Big surprise: a man who got a giant tattoo of Mitt Romney’s campaign logo on his face is “totally disappointed” with the election results. “I’m the guy who has egg all over his face,” Eric Hartsburg tell Politico. “But instead of egg, it’s a big Romney/Ryan tattoo. It’s there for life.” Hartsburg raised $5,000 on eBay for the 5-by-2-inch tat. Now he claims he has no regrets. “I’m hoping this opens some other doors in the entertainment business,” he says.
Read more
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Monday, November 12, 2012
Friday, November 02, 2012
R.I.P., Mitt Romney
Mitt made multiple mistakes that will lead to his defeat on Tuesday. Some of them date all the way back to 2008.
Read more
Thursday, October 04, 2012
The Master
Now I've slept on it, that seems to me what happened last night. It was such a mesmerizing sales job and so relentless, checked at no point by Lehrer, and at no point checked by past reality or facts, Obama was left with two options: say this pleasant-seeming guy next to him is a shameless weather-vane and liar (wouldn't work in a debate, is just against Obama's character) or to try and remind the country of Romney's actual policies as he has laid them out, and rebut the facts relentlessly. Obama tried the latter really, really badly, but the obvious retort to Romney's smiling total pivot was: what on earth are you talking about? Who are you? Who will you be tomorrow?
But here's the key political-policy point, it seems to me. In the last few days, Romney has said he will keep the DREAM executive order, keep all the good things in Obamacare, while getting rid of "Obamacare" (impossible); he will protect Medicare from Obama's $700 billion "raid" and keep it as an option for seniors for ever, if they choose; and he will enact his version of Simpson-Bowles, because he is more moderate and bipartisan than Obama. Lehrer, who made Romney's case for getting rid of PBS funding all by himself, did not see himself as a fact-checker - or even a moderator who could press a candidate to explain himself. He was simply a facilitator for the Romney sales job, which flummoxed Obama, in the worst public performance bar none of his campaign (I watched him give an economic policy speech once that was seriously coma-inducing).
More fatally for the president, the argument works. And it works precisely because of GOP extremism. If one party simply refuses to support anything a president of another party proposes and is primarily devoted to obstructionism on everything, then they can, if they are reckless enough both to create a credit crisis and prevent any further stimulus, succeed in essentially blackmailing the country by destroying its political system and then blaming it on the president. It's cynical and corrupt and contemptible and unpatriotic - but lethal.
Read more
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Romney's Impossible Tax Promise
Experts say he can't cut rates without losing revenue or favoring the wealthy
Tax experts - including one who supports Romney's plan - say the Republican presidential candidate's promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favoring the wealthy or losing revenue isn't mathematically possible.
That's the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center in a report the Romney campaign attacked as "biased" (although the campaign previously praised the TPC as "objective," when it issued a report critical of a rival's tax plan).
And it's also the conclusion of an expert from the pro-business Tax Foundation, who states that the Tax Policy Center analysis "correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners."
Romney has proposed very specific tax cuts. He would make the Bush-era income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts permanent, then cut all income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (which hits upper-income taxpayers), and permanently repeal the estate tax (which currently applies only to estates valued at $5 million or more).
Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the "same share of the tax burden they’re paying now."
But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced. He has pointed to the revenue-neutral proposals for rate-cutting put forth by the deficit commission as evidence that what he proposes is possible in theory, but those proposals pay for the cuts largely by taxing capital gains at the higher rates that apply to ordinary income, a measure Romney has specifically ruled out.
So Romney has failed to produce evidence that what he promises is possible. And we judge that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear - it’s not possible.
Romney says this criticism ignores his separate plan to cut corporate tax rates, which he says will stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there's evidence to suggest that cutting corporate taxes can do that, and the Tax Foundation expert (who supports Romney's plan) suggests that more jobs would be an acceptable trade-off for a less progressive personal income tax system.
But how much growth to expect is debatable, especially because Romney proposes to cut only the corporate tax rate, not corporate taxes overall. He would offset the rate cut by eliminating tax preferences resulting in no loss of revenue. During the Bush administration, Treasury Department experts concluded that the corporate rate could be dropped to 28 percent without losing revenue (Romney proposes 25 percent), but that such a trade-off "might well have little or no effect" on economic growth.
