Skip to main content

Who was that unmasked man at the debate?

Who was that unmasked man at the debate? Seriously, I want to know who was Mitt last night? He backed off so many of the promises he made to win the GOP primary. In short Mitt lied his ass off. Joe Scarborough failed to take on the fact Mitt lied his ass off. Instead Joe applauded the bullish and manic behavior of the GOP candidate. I have yet to hear any conservative call Mitt Romney out on his blatant lies. Maybe they have become jaded at this point with his lies. If I had voted for Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries I would be madder than a wet hen in the Mississippi heat. Mitt Romeny made a hard left turn during the first debate. He reminded voters, as Newt pointed out several times, why he was able to be governor of Massachusetts. I should have seen this crab walk when he mentioned that he favored something like the Dream Act. Mitt, too little too late. Latinos were watching the GOP primary debates. In fact, we all watched the GOP primary debates (holla at your "bro" Michael Steele - Seriously holler at him for creating that circus). Given what I know of Mitt, I should not have been shocked by the lies last night.
My take:(simple Southern country woman that I am)

I was however, too floored by the lies(direct, indirect, and by omission)from "jello" Romney to listen to President Obama. I was vaguely aware of President Obama using facts but the blatant lies from Mitt were ringing in my head. I had plans to tweet #mittlies each time he lied. I gave up 15 minutes into the debate. It will take days for us to compile the entire database of his lies. I however have an actual paying job that prohibt my being able to do so. I have posted a few of the lies I heard and the lies heard by others.

Affordable Care Act is a tax. How? In working class families ( I live in Mississippi where median income is less than entry level to middle class) not being able to get insurance because of a pre-exisiting condition is taxing.

Ending funding for PBS has been a Republican threat since at least 1992. Why is it so important to end media that is not corporate dependent in America? Is Big Bird really that bad? The BBC produces excellent programming every year that is exported to America.

Mitt needs to be held to the fire on increasing teachers and not privatizing education. He needs point blank questions, yes or no, on education.

Mitt lied about the alternative energy industry. Solyndra started under Bush (bit.ly/sFHSgH) However, Mitt is in bed with fossil fuel. If we do not go forward with developing alternate energy, we will fall behind.

Most galling of the night for me was Mitt's statement "Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it. But that -- that is not the case. All right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans. " I have listened since 2008 Faux News state the President was not born in America. I watched as Mitt did nothing honorable, as did McCain, when he heard others make a claim regarding the birthplace of President Obama.

MoveOn.org email

Dear MoveOn member, Remember back in March, when a top Romney advisor said it would be kind of a like an "Etch A Sketch" after the primaries?1 Last night that's exactly what we saw—Romney looked into the camera and told America that he doesn't actually believe the core policies that he's campaigned on for the last 18 months. In the debate, Romney seemed convincing when he said he cares about the middle class. Even though he just got caught calling 47% of the country "victims" and moochers.2 He made impassioned pleas about his love of education and the importance of federal programs like Medicare and Social Security. But he has campaigned to cut education and voucherize Medicare.3 Yet instead of calling out this Etch A Sketch makeover, many in the media just can't stop talking about how Romney sounded during the debate
A FEW FACT CHECKS
Here are the facts:

ROMNEY LIE #1: ROMNEY SAYS HIS FIVE POINT PLAN WILL LEAD US TO PROSPERITY, BUT INDEPENDENT ANALYSTS SAY IT WOULD ACTUALLY HURT THE ECONOMY

Romney: “My Plan Has Five Basic Parts. … I’ll Restore The Vitality That Gets America Working Again.” [Romney, Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
Washington Post Headline: “Economists: Romney’s Ideas Wouldn’t Fix Short-Term Crisis, And Could Make Things Worse.” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]
Senior Adviser At Moody’s Analytics Mark Hopkins: Romney’s Policies “Would Do More Harm In The Short Term” And “If We Implemented All Of His Policies, It Would Push Us Deeper Into Recession And Make The Recovery Slower.” Asking whether Romney’s economic policy ideas would create jobs in the short-term: “‘On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term,’ added Mark Hopkins, a senior adviser at Moody’s Analytics. ‘If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.’” [Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 6/7/12]
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: “The Romney Plan Is Going To Slow Down The Economy, Worsen The Jobs Deficit And Significantly Increase The Likelihood Of A Recession.” [Bloomberg, 6/5/12]

