Discussion:
THE FIRST DEBATE: MITT ROMNEY'S FIVE BIGGEST LIES
(too old to reply)
Q JINN
2012-10-04 21:30:08 UTC
Permalink
<html>
<A
href=3D"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-ro=
mneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new=
s/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004</A>
<BR><BR>
<DIV style=3D"BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; TEXT-ALIGN: left; BORDER-LEFT:
medium none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #000000; OVERFLOW:
hidden; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none;
TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV id=3Dteaser>
<DIV class=3Dsubcolumns>
<DIV class=3Dsubcl>
<H1><FONT size=3D5>The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest
Lies</FONT></H1>
<H2><FONT size=3D4>The truth behind that $5 trillion tax cut, pre-existing=

conditions and more<!-- Place this tag where you want the +1 button to
render --></FONT></H2></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=3DstoryTextContainer class=3DisHorizontal>
<DIV class=3DclearFix><FONT size=3D4></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=3D"assetContainer imageStandard floatLt horiz-image"><!-- <a
class=3D"thickbox imageLink" title=3D""
href=3D"http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/the-first-debat=
e-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004/20121004-obama-romney-debate-600=
x-1349358087.jpg">
-->
<DIV class=3Dimage-holder><IMG alt=3D""
src=3D"http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/the-first-debate=
-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004/1000x600/20121004-obama-romney-de=
bate-600x-1349358087.jpg">
</DIV><!-- </a> -->
<DIV style=3D"WIDTH: 598px" class=3DimageCaption>President Barack Obama an=
d
Mitt Romney at the first Presidential Debate.</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"WIDTH: 584px" class=3DimageCredit>SAUL
LOEB/AFP/GettyImages</DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=3DcontentInfo class=3DwithImage>
<DIV class=3Dauthor><SPAN class=3DfloatLt>By</SPAN>&nbsp;<A
href=3D"http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/tim-dickinson">Tim
Dickinson</A></DIV>
<DIV class=3Ddate>October 4, 2012 9:32 AM ET</DIV></DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D4>Mitt Romney turned in a polished performance in last
night's presidential debate =96 and revealed himself to be an
accomplished and unapologetic liar. In an evening where he sought to
slice and dice the president with statistics, Romney baldly
misrepresented his own policy prescriptions, made up numbers to fit his
attacks and buried clear contrasts with the president under a heaping
pile of horseshit.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4>Here are mendacious Mitt's five most outrageous
statements:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4><STRONG>1. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax
cut."</STRONG> Romney flatly lied about the cost of his proposal to cut
income-tax rates across the board by another 20 percent (undercutting
even the low rates of the Bush tax cuts). Independent economists at the
</FONT><A
href=3D"http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-bro=
wn-gale-looney"
target=3Dblank><FONT size=3D4>Tax Policy Center</FONT></A><FONT size=3D4> =
have
shown that the price tag for those cuts is $360 billion in the first
year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4><STRONG>2. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by
high-income Americans." </STRONG>Romney has claimed that he will pay for
his tax cuts by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions. The
factual problem? Romney hasn't named a single loophole he's willing to
close; worse, there's no way to offset $5 trillion in tax cuts even if
you get rid of the entire universe of deductions for the wealthy that
Romney has not put off the table (like the carried interest loophole or
the 15 percent capital gains rate.) The Tax Policy Center report
concludes that Romney's proposal would create a "net tax cut for
high-income tax payers and a net tax increase for lower- and or
middle-income taxpayers." Moreover, some of Romney's tax cuts are
micro-targeted at American dynasties, particularly his proposal to
eliminate the estate tax, which would reduce his own sons' tax burden by
tens of millions of dollars.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4><STRONG>3. "We've got 23 million people out of work or
[who have] stopped looking for work in this country."</STRONG> Romney is
lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23
million bad. The official figure is </FONT><A
href=3D"http://www.rollingstone.com/www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.ht=
m"
target=3Dblank><FONT size=3D4>12.5 million</FONT></A><FONT size=3D4>
unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for
jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He
counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also
being "out of work."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4><STRONG>4. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board
that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can
have." </STRONG>Romney is reviving Sarah Palin's old death panels lie
here. Obamacare does establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board to
help constrain the growth of Medicare spending. The body has no
authority to dictate the practices of the private insurance marketplace.
And the law also makes explicit that this body is banned from rationing
care or limiting medical benefits to seniors.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4><STRONG>5. "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my=

