Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: At Last Wed Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 LIES In 38 Minutes | Ten New Debunks!

Posted 5 years ago on Oct. 4, 2012, 11:06 p.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


But will the masses know about it?


Look! Howard Stern Smacked Sharon Osbourne in the Mouth on TV!!

By Igor Volsky on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:08 am

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 (and Mormon speed and a Rufied Moderator). He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths/LIES:

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 amounts 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 code 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.

(16-27 CONTINUED:)


AND MORE: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=10470787



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by NVPHIL (664) 5 years ago

We need a way to disqualify running blatant liers from running for office. It pisses me off that romney can say whatever he wants with no regard to truth.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33478) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Currently - it will have to be the public that makes that call - those who are aware talking to others that are still oblivious - over the internet in public protests etc.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Well the way it's set up, we vote the liars, bastards and shills the fuck out of our government. But with the lowest Voter turnout and the highest Big$ turnout, Big$, not us, get who they want in "office." And we can pound sand, or VOTE!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Yep. People think Romney pummled Obama. He didn't. Not by a long shot. It pisses me off that we have repeatedly discussed that MSM decides the questions and thus the answers. We see the shiny thingy on the tv all the time.

Sure as shit, the first debate comes up and the pundits and the media boo and hiss and a shit load of people think something happened or did not happen. Nice shiny object. Not to mention people hedging bets 3 days before it. Way to treat it like a football game.

Romney looked like shit. Scared out of his mind.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Robert Reich

The first presidential debate: Romney's style trumps Obama's substance

Romney stayed on script while Obama struggled to think on his feet in the first presidential debate, Reich writes.

By Robert Reich, Guest blogger / October 4, 2012

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is seated with Ann Romney as his son Craig and grandson Nick as they play a game of Zenga in the family holding room before the start of the first presidential debate in Denver, Wednesday. Reich writes that Romney was repetitive but effective while President Obama came across as passive.

In Wednesday night’s debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he’s either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he’s a fabulous actor.

[Robert Reich is chancellor’s professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Clinton. Time Magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including “The Work of Nations,” his latest best-seller “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future," and a new e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.]

But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney’s budget plan — awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney’s 47 percent talk, or Romney’s “carried-interest” tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he’d replace and why. And so on.

I’ve been worried about Obama’s poor debate performance for some time now. He was terrible in the 2008 primary debates, for example. Expectations are always high — he’s known as an eloquent orator. But when he has to think on his feet and punch back, he’s not nearly as confident or assured as he is when he is giving a speech or explaining a large problem and its solution. He is an educator, not a pugilist, and this puts him at a disadvantage in any debate.

Romney stayed on script. If you look at a transcript of his remarks you’ll see that he repeated the same lines almost word for word in different contexts. He has memorized a bunch of lines, and practiced delivering them. The overall effect is to make him seem assured and even passionate about his position. He said over and over that he cares about jobs, about small businesses, and ordinary Americans. But his policies and his record at Bain tell a very different story.

The question now is whether Team Obama understands that our President must be more aggressive and commanding in the next two debates — and be unafraid to respectfully pin Romney to the floor.

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. This post originally ran on www.robertreich.org.


[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

And.........you need someone to tell you what to think?

I understand if you do. But, then we probably shouldn't talk about shiny.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Don't know where you get that. But we could all use corroboration and supporting evidence. Being a lifer lefty, it's routine: "Don't believe me, here's an acknowledged expert." Reich is one of the best.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

If this were a subject that needed back up data then it would have been acceptable and expected. This, however, did not require that type of data.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

In a society that pays more attention and allegiance to foot fucking ball than to their government, you want to nit pick about what type of "back up" is given to a "subject"?

Are you having deja, deja, deja, deja vu?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Yes, nitpicky is in order. Have you, or the general you, become so helpless that it is necessary to have someone else interpret what you have seen or what was said? What you have is someone else's opinion. As a rule, we recognize when a piece is based on opinion.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Just always remember, it wasn't you, it was totally and unequivocally just me.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

You are bored. Again.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Everybody get registered and get out the vote!


