Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Mitt Romney's 10 Most Baseless Claims At The Denver Debate

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 5, 2012, 12:16 p.m. EST by brightonsage (4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

from the Huntington Post:

One. "The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it.” Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Obama Doubled The Deficit When Obama took office in 2009, the deficit was projected to be $1.2 trillion during that year, and it ultimately turned out to be $1.4 trillion, according to Congressional Budget Office data cited by The New York Times. The deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion for fiscal year 2012.

Two. "I just don't know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the -- at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Obamacare Killed Jobs The Congressional Budget Office estimates that healthcare reform will reduce the health care industry's workforce by only about 0.5 percent, largely because workers will decide to retire early or work fewer hours. And if Romney's Massachusetts health care reform law is any indication, job loss won't be a big problem; employment trends in the state have mirrored national trends since Romneycare took effect.

Three. "It's hurt the housing market because Dodd-Frank didn't anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. It's not that Dodd-Frank always was wrong with too much regulation. Sometimes they didn't come out with a clear regulation." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Dodd-Frank Hurt The Housing Market The Dodd-Frank regulations aim to prevent another housing crash like the one that helped to cause the 2008 financial meltdown by banning high-risk lending practices, according to CBS News. In addition, the housing market has been on a slow rebound since Obama took office.

If anything, it may be banks that are holding back the housing recovery. Many are slow to lend because they're concerned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will make them take back any bad loans, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Four. "The idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Obama's healthcare law would curb benefits to health care providers and insurers, but doesn't directly cut seniors' benefits. Critics allege however, that the cuts in payments would have the unintended consequence of hurting seniors because doctors would stop accepting Medicare patients, according to USA Today.

Five. Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have." – Mitt Romney, Oct 3 Presidential Debate

Health Care Panel Though Obamacare does create an independent board, the law prohibits the board from making recommendations to "ration health care," or "otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility,” according to Bloomberg.

Six. "Up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Employer-Based Health Insurance Some workers may switch from their employer-provided health plans, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but that number is more likely to be closer to between 3 and 5 million per year between 2019 and 2022.

Seven. "The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more -- if you will, trickle-down government would work." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

"Trickle-Down Government" President Obama's proposed budget is estimated to cut about $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years and, so far, Obama has signed $2 trilion worth of spending cuts into law, according to Democratic Party Pollster Bernard Whitman.

Eight. "You never balance the budget by raising taxes." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Balancing The Budget President Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget during his time in office with a tax boost for those in the top 2 percent of earners, according to Duke professor William Chafe.

Nine. "My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Adding To The Deficit Romney's tax plan would cost the country $4.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to Tax Policy Center data, cited by NBC News.

Ten. "And these businesses -- many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they’ve gone out of business." Mitt Romney, Oct. 3 Presidential Debate

Clean Energy Failures Businesses that got government clean energy loans failed at a rate of about 1.4 percent at the end of 2011, according to The Washington Post."

Do facts matter? I especially liked the "clean coal" love affair, so I put in an order for a six pack.

What was your favorite Slick Willie claim??

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

How much of the deficit is down to what happened in 2008? Here is a clue - http://vimeo.com/24981578 . Obama knows the answers but will do zip and Mitt doesn't give a Shitt. I'm angry and fed up but I liked reading what you wrote.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I am angry and fed up too. And thanks.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

We are angry and fed up together! Maybe there are more of us out there! Watching 'Inside Job' on that link I pasted for you, has helped me focus better. I have to prep for winter but will be getting all the pitchforks I can make, mend or find to give out next spring! OWS is very important to people like me and my friends and family, even if we don't all know as much about it as we should, so thank you for what you do.

[A4C]

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

It is so little, but I have spent a lot of hours on the right end of a pitchfork and know how to use it. Hang in there.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

As I am a lemming yet still here you can bet that I have spent a life time 'hanging on in there'! You all do good work here and it all adds up and I especially like that you know all the uses of pitchforks!

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3176) 1 year ago

I like your candor, humour and style of writing...welcome to the site A4C! I look forward to hearing more!

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

I've been reading here for months on and off but I only got it together to join up because of the film 'Inside Job' - http://vimeo.com/24981578 - that someone posted here recently and I felt so angry and enthused that I signed up and even wrote about it on a post. Thank-you for your welcome. I hope to be here more often as time, tasks and troubles allow.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Thanks. Just ignore the arrows in my chest. There were just airmailed by a passing band of troglodytes.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3176) 1 year ago

LOL!!! Awwww.....there there brightonsage! I didn't mean to ignore your hard work. Its just that in the last few days, I noticed that we have some new people here, and I want them to feel welcome. I already know you're intelligent. There...better now?

You're post really underscores, and is further evidence of what I have known all along, which is that our supposed 'leaders' are puppets. Controlled actors that are fed lines by their globalist handlers. In fact during the debate, I was sure I saw the glint of light bouncing off the marionette strings.