ROMNEY LIE #2: ROMNEY SAID HIS TAX PLAN WOULDN’T HURT THE MIDDLE CLASS, BUT IT WILL RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS WHILE CUTTING THEM FOR MULTIMILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES

Romney: “I Will Not, Under Any Circumstances, Raise Taxes On Middle-Income Families.” ROMNEY: “And number three, I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.“ [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Families With Kids Who Make Less Than $200,000 Would See An Average Tax Increase Of $2,041. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 18, 8/1/12]
If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, The Top 0.1% Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $246,652. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 19, 8/1/12]
Reuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]
Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]
Washington Post Editorial: The Tax Policy Center Found That Under The Romney Plan “Even If Every Loophole For The Top Brackets Were Closed, There Wouldn’t Be Enough Revenue. The Middle Class Would Have To Pay More.” “The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined Mr. Romney’s claim and found that, even if every loophole for the top brackets were closed, there wouldn’t be enough revenue. The middle class would have to pay more.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/21/12]

ROMNEY LIE #3: ROMNEY WOULDN’T REDUCE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY – BUT IN FACT, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HIS PLAN DOES

Romney: “I’m Not Going To Reduce The Share Of Taxes Paid By High-Income People.” ROMNEY: “First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
· Reuters Headline: “Romney Tax Plan Helps Rich, Hurts Middle Class-Study.” [Reuters, 8/1/12]
· Boston Globe Headline: “Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan Would Offer Big Cuts To Millionaires, Raise Taxes On Middle Class, Brookings Analysts Say.” [Boston Globe, 8/1/12]
· Washington Post Editorial: The Tax Policy Center Found That Under The Romney Plan “Even If Every Loophole For The Top Brackets Were Closed, There Wouldn’t Be Enough Revenue. The Middle Class Would Have To Pay More.” “The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examined Mr. Romney’s claim and found that, even if every loophole for the top brackets were closed, there wouldn’t be enough revenue. The middle class would have to pay more.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/21/12]
If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, The Top 0.1% Would See An Average Tax Cut Of $246,652. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 19, 8/1/12]
· If Romney’s Tax Plan Was Paid For, Families With Kids Who Make Less Than $200,000 Would See An Average Tax Increase Of $2,041. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 18, 8/1/12]
ROMNEY LIE #4: ROMNEY CLAIMS HIS TAX PLAN ISN’T LIKE ANYTHING WE’VE TRIED BEFORE – BUT IT’S THE SAME TRICKLE-DOWN SCHEME WE’VE SEEN BEFORE
Romney: My Tax Plan “Is Not Like Anything That’s Been Tried Before.” ROMNEY: “My plan is not like anything that's been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates, but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
Romney On Making The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent: “I Will Make Today's Low Individual Tax Rates Permanent.” Romney: “As president, I will firmly oppose tax increases. I will make today's low individual tax rates permanent, cut business taxes, and make the tough calls necessary to bring spending back in line with what we can afford. I will cap spending at 20% of GDP by 2016, which will require between $400 billion and $500 billion in cuts.” [Romney op-ed, USA Today, 2/8/12]
· Romney’s 59 Point Plan: Make The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. “As with the marginal income tax rates, Mitt Romney will seek to make permanent the lower tax rates for investment income put in place by President Bush.” [Romney’s Plan For Jobs And Economic Growth, 9/6/11]
Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “Romney Can’t Explain How His Policies Differ From That Of George W. Bush.” “Lower taxes, fewer regulations, more domestic energy production, promises of deficit reduction that are quickly overwhelmed by increased defense spending and reduced tax revenues, and glossy rhetoric about economic freedom pretty much defined the Bush administration’s economic policy. And how did that economic policy work out? … Bush has the worst record since Herbert Hoover. Every single measure we might want to track — jobs, growth, median household income, poverty, uninsurance, new firm creation, participation in the labor force — goes in the wrong direction. And yet Romney can’t explain how his policies differ from that of George W. Bush. One of my frustrations with campaign coverage is there’s a tendency to look at substantive deficiencies in ideas as political problems. So this gets talked about as a messaging issue: Romney needs a better answer to the question, ‘how do you differ from Bush?’ But it’s not a messaging problem. Romney doesn’t need a better answer to how are your policies different than Bush’s. He needs policies that are actually different.” [Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 7/27/12]
Romney’s Tax Proposal Is The “Bush Tax Cuts On Steroids” Cutting Taxes For Americans Making Over $1 Million And Raising Taxes On Those Making Less Than $10,000. “The simplest way to conceive of Mitt Romney's tax proposal is the Bush Tax Cuts on steroids. It's not sweeping tax reform. The rates don't change. The deductions stay put. Instead, it's a time machine back to 2008 ... with a big pair of scissors to make some additional cuts.The GOP frontrunner would permanently extend the Bush/Obama tax cuts in addition to eliminating both the estate tax and the tax on capital gains for ‘non-rich’ families. He would not extend the majority of the tax cuts and tax hikes passed in the Obama administration… For a family making less than $10,000 a year, the average tax bill would go up by $112. For a family making more than $1,000,000 a year, the average tax bill would go down by about $145,000.” [Thompson, Atlantic, 1/5/12]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]
ROMNEY LIE #5: ROMNEY’S PLAN WOULDN’T AFFECT CURRENT SENIORS’ SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT HIS TAX PLAN WOULD TAX SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