plan."</STRONG> In the biggest whopper of the night, Romney suggested
that his health care proposal would guarantee coverage to Americans with
pre-existing conditions. This is just not true. Under Romney, if you
have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance
coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days
because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you would be
shit out of luck. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and
deny <SPAN>you coverage, as even Romney's top adviser conceded <A
href=3D"http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-stat=
es-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-=
rom.php"
target=3Dblank>after the debate was over.</A></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV class=3Drelated-content>
<H3>Related</H3>
<UL>
<LI><A
href=3D"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romneys-real-agenda=
-20120928">Mitt
Romney's Real Agenda</A> </LI>
<LI><A
href=3D"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-=
story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829">Greed
and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital</A> </LI>
<LI><A
href=3D"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that=
-saved-mitt-romney-20120829">The
Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney</A>
</LI></UL></DIV></DIV><BR><BR>Read more: <A style=3D"COLOR: #003399"
href=3D"http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-ro=
mneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#ixzz28MjAiCRn">http://www.rollingstone.co=
m/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004#i=
xzz28MjAiCRn</A></DIV></html>
Mitt's Shadow
2012-10-21 12:23:16 UTC
Permalink
BUT MOST OF US KNOW THAT ...


HISTORICALLY, U.S. PRESIDENTS WITH "BUSINESS EXPERIENCE" HAVE BEEN BAD
FOR THE COUNTRY!



"Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted
out of office after a single term only three elected presidents:
Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were
successful businessmen before they were president. And the only
successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W.
Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term."

"There is a saying: 'If you want to live like a Republican, vote
Democratic.' Perhaps it should be amended to: 'If you want to live
like a successful Republican businessperson, vote for a Democrat
without business experience.' ”

But since this presidential race is largely about race, you Obama-
hating nit- and halfwits will vote for his lying hair-dying opponent
anyway.

Won't you?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Can a businessman help the economy? For presidents, the answer has
been no."

By Robert S. McElvaine
October 19, 2012

Mitt Romney likes to argue that his business experience has prepared
him for the challenges of the presidency, particularly in stoking
economic recovery. In his speech accepting the Republican presidential
nomination, Romney declared that President Obama “took office without
the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was
essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a
business.”

But historically, has the economy been healthier in times when the
president has had a business background?

As any good executive would, let’s look at the numbers.

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted
out of office after a single term only three elected presidents:
Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were
successful businessmen before they were president. And the only
successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W.
Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year
after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year
of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration —
the four presidents with successful business careers had the four
worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

The only president since Hoover with business experience under whom
the economy did well was the one who was unsuccessful in business:
Harry Truman, whose haberdashery shop went bankrupt after two years.

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than
45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience
than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on
average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval
Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP
has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no
business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

The story is much the same when we look at share prices in this time
frame.

None of the five presidents under whom the stock market has had its
best performances — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan,
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower — had significant business
experience. Topping the list are the two most recent career-politician
presidents, Clinton and Obama, both of whom pursued economic policies
that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, insist are anti-business
and economically disastrous.

Three of the four presidents under whom the stock market has had its
worst showings — Hoover, Carter and George W. Bush — had successful
business experience. Carter, the only Democratic president in this
period who prospered in business, had run a very profitable peanut
enterprise. But his economic record as president was so bad that
Reagan defeated him in 1980 in large part by pointing to the very high
“misery index” created by high unemployment and inflation under
Carter.

Stock values have averaged a robust 14.2 percent annual gain under
presidents without business experience, and they have fallen by an
average of 3 percent annually under those with that “essential”
qualification.

The most startling figures emerge when we combine party and business
experience. Historically, a Democrat without business experience has
been extraordinarily better for the economy and the stock market than
a Republican who had a career in business. In the past 84 years, GDP
has grown 7 percent per year under Democrats without business
experience (FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and Obama) and fallen by 0.2
percent per year under Republicans with business experience (Hoover
and the two Bushes). The Dow has risen an average of 16.8 percent per
year under Democrats without business experience and has fallen by 3.7
percent per year under Republicans with business experience.

It is often said that a president has little control over the economy,
but that is only partially true. A president and governmental policies
act with the economy as farmers do with crops. Crops and economies
grow on their own, but how well they grow is greatly affected by the
actions of those providing water, fertilizer, weed removal and so
forth.

There is a saying: “If you want to live like a Republican, vote
Democratic.” Perhaps it should be amended to: “If you want to live
like a successful Republican businessperson, vote for a Democrat
without business experience.”

Romney might need to find a better way to sell his experience.

[Robert S. McElvaine, the author of “The Great Depression: America
1929-1941,” is a history professor at Millsaps College in Jackson,
Miss.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-a-businessman-help-the-eco...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...