[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

Romney always look like that. Never underestimate America's love for basic dishonesty. Romney has a very good chance of winning this.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

It simply means that we don't abondon our critical thinking skills.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

What critical thinking?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Mitt Romney’s dishonest debate

October 5, 2012

Whether he was talking about taxes, health care, Medicare, education, or clean energy, Mitt Romney didn’t tell the voters the truth in the first presidential debate. Take a look at the videos highlighting his brazen dishonesty, then share it with your friends so they can get the facts. Romney falsely claimed his tax plan wouldn’t raise taxes for the middle class, despite the fact that multiple independent experts say that’s the only way he could pay for his $5 trillion tax cut favoring the wealthy:


[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I think this post is more of what I wish I could post or write myself. I just got here and feel distracted so i haven't read it yet. But I'm going to start reading it now. My democracynow.com video just crapped out my computer, so i'm not going to watch the video for a while.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

(16-27 CONTINUED:)

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths/LIES In 38 Minutes But will the masses know about it?


Look! Howard Stern Smacked Sharon Osbourne in the Mouth on TV!!


By Igor Volsky on Oct 4, 2012 at 9:08 am

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 (and Mormon speed and a Rufied Moderator). He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths/LIES:

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.

AND MORE: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=10470787

[-] 0 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

This post should be main steam news lead.

How can the people allow liars to be are our leaders?

MSM has sold its soul to the devil, uh I mean to the corporations.

[-] 3 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

An argument that groups all of anything under one label immediately loses credibility.
I would ask if you have watched MSM - MSNBC with Rachel, Ed, Chris, Lawrence ?
They are ALL using the words LIE & LIAR
All corporations are not bad
All are not

[-] 0 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

OWS made a movie? See bottom link. No. At points it appears as an OWS production, but is from Zeitgeist movement. Nevertheless, much is very similar.

I watch the above pundits quite frequently 9 of 10 days, for a more complete picture of news, and to get my money's worth of cable. It is a habit aquired from my liberal parents.

Mitt's a habitual liar. People forgive him because he is a nice guy. The conservatives ripped apart and Swift-boated John Kerry, similarly lying.

Bush and Cheney got us into ileagle wars.

That they can fool the people of the Republican party with continual lies and misinformation, I can't comprehend how when information is at one's fingertips, they blatantly get away with it.

It is like people believing what Hitler told them, but at same time, having abiltity to verify for selves the truth.


I agree. All corporations not inherently bad. But they are often led by people with little conscience except to make money.


Disclaimer, above is from Zeitgeist, of which I have little experience.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

some of the 70+ videos on our site are by and of OWS

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

MSM was always owned by them, "the corporations," but they didn't realize to what degree they could lie, omit and distort until the last few decades.

"How can the people allow liars to be are our leaders?"

The people are overburdened with employment or lack of, anesthetized by TV, and misinformed by RW hate radio, Fox Lies and MSM. That's how.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

10 Most Shameless Romney Debate Lies -- Debunked

Your conservative relatives should see this.

October 4, 2012 |

The verdict is in: Mitt Romney handily won last night’s debate, and did what he needed to do to have a fighting chance at winning the election. But what he didn’t do, predictably, was tell the truth.

Romney’s debate performance was chock full of lies, recalling his running mate’s address to the GOP convention, which was also chock full of lies. Hopefully, just as Ryan’s address was dissected and debunked by some media outlets, Romney’s claims are as well, so the debate can move to substantive issues instead of stylistic ones.

Here are ten of Romney’s fact-challenged claims from last night:

  1. An ‘Unelected Board’ Controlling Your Health Care

Despite President Obama trying to push back on this lie, Romney made this claim a few times last night. Obamacare, according to Romney, “puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” In reality, as the Associated Press points out, the board that is tasked with bringing down Medicare costs is prohibited from “rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the board doesn't have the power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe.” This Romney claim also hearkened back to Sarah Palin’s lie that Obamacare created “death panels,” which was a straight up lie.

  1. A Bipartisan Record

Romney referred to his alleged “bipartisan” record in Massachusetts as governor during the debate. But what’s the real story on this? ABC News calls the claim “not quite factual.” Indeed: Romney’s health care plan was enacted with the help of a Democratic legislature. But in general, the body was “frustrated” with Romney “because he wanted to govern like a ‘CEO’ and ‘didn’t pay heed to the legislature and they resented that,’” according to the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation’s Michael Widmer.

  1. Dodd-Frank Labels Banks as ‘Too Big to Fail’

One contrast between the candidates that emerged during the debate was over Dodd-Frank, the weak Wall Street reforms and regulations passed after the 2008 financial collapse. Romney wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, and part of the reason why is his claim that the bill designates banks as “too big to fail” and therefore gives them “a blank check.” But as ThinkProgress notes, this is far from the truth: “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.”