Romney Said His Plan Wouldn’t Change Social Security For Current Retirees. Romney: “And the answer is neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you're 60 or around 60 or older, you don't need to listen any further.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Cutting Deductions Would Put On The Table Provisions Like The “The Partial Exclusion Of Social Security Benefits.” [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, 8/1/12]
Under Romney's Plan, If Tax Rates Were Cut 20% Across The Board And Deductions For The Middle Class Were Cut By 58% -- The Limitation Of The Exclusion For Social Security Benefits Would Result In An Average Tax Increase Of $458. In 2010, the average tax benefit from untaxed Social Security benefits was $987. Because Romney cuts taxes across the board by 20%, the value of the tax benefit would be $789. If Romney cuts deductions by 58% for those making less than $200,000, that means he would be reducing the average tax benefit from the exclusion from $789 to $331, the equivalent of a $458 tax increase.
· 2010: The Average Benefit Received From Untaxed Social Security Benefits Was $987.In 2010, there were 29,239,000 income tax returns with untaxed Social Security and Railroad Retirement Benefits from individuals making $200,000 or less – for a total of and $28,861,000,000 in total benefits. That means the average benefit was $987. [Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years 2011-2015, Table 3 – Distribution by Income Class of Selected Individual Tax Expenditure Items, at 2010 Rates and 2010 Income Levels, p. 51, 1/17/12]
· Romney Proposed Cutting All Marginal Tax Rates By 20 Percent. [Tax Policy Center, The Romney Plan (updated), 3/1/12]
· Tax Policy Center: Assuming Romney Pays For His Tax Plan By Limiting Deductions Would Require Eliminating 58 Percent Of Total Tax Deductions For Households Making Less Than $200,000. [Tax Policy Center, On The Distributional Effects Of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform, p. 6, 8/1/12]

ROMNEY LIE #6: ROMNEY SAID HIS TAX PLAN WON’T COST $5 TRILLION, BUT HIS PLAN HAS BEEN SCORED AT $5 TRILLION – IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF EXTENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS

Romney: “I’m Not Looking For A $5 Trillion Tax Cut.” ROMNEY: “So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
· Romney: “I’m Not In Favor Of A $5 Trillion Tax Cut. That’s Not My Plan.”ROMNEY: “I think first of all, let me -- let me repeat -- let me repeat what I said. I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That's point one. So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that's not my plan.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]
ROMNEY LIE #7: HE CLAIMED HIS PLAN WOULDN’T ADD TO THE DEFICIT

Romney: “My Number One Principle Is There’ll Be No Tax Cut That Adds To The Deficit.” ROMNEY: “And finally, with regards to that tax cut, look, I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the -- the revenues going to the government. My -- my number one principle is there’ll be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that -- no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” [Romney, Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: Romney’s New Tax Cuts Would Cost $4.9 Trillion Over A Decade, On Top Of The Cost Of Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. “The Tax Policy Center estimates that the Romney tax plan would lose about $480 billion in tax revenue in calendar year 2015, beyond the revenues losses inherent in maintaining current policy (such as continuing all of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts). Over the 2014-2022 period, that implies a total reduction in revenues of about $4.9 trillion, relative to current tax policy.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/21/12]
Tax Policy Center: Romney’s Tax Plan Would Drive Up The Deficit By $480 Billion In 2015 Alone. “Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden. TPC has analyzed instead the effects of the specified proposals in the Romney plan. These estimates provide a guide as to how much the base broadening would need to raise taxes in different income groups to achieve the plan’s targets… in the absence of such base broadening, TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $900 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 24 percent cut in total projected revenue. Relative to a current policy baseline, the reduction in liability would be about $480 billion in calendar year 2015.” [Tax Policy Center, The Romney Plan (updated), 3/1/12]

ROMNEY LIE #8: ROMNEY CLAIMED THERE ARE SIX STUDIES THAT CALLED HIS PLAN REVENUE NEUTRAL BUT FACT CHECKERS SAY HE’S FLAT WRONG

Romney At Denver Debate: “Now, You Cite A Study, There’s 6 Other Studies That Looked At The Study Described And Say It’s Completely Wrong.” “Now, you cite a study, there’s 6 other studies that looked at the study described and say it’s completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by 3 to $4,000 on middle class families. There are all of these studies out there but the bottom line is want to the bring down rates, I want to bring rates down at the same time lower deductions and exceptions and credits anding so forth we keep getting the revenue we need and you think well why lower the rates and the reason is because small business pays that individual rate.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12] Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler: “Romney Has Countered That “Six Other Studies” Have Found That The Plan Can Be Revenue Neutral, But He’s Wrong About That.” Romney has countered that “six other studies” have found that the plan can be revenue neutral, but he’s wrong about that. Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney’s proposal — as sketchy as it is — would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions. [Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 10/3/12]

ROMNEY LIE #9: ROMNEY ARGUED THAT HIS PLAN WOULDN’T CUT EDUCATION, BUT IT COULD MEAN A CUT OF MORE THAN $115 BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE

Romney: “All Right, I'm Not Going To Cut Education Funding. I Don't Have Any Plan To Cut Education Funding And -- And Grants That Go To People Going To College.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12] If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, Ryan’s Budget Would Cut “The Department Of Education … By More Than $115 Billion Over A Decade.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013 … On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… The Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12] If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Cut Elementary And Secondary Education Funding By $4.8 Billion. According to the White House, cuts to elementary and secondary education, special education funding would total $4,847,000,000 under the Ryan Budget. [White House, 4/6/12] If Cuts Were Applied Across The Board, The Ryan Budget Would Slash Education, Meaning “9.6 Million Students Would See Their Pell Grants Fall By More Than $1,000 In 2014, And, Over The Next Decade, Over One Million Students Would Lose Support Altogether.” “Yesterday, House Republicans released their budget resolution for FY 2013… On top of the roughly $1 trillion in cuts in the Budget Control Act, it would be difficult to overstate the radicalism of the domestic cuts proposed by the House budget resolution. In 2013, it would cut annual non-defense funding by 5 percent. By 2014, the resolution would cut this funding by 19 percent in purely nominal terms… 9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether.” [Jeff Zients, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, WH.gov, 3/21/12] National Education Association Estimated That Under The Ryan Plan 200,000 Children Would Be Cut From Head Start In 2014 And More Than 2 Million Children Would Lose Opportunities To Attend Head Start In The Next Decade. “The plan, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who chairs the House Budget Committee, would eliminate slots for about 200,000 children in 2014, according to an analysis by the National Education Association. Over the next decade, the NEA estimates, more than two million children would lose opportunities to attend Head Start centers as a result of the cuts.” [Huffington Post, 3/29/12]

