Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke for approximately 38 minutes at the debate last Wednesday night. How many lies did he tell? At last check - 27. That means, on average, he fibbed once every 1 minute 24 seconds that he was talking.
In the Chicago Sun-Times was an article titled, "Romney wins on style, Obama wins on facts."
In a CNN segment, it labeled Romney's debate as "mostly fiction."
An NPR article was titled, "Romney goes on offense, pays for it in first wave of fact-checks."
Conservative CNN political analyst David Gergen said with regard to the former Massachusetts Governor's performance last night, "Romney was just sort of flat-out lying."
In a Huffington Post article, resided the following quote - "Romney walked back multiple positions...denied his own tax plans."
There are multiple articles listing the top 5, top 10 or top 12 Romney lies from last week's debate. For the time being, it appears as if the overall number of lies spewed from the lips of Willard Mittens Romney is 27. Here they are:
1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”.
As stated by ThinkProgress's Igor Volsky, "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."
That makes sense. That'd be like if I were an owner of a Major League Baseball team. I hired a manager four years prior, saw the team increase its win total each of those four seasons and at the end of season number four, said the following at a press conference: "I love how far our team has come along these past four years. We've improved each of those four seasons and to continue that, I'm going to fire our manager."
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.”
Also courtesy of ThinkProgress, "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."
For the record, the Tax Policy Center is a nonpartisan group. Just because one says something isn't so, doesn't make it so. Just because I tell a person I'm a woman doesn't make it actually true. Just because someone tripping on acid said they just flew to Jupiter and back through a homemade Star Trek beam composed of straws, graham crackers and dust, doesn't make that true.
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.”
In response to this, Mr. Voslky writes, "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."
No wonder the Romney team hasn't elaborated more on their tax plan - because there is no possible way to explain it mathematically or logically. Republicans have claimed that the real reason the Romney team hasn't released more information on their tax plan is because they'd be opening themselves to more criticism. Gee, really? If an individual running for the highest office in the land claims that 5 = 6, he/she must be prepared for some criticism, from Democrats, math professors and kindergarteners alike.
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.”
To this, Volsky writes, "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 ."
I sincerely hope Romney wasn't a math major in college. Then again, judging by his demeanor at the debate and at other points during the campaign, the only "major" I can see him being is a major a**hole...
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.”
Volsky responds to the claim with, "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."
That's rich. President Obama cites an independent study that proves Romney's claim to be inaccurate and in turn, Romney lets loose a number with regard to other studies which he claims to agree with his notion, when they in fact further prove it to be false. It reminds me of the following situation:
Charlene: "That woman said she saw you cheating on me at Hooters last night!"
Chester: "I have six other witnesses who can tell you they saw nothing."
Charlene: "They're all blind, you idiot - and said they heard a woman moaning the name Chester!"
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.”
Volsky comments with this, "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."
Ah - the American Enterprise Institute - who is as nonpartisan as Edward Scissorhands is black. The AEI is a conservative think-tank, so going to them for "unbiased" numbers would be like me going to a pastor for tickets to a 2 Live Crew concert.
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.”
Volsky responds with, "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."
I seriously wonder if with regard to numbers, Lord Romney pulls random ones out of a hat. In debate #2, don't be surprised if he says that he represents 129% of the people of this country, before realizing a day later that, from a mathematical perspective, it wouldn't be possible.
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.”
In response to this, Volsky writes, "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."
Perhaps where Mr. Romney comes from, last Wednesday was opposite day. That's about the only explanation I have for it. Let me continue that trend by saying Mitt Romney is honest!
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.”
Continuing on, Volsky writes, "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."
Again with the math... At the other two debates, I'm thinking Obama would be best served by bringing along a calculator; that and perhaps a zapper to punish Romney for every lie he tells.
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.”
In response to this, Volsky writes, "That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization , doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed."