  1. Obamacare Leads to Loss of Healthcare

Governor Romney claimed that the passage of the Affordable Care Act will lead to 20 million people losing health insurance. He based this claim on a Congressional Budget Office report. But according to PolitiFact, Romney “cherry picked” the CBO report and mislead viewers on why people would “lose” coverage.

PolitiFact’s final verdict on the claim is: “That number is cherry-picked, and he’s wrong to describe it as only including people who ‘like’ their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. Romney also ignores that under the status quo, many more people today ‘lose’ coverage than even the highest, cherry-picked CBO estimate. We rate his statement False.”

  1. The Failure of the Obama Economy

Romney hammered Obama on the economy’s performance over the past four years. One claim Romney made was this: “[We have] 23 million people out of work...The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can't find work.”

But here’s the AP breakdown of the facts on this claim: “The number of unemployed is 12.5 million, not 23 million. Romney was also counting 8 million people who are working part time but would like a full-time job and 2.6 million who have stopped looking for work, either because they are discouraged or because they are going back to school or for other reasons.”

And on the college graduate claim, Romney was also wrong. Back to the AP: “A Northeastern University analysis for The Associated Press found that a quarter of graduates were probably unemployed and another quarter were underemployed, which means working in jobs that didn't make full use of their skills or experience.”

  1. Obamacare Cuts Billions From Medicare

This was one of Romney’s favorite attack lines last night: the notion that the Affordable Care Act is siphoning off funds from Medicare. The specific claim is that $716 billion was cut from Medicare because of the Affordable Care Act. In reality, this claim is highly misleading. What the number refers to is money that 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,” ThinkProgress notes.

  1. Gas Prices Increase

Romney said that “gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up.” This is true--but to blame it on the president is highly misleading. Gasoline prices have little to do with individual policies carried out by a president. Instead, as the Associated Press states, “Gasoline prices are set on financial exchanges around the world and are based on a host of factors, most importantly the price of crude oil used to make gasoline, the amount of finished gasoline ready to be shipped and the capacity of refiners to make enough to meet market demand.”

The AP also skewers Romney’s claim on electric rates going up: “Retail electricity prices have risen since Obama took office — barely. They've grown by an average of less than 1 percent per year, less than the rate of inflation and slower than the historical growth in electricity prices. The unexpectedly modest rise in electricity prices is because of the plummeting cost of natural gas, which is used to generate electricity.”

  1. Health Care Costs Rising Under Obama

Romney’s made this statement on the campaign trail--and if it was wrong then, it’s wrong now. Last night, Romney claimed that “health care costs have gone up by $2500 a family.”

But FactCheck.org was on this false claim back when Romney used it on the campaign trail in September. Their take: “Romney says health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 under Obama. The actual increase has been $1,700, most of which was absorbed by employers and only a small part of which is attributable to the health care law.”

  1. Oil and Gas Production Increases Only on Private Land

The former Massachusetts governor said last night that “all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land...Your Administration has cut the numbers of permit and licenses in half.”

But ABC News says Romney is playing loose with the facts. Data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that “the number of drilling permits on federal lands approved during the fiscal years President Obama has been in office has decreased somewhere between 20 and 37 percent compared to the years before he became president - not the 50 percent Romney claimed.”

  1. No Tax Cuts for the Rich

To fend off the perception that he’s only concerned about the wealthy, Romney made sure to emphasize that his economic plan would not lower tax rates on rich people.

Think Progress has the details on that claim: “If Romney were to actually implement his plan to reduce tax rates by 20 percent while eliminating tax deductions in order to pay for it, taxpayers with more than $200,000 would certainly see a tax cut. But everyone else — 95 percent of Americans —will see their taxes increase.” Alex Kane is AlterNet's New York-based World editor, and a staff reporter for Mondoweiss. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.


[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

I like #25 - breaks the first commandment of lying -
dont tell easily fact checked lies
although the first amendment and SCOTUS 1976 Buckly decision allows coal companies to lie about "CLEAN" coal in their ads, even the lemmings must know there is no such thing

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

At this point in time, after RayGun and two Bushes, and after declaring that they would NOT let fact checkers (FACTS) run their convention, do lies matter to their supporters?

[-] 0 points by gsw (3141) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 5 years ago

Sadly, Papers, that want to keep the election contest close, say Romney clearly won in debates.


Romney won undecided voters 2 to 1

Two out of three people surveyed thought Romney did a better job, according to a CNN/ORC International poll. CBS polled uncommitted voters, and they gave Romney a 46-22 percent edge.