ROMNEY LIE #10: HE CLAIMS HIS ENERGY PLAN WILL MAKE NORTH AMERICA ENERGY INDEPENDENT, BUT IT’S TOO DEPENDENT ON OIL AND DRILLING

Romney: “I Want To Get America And North America Energy Independent So We Can Create Those Jobs.” ““And, by the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs.” [Mitt Romney, First Presidential Debate, 10/3/12] Romney’s Energy Plan “Is Basically All About Oil, Coal And Gas.” “No sooner had Mitt Romney released his long-awaited energy policy Aug. 23 than a small army of reporters and pundits started drilling into the details and coming up with barely a kilowatt of vision or substance. The plan is basically all about oil, coal and gas.” [K Kaufmann, Desert Sun, 9/1/12] Washington Post: “Romney’s Plan Spends A Lot Of Time Talking About Drilling” But “Energy Independence Will Require More Than Just Drilling — It Will Also Depend On Efficiency Standards That Romney Has Opposed.” “Energy independence will require more than just drilling — it will also depend on efficiency standards that Romney has opposed. Mitt Romney’s plan spends a lot of time talking about drilling. But it’s worth noting that both the EIA and Citigroup credit the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks as a major part of America’s lurch toward energy independence. By 2025, the increased CAFE standards are expected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 2.2 million barrels per day. Without those rules, energy independence looks nearly impossible. And Romney, for his part, has pledged to overturn those fuel-economy rules.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 8/23/12] Associated Press Fact Check: Romney Opposes Curbs On Energy Demand – Namely Higher Mileage Standard – But “Independent Energy Analysts Say Supply And Demand Both Have To Be In The Equation For Energy Independence To Be Achieved.” “Romney's steps include deficit cuts that he has not spelled out, and a march toward energy independence that past presidents have promised but not delivered. Unlike Obama, he does not support curbs on demand; namely the much higher mileage standards that are coming into effect. Romney proposes boosting supplies, with freer access to development of oil, gas, coal and more. Independent energy analysts say supply and demand both have to be in the equation for energy independence to be achieved.” [Fact Check, Associated Press, 8/31/12] New York Times’ Robert Semple, Jr.: American Energy Independence Would Depend On Alternatives And Efficiency, Neither Addressed In Romney’s Plan. “Let’s start first with the premise of the plan, which is also its promise: that energy independence is an achievable goal for America by 2020. Presidents have been talking about energy independence since Richard Nixon and haven’t come close. The simple truth, as President Obama has recognized, is that a country that holds less than 3 percent of the world’s reserves but consumes more than 20 percent of the world’s supply cannot drill its way to energy independence. More production will help, but true independence from foreign imports – not to mention fewer greenhouses gases and a safer climate, a subject Mr. Romney never touches upon – will depend on developing alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles.” [Robert Semple, Jr. op-ed, New York Times, 8/24/12]

ROMNEY LIE #11: ROMNEY’S PLAN WILL “DEAL” WITH PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, BUT HE’D REPEAL OBAMACARE AND IT’S PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, LETTING INSURANCE COMPANIES DISCRIMINATE

