Fact check: Mitt Romney's convention speech
"I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour."
This one is easy: Romney has claimed over and over that President Obama has been traveling the world apologizing for America. As we detailed earlier this month, it's an unfair claim. The president has certainly at times suggested America is not perfect. But Romney uses out of context comments to support his claims - pointing to Mr. Obama's statement that America hasn't always appreciated Europe, for example, but leaving out the next line in which Mr. Obama says Europe should answer for its anti-Americanism.
"Unlike President Obama, I will not raise taxes on the middle class."
There are two problems with this claim. The first is that Mr. Obama has not raised taxes on the middle class. Certainly, there are a small percentage of Americans who could see some form of a tax increase as a result of the health care law - if you consider the individual mandate a tax. (Though Republican claims on the front are overstated.) The president has actually signed into law a number of tax cuts, including the payroll tax cut and the Making Work Pay tax credit.
The second problem is that, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney's tax plan would increase the tax burden on middle- and low-income Americans if it is to be revenue neutral, as Romney promises. Romney has not detailed some of the specifics of the plan, but the study reached this conclusion even by assuming he will first eliminate deductions and loopholes for the wealthiest Americans.
"His trillion-dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk."
This claim is tied to the fact that the defense budget is facing $500 billion in cuts at the end of the year. As part of an agreement between Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the cuts are set to go into effect (along with roughly equal cuts to domestic programs) in January - unless lawmakers can agree on an alternate way to cut spending. It is not correct to call those "his" cuts, in reference to the president.
"His $716 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obamacare will both hurt today's seniors, and depress innovation - and jobs - in medicine."
As CBS News explained earlier this month, these "cuts" - actually reductions in future Medicare spending - are to providers, not Medicare recipients. And they extend the life of the Medicare program - which is perhaps why Ryan, Romney's running mate, included them in his own budget plan.
"Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before."
This one's true, but misleading. As Factcheck.org points out, the reason that there are more Americans in poverty than ever is because there are more Americans than ever. The poverty rate - a far fairer gauge of poverty under the president - was 15.1 percent in 2010. That's the highest since 1993, and it's nothing to be proud of. But it's 7.3 percentage points lower than the 1959 poverty rate.
"The centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success."
Romney didn't explain what he meant by this, but it's presumably a reference to the president's "you didn't build that" comment that Republicans repeatedly referenced throughout the convention. As CBS News and many other media outlets have pointed out, the criticism of the president over the comment depends on removing it from context: It came as part of a larger point about getting "help" on the path to being successful. The "that" in the full comment appears to have been a reference to roads and bridges.
"I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs."
This sounds ambitious - but it's not impossible. To do this in his first term, as Romney promises, would require creating 250,000 jobs per month for four years. In July, the economy added 163,000 jobs. There are not signs that that number will shoot up by 100,000 jobs per month anytime soon, but the economy has gone through periods of such job creation, most recently during the Clinton administration. And as the Washington Post points out, Moody's Analytics predicts 12 million jobs by 2016, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Romney says he'll get there through spending cuts and lower taxes.
Romney: Time to put Obama behind us
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface 126 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 259 Comments
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 115 Comments
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 130 Comments
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones
Instead of honoring those who produce, we worship those who have the most. We (especially politicians) honor those who can do the most for us financially or entertain us. We honor the millionaires and billionaires, whether self made or inherited, the athletes, the actors, singers, CEOs, and politicians. Forgotten are the teachers who inspire children, the police and firefighters who protect and serve, the construction workers who build, the factory workers who produce, the civil servants who strive to help those in need, the small farmers who feed, and millions of others who struggle and work daily to make this a better world. Instead we exult the stock broker who can manipulate Wall Street for millions, the athlete who can command millions to throw a ball, hit a ball, or put a ball in a hoop, or the politician who can make you think he/she knows what is best for the nation, and even those who can use their wealth to "make" the politician and make him/her "dance". Yes, America has forgotten the working man/woman and made heroes of those who are NOT WORTHY. So we set aside a day to celebrate and honor the working "stiff" and forget (and even disrespect them) the rest of the year. America needs new priorities. America needs new respect for the "working" man/woman. America needs new HEROES.