When fact-checking sites won't defend Romney's numbers, go to a right-wing advocacy organization! It reminds me of when I was a kid - while I may not have had any witnesses to defend my claim that I didn't steal the cookie from the cookie jar, my stuffed animal did so. Thanks again, buddy. I owe you one (more than one)!
11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.”
In response to this, Volsky writes, "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 ."
So, is what Romney's saying that what's in the best interest of the country is to bring money from overseas back to the U.S. and since his proposed ideas will leave corporations more prone to do business overseas, this country would be better off with Obama in office another four years? Yes, I think it is as a matter of fact. Alright, if you insist, Mitt.
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.”
Volsky then writes, "Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant would 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."
Estimates from the evil Congressional Budget Office! Notice that Romney and Ryan's claims typically get supported by right-wing think-tanks and advocacy groups, these claims get disproved by nonpartisan sources and when that happens, the Romney team lays claim that the nonpartisan sources actually possess a liberal bias? If they truly believe that, then it can be stated that while reality has a liberal bias, fantasy has a conservative one.
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."
To this, Volsky stated, "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."
It really amazes me how the Romney and Ryan team criticize President Obama on a component of a bill when their proposal would include the exact same component! "Do as I say, not as I do," eh? The problem with that saying when in association with Romney, though, is that based on all his flip-flops, it may be humanly impossible for one to truly know what the Republican candidate is saying at any given moment.
14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.”
Volsky responded to this with the following, "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."
Perhaps this is just another component of Obamacare which Romney likes and will hang on to if he becomes president, while simultaneously repealing the bill in its entirety. It's a neat trick, I must say. I'd like to know his secret(s) on how to pull it off successfully.
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.”
Volsky responded to this with the following words, "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."
Dammit, Volsky! Too many numbers for Romney! Just utter one number and he'll suddenly come to a concise understanding of it and what all it entails - 47%.
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.”
The author of the article says to this, "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."
I have another theory. Romney is actually a robot, whose had all these lies programmed into his system, so he believes them to be true and has no problem in expressing things in such a manner. I'm really trying to make sense of things.
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.”
To this, Volsky wrote, "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."
Okay, so Romney likes some parts of Dodd-Frank, which is about regulation, yet would repeal it and say that regulation is necessary. Is that right? That makes a whole lot of sense...
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.”
In response to this, Volsky then wrote, "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."
So Romney has failed in math. In addition to that, It seems that he's on the brink of failing reading-comprehension as well.
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.”
The article then states, "Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable."
Costs more? Costs less? Same thing, right? Potato? Patato?
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.”
Volsky responded to this lie with the following, "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."
Paul Ryan himself proposed a couple similar IPAB-like structures, eh? Okay, here's another theory - both Romney and Ryan have developed Alzheimer's. I'm not thinking any of these theories are going to pan out, but I'm going to continue trying!
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.”
Volsky writes in response to this, "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."
Alright, this theory is bound to be at least partially accurate - Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are compulsive liars.
22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.”
Volsky then wrote, "Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms ."
Wanna know how you can tell if Romney's lying? His lips move.
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.”
In response to this, the article stated, "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."
This reminds me of the Bush/Kerry debate in the lead up to the 2004 presidential election, when then President Bush said "hard work" who knows how many times. I guess Romney feels that if he says "plan" four times in three rather short sentences, it must mean that existed!
I can just imagine him trying to outline the specifics of a plan he has for the country: "I have a plan - it's a great plan! The plan is a plan which is superior to the plans of the Democrats! This plan is golden - a plan for the 100% and not just a plan for the 47%! It's a plan for everyone. My plan is the plan of which all other plans are jealous!"
24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.”
Volsky responded with, "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."
That's such a generous offer by Sir Romney. As long as people are already covered with preexisting conditions, those preexisting conditions will be covered. Woo-hoo! However, if one has been rejected due to preexisting conditions (like myself), then sorry - better luck next time. Woo...eh...hoo...
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.”