Romney Said His Plan “Deals With People With Pre-Existing Conditions.” ROMNEY: “And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my pre-existing condition plan. You obviously studied up on -- on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That's part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state. And I said that at that time.” [Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12] · Romney Suggested Uninsured People With Pre-Existing Conditions Should Not Be Able To Get Health Insurance: “We Can't Play The Game Like That.” Jay: “So you would make the law stand for children and people with pre-existing conditions?” Romney: “People with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance.” Leno: “Suppose they haven't been insured.” Romney: “Well, if they, if they are 45 years old and they show up and say I want insurance because I have heart disease, it's like, Hey guys. We can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you are well and then if you get ill, you are going to be covered.” [Romney, Tonight Show With Jay Leno, 3/27/12] · Romney In Discussing What He Would Replace Obamacare With: “People With Pre-Existing Conditions, As Long As They Have Been Insured Before, They Are Going To Be Able To Continue To Have Insurance.” [Romney, Tonight Show With Jay Leno, 3/27/12] New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait: “In Other Words, It’s Not True. Romney Doesn’t Have A Plan, Or Even A Vague Outline Of A Plan, To Cover People With Preexisting Conditions.” [Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, 9/10/12] Ending Pre-Existing Conditions Through “Continuous Coverage” Means Insurers Could Refuse To Cover Some Individuals. “Policy-wise, however, there’s a significant amount of space between ‘ending pre-existing conditions’ and ‘ending pre-existing conditions [with continuous coverage].’ Under the former scheme, insurers cannot deny coverage to an individual — no matter what. Under the latter, insurers can, in certain situations, refuse to cover some individuals.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/9/12] Washington Post: Romney’s Support Of Coverage For Preexisting Conditions For People Who Have Had Continuous Coverage “Means That Those Who Go A Month Or Two Without Coverage Could Later Be Denied Insurance For A Medical Condition.” “Around 10 p.m., the Romney camp had circled back to the same position it held back in March: that the governor supports coverage for preexisting conditions for people who have had continuous coverage. I wrote a bit yesterday about why this is different than ending preexisting conditions altogether. In short, it means that those who go a month or two without coverage could later be denied insurance for a medical condition.” [Wonk Blog, Washington Post, 9/9/12] New York Daily News Headline: “Mitt Romney: Insurance Companies Should Be Allowed To Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions.” [New York Daily News, 6/14/12] Huffington Post Headline: “Mitt Romney's Health Care Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 6/13/12]

ROMNEY LIE #12: ROMNEY CLAIMED HE WAS A BIPARTISAN GOVERNOR, BUT IN REALITY HE BARELY TOOK THE TIME WORK WITH DEMOCRATS IN THE LEGISLATURE