Romney's experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. One of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study says that is "implausibly large" and even if it materializes it wouldn't prevent a tax increase on middle-income taxpayers under Romney’s income tax plan.
There's room to argue that the benefits of increased growth are a fair trade for a less progressive tax system. In fact, that's exactly the case made by the Tax Foundation's expert, who notes that "the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job."
But Romney's claim that he can somehow slash individual income tax rates without losing federal revenue or favoring the wealthy remains at best unproven, and in our judgment, based on available evidence, impossible.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed at FactCheck.org
Summary
Tax experts - including one who supports Romney's plan - say the Republican presidential candidate's promise to cut individual income tax rates without either favoring the wealthy or losing revenue isn't mathematically possible.
That's the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center in a report the Romney campaign attacked as "biased" (although the campaign previously praised the TPC as "objective," when it issued a report critical of a rival's tax plan).
And it's also the conclusion of an expert from the pro-business Tax Foundation, who states that the Tax Policy Center analysis "correctly identified the Romney plan as a tax cut, at least in static terms, that accrues mainly to high-income earners."
Romney has proposed very specific tax cuts. He would make the Bush-era income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts permanent, then cut all income tax rates by an additional 20 percent across the board, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (which hits upper-income taxpayers), and permanently repeal the estate tax (which currently applies only to estates valued at $5 million or more).
Romney has said he would offset the loss of personal income tax revenue (estimated at $360 billion a year by the Tax Policy Center) by reducing tax deductions and credits. And he has said he would do this while making sure that those at the top keep paying the "same share of the tax burden they’re paying now."
But he has steadfastly refused to say which tax preferences would be cut or reduced. He has pointed to the revenue-neutral proposals for rate-cutting put forth by the deficit commission as evidence that what he proposes is possible in theory, but those proposals pay for the cuts largely by taxing capital gains at the higher rates that apply to ordinary income, a measure Romney has specifically ruled out.
So Romney has failed to produce evidence that what he promises is possible. And we judge that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is clear - it’s not possible.
Romney says this criticism ignores his separate plan to cut corporate tax rates, which he says will stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there's evidence to suggest that cutting corporate taxes can do that, and the Tax Foundation expert (who supports Romney's plan) suggests that more jobs would be an acceptable trade-off for a less progressive personal income tax system.
But how much growth to expect is debatable, especially because Romney proposes to cut only the corporate tax rate, not corporate taxes overall. He would offset the rate cut by eliminating tax preferences resulting in no loss of revenue. During the Bush administration, Treasury Department experts concluded that the corporate rate could be dropped to 28 percent without losing revenue (Romney proposes 25 percent), but that such a trade-off "might well have little or no effect" on economic growth.
Romney's experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. One of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study says that is "implausibly large" and even if it materializes it wouldn't prevent a tax increase on middle-income taxpayers under Romney’s income tax plan.
There's room to argue that the benefits of increased growth are a fair trade for a less progressive tax system. In fact, that's exactly the case made by the Tax Foundation's expert, who notes that "the currently unemployed will receive the greatest benefit in the form of a job."
But Romney's claim that he can somehow slash individual income tax rates without losing federal revenue or favoring the wealthy remains at best unproven, and in our judgment, based on available evidence, impossible.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed at FactCheck.org
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Romney Adviser Says Obama Doesn’t ‘Fully Appreciate’ Our ‘Anglo-Saxon Heritage’
An adviser to Mitt Romney told a London paper that Obama has not been an effective partner for Britain because he doesn’t “fully appreciate” America’s “Anglo-Saxon heritage.” The racially tinged comments come hours before Romney lands in London for a series of high level meetings and the opening of the Olympic Games.
Jon Swaine of the Daily Telegraph has the story:
In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”
The comments were the latest attack by the Romney campaign on Obama’s multi-cultural heritage.
Read more
Jon Swaine of the Daily Telegraph has the story:
In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”
The comments were the latest attack by the Romney campaign on Obama’s multi-cultural heritage.
Read more
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Why Is Obama Winning?
The economy is weak, and Americans are unhappy. But Obama’s ahead because the GOP is an aristocratic party that favors the super rich. And Mitt Romney is its perfect poster boy.
