Tag: Mitt Romney
Now, they tell us! Just a few days before the election (and after many people have already voted), we learn that the non-partisan Congressional Research Service provided a report in September which the GOP didn't want voters to know about. Indeed they badgered the Congressional Research Service until it pulled the report. But this past week the suppressed report reappeared.
You can find the complete report by going to the first link in the article at the NY Times linked above. The finding was that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of tirckle-down. Tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate the economy. Meanwhile, pretending tht they do has allowed taxes for the 1% to continue to drop over several decades while jobs continue to prove problematic. We have made that case before using other data, but this specifically addressed the proposition and its related variables. I will discuss this report and others more in the coming weeks as the House (if it is still Republican) will try once again to usher in austerity even while making the rich richer with our money. Meanwhile, I wanted you to have it now.
The Mitt Romney Campaign and the campaigns of all the GOP sound-alikes continue to pitch trickle-down so-called economics. Elect them, they tell you, and they will cut tax rates for the so-called job-creators, who it turns out aren't job creators. You knew that. I knew that. But too many Americans still buy the economic porn of the Romney's. Check out this report. Share the article with your friends. Share other points about the stark choice we have. It is this: Everyone paying their fair share or the 99% paying for the tax cuts to the rich. If that were the only reason (and there are a hundred other reasons why to vote for the President), the President has earned your vote.
Though Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan repeatedly refuse to say which specific tax breaks they would eliminate or reduce, the Tax Policy Center calculates that these major tax benefits for middle-class families would have to be reduced by 58 percent to pay for his tax cut for the rich. That 58 percent cut does not even account for the fact that middle-class taxpayers would be forced to pay for the $1.1 trillion corporate tax cut also championed by the Republican ticket.
"The plan was for supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies to the event and then deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table...To complete the project and photo op, Romney would lead his crew in carrying the goods out of the gymnasium and into the Penske rental truck parked outside."
Campaign aides became worried that donations wouldn't be large enough to fill up the truck. So, the night before the event Romney campaign workers took $5,000 to a Dayton Walmart and bought bottled water, canned goods, etc. When people showed up without donations, they were told to "just grab something" from the purchased pile.
It's bad enough that a "storm relief" event used bogus donations, but let's not forget that the Red Cross expressly asks people NOT to donate goods. Donated money can be used to buy what's needed at the site of a disaster. Donated goods simply use up resources transporting and distributing them. If Romney wants to help, I would suggest he pull out his checkbook and write a multi-million-dollar donation to the Red Cross, earning himself yet another tax deduction.
This scam ranks right up there with Paul Ryan showing up long after dinner at a shelter, but insisting on washing already clean dishes in order to get his photo taken. There's no way Americans can trust those guys.
Worse than sad. Disgraceful. He casts himself as a religious man, but, where morality and truth-telling intersect, is a complete fraud. Bill Scher has an article listing and refuting the lies in Mitten's closing argument. Here are a few of Romney's false claims (asterisked in the blockquote) with Scher's counterpoint/correction immediately below the lie.
There's more below the fold...
When President Obama arrived at George Mason University on Friday, he threw a verbal grenade at Mitt Romney that liberal blogs had been entertaining for some time beforehand: "Romnesia."
By now you're probably already familiar with the quote, but for clarities sake, here it is again: "If you come down with a case of Romnesia and you can't seem to remember the policies that are still on your website or the promises that you've made over the six years that you've been running for president, here's the good news: Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions."
Merely two days after President Obama's utterance of this word, its use, and the discussion about its use, has appeared to "go viral." Not only is "Romnesia" a catchy phrase, its one word that summarizes the fractured, round-about, disjointed, and contradictory policy positions of the former governor of Massachusetts.
Because of Romney's contradictory policy positions and his inability to stand up to the most radical elements in his party, at least two major newspapers, one symbolic and one very salient for the upcoming election, have endorsed President Obama for president.
On Friday, the Salt Lake Tribune publicly endorsed President Obama for reelection in an editorial aptly named "Too Many Mitts." As the heartland for Romney's own religion, Mormonism, the Tribune's rebuttal of Romney and ultimate endorsement of President Obama comes as a withering symbolic blow to the formers campaign.
The enormity of the problem surrounding world hunger and starvation has often been an argument used by my circle of friends and acquaintances to turn our collective attention away from the issue. The issue of global hunger and starvation is unequivocally a daunting problem for any country, let alone a group of individuals. Nonetheless, it is an issue that jars one's complacency once a few straightforward facts are known.
First, there are nearly one billion individuals in the world today who are "malnourished." A significant part of the problem has been the inability of the world to increase its production of food. That is, the world food production may have reached a plateau.
Here is a staggering figure, however: "Nearly 60% of global land deals in the last decade have been to grow crops that can be used for bio fuels, says Oxfam." Thus, America's own Renewable Fuel Standard which mandates 13 BILLION gallons of bio fuel be produced in 2012 as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foreign oil imports has contributed to the world's inability to produce food for human consumption.
The silver lining for the U.S. and the world is that the policy can be reworked or completely revoked. It's clear that one of the two needs to occur, and quickly.
In January 2009, President Obama was handed a Republican-created deficit of $1.2 trillion and the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. In response and to avoid a depression, President Obama spent an additional $200 billion that year. The government also faced a sharp drop in federal revenue, as well as the continuing cost of two wars kept off-budget by George Bush to make his deficits seem lower.
To contain future deficits, Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress passed and signed the Statutory Pay As You Go Act of 2010, which mandated that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. That Clinton-era law was one reason the U.S. was able to achieve budget surpluses in the 1990's because it forced discipline on federal spending. (Republicans had let Pay Go expire early in George Bush's first term.) Guess how many Republicans voted against the new Pay As You Go law? All of them, including Paul Ryan.
The corporate media too often has allowed Romney and Ryan to lie and say that President Obama has accelerated federal spending at a rate not seen in history. That's a blatant lie. Rex Nutting of MarketWatch, an affiliate of The Wall Street Journal, told the truth last May. "Spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4 percent annualized increase." So, where does the deficit come from?