Surely, if Romney and Obama were their own men and studying facts for their own debates/campaigns, they would not be so stupid as to tell the whoppers they tell, knowing that it could be used against them in later debates. They are owned by the ruling elite and told what to say.

My earlier post today is a formidable account by Cynthia McKinney on this very subject.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/paul-craig-roberts-cynthia-mckinney-on-leadership/

Peace

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

"Of course the problem isn't leadership", he said, stroking his fragile ego, "because you can't lead people who are bought and paid for."

You have to fix the process by getting money out of governance. Not just Federal elections. Not just Federal and State elections, or Federal, State and Local elections. You have to get it it of the executive branch, as well, including regulators, military, and each and every department and all of the Courts, Supreme, Appellate, District, State, County, HOA's and Special Districts. Get the idea? This will take a Constitutional Amendment.

Now that you have eliminated the corruption, who would want to make the sacrifice of government service? Only those with the character to lead.

In the movie, Viva Zapata, Emiliano Zapata, (Marlon Brando) says, "A weak people need a strong leader, a strong people don't need a leader.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3176) 1 year ago

How very succinct! I'm ALL for getting money out of government. However, I believe it is step number two. If we do as you suggest as step number 1...the oligarchs are still there to steer society over a cliff. The ruling elite have far more control and power than just the levels of government. There is nothing they don't control. They are the ugliest, most insidious octopus you will ever imagine.

Exposing 'who' the oligarchs are should absolutely be OWS's number one priority. Then we can move on to number 2...getting money out of government without the monstrosity of the ruling elite to stop us.

This link, that Middleaged was kind enough to bring to our attention should be mandatory education for OWS. Please take the time to listen to it when you get the chance...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-we-can-never-go-with-republicans-must-teach-ki/#comment-849890

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I just watched it and did some research. My comment to Middleaged was "dusty" conspiracies.

If we get the money out it will be because a process was developed, the exercise will have produced the leadership that is needed and the discipline to keep the oligarchs t bay, until people are foolish enough and lazy enough to let it happen again. That might be 15 minutes or 5 decades, but in the end, people will not change.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3176) 1 year ago

Cynthia McKinney confirms some of what Norman Dodd said, in her interview with Paul Craig Roberts...and she is far from "dusty".

http://occupywallst.org/forum/paul-craig-roberts-cynthia-mckinney-on-leadership/

The 'ruling elite oligarchs' are the money in politics...and they are in complete control of the laws/lawmakers and policies that we would need access to, to create the 'process' you mention. Therefore, shining the proverbial floodlights on the ruling elite themselves would be a much quicker way to get where we need to go, in order for us to create the process of getting money out of politics.

The biggest fear the oligarchs have is that the masses should find out WHO the people behind the curtain are. The very reason society goes through this every so many years IS because the oligarchs have been able to keep themselves, and even more so...their deep involvement, hidden and out of the media for decades (perhaps centuries). Throughout history, people make some inroads to change with protest and hitting the issues...BUT...the oligarchs are STILL THERE afterwards. The ruling elite just lay low until the populace settles again, and then...whammo! 'They' do it to us again! Why?? Because we treated the (dis)ease symptomatically..instead of treating our world preventatively, by not allowing those cancerous elite people of the world who have no other motive but 'complete control', 'take root' within our institutions and systems.

I've heard a few references to the 'small group of people' who are above government and beyond law recently, even whispers of it in the MSM. So it should come as no shock that, now, of all times, is when the globalist oligarchs want total control of the internet. The ruling elite are 'terrified' that their 'shadow government' is being found out. The internet is their worst enemy.

I say shine the lights on the oligarchs personally, and we will start to get somewhere. They're quite happy having us talk in the merry-go-rounds, circles, and spirals of dem/rep paradigm...and seemingly, most people here are only too happy to oblige.

Lets break free from the 'junk food' talking points that 'they' serve us on a prettied up platter, and focus all our attention on the actual people who are serving it to us.

So, lets all quit the incessant globalist elite induced brabbling, shall we...and give them what they DON'T want.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

The Koch's and their tribe are the most relevant threatening oligarchs, in my opinion and I have been doing my best, if you have been following my posts to shed light upon. That includes my personal knowledge of them and the folks that have influenced them I believe the cast and the topology and the techniques has changed from those who were trying to run things then. Fighting the last war is a waste of time at best and counter productive at worst. But you fight your oligarchs and I'll fight mine. My family has been victimized by oligarchs since 1636, so the problem isn't new but the generals and the partisans have both turned turned over. I may turn over myself, someday soon. If you insist on preaching to the choir, I'm in the bass section.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

People can change - the program to get people to opt out in support of their own demotion/detriment is a perfect example.