Read more
Read more
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Mitt’s Empty Obamacare Rhetoric
The presumptive Republican nominee was quick to promise a repeal of the health-care act if elected president, but he proposed no alternative, throwing out only the usual Medi-scare bromides.
Read more
Read more
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
5 Facts About the Massachusetts Economy Under Mitt Romney
Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign whipped out a new number over the weekend to dispute federal government data that ranked Massachusetts 47th in job creation during Romney’s time as governor there Three campaign surrogatesused the Sunday morning news circuit to claim that the state was actually 30th in job growth in Romney’s final year in office.
Of course, moving the state to 30th would still mean it was in the bottom half of the nation, a fact that would seem to fit assertions from local experts that the state’s economy was “below average and often near the bottom” while Romney was governor. Here are five facts about the Massachusetts economy from Romney’s 2003-2007 tenure:
1) Ranked 47th in job growth: Despite Romney’s professed expertise in creating jobs, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth during his time as governor. The state’s total job growth was just 0.9 percent, well behind other high-wage, high-skill economies in New York (2.7), California (4.7), and North Carolina (7.6). The national average, meanwhile, was better than 5 percent.
2) Suffered the second-largest labor force decline in the nation: Only Louisiana, which was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, saw a bigger decline in its labor force than Massachusetts during Romney’s tenure as governor. The US Census Bureau estimated that between July 2002 and July 2006, 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than came to it. That decline largely explains the state’s decreasing unemployment rate (from 5.6 to 4.7 percent) while Romney was in office, according to Northeastern University economics professor Andrew Sum. At the same time, the nation as a whole added 8 million people to the labor force.
Read more
Of course, moving the state to 30th would still mean it was in the bottom half of the nation, a fact that would seem to fit assertions from local experts that the state’s economy was “below average and often near the bottom” while Romney was governor. Here are five facts about the Massachusetts economy from Romney’s 2003-2007 tenure:
1) Ranked 47th in job growth: Despite Romney’s professed expertise in creating jobs, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth during his time as governor. The state’s total job growth was just 0.9 percent, well behind other high-wage, high-skill economies in New York (2.7), California (4.7), and North Carolina (7.6). The national average, meanwhile, was better than 5 percent.
2) Suffered the second-largest labor force decline in the nation: Only Louisiana, which was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, saw a bigger decline in its labor force than Massachusetts during Romney’s tenure as governor. The US Census Bureau estimated that between July 2002 and July 2006, 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than came to it. That decline largely explains the state’s decreasing unemployment rate (from 5.6 to 4.7 percent) while Romney was in office, according to Northeastern University economics professor Andrew Sum. At the same time, the nation as a whole added 8 million people to the labor force.
Read more
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Romney's Solar Flareout
He misrepresents Obama's green-energy program using false and twisted facts.
Summary
An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to Obama's political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees.
- It claims the "inspector general said contracts were steered to 'friends and family.' " But that's not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged "schemes," no public charges have been made.
- The ad highlights the struggles -- company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs -- at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated.
- The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors.
Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed at FactCheck.org
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Mitt’s Lame Massachusetts Record
Romney loves to attack Barack Obama’s record of job creation as president. Too bad Mitt’s record as Massachusetts governor pales in comparison.
Read more
Read more
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Sununu Misfires on Bain ‘Jobs’ Claim
A top surrogate for Mitt Romney makes an incorrect claim about the firm saving jobs 'about 80 percent of the time' at companies in which it had invested.
Read more
Read more
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Romney’s ‘Gross’ Exaggeration on ‘Obamacare’
He falsely claims government will control 'almost 50 percent' of the U.S. economy under the health care law.
Read more
Read more
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Conservatives: Giant Bullies That Abuse the Weak
Mitt Romney says he likes being able to fire people. Mitt Romney takes a drive with a terrified family pet strapped to the roof of his car. Mitt Romney assaulted a gay student while in prep school. Mitt Romney tricked a blind teacher, apparently one he "liked," letting the man walk into a glass door. He is a bully. Mitt Romney is also the presumed presidential nominee for a political party of unapologetic bullies. Ergo, he is a near-perfect leader for the Tea Party GOP.
Read more
Read more
Sunday, May 06, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)