Chronicling Mitt Romey's Lies

[Doktor]

Put anonymous poll

[dalem]

This might be predominantly right leaning board, but as far as I remember, I have read more Bush bashing, then Obama bashing. Could be only my impression.

Nope, you got it right. Repubs/conservatives don't worship Bush and Dems/lefties hate him with a drooling shrillness that is not to be believed by rational people. So a lot more Bush-bashing.

-dale

[Chunder]

Technically you would then be chronicling the lies of two subjects. From an interpretative standpoint the thread is going to go all over the shop. Since we've all experienced those threads, repetitively - I'm not sure why you would want a repeat under the auspices of so called 'fairness' in one thread.

[Parihaka]

Pretty much sums it up for me

It was his uplifting convention speech in Boston in 2004 that shot Barack Obama to stardom. It was thus disappointing that at his own convention in Charlotte this week Mr Obama was by no means the best of the crop – that distinction belonged to Bill Clinton. Of all the moments for Mr Obama to deliver a flat performance, the official start of the general election was ill-timed.
The US president did offer some trademark flourishes. But they could not make up for the lack of new substance. Following Mitt Romney’s largely content-free address in Tampa last week, Mr Obama had an opportunity to show up his opponent. As it is, both emerge from convention season with question marks over their campaigns.

To be fair, Mr Obama almost certainly had advance knowledge of yesterday’s very disappointing August payroll number in which the US economy added just 96,000 jobs – way below population growth. In light of that, his plea for Americans to be patient and keep their “eyes on that distant horizon” takes on fresh meaning.
The US economy is still struggling to shake off its first balance sheet recession since the 1930s and Mr Obama did his best to explain why these take longer to slough off (Mr Clinton explained that far more vividly). All the more reason then to have laid out in detail what he would do with a second term – and how he would do it, given the poisonous climate in Washington. Alas, Mr Obama missed the moment.

More here
Barack Obama’s uninspiring speech - FT.com

[JAD_333]

Liberals are racists....whaaa? Maybe this guy is on to something, but however true, the issue is a non-starter for Romney.

[zraver]

This is the most uninspiring election of my life, white elitist lefty snob v black elitist leftie snob.... yawn They both support big government, bailouts, obama/romneycare, jacked up tax policies and cronyism...

[YellowFever]

Yes, but one of them is doing it out of inspiration and the other is doing it because he's a puppet...if the op is to be believed.

[zraver]

Yes, but one of them is doing it out of inspiration and the other is doing it because he's a puppet...if the op is to be believed.

Which makes them both mindless disasters in tailored suits... I fear John McCain may be the last patriot to get either parties nomination...

[DOR]

Which makes them both mindless disasters in tailored suits... I fear John McCain may be the last patriot to get either parties nomination...

Is there some reason to question either Romney or Obama's patriotism, or is this just a general purpose slur?

[DOR]

What arsonist?

Um, in this context the guys who blew up the global financial system and nearly brought down the US economy.

You know, the folks who are now saying the US should follow Europe's model of economic management:

When demand falls, pull the plug on further demand;
If private business and consumers won't spend, suspend government spending; and
Make sure you keep it all vague, so as to maximize the fear factor among investors.

[dalem]

Is there some reason to question either Romney or Obama's patriotism, or is this just a general purpose slur?

I'll question Obama's, sure. He doesn't even like this country - how can he be a patriot?

-dale

[zraver]

Is there some reason to question either Romney or Obama's patriotism, or is this just a general purpose slur?

Neither one advances a majority of policy stands designed to put the country et al first, they both play issue politics. neither cared enough to don a uniform and they are both buddy-buddy with jobs exporters so no its not a generalized slur but how I feel about both.

[bigross86]

Liberals are racists....whaaa? Maybe this guy is on to something, but however true, the issue is a non-starter for Romney.

Brilliant, but even if the Republicans got behind something like this with full force, guess what: They'd probably still be deemed racists and this would get no air time...

[Roosveltrepub]

Is there some reason to question either Romney or Obama's patriotism, or is this just a general purpose slur?

I really wonder where the head of a Presidential nominee is when he gives his acceptance speech and makes his case to be President and he doesn't mention the war we are actually fighting and approves of a platform that talks about a fictious war on religon. I don't thinmk he is unpatriotic just...I don't know, plastic? I think most of the republicans in congress are extremely unpatriotic. They take two oaths one to uphold the constitution and one to Grover Norquist....... to not raise taxes ever no matter what. Seems a contradiction since taxes and spending are their purview and they make an oath that removes one from the table in any circumstance.

[Roosveltrepub]

Well, two that are really really flatout lies are the "he is ending work requirements for welfare" when in fact those state requested waivers are rescinded if they dont actually improve welfare to work rates

The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."

In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.

Fact check: Romney's welfare claims wrong - CNN.com What is even more outrageous is he asked for and recieved a waibver as Gov far before the great recession. I think this one goes beyond spin or political lie into the realm of extreme hypocrisy and demogoguery. it is false, something he himself asked for in far better times and designed and clearly designed to appeal on an emotional level to prejudices about welfare. If you think it isn't I question whether you really can look at anything with a token of objectivity. Obama just handing out wlefare checks is to truth what Bush wanted blacks to die in NO was. Of course kerry didnt say it just the nutter wing did. Romey on the other hand.... is wooing a certain segment of t he white working class by appealingf to emotion and prejudice with lies... really a textbook definition for demogueryhttp://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/why-and-how-romney-is-playing-the-race-card-20120829

Thanks to Romney, they see minorities grabbing at their way of life every day and all day in the inaccurate welfare ad. It opens with a picture of Bill Clinton (a man obsessed with Macomb County and Reagan Democrats) signing the 1996 welfare reform act, which shifted the benefits from indefinite government assistance to one pushing people into employment and self-reliance.