I don't think Romney a guy who is having a problem telling the truth is going to care well for Americans or the rest of the world.
Let me paint you a portrait of a Romney/Ryan/GOP America as I interpret it from Romney/Ryan/GOP stated policies. ALL abortion would be banned (if Romney flip flopped to the "party line"). Rape and incest victims and women whose lives are endangered would be forced to carry pregnancies to term or break the law. In theory, the government will have taken over the women's body. This is a policy of the radical Christian right and could possibly become part of Romney's policy after election.
Romney/Ryan/GOP policy is to eliminate government regulation on businesses. The biggest targeted regulations have to do with offshore oil drilling, mining (especially coal), fracking and oil and gas exploration, oil and gas pipe lines, and forestry regulations. They have even proposed doing away with the EPA. These will ALL have lasting effect on our environment and our health. They will give huge profits to the big oil, gas, and coal companies, but they will effect the air we breath, the water we drink, and the earth we depend on for food. These are fossil fuels which when burned have a lasting effect on our environment. We need to keep these industries regulated to protect the environment. If we eliminate these regulations, we will join China in the ranks of nations with no environmental conscience. Is that where we as proud Americans want to be?
Related to the fossil fuel debate is the "green" energy debate. Romney/Ryan has proposed eliminating all funding for "green" energy exploration. Millions of people will lose their jobs, America will become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels, and air and water quality will be threatened. America will give up it's position as a leader in technology, especially "green" energy technology. The U.S. will not be prepared for the eventual loss of fossil fuels (they are finite after all). This is a perfect example of short sighted GREED gaining preference over long term economic health. As oil becomes more and more expensive the economy and the people will suffer. But the big oil, gas, and coal companies will profit until the supply runs out.
Romney/Ryan/GOP policy is to deny that global warming exists, or is caused by burning fossil fuels. Yet scientists the world over agree that global warming is happening and that it is caused by carbon emission from fossil fuels. Our air is polluted, our forest are dying and our earth is increasingly contaminated. The ice IS melting and global warming IS happening. Denying its existence will not make it go away nor will it improve conditions around the world. It is a problem we must address now if we want to have a future on this planet as we now know it.
Romney/Ryan/GOP want to reduce the SIZE of the federal government. Yes, it sounds like an admirable goal. But let's look at what they propose to do to reduce the SIZE of government. They would simply shift the responsibility for programs to the states. Most states are already working working to survive on budgets stretched far too thin to take on any more services. With the federal government advocating their responsibility to the states without federal funding, states will either have to eliminate programs or raise taxes. When states raise taxes, whether it be property taxes or state income taxes, the middle class bare the most of the burden. So while Romney/Ryan has not raised the taxes of middle class Americans, he has caused states to have to reduce services or raise taxes.
While we are talking taxes, Romney/Ryan/GOP have proposed to lower the taxes of the wealthiest Americans and the largest multinational corporations. This will give as much or more than $250,000 to millionaires and billionaires and millions to multinational corporations. They claim these people and corporations are the job builders, (This is the tried and failed GOP theory of "trickle down" economics) It didn't work then and it wont work now. But as Romney/Ryan claim it will be revenue neutral. In other words, other taxes will make up for the tax break for the wealthy. Those taxes can only come from one place. THE MIDDLE CLASS.
This is getting too long so I will post post more later.
I will leave you with a final observation. The GOP has a history of being anti-worker. Their policies for the last decade have favored the wealthy and the big multinational corporations at the expense of the middle class working people of America. When you examine their "big money" supporters, they are mostly openly anti-union. But their anit-unionism is really a anti-worker policy. Few are old enough to remember the "sweat shops" of the garment industry, the coal mine disasters of the eastern coal mines, the fires in the textile mills, disabled workers who had no disability or workmen compensation, and many other abuses by businesses in the late 19th and early 20th century. But history will tell you of these happenings. And it was unions who first addressed these problems. And it was unions who got most of the "perks" that ALL workers enjoy today. Unions got ALL workers the 40hr work week, overtime pay, safe work place conditions, medical insurance, pensions, and many other benefits. Yet the GOP and GOP backers want to take those rights away from workers (ALL workers, not just union workers). It boggles my mind that any working American can support a party that is so blatantly anti-worker (although they disguise it as anti-unionism). American workers, wake up to the fact that you have NO friends in the GOP. And you should vote with that in mind.
