don't like him, and they may come to believe that his "you people" condescending attitude towards them makes him almost as disagreeable as Obama.
So maybe the base doesn't show up for Romney like they did for W against Gore.
I get it. The taxes we ALL pay, including this business owner support corporations and the people of this country, new and existing.
The real question is: And I want a number. What exactly is the percentage acceptable by Liberals and Democrats of earnings that should be taxed and collected by the government from the citizens and business owners of this country?
Now remember, once a number is reached they can never ever raise it. Swear to God, hope to die, stick a needle in their eye........Yea right
Thats the real problem. Congress will never curb it's spending ways. When the government sees more revenues it sees it as an opportunity to spend more and more.
Middlesex? How fitting -in the middle of this f...story is Middlesex trucking.
@ FromDownHere I do believe the number you are looking for is 4%
I know it was a rhetorical question, but I figured I would take the opportunity to point out that this knock down, drag out fight is really over just 4%. The Republicans are willing to throw America under the bus for 4%.
And, it is not a full 4% of gross income. Is it an increase on gross income above and beyond 250k? nope... 388K. That's right. Everything below 388K taxed as is. Only the money above 388K would be taxed an additional 4%.
Make less than 388K? No problem, same tax. No change. Make 450K? Hey mister can you spare 4% on that extra 162k; yeah, not the total, just the amount above and beyond.
So to your question: What exactly is the percentage acceptable by Liberals and Democrats of earnings that should be taxed and collected by the government from the citizens and business owners of this country?
The answer is: 4%
@ Whatever Works - I get they are asking for a 4% increase but you forgot to add the percentage of taxes already in place. Depending on where you live, including State, local taxes and social security, could easily exceed 50% of gross.
Now, there are allot of loopholes to consider like the campaign contribution deductions, which I feel could be easily eliminated. For most people this would put their total taxes somewhere between 36-42%.
How much is enough?
1,000,000.00
$870.00
$3,997.50
$13,075.00
$26,040.00
$69,201.00
$214,077.50
$238,543.5? That is a difference of $24,466.00
It is a difference between 327261 and 351727
So, the difference between a 39% top tax bracket and a 35% top tax bracket is an effective 2.4% difference.
Millionaires pay an extra 24k
If the income was 50k it would be no difference, 100K? Nope. 388K? Nope.
So I think 4% would not even be a 4% difference until 10 million dollars or more.
I think 4% is more than fair. Especially when you consider the income growth charts for the top 2% versus the other 98% of wage earners.
OK, so let's say this "modest" tax increase is enacted. What is it for? Funding more million dollar conventions in Vegas (my home town)? Running guns to Mexico? "Loaning" Billions to now defunct corporations (like Solyndra)? And on and on.
The President has already indicated that if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire less than half (I would assume even less than that) would go to the budget deficit. The rest would go to new spending. We also understand that even if 100% went to deficit reduction it would literally represent a drop in the ocean.
The Federal government is now holding onto over 1 trillion dollars of repaid bailout taxpayer money that was earmarked to go back into the general fund. They claim they are holding onto it to use to bailout future failing banks and financial institutions. Do they really need that much and is this an indication of how the government handles taxpayer money?
Eliminating extremely expensive, inefficient, fraudulent, and redundant government programs first would do in multiples much more than any tax increase to reduce the debt and deficit. Do you think it's fair to ask others to contribute more while these programs still exist?
Too bad there are SO MANY uninformed voters ~ who will never hear the back story.
Most voters are employees. They have NO idea of what is involved in "owning/creating a business".
withay ... You're right. Unfortunately for those of us who at least make an attempt to keep up, Romney has a big population of uninformed, disinterested potential voters to harvest. People who are "ripe" for double talk and baloney from flim-flammers like Mitt.
"The Government didn't help at all. [My wife did.]"
Liars are attracted to liars. Fraudsters to Fraudsters.
Mitt's phony tack is another sign of his desperation. So easily dismissed. All the Obama campaign has to do is make an ad that uses his ad and then the real clip of Obama's speech.
the entire line of attack appears focused on confusing uninformed voters.