The People just need to start and promote and continuously improve good programs - like getting involved and staying involved - this program would go hand in hand with staying current/informed/aware - being educated and using that education in all phases of life - not just for a chosen field of work.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

People may evolve.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

People do evolve - it just that it is not always good or it can regress - because it is not tended properly. Peoples health has evolved - longer healthier life spans through advancements in society as well as medicine - it has also regressed due to the increasing numbers and varieties of cancers and other illnesses which are killing people younger and younger - from advances in industry - coal and oil and gas burning to power our technology - food additives to make our food animals grow and get fat fast as well as food additives to make food prettier but a bit toxic or bug free but a bit toxic etc etc etc

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago
  1. Housing is suppose to increase with the rate of deflation. We are in a deflationary period, which is why the FEd keeps screwing us over.

Dodd Frank only screws the little banks, and helps protects the Big Six. The Republicans are fine with this, they are funded by them too. New Chases and Wells are popping up all over, and smaller ones are closing shop or being bought out.

  1. Anytime there is a board of beauracrats that are appointed by bought out puppets, its bad news for the average guy.

  2. Decreasing increases are not cuts, its all PR hoopla. Stop falling for it.

  3. You can instill Clinton tax levels, its not going to matter, the USA's goose is cooked because the people refuse to wake up.

The rest of what this idiot Romney said are useless talking points that either dont address the deeper issue or are total bullshit, in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

While it is technically deflationary, the degree is still so small that the effect is also small. Clearly Dodd Frank didn't go far enough. Frankly I am surprised that it got done at all. Clinton tax rates would help along with a 60% Defense cut. I know, dreaming, Re Romney he knows the GOP rank and file are in the pocket but he has waited too lake and lied too blatantly for it to work for many independents while it may scare enough women and minorities into actually voting that he will lose. Unfortunately, you are right that half of the country will hit the snooze button about November 10 and it will take another crisis to wake them up.

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

Im not sure why it just renumbered my posts, they were suppose to line up with the top post points.

[-] 1 points by Clicheisking (-210) 1 year ago

You really believe that those death panels won't ultimately decide who gets care and who doesn't? Oh, you are sooo precious!

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Good joke.

[-] 1 points by nazihunter (670) 1 year ago

Romney re-asserted his motto 'facts don't matter.' I just wonder why Obama didn't carve him for dinner like he could have.Q: You don't mind me calling it Obamacare ? A: Not if you don't mind Romneycare. I'm for regulations! Response: Oh! do your benefactors at Koch Industries know this? Do tell, how would you stop their endless polluting? He could have mopped the floor with Romney. He would've let the banks fail? Well, sir, since they contributed such a greater share of contributions to your campaign, make sure you tell them with authority.

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Nice spin. But you are full of shit. factcheck.org said both candidates were equally at fault with their claim.

Good try tho, asshole.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Factcheck isn't the most objective among the fact checkers. The sources are there. That was so you could verify for yourself, unless you are too lazy and too busy typing insulting names..

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Ok, denounce the messenger typical loser liberal strategy straight out if the Anarchists bible.

NPR is not exactly unbiased.

You lose.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Did you read the sources?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

"Mr. Romney said in Wednesday’s debate, “I figured out from Day 1 I had to get along, and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done.” The result, he said, was that “we drove our schools to be No. 1 in the nation. We cut taxes 19 times.”

But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them.

“He put on the table in his inaugural address, and then in his budget, a series of proposed reforms like civil service reform, pension reform — going right to the heart of the lion’s den,” Michael Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said in an interview. But excepting health care, “he never followed up. There was a handful of successes, but there was never a full-blown or focused program in the sense of saying, ‘Here’s our vision.’ ”

[-] 1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Sounds like he did his job. He wasnt elected to approve every bill, and if you were honest, and by leaning left it pretty much indicates you are a full blown liar, a liar of heinous proportion, because you denigrated factcheck.org just 2 replies above this one and NOW YOU REFERENCE IT, you my friend are the worst kind of debater, a fucking bullshitter who cant even remember his bullshit in the span of 2 replies.

Apologize or just kiss my ass. I will debate with honest leftists, but not one that cant even cover his dishonest tracks.

"factcheck not the most objective" and then reference it when it suits you. Fuck you.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

It's a quotation. That's why it has quote marks. I saw it and thought you might find it interesting, since you cited Factcheck.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

It is not willard's lies
It is not mr. ayn rand's lies
It is not norquist
It is not alec
It is not even Obama's poor performance in the debate


it is the lemmings who believed

nixon -
and reagan -
and bush -
and shrub -
and now more lies


....................................................................."when will they ever learn" - PPM

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

I've been a 'lemming' all my life and come from a long line of lemmings! Why are you blaming me for this sh-t? Careful, your answer could send me over the edge ...

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Gone for soldiers every one. Gone for graveyards....