What then? TSA pregnancy tests?
Here are my conclusions:
Clint: Has a tendency to stretch the truth sometimes.
Romney: A bonifide bald faced liar. Has tobe pathological if he actually believes what heis claiming.
Ryan: Certified &%^-damned liar. No way even he believes his jive.
SO, why isn't Clint running for POTUS. He seems to have more integrity than these other two.
Today's Republican party seem to think it's ok to distort the truth to win elections. That's not Right, it's wrong. If you agree, come join us at Christians for Obama on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/ChristiansForObama
So he tends to pick things that sound good to him.
The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney likes to say he won't "apologize" for his success in business. But what he never says is "thank you" - to the American people - for the federal bailout of Bain & Company that made so much of his outsize wealth possible.
According to the candidate's mythology, Romney took leave of his duties at the private equity firm Bain Capital in 1990 and rode in on a white horse to lead a swift restructuring of Bain & Company, preventing the collapse of the consulting firm where his career began. When The Boston Globe reported on the rescue at the time of his Senate run against Ted Kennedy, campaign aides spun Romney as the wizard behind a "long-shot miracle," bragging that he had "saved bank depositors all over the country $30 million when he saved Bain & Company."
In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney's initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster - leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had "no value as a going concern." Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC - the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers - out of at least $10 million. And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds.
...
But the FDIC documents on the Bain deal - which were heavily redacted by the firm prior to release - show that as a wealthy businessman, Romney was willing to go to extremes to secure a federal bailout to serve his own interests. He had a lot at stake, both financially and politically. Had Bain & Company collapsed, insiders say, it would have dealt a grave setback to Bain Capital, where Romney went on to build a personal fortune valued at as much as $250 million. It would also have short-circuited his political career before it began, tagging Romney as a failed businessman unable to rescue his own firm
[...]
With his rescue plan a bust, Romney was forced to slink back to the banks to negotiate a new round of debt relief. There was only one catch: Even though Bain & Company was deep in debt and sinking fast, the firm was actually flush with cash - most of it from the looted money that Bill Bain and other partners had given back. "Liquidity is strong based on the significant cash balance which Bain is carrying," one federal document reads.
Under normal circumstances, such ample reserves would have made liquidating Bain an attractive option: Creditors could simply divvy up the stockpiled cash and be done with the troubled firm. But Bain had inserted a poison pill in its loan agreement with the banks: Instead of being required to use its cash to pay back the firm's creditors, the money could be pocketed by Bain executives in the form of fat bonuses - starting with VPs making $200,000 and up. "The company can deplete its cash balances by making officer-bonus payments," the FDIC lamented, "and still be in compliance with the loan documents."
...
In March 1992, according to the FDIC documents, Romney approached the banks and played the bonus card. Allow Bain to pay off its debt at a deep discount, he demanded - just 35 cents on the dollar. Otherwise, the "majority" of the firm's "excess cash" would "be available for the bonus pool to its officers at a vice president level and above."
...
Romney's decision to place executive compensation over fiscal responsibility immediately put Bain on the ropes. By that July, FDIC analysts reported, Bain had so little money left that "the company will actually run out of cash and default on the existing debt structure" as early as 1995. If that happened, Bain employees and American consumers would take the hit - an alternative that analysts considered "catastrophic."
[...]
In the end, the government surrendered. At the time, The Boston Globe cited bankers dismissing the bailout as "relatively routine" - but the federal documents reveal it was anything but. The FDIC agreed to accept nearly $5 million in cash to retire $15 million in Bain's debt - an immediate government bailout of $10 million. All told, the FDIC estimated it would recoup just $14 million of the $30 million that Romney's firm owed the government.
It was a raw deal - but Romney's threat to loot his own firm had left the government with no other choice. If the FDIC had pushed Bain into bankruptcy, the records reveal, the agency would have recouped just $3.56 million from the firm.
[...]
Read more: The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney at Rolling Stone...