Surprise surprise. I am shocked - shocked! - to learn that lying is going on in this campaign! Round up the usual suspects and shut this campaign down immediately!
And it is confusing uninformed voters! Full disclosure, I am a volunteer with OFA and I was calling into Colorado yesterday (will not be doing so today, in light of the tragedy), and I came across several people who were angry and upset that the President thought small business owners "did not deserve the credit" for building their businesses. When I tried to explain that that wasn't what the President was saying, they got even more confused and belligerent. So Romney's strategy is working. Isn't it George Carlin that said something like... if you have ignorant citizens, you're going to get ignorant leaders?
And it is confusing uninformed voters - THAT is the problem with elections in today's world. If everyone took the time to stay engaged on what is going on in this country and did a little research on the candidate's and the political parties (from local elections on up), there would be a lot less confusion and a lot less need for obscene amounts of campaign $$ used on negative ads and lawn signs.
Skip ... Good comment. We would also, eventually, have better quality candidates in both parties. Without the need for perpetual fund raising, a greater number of creative, intelligent problem solvers would consider running, instead of the grandstanding glory seekers we get far too many of now.
We might even (gasp!) have stimulating and enlightening discussions of current issues and problems. At least we can dream.
Maloney is full of baloney, it seems. Sad that he is either too ignorant to know that the gov't helped him or that he is as mendacious as Romney. I wonder, will he apologize for his lie or not?
"Mitt Rmoney pwns self!"
Who didn't see that headline coming?
Not only did this guy receive "government assistance", he got financial assistance from ME. I'm well aware that the taxes that I pay go in part to support small businesses that don't have start-up capital. Some of my taxes help build the roads that his employees drive on to get to work, and that his suppliers use to bring him parts. My taxes helped educate him and his employees, and so on. And you know what? I'm GLAD to pay taxes to help out my fellow Americans -- and to be helped out in turn when I need help.
The idea that he did it on his own, without any help but that of his wife, is ridiculous. He had help from me, and from you, and you, and you -- that is, the GOVERNMENT.
I find it quite ironic that an owner of a trucking company would say that infrastructure, such as ROADS, did nothing to help his business. Would he have built his own interstate highways & local roads?
@therealstinger - Yeah exactly!!!
@onelatelori - Double Yeah - excellent point!!!!!!
Let me guess - the roads the government built have HURT his business, because without those, trucks would break down more frequently (from the worse roads we would have), and need his services more...
onelatelori - the reason is that he believes that rmoney's quote was what obama actually said. he has no f'ing idea what obama really said. nor does he probably give a damn.
That's also a good point. When these folks rant against the government, do they not realize that We the People are the government and the talking heads are our employees hired to run our government for us?
Talk about uninformed!
I suspect he is another Joe (not) the Plumber (also not). Some people will do anything to get on the TeeVee.
"The government didn't help -- at all." Unless you take into account that without government the nearest criminal would have driven over and killed him and stole all his money and raped his wife, then yeah, the government didn't help him at all.
Since all these great rich folks did all their gathering of riches on their own, remove all subsidies, tax breaks, low interest loans, and let them do business with no government help.
Actually, the "risk taking job creators" would love that. Not only would it reduce their taxes, it would also seriously reduce the "business uncertainty" due to competition from startups.
Fred - don't stop there. If they can totally make it on their own, don't let them use public roads or education, and let them know that the police and fire departments won't be coming to help when they are burglarized and/or burning. And if they wish to sue anyone or get sued themselves for any reason, there will be no public defender available nor will the courts hear their case.
Fred: Sounds punitive. Instead, just make all the breaks that business gets available to people and apply the tax rate curve to a baseline adjusted to get the same tax revenue as would otherwise be. A person can deduct all cost for the operation of oneself, like housing (facilities), food (fuel), vehicle (transportation), etc.
KJ,CR,IA -
There is an old joke about God and a scientist (and, no, this is NOT about creationism or anything of that sort). The scientist said, "I can create life like You did, from dirt. I don't need God."