People are trained to believe lies told with sincerity.


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

the meek will inherit the earth
eating pork is a sin against God
kill the infadels

answers are easy
questions are hard

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Don't believe all the polls either. The polls seem to get worse about a week before election time. I've seen some polls posted on Drudge Report the whole last month or two that were way off base. Clearly there is a Right Wing Poll taking mechanism.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

some polls "tilt"
rassmussen is R
PPP is D

senate: MA polls seem all over the place
ND - first recent poll is now 47 47
MT may statrt sliding to D

I think VP debate can push 2% - 4% of low information voters
[ ie - ignorant ]
to reconsider willard's lies

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Yes, I'm well aware of thrown games for ratings and tickets. Being a Laker fan, I've had to endure them throwing games to shitty teams (ie. Blazers), just to keep the venue/arena (and asses in seats) on the schedule.

On the other hand, what if Obama is disgusted and fed up? After the betrayal and subsequent Teabag invasion of 2010, I would not blame him one bit.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

The best part was Obama telling Romney that private insurance companies would always put the gov out of business, which is exactly what Obamacare is.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Obamacare allows states the flexibility to create a public option, bypassing the private health insurance criminals.

So thats the way we get to the more affordable single payer and put the private insurance criminals out of business. Before they put the peoples govt out of business as the Pres correctly suggested.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Obama stated there is no bypassing the private insurance, he said it himself, they will always win. They will always beat the government because they are "tricky", which I agree. Which is why Obamacare sucks so hard.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

That doesn't change the facts:

Obamacare allows states the flexibility to create a public option, bypassing the private health insurance criminals.

So thats the way we get to the more affordable single payer and put the private insurance criminals out of business. Before they put the peoples govt out of business as the Pres correctly suggested.

Several states (Vt, MT, and others) Are actively working on implementing a public option.

Sorry. Private ins corps WILL be put out of business.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Obama stated that introducing private health insurance companies to medicare, which is gov, would put the gov out of business.

No state options will be able to get a foothold on things, when its overrun with private insurance. These are his own words.

So if he thinks that an established program like medicare (which has been around a long time) would be destroyed by introducing private options, then how the HELL is a field dominated by private insurance every going to allow for a state run option to last?

He stated the two cannot work together, and when they do, the private ones win. Those were his exact words.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Please. It's comin. If you do not see how that is your misfortune.

Private health insurance corps WILL be put out of business as the states implement a real public option.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

What I see happening, actually, is eventually medicare and medicaid being moved toward Obamacare, or the Romney plan, where private insurance runs the show.

Dems passing this monstrosity, Romneycare, is very telling of where the nation is heading.

And I see most of Europe getting rid of their universal care and going towards the fascist US model as their economy continues to get worse.

Trust me, I would love to feel like its coming. But the trend is not heading in that direction. Universal isnt even in the campaign anymore. ITs all war war war. I campaigned in 08 on universal. Thats what I want. Thats what we wanted. This was a step in the opposite direction, which is why benefits conitnue to go down, prices go up, and the big fours stocks are still climbing.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

You are absolutely wrong! Pessimistic, negative. The only reason the dems lost the public option is because of the right wing wackos.

It will come. We just gotta replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives. And protest for real change that will benefit the 99%

If you really want universal coverage you would see that.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

No, if I really wanted universal coverage, I would see that 09 was the best shot the country ever had, and especially in the face of this upcoming crash, it was the last shot.

You realize the balance of power in 09 right?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

But your repubs filibustered! How does that equate "best chance"?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

my eyes roll when I hear that

I understand a simple majority can close a debate

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Filibuster requires 60 votes! not a simple majority.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

With current rules - that can be changed every January -
Any SINGLE senator can create a filibuster

[ anyone see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington ? ]
[ it does not work that way today ]

To "cancel" the filibuster, 60 votes are required to override it
That is why so many bills failed in the senate - even with majority support

If mitch mcconnel filibusters a bill and 40R + 1D are against "cloture"
the filibuster stands with 59D senators wanting to vote for the bill

If Obama wins & gets 50D in the senate, they MUST [ and can - by simple majority ] get rid of it
If willard wins & gets 50R in the senate, they WILL [ and can - by simple majority ] get rid of it - God help us!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I agree. And because of the right wing overuse/abuse/misuse it is time to make the change that Harry Reid suggested in 2010 but failed to execute for fear of one day needing it if & when Dems are in the minority.