...and what did Volsky say to this? He said, "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.'"
I really pity Romney's math teachers throughout his schooling.
Question: "If a person spent $90 million in one year, would he spend as much on average if he spent $90 million over ten years?"
Romney: "Yes!!! $90 million in one year = $9 million on average in one year. They both have 9's in them!"
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.”
To this, Volsky wrote, "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.”
Three out of twenty-six? That comes out to roughly be 11.5%. Romney's claim? 50.0%. He was only off by 38.5%. If he were to earn a grade on this equation, he'd earn a 23%. Well done, sir! You're improving!
27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.”
Lastly, Volsky responded to this with, "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."
I wonder what the odds are on Paul Ryan exceeding this number of lies in the upcoming Vice Presidential debate. Due to the number of lies he spouted during his speech at the Republican National Convention, I'm thinking those odds are quite high. If I were asked the question, "What would be more likely - a dog begging for food at dinner time or Ryan telling 28 or more lies during the Vice Presidential debate?" I'd respond with the latter.
Sources
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-romney-healthcare-20121003,0,5148610.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-debate-romney-tax-20121003,0,3813713.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-romney-medicare-cut-20121003,0,3111207.story
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php (When he claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.)
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/ (When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=b84167e95 (9:35) (Romney's $5 trillion tax cut)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=21002741b (9:32) (claim Obama added as much to deficit as all other presidents combined)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-20121003 (death panels)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=d60e41bde (10:41) (When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half.)
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/108125/romney-debate-details-tax-medicare-pre-existing-contradictions-deceptions#
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/mitt-romney-obamacare-jobs_n_1937929.html
http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/15535810-474/editorial-romney-wins-on-style-obama-on-facts.html
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/romneys-debate-performance-mostly-fiction/question-3220427/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-targets-romnes-debate-lies-ad-focusing-trust.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/obama-romney-debate_n_1937173.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obama-lost-the-first-debate-but-he-will-still-win-the-election/2012/10/04/9c3b7eb8-0deb-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_blog.html
In the Chicago Sun-Times was an article titled, "Romney wins on style, Obama wins on facts."
In a CNN segment, it labeled Romney's debate as "mostly fiction."
An NPR article was titled, "Romney goes on offense, pays for it in first wave of fact-checks."
Conservative CNN political analyst David Gergen said with regard to the former Massachusetts Governor's performance last night, "Romney was just sort of flat-out lying."
In a Huffington Post article, resided the following quote - "Romney walked back multiple positions...denied his own tax plans."
There are multiple articles listing the top 5, top 10 or top 12 Romney lies from last week's debate. For the time being, it appears as if the overall number of lies spewed from the lips of Willard Mittens Romney is 27. Here they are:
1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”.
As stated by ThinkProgress's Igor Volsky, "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."
That makes sense. That'd be like if I were an owner of a Major League Baseball team. I hired a manager four years prior, saw the team increase its win total each of those four seasons and at the end of season number four, said the following at a press conference: "I love how far our team has come along these past four years. We've improved each of those four seasons and to continue that, I'm going to fire our manager."
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.”
Also courtesy of ThinkProgress, "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."
For the record, the Tax Policy Center is a nonpartisan group. Just because one says something isn't so, doesn't make it so. Just because I tell a person I'm a woman doesn't make it actually true. Just because someone tripping on acid said they just flew to Jupiter and back through a homemade Star Trek beam composed of straws, graham crackers and dust, doesn't make that true.
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.”
In response to this, Mr. Voslky writes, "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."
No wonder the Romney team hasn't elaborated more on their tax plan - because there is no possible way to explain it mathematically or logically. Republicans have claimed that the real reason the Romney team hasn't released more information on their tax plan is because they'd be opening themselves to more criticism. Gee, really? If an individual running for the highest office in the land claims that 5 = 6, he/she must be prepared for some criticism, from Democrats, math professors and kindergarteners alike.