God said, "Ok, show me." The scientist bent down and scooped up some dirt. God let loose a small lightning bolt that made the scientist drop the dirt. The scientist complained, "That's not fair!"
God smiled and said, "Get your own dirt."
Keep yapping Mitt.
And of course, his graduate education was (unlike any other graduate education) completely unsubsidized.
Romney recruited his campaign staff from a comedy show. That is the only plausible explanation for so many gaffes.
I’ve been thinking, perhaps there was a time, let’s say 1820. One could get a wagon, mule, a few tools and
beans, and then head west. He could stop
in the middle of nowhere. Make a peace
agreement with the local indigenous peoples and build shelter, grow some beans,
kill some buffalo. Sell Buffalo robes and
beans to passersby. He would have done all
of that without the help of the government, except for the government of the
local Indigenous. Very conservative and
very American.
And the US Army, which hung around keeping the local aborigines, outlaws, etc. nervous enough to make peaceable relations look like a good idea.
Yay! Rachel! Thank you for covering this story. I hope it is part of your show. Rush Limbaugh will be defending it soon. I don't know how... but in some bizzarro opposite day way, he will. Crap... distracted...
Back to the point. Your reporting is spot on accurate and if their is ever a question? You actually explore the possibility of being wrong, and admit when you make a mistake. I know it is not just Rachel. The byline is Steve Benen and I do understand it is a team effort. But as the face of trms... Thank You Rachel and company for keeping the information flowing.
Whatever Works, Steve Benen does the writing for the Maddow Blog during the week/ during the daytime -- and he's also a producer for the Maddow Show. He's one of the best political writers out there, having written for Washington Monthly and for his own blog called the Carpetbagger Report. So, if Steve's writing it, you know it's accurate.
I just wanted to give credit. And I'm glad this made it to somewhere else besides one story on cbs. I've been googling: Middlesex Truck & Coach "industrial revenue bond"
for almost an entire news cycle...
ok, a day... {:oÞ
But I just did not want this thing to go unnoticed because it is such incompetent hypocrisy. Romney is pretty much proving the point that President Obama was paraphrasing badly. You know Elizabeth Warren cringed a little when he did it. Because I highly doubt he flubbed the line on purpose so that Romney would run with it and throw egg on himself... Nah... I'll stick with Occam's Razor.
I wish Obama would develop and show the emotion that E. Warren showed when she made her speech about this. She is almost shaking, she is so passionate about it. Youtube it, it is definitely two different speeches. If Pres. Obama spoke that passionately about things like this, there wouldn't even be a need for an election, it would be virtually unanymous!
Heck, even Jack Gilchrist, the star of Romney's own Ad admit (IN FOX NEWS of all place) that President Obama is actually right (if he was not taken out of context) and acknowledge that he couldn't have had the business if it were not for the influence of his teacher, Government-built roads and bridges, or the military (? Don't ask me...even he was not sure if the Military helped him... :D ) .
The problem is for as long as they are still lying to themselves, none of it matters. If everybody really uses logic when they choose a candidate, we won't be having an even close polling result (let alone neck and neck) between President Obama and Romney.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1743707109001/star-of-new-romney-ad-fired-up-over-presidents-comments/
Obama is correct in his statement about individual initiative: It takes guts to step out and up into the hard work of making a dream come true - whether it's making lots of money or just keeping comfortable or making no money and still do what one loves. The second part of his statement is also correct (though I think he could have worded it better): once an individual sets the goal, people, events and circumstances come forward to help attain that goal. It is not 100% individual initiative, nor is it 100% government (or society, or church or ...) that makes one successful: it is both working together in tandem. Christopher Columbus would not have discovered the new (to him) continent if the Queen of Spain had not outfitted an armada for him. Lewis and Clark would not have discovered the west coast if a Native American woman had not helped them when they needed it most. The pioneers would not have been able to build cabins, clear forests, farm land and build small towns if their individual initiative had not banded together to help achieve the goal. It was true then and it is true today.
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but if this small business sells trucks, buses, and equipment, he most likely sells to governments, directly or indirectly.