A leather-gloved white laborer wipes sweat from his forehead. “But on July 12,” the ad intones,” President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send your welfare check and “welfare to work” goes back to being plain old welfare.”

Translation:

Sweaty White Laborer = That’s Me!

“You Wouldn’t Have to Work” = Blacks Wouldn’t Have to Work

“They Just Send Your Welfare Check …” = They Just Give Your Pay Away to Lazy Blacks

“Plain Old Welfare” = Remember Those Welfare Queens? They’re Back.

Before explaining why these tactics work (and why Romney’s team knows, or should know, they are playing the race card), let’s quickly deal with this fact: The ad is wrong. As countless impartial fact-checkers have noted, the Obama administration memo cited by the Romney team actually gives states flexibility to find better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs.

Why ignore fact-checkers? First, internal GOP polling and focus groups offer convincing evidence that the welfare ad is hurting Obama. Second, the welfare issue, generally speaking, triggers anger in white blue-collar voters that is easily directed toward Democrats. This information comes from senior GOP strategists who have worked both for President Bush and Romney. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.

Furthermore, a senior GOP pollster said he has shared with the Romney camp surveys showing that white working-class voters who backed Obama in 2008 have moved to Romney in recent weeks “almost certainly because of the welfare ad. We’re talking a (percentage) point or two, but that could be significant.”

Then we have the hypocritical medicare claim that HCR cuts medicare 700 billion. A broadly true claim but so does the Ryan plan...the exact number. The difference is HCR cuts payments to providers and Ryans plan actually increases the costs to seniors and increases the payments to insurers and hospitals. I mean really we have medicare advantage the private sector providers who have needed hundreds o f millions in subsidies to compete with public sector medicare. Yet I am supposed to believe ending the subsidies and putting everyone on private plans and at the same time providing less dollars per person isn't going to result in a huge increase in the costs to medicare recipients than the current system? Not only do the elderly pay the 700 billion out of pocket but they have to pay for private plans which now have been PROVEN to be more costly than our single payer medicare plan. That one is just a lie and really only disgusting because those telling it actually are the ones with the plan to shift money from seniors to Insurance company bottomlines. it relies on ignorance and an ability to ignore the cost comparisons between private medicare plans and goverment healthcare. So, while attacking Obama for cutting Medicare spending increases by cutting provider payments Ryan/Romney have a plan to actually increase costs to recipients and add in increased costs for private insurance and cut the actual percentage of care paid for http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...8ZeuLDHkFYNKAA While the AMA may not like that the cuts will happen anyway under Obama at least they point out how much more the cost of care is under "the magic of the market plans" Add in the deceptive practices used to recruit recipients by some agents and the tailoring of the coverages to discourage those with expensive ailments from leaving traditional medicare today and the idea vouchers would mean increased costs to seniors becomes compounded by the aditional 15-20 percent increase in costs per patient over traditional medicare.


I know the idea of medicare advantage was the magic of the market would create a cheaper privatized plan but the facts are the privatised plans are less effcient and far more costly. It requires a religous faith that the market does everything better and cheaper and a denial of the actual facts to maintain a position that private insurers are more effective than medicare single payer plan. insurance company bottomlines. Unlike medicare it would no longer be black and white on what was covered So, we have a party advocating not only an increased cost to medicare recipients(which done based on income has to happen imo) but they also have to pay more for the actual care because vouchers require the use of a system proven to be more costly per service.

So, that one is just a claim the other guy is going to do what you actually are planning to do and ignore I hear gritted teeth:bang:;) arithmatic and pretend private plans arent more costly that medicare. Honestly the idea there has to be some ,increased costs to recipients is a fantasy but to use that reality to convert to a system that would just pull cut consumer spending by increasing the cost of care without changing it is not only bad for seniors it's like saying gee wouldnt it be great for the economy if we shifted more consumer spending into healthcare? It's a plan to cut a part of goverment proen to be better than the free market at providing a service to citizens based on ideological beliefs in cutting goverment rather than pragmatism or fact.


So many think oh liberals dont want to increase citizen share of medicare costs when the fact is only someone lying or under a rock believes it sint needed. it's just we don't think we should use it as an excuse to create a boon for insurance companies at the expense of citizens by dismantling a program that works.



Finally we get the magic of block grants for medicaid like medicaid in places like Texas is providing too much service and the state should be able to take it's federal money with no strings attached and cut state contributions and the level of care......like the program is some welfare benefit for poor people who should get a job or better jobs and 2/3 of it isnt going to keep seniors in nursing homes.... One thing I always will respect my Dad for is his belief while knowing he was going to end up in a nursing home if he lied long enough he chose to pay his bills ratehr than try to stick you with them. Gee, how aweful my inheritance was smaller because he didnt screw all of you. What's aweful is how often families screw all of us to avoid paying that bill. We all know families whose sole reason for asset transfers was to stick the goverment with that bill. yet the general public perception of medicaid is someone poor getting something for nothing not all those folks transferring property years earlier with clear intent being to scew you. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...lock-granting/ https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o...w=1123&bih=692 1.5 million hits on how to avoid spending your money and instead spend ours. I think those are three most aggregious claims of the Ryan/Romney campaign...well beyond Ryan l;ieing about his marathin time. really when someone lies when they don't really need to why think they will tell the truth when they have a clear benefit in lieing. I understand lieing about cheating on your wife not lieing about a road race...neither is right but one is pathological................. Damn I made some kick ass coffee this morning...I guess when it's grey after adding milk one cup is enough :) Have a great day WABers