Romney At Denver Debate: “I Had The Great Experience – It Didn’t Seem Like It At The Time – Of Being Elected In A State Where My Legislature Was 87 Percent Democrat […] I Figured Out From Day One I Had To Get Along And I Had To Work Across The Aisle.” LEHRER: “Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. If elected, in your case, if re-elected, in your case, what would you do about that? Governor?” ROMNEY: “Jim, I had the great experience -- it didn't seem like it at the time -- of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. And that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done.” [Romney, Denver Presidential Debate, 10/3/12] Associated Press: “Some Democratic Lawmakers Accused Romney Of Being Aloof, Unapproachable And Not Much Interested In Working With Them” And His “Legislative Agenda On Big Issues Like Transportation And Higher Education Fizzled As A Result.” “Some Democratic lawmakers accused Romney of being aloof, unapproachable and not much interested in working with them to build the kind of friendships and alliances that are needed to help pass legislation. They say Romney's legislative agenda on big issues like transportation and higher education fizzled as a result.” [Associated Press, 8/2/12] As Governor, Romney Had A Style Marked By “Disinterest In Bipartisan Collaboration.” “Romney's ability to wield the bully pulpit circumventing inflexible lawmakers and appealing directly to the public was a hallmark of his tenure, and it hints at the CEO style of leadership that he might bring to the White House. The flip side of that style is Romney's relative disinterest in bipartisan collaboration, a practice that's already rare in Washington.” [National Journal, 11/10/11] As Governor, Romney “Furnished The Massachusetts Press Corps, Always Looking For Conflict, With A Running Narrative Of Combat” Against Democratic Legislators – A Departure From His GOP Predecessors. “Instead of trying to cut deals with legislators, Romney positioned himself as the anti-Beacon-Hill governor, capitalizing on public mistrust of what his campaign team had framed as the Democratic ‘gang.’ He furnished the Massachusetts press corps, always looking for conflict, with a running narrative of combat. That was a departure from the collegiality of Romney's GOP predecessors. With Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, and then Swift, Democratic legislators were accustomed to chief executives who either rose along similar career paths, as did Cellucci and Swift, or showed Brahmin bemusement at their roguish ways, as did Weld.” [National Journal, 11/10/11] MetroWest Daily News Editorial: Romney Failed To Establish Strong Working Relationship With Legislative Leaders And Seemed More Interested In “Picking The Right Fights Than In Building Coalitions To Solve Problems.” “Gov. Mitt Romney makes his official exit today, taking the traditional ‘lone walk’ down the State House steps a day early so as not to run into Deval Patrick’s inauguration ceremony. That act is symbolic in two ways: He leaves as a loner with his own personal agenda, who never became a full member of Massachusetts’ governing class, and he’s leaving before his term is officially finished, though months after he turned his attention away from the Bay State in pursuit of national office…Some had potential, but Romney failed to do the political work required to bring them to fruition. Romney never established a solid working relationship with legislative leaders. And while he is a good speaker and effective on the stump, he leaves the Massachusetts Republican Party weaker than ever…Too often, though, Romney has appeared more interested in picking the right fights than in building coalitions to solve problems.” [Editorial, MetroWest Daily News, 1/3/07] As Governor, Romney Commandeered One Of The Massachusetts Statehouse Elevators, Barring The Public, Lawmakers And Reporters From Using It. “Veteran lawmakers complained about lack of access to Romney, a perception that wasn't helped by his decision to commandeer one of the Statehouse elevators, barring the public, lawmakers and reporters from using it during his four-year term. The elevator became a symbol of his aloofness. (It was reopened to the public after he left.)” [Associated Press, 2/4/12] · While Romney Was Governor, Troopers Erected Velvet Ropes In Front Of Romney’s Office And “Ensured That Few Approached The Governor Who Were Not Expected.”“During Romney’s four years as governor, the troopers reserved one of the two elevators outside the Corner Office solely for Romney’s use. They also erected velvet ropes in front of his office, allowing only those approved to enter. The beefy men and unflinching women of the detail ensured that few approached the governor who were not expected.” [Boston Globe, 2/3/12]

Some of the lies to which we need to hold Mitt accountable. (By Igor Volsky on Thinkprogress.org)
8) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing. 12) “I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found. 18) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout. 23) “It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative. 26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.

Links: Please read these. Please use them in your talks with others about the debate.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rocky-mountain-lie-mitt-romney-lost-debate-in-the-only-way-that-doesnt-matter-at-all/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

Bloomberg News: "Romney's tax plan can't add up."

AMERICAblog on Romney’s lies about pre-existing conditions:

Romney Was Not Bipartisan In MA:

Video Link:

http://bit.ly/T54fZq

Ultimate Politician

Rude Boy

Trust?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pure Driven Snow in Mississippi

Why We Need More People of Color Writing Syfy

This weekend due to an enduring cough, I decided to binge watch Wayward Pines.  In truth, I actually need to binge on Game of Thrones but I shall save that binge($$$$$) for my birthday.  Let me not chase that rabbit for now.  Wayward Pines is one example of how having majority White writers of science fiction/fantasy continue to ignore the actual composition of Earth's population, the societal norms of those populations, and the ability of those populations to thrive outside of White intervention.

I am a lover of Fantasy and Science Fiction since childhood. What I have noted over the years is a common theme, humans(White people) have changed the environment to the point of either some horrifying human mutation or some climate apocalypse.  I often wonder why in these writings we don't see an evolution that leads to world peace.  Start Trek is one of the few that shows the possibility for humans after we  learn to work for peace not war.  However,  even Star Trek fails to accur…