Filibuster is wrong and should be changed. Period.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8733) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Number 15, I think we all know that the whole vouchers thing is about giving a few bucks to people like Romney who would prefer to have private health care but feel like even if they can afford it if other people are getting something they're not they feel cheated so they want to be able to pull some money from the system, even if they don't need it. Then when the people with checkbooks at campaign time are out of Medicare you can slash the shit out of it. That's the plan, we do all know that don't we?

Same thing about "vouchers" for schools, no way those vouchers are going to get into any school Romney went to, but it's nice to know your getting your fair share of tax dollars no matter how rich you are, once the wealthy/upper middle class are out you can slash school funding.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Yes, they want to privatize EVERYTHING! Even if they have to call it Public Socialized Communist vouchers.

I wonder if Romney was or still is getting Unemployment Insurance checks?? Now that there are no more nasty UI office visits or waiting in unruly lines, decent people can get free UI checks with just a few key strokes from the comfort of a Manhattan penthouse.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8733) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Don't be fooled into thinking this is just about creating a new private profit center for friends and family, at taxpayer expense, though surely it is. The primary reason, IMO is to change the central question of the program from, What does it cover? to, What does it cost? Then all you are doing is changing a number to a lower value when you cut the program, it's not like your opponents can bring specific people with conditions that won't be covered, it become your fault if you didn't get a good deal or don't have the money, like everything else, well i think that's fine when it comes to vacations in Hawaii but medicine should not be that way.

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

How do we PING the politicians to let them know we are tracking them and putting them into the "Bright Lights".

If people know we are watching them, "Hey, they improve their BEHAVIOR".

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Phone calls and Snail Mail!! Use postcards, the anthrax-mailing ditto-head ruined envelopes for everybody. Wish that worked for guns!

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 5 years ago

And Obama said Sovial Security is on sound financial footing.

You are splitting hairs. Romey punked Obama, EVERYONE, including liberal Chris Mattews and Al Gore admit it.

Liberal Chs Matthews: I"f the other debates go like this,why bother wih an election, Romney wil win in a walk."

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

I applaud your wisdom! Keep listening to Mathews and Gore (and his new network) http://current.com/ !

AND try some Thom Hartman: http://www.thomhartmann.com/ and Randi Rhodes: http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html !

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Was Randi Rhodes a heavy metal guitarist from the '70's?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Not Motley Crue.

Air America Radio, Randi, follow the link. Best progressive show on radio, best website as well. Great bulletin/forum board, too.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Oh I think you (or someone showed me this once).

yes, I remember. good show.

Thx again

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

AAR still lives (sort of) in individual stations.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Yes. I do get to hear some. Bill press, & Stephanie Miller has a show on Current. TV.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

LOL. She's hilarious. Even Jenk on the "Young Turks" is good.

We're out there. What we do need is to break up the media conglomerates.

And especially the right wing wacko radio monopolies. The boycott of Rush would have been more successful if he didn't have a huge right wing conglomerate behind him.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

And saboteurs in congress. Pouting has consequences.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

replace pro 1% conservatives w. pro 99% progressives, & protest for change that benefits the 99%

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Exactly! But what about real, decent, caring loving 'conservatives' people - like my parents and some neighbours? You know, I can still dig Pat Buchanan! Funny right? Read him and he'll surprise you.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33478) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Advise them to look at their party and it's actions and ask themselves if these are their ideals being supported and acted upon. Then advise them they may want to go independent and find issues to support and individuals who support the issues.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

You assume that they are Republicans. For the most part they vote Democrat. Most democrats are conservative in outlook compared to other countries. Democratic party machine and politicians are way more conservative than most people who vote that party. Are you counting on Obama doing something radical for most of us if he gets the chance? More Independents like Sanders from Vt. are what is really needed and for people to wakeTFup!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33478) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You assume that I assume - do you see the democrats really pushing democratic concerns and ideals(?) - there are more of them in office sticking closer to the support of the people but it is in no way unanimous support nor very strong.

The People supporting and pushing the Peoples issues - directing their representatives - as they should be - will be how good things get done.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

'Advise them to look at their party', was what you said so I assumed but I can agree with most of what you say above and further down.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I think Pat Buchanan has had spot on political opinions. However, he is a racist, anti immigrant, anti LGBT anti non christian canker sore on the American political discussion.


And I thought "conservative" meant greedy selfish economic evolutionary, ayn rand loving exclusionary bigot.


[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

I don't know how to answer that, so I won't say anything :)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago


And remember conservative policies are at the center of all our problems!

Replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives, & protest for change that benefits the 99%.


[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Nothing happens unless WE show up.

Like Woody Allen said, 85% of life is just showing up!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Yes . Woody is great. Nice brooklyn boy!

Listen to him. He knows the best course.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

It is. Lift the cap.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 5 years ago

Ok. Lift the cap. Then you have to pay me according to my contributions or rewrite Socal Security laws as income transfer laws, which it was expressly designed not to be. By Roosevelt. So someone like me, who pays on the 1st $95000 of income will get $2400/month now, if you dont cap it, i will pay on my next $250000 in income, but my monthly will rise to nearly $8000, based on present formulas.

Is that what you want?

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The cap is an obsolete idea. Don't raise it, REMOVE the fucking cap completely. And begin means testing. Remove or vastly reduce tax on work, and tax the shit out of capital gains and wealth. Follow France!! 75%!!! When did dynasties get written into our tax laws?? END the redistribution to the top!!! You make it here, you pay it forward. Outlaw tax havens and offshoring!! END the economic Terrorism and Tyranny!! It's a DEMAND economy ~ WE ARE the BOSS!!!

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 5 years ago

If you means test, you need to rewrite the rules for SSI. It was designed not to be a welfare program.

France is going to wither with a 75% income tax rate. Watch.

You arent the boss. As long as you and I mean YOU are lazy and slothful, you wont get jack.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

No, we need to remove the grandfathered exploitation.

WE control the economy!

Today's "Robber Barons" are a retracted gerrymander from a room with a view... of Bernie Madoff.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 5 years ago

You are your own boss. You can achieve whatever you want in America but you need to get a strong degree and/or work ethic.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The dynasty is ending. Payback will be devastating.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

LIFT the cap.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

With you. See above

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Well, trying to understand your words here. I sense that you are making an emotional plea. I am guessing that you feel Obama is losing and dramatic things will occur if Romney (the little) gets elected.

Ok, maybe. But I don't see the value in emotion at this point. One debate down.

At this point, SS is okay, Medicare is okay, we don't ahve emergencies in the street, there is no bank run to pull money out of the banks, the stock market hasn't crashed, etc.

Economist think we could put $1 Trillion in SS without a big deal. Money is created everyday in the USA. Soon we will spend $1 Trillion per year on Defense. Clearly we can put $1 Trillion into SS.

Medicare is different. We need to identify mid-tier hostpitals for people with little money or normal health care - and restrict these hospitals and clinics from spending more money on un-needed equipment (which is raising hospital costs).

There are plenty of details that bring clear-headed responses to big issues and the National debates for president of the US.

Details. Details. Details.

We all know we can't trust anything a politician says. Life is not simple. Finance is not simple. Financial Schemes are all lopsided. Relationships are not Simple. Debt is not simple. derivatives are not simple. But we know businessmen are out to take our money. That is simple. Why do Americans think Politics and Politicians are Simple????!!!!! @#%$@#


[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

After last night it's obvious Romney lies a lot. That doesn't mean it hurts his chances. It will probably have no effect on the outcome. The real fun might be the Biden/Ryan debate. I hope Biden slips in the word "maverick" somewhere just for the hell of it.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

I hope Joe still has it in him to give that little shit the trashcan beating he so desperate deserves. And I hope they discuss Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

For Joe to ask lyan ryan:

"Is it true that you mandated all people in your office read books by the atheist Russian anarchist ayn rand?"

"Is it true that you and over 90% of the Rs in congress signed the grover norquist pledge which clearly can be in conflict with your oath of office?"

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

Heinlein was an ass

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

sorry - I dont get the Heinlein reference ( SF writer )
stranger in a strange land ? I seem to remember this was a hippie "bible"
written by an ultra-right winger ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

yes, another writer that claimed wrote about a world where only people who served the military should be citizens

I couldn't read the fountain head. too stilted

[-] -3 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

The DNC wants to thank all the hard working ows stooges for pushing our agenda! For Turing a blind eye to all we do and only pointing out what our opponents do! Keep up the good work because when we win well screw you just like we have been and you will take it !!!' I mean where else are you goon to go!!

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Nice spelling and grammar, you must be like the chair man.

What has a Con done for anyone not rich anytime in the recent past? Come on sell us on RepubliCons.

[+] -4 points by podman73 (-652) 5 years ago

Ohh come on left wing hack you can do better than that. Cons have done the exact same as the progressives nothing! Your to stupid to see that, so keep on pushing your dem tool.