The Last Of The Millenniums

Just because it always has been, doesn't mean it always will be

Archive for the day “October 4, 2012”

Blog Running – ‘Romney’s Successful Debate Plan: Lying’

‘Romney won the debate in no small part because he adopted a policy of simply lying about his policies. Probably the best way to understand Obama’s listless performance is that he was prepared to debate the claims Romney has been making for the entire campaign, and Romney switched up and started making different and utterly bogus ones. Obama, perhaps, was not prepared for that, and he certainly didn’t think quickly enough on his feet to adjust to it’.
From :


Mitt Romney Lies #64 to #91 – ‘At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes’

From Igor ovedr at Think Progress :

‘Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths’:

1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025′.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade’.

3) “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.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax corde that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work’.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found’.

5) “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.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction’.

6) “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.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range’.

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased’.

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’.

9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed’.

11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs’.

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’.

13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction’.

14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid’.

15) “Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums’.

16) “And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach — which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program’.

17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation’.

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’.

19) “And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable’.

20) “[I]t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan’.

21) “Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law’.

22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms’.

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’.

24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured’.

25) “In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”

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.”

27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger’.
From :



An Open Letter to President Obama

I posted this last June just after the Wisconsin victory for
Governor Scott Walker.

Substitute Debate for Wisconsin and it still stands.

In fact, even more so.

I know it’s frustruting.

But I went to sleeep last night a Liberal.

When I woke up this morning, I still am.

And I’m even MORE engaged then I was.

Are you?

Mr. President,

I respectively beg you to get involved. Now. Americans have a 30
second attention span. They can’t and worse won’t make the effort
to actully discover the facts behind Mitt Romney’s misinformation,
disinformation and lies.

And the press won’t because it takes too long to explain and that
‘too long’ loses the attention of their viewers.

Because of your and the Party’s failure to take the fight to
Wisconsin, the tide has turned.

We Mr. President, America, need you to be the President we had
last September. Engaged. Forceful. Dynamic. Message driven.

Shake off The Debate. Don’t return to the President we had for the
first 2 1/2 years of your term. Aloof. Remote. Giving a speech and
then returning to the Residence to read another boook about
another President.

Be a President that we know you can be. Be a President that others
will write books about.

Don’t expect us to follow.

Lead us!

Use your voice, your ideas, YOUR ‘bully pulpit’, Air Force One and
the press to actively promote your message. The alternative of two

Your vision and the consequences of austerity the Conservatives
will impose.

Begin every event with handing out ‘fact sheets’ of Mitt Romney’s
top 25 misinformation, disinformation and lies. Refine these down
to as short of a paper ‘sound bite’ as you can. Also hand out the
top 25 pieces of legislation the House has passed that would raise
taxes on the poor or cut services to the poor and elderly while
cutting taxes to the wealthy or NOT cutting subsides or closing
tax loopholes to profit fat corporations. And hand out the third
‘fact sheet’ with the Republican Senate’s filibuster record.

Then, in your speech, ignore Mitt Romney and run against the
obstructive Republican Congress that’s blocking your vision, your

Mitt Romney is running a campaign of attack and then run and hide,
diverting the attention from what he said if confronted. He is a
moving target that you will never pin him down to be held
accountable for his words.

Don’t even try.

Mitt Romney is only blaming. He is NOT proposing any vision.

Run against the obstructive, do-nothing Congress.

They can’t run and hide or deny the legislation they write.

Run against them.

Force Romney by default in the media, to defend what would be
‘his’ Republican Congress record on legislation.

Leave the one on one confrontation with Mitt Romney to VP Biden,
former President Clinton, Mayor Booker The First Lady and others.

Mitt Romney is not proposing a legislative vision so don’t give
him respect until he does.

Mr President, respect us.

Lead us Mr President with a message that YOU believe in and we
will believe in you.



‘How Mitt Romney Won The First Debate’

President Obama has to understand something this morning.

He’s not President Obama.

He’s candidate Obama.

And if HE can’t figure that out, someone better tell him.

Speak truth to power.

On the details, President Obama could bring Romney to his knees. But this election is, to Mitt Romney, NOT about details. It’s about perception.

So President Obama. Continue the line, fill in the detaials that Mitt Romney won’t of what a United States would look like under Mitt Romney and the Republicans.

Show us the Country where Mitt Romney really DOESN’T care about the 47%.

‘By standing on the stage with the president as an equal’.

‘But Romney’s core success was that he won by not losing: He has barely weathered a campaign that reduced him to a smaller figure than President Obama. On stage, they were roughly the same size’.

From :


‘Chris Matthews- ‘What was he doing!-‘

He sums it up perfectly.

Is it over?


Not even close. First the ‘town hall’ debate in two weeks is a much better format for President Obama and worse for Mitt Romney.

Second but far more importantly, dusting off my best Jack Web – ‘Just the facts.’

Facts, details are important. No, not to FOX so called ‘news’ watchers but they are to most of us.

And Romney keeps teasing with a ‘fact’ and then he or a staff member walks it back.

Heard Ed Gilispie on Morning Joe say they can’t get into details because then ‘politicians would be locked into positions’.

Well I WANT to know what my Representative is thinking. And yes the SPECIFICS!!!!!

Why would I vote for someone NOT knowing what they will do?

And THAT’S what makes him so unlikeable. That may change.

See : ‘Unfavorable Views of Romney Cloud His Message on Economy’
@ :

If and only if Romney can get his unfavorables up, then President Obama has a real problem.

Third – Chicago hasn’t released all of it’s ‘research’ yet.

Trust me. They haven’t.

So rather then dispare, get involved.

The devils in the details – ‘Top Romney Adviser: States Will Have To Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions Under President Romney’

If (when) Obamacare is repealed, THE Republican teabagger paltform, if you have a pre-exsisting condition, insurance companies WON’T have to cover you or sell you insurance.

UNLESS each State, SEPERATELY passes laws to force the insurance companies to do so.

Like Massachusetts did.

But silly me. Of course States will do that. Force insurance companies to cover pre-exsisting conditions.

After all those insurance companies don’t donate much money to political campaigns do they?

And of course with states like Tennessee, South Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and many more that are trying to make it impossible for women to have abortion, abortions that ARE legal and the law of the land, will quickly step up to force insurance companies to cover pre-exsisting conditions, which will no longer BE the law of the land. Won’t they?

‘After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance’.

‘The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back’.

‘Pressed by TPM’s Evan McMorris-Santoro, Fehrnstrom said those who currently lack coverage because they have pre-existing conditions would need their states to implement their own laws — like Romney’s own Massachusetts health care law — that ban insurance company from discriminating against sick people’.

“We’d like to see states do what Massachusetts did,” Fehrnstrom said. “In Massachusetts we have a ban on pre-existing conditions.”
From :

Post Navigation