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.”
To this, Volsky writes, "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 ."
I sincerely hope Romney wasn't a math major in college. Then again, judging by his demeanor at the debate and at other points during the campaign, the only "major" I can see him being is a major a**hole...
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.”
Volsky responds to the claim with, "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."
That's rich. President Obama cites an independent study that proves Romney's claim to be inaccurate and in turn, Romney lets loose a number with regard to other studies which he claims to agree with his notion, when they in fact further prove it to be false. It reminds me of the following situation:
Charlene: "That woman said she saw you cheating on me at Hooters last night!"
Chester: "I have six other witnesses who can tell you they saw nothing."
Charlene: "They're all blind, you idiot - and said they heard a woman moaning the name Chester!"
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.”
Volsky comments with this, "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."
Ah - the American Enterprise Institute - who is as nonpartisan as Edward Scissorhands is black. The AEI is a conservative think-tank, so going to them for "unbiased" numbers would be like me going to a pastor for tickets to a 2 Live Crew concert.
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.”
Volsky responds with, "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."
I seriously wonder if with regard to numbers, Lord Romney pulls random ones out of a hat. In debate #2, don't be surprised if he says that he represents 129% of the people of this country, before realizing a day later that, from a mathematical perspective, it wouldn't be possible.
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.”
In response to this, Volsky writes, "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."
Perhaps where Mr. Romney comes from, last Wednesday was opposite day. That's about the only explanation I have for it. Let me continue that trend by saying Mitt Romney is honest!
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.”
Continuing on, Volsky writes, "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."
Again with the math... At the other two debates, I'm thinking Obama would be best served by bringing along a calculator; that and perhaps a zapper to punish Romney for every lie he tells.
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.”
In response to this, Volsky writes, "That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization , doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed."
When fact-checking sites won't defend Romney's numbers, go to a right-wing advocacy organization! It reminds me of when I was a kid - while I may not have had any witnesses to defend my claim that I didn't steal the cookie from the cookie jar, my stuffed animal did so. Thanks again, buddy. I owe you one (more than one)!
11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.”
In response to this, Volsky writes, "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 ."
So, is what Romney's saying that what's in the best interest of the country is to bring money from overseas back to the U.S. and since his proposed ideas will leave corporations more prone to do business overseas, this country would be better off with Obama in office another four years? Yes, I think it is as a matter of fact. Alright, if you insist, Mitt.
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.”
Volsky then writes, "Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant would 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."
Estimates from the evil Congressional Budget Office! Notice that Romney and Ryan's claims typically get supported by right-wing think-tanks and advocacy groups, these claims get disproved by nonpartisan sources and when that happens, the Romney team lays claim that the nonpartisan sources actually possess a liberal bias? If they truly believe that, then it can be stated that while reality has a liberal bias, fantasy has a conservative one.
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."
To this, Volsky stated, "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."
It really amazes me how the Romney and Ryan team criticize President Obama on a component of a bill when their proposal would include the exact same component! "Do as I say, not as I do," eh? The problem with that saying when in association with Romney, though, is that based on all his flip-flops, it may be humanly impossible for one to truly know what the Republican candidate is saying at any given moment.
14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.”
Volsky responded to this with the following, "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."
Perhaps this is just another component of Obamacare which Romney likes and will hang on to if he becomes president, while simultaneously repealing the bill in its entirety. It's a neat trick, I must say. I'd like to know his secret(s) on how to pull it off successfully.
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.”
Volsky responded to this with the following words, "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."
Dammit, Volsky! Too many numbers for Romney! Just utter one number and he'll suddenly come to a concise understanding of it and what all it entails - 47%.
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.”
The author of the article says to this, "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."
I have another theory. Romney is actually a robot, whose had all these lies programmed into his system, so he believes them to be true and has no problem in expressing things in such a manner. I'm really trying to make sense of things.
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.”
To this, Volsky wrote, "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."
Okay, so Romney likes some parts of Dodd-Frank, which is about regulation, yet would repeal it and say that regulation is necessary. Is that right? That makes a whole lot of sense...
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.”
In response to this, Volsky then wrote, "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."
So Romney has failed in math. In addition to that, It seems that he's on the brink of failing reading-comprehension as well.
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.”
The article then states, "Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable."
Costs more? Costs less? Same thing, right? Potato? Patato?
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.”
Volsky responded to this lie with the following, "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."
Paul Ryan himself proposed a couple similar IPAB-like structures, eh? Okay, here's another theory - both Romney and Ryan have developed Alzheimer's. I'm not thinking any of these theories are going to pan out, but I'm going to continue trying!
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.”
Volsky writes in response to this, "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."
Alright, this theory is bound to be at least partially accurate - Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are compulsive liars.
22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.”
Volsky then wrote, "Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms ."
Wanna know how you can tell if Romney's lying? His lips move.
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.”
In response to this, the article stated, "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."
This reminds me of the Bush/Kerry debate in the lead up to the 2004 presidential election, when then President Bush said "hard work" who knows how many times. I guess Romney feels that if he says "plan" four times in three rather short sentences, it must mean that existed!
I can just imagine him trying to outline the specifics of a plan he has for the country: "I have a plan - it's a great plan! The plan is a plan which is superior to the plans of the Democrats! This plan is golden - a plan for the 100% and not just a plan for the 47%! It's a plan for everyone. My plan is the plan of which all other plans are jealous!"
24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.”
Volsky responded with, "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."
That's such a generous offer by Sir Romney. As long as people are already covered with preexisting conditions, those preexisting conditions will be covered. Woo-hoo! However, if one has been rejected due to preexisting conditions (like myself), then sorry - better luck next time. Woo...eh...hoo...
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.”
...and what did Volsky say to this? He said, "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.'"
I really pity Romney's math teachers throughout his schooling.
Question: "If a person spent $90 million in one year, would he spend as much on average if he spent $90 million over ten years?"
Romney: "Yes!!! $90 million in one year = $9 million on average in one year. They both have 9's in them!"
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.”
To this, Volsky wrote, "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.”
Three out of twenty-six? That comes out to roughly be 11.5%. Romney's claim? 50.0%. He was only off by 38.5%. If he were to earn a grade on this equation, he'd earn a 23%. Well done, sir! You're improving!
27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.”
Lastly, Volsky responded to this with, "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."
I wonder what the odds are on Paul Ryan exceeding this number of lies in the upcoming Vice Presidential debate. Due to the number of lies he spouted during his speech at the Republican National Convention, I'm thinking those odds are quite high. If I were asked the question, "What would be more likely - a dog begging for food at dinner time or Ryan telling 28 or more lies during the Vice Presidential debate?" I'd respond with the latter.
Sources
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-romney-healthcare-20121003,0,5148610.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-debate-romney-tax-20121003,0,3813713.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-romney-medicare-cut-20121003,0,3111207.story
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php (When he claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.)
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/ (When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=b84167e95 (9:35) (Romney's $5 trillion tax cut)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=21002741b (9:32) (claim Obama added as much to deficit as all other presidents combined)
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-20121003 (death panels)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=d60e41bde (10:41) (When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half.)
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/108125/romney-debate-details-tax-medicare-pre-existing-contradictions-deceptions#
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/mitt-romney-obamacare-jobs_n_1937929.html
http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/15535810-474/editorial-romney-wins-on-style-obama-on-facts.html
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/romneys-debate-performance-mostly-fiction/question-3220427/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
http://www.politicususa.com/obama-targets-romnes-debate-lies-ad-focusing-trust.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/obama-romney-debate_n_1937173.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obama-lost-the-first-debate-but-he-will-still-win-the-election/2012/10/04/9c3b7eb8-0deb-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_blog.html
Comments
Post a Comment