Thread to report dumb remarks/ lies/oops moments by Candidate: Mitt Romney

[JasonI]

when Obumble claimed

1) that the rich aren't paying their fair share

2) that the rich will sacrifice by paying more taxes and everyone else will sacrifice by getting less government spending

I permanently put him on my "lying douchebag" list

I hope he'll get over it...

 

[Peter King]

Obama is a terrible president

next

wrong thread, complaints about Obama should go in his thread

 

[Peter King]

At the Bloomberg/Washington Post debate held at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., on Oct. 11, 2011, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was asked how he would get the country moving again.

Romney replied, "I’d be prepared to be a leader. You can’t get the country to go in the right direction and get Washington to work if you don’t have a president that’s a leader. And three years ago, we selected a person who had never had any leadership experience, never worked in the private sector, never had the opportunity to actually bring people together, and he hasn’t been able to do so.

So in other words,

1. Romney boasts that he unlike Obama has worked in the private sector

2. he says Obama never had the opportunity to bring people together, or has been able to do so


1. Workexperience of Obama:

Some of the relevant jobs in Obama’s work history include:

— A stint in 1983-84 as a research assistant at Business International Corp. in New York City, where he helped write a newsletter.

— Working from 1985 to 1988 as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project in Chicago;

— Working from 1993 to 2004 as an associate, and then a partner, at the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where his work included employment-discrimination and voting-rights cases. The job also overlapped with his time in the Illinois Legislature.

Well, that proves Romney wrong associate lawyer in a law firm is private sector, community organizer is also private sector, working at Business Corp. is also private sector. Also, his books writing is also IMHO private sector and it has made him the most money if I am not mistaken.


2. Bringing people together

Since when do community organizers not bring people togehter mr. Romney? Also, never heard of the 2008 Obama campaign which brought people together and energized young voters to become active for him and his cause.

And when talking about his own "bringing people together", how much has Romney brought people together? His business model does not install warm feeling IMHO with the employees that get fired in order to make the company as profitable as possible for Romney and his buddies, but that is just my opinion


On this issue of no work experience, Politifact factcheck had this ruling:

The ruling: Obama may not have the corporate chops of Romney, but he’s worked in several jobs in the private sector -- and had management experience. And if you count his best-selling books that have brought Obama millions of dollars in royalties, he also knows something about entrepreneurship. We rate Romney’s statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/18/mitt-romney/romney-says-barack-obama-has-no-private-sector-exp



To which I would like to add that I am of the opinion that Romney also did not tell the truth when he said that Obama had never had the opportunity to bring people together or in fact had done so. I am of the opinion that he did, he was a community organizer, he has brought people together during his campaign and if you ask me, he has done these things too as president.

So on this I am ruling Romney

 

[TurtleDude]

Your definition of fair has always been suspect. Don't go about pretending that we all agree upon your definition of fair.



#2 is mathematically required.

my definition of fair can be tied to objective numbers

the richest one percent make up one percent of the population yet pay about 40% of the income taxes and almost all the death taxes.

The richest one percent make 22% of the income yet pay almost 40% of the income taxes

fair can be one percent since each person arguably derives the same citizenship benefits

fair can be paying 22% of the income tax if you make 22% of the income even though you end up paying far more than you use.


what objective basis defines fair as paying even more than 40% of the income tax?


#2 is only required if

a) you believe that current levels of government spending are necessary

b) and that those who demand it should not

i] pay enough to receive proper education as the cost of government

ii] pay for what they use because that would cost big spending politicians votes

 

[haymarket]

from Turtle on taxation

fair can be one percent since each person arguably derives the same citizenship benefits

Which is a gross fallacy and falsehood since you are well aware that there is NO financial cost for citizenship or its benefits. To attempt to make a connection there is to engage in intellectual fraud.

 

[TurtleDude]

from Turtle on taxation



Which is a gross fallacy and falsehood since you are well aware that there is NO financial cost for citizenship or its benefits. To attempt to make a connection there is to engage in intellectual fraud.

We realize you hate anything that might deter the rich being soaked more and more. We realize you want a system that allows your dem masters to buy the votes of the many with the wealth of the industrious. But when we talk about "fair" it is fair to say that since everyone benefits from society everyone should pay for the benefits and not exist as parasites on others

 

[iguanaman]

We realize you hate anything that might deter the rich being soaked more and more. We realize you want a system that allows your dem masters to buy the votes of the many with the wealth of the industrious. But when we talk about "fair" it is fair to say that since everyone benefits from society everyone should pay for the benefits and not exist as parasites on others

The parasites are the wealthy who suck money out of the economy by spending only a few % of their incomes and sock the rest away. That money that you put in hedge funds is then used to bid up commodities that we all need to live, sucking more money out of the economy. Money that the rest of use could use to buy things and create jobs. We need a 50% tax on all the income you don't spend in a year, that would create the biggest economic boom since the 1960's. How do you like being a blood sucking parasite?

 

[TurtleDude]

Tha parasites are the wealthy who suck money out of the economy by spending only a few % of their incomes and sock the rest away. That money that you put in hedge funds is then used to bid up commodities that we all need to live, sucking more money out of the economy. Money that the rest of use could use to buy things and create jobs. We need a 50% tax on all the income you don't spend in a year, that would create the biggest economic boom since the 1960's.

More idiocy-you must be talking about a few billionaires. MOst of the rich you dependocrats want to soak are spending at least half or more of their income. We need an end of the class envy mindset. Rich people don't owe you anything and have no duty to spend money to make you feel better.

 

[Arbo]

Your definition of fair has always been suspect. Don't go about pretending that we all agree upon your definition of fair.

This looks like a perfect spot to ask the question I have asked hundreds of times, and never received an answer: What is a rich persons 'fair share'? In definite terms.

The parasites are the wealthy who suck money out of the economy by spending only a few % of their incomes and sock the rest away.

Maybe I am wrong, but is there a law that tells people what they must do with their money, or is this a free country?

 

[TurtleDude]

This looks like a perfect spot to ask the question I have asked hundreds of times, and never received an answer: What is a rich persons 'fair share'? In definite terms.



Maybe I am wrong, but is there a law that tells people what they must do with their money, or is this a free country?

OC's concept of fair generally comes down to if the government needs more money its fair for it to take more

as to the second poster you have to understand that freedom is a concept hostile to their belief that we exist to serve the government which in turn exists to pay for the stuff he wants

 

[Deuce]

OC's concept of fair generally comes down to if the government needs more money its fair for it to take more

as to the second poster you have to understand that freedom is a concept hostile to their belief that we exist to serve the government which in turn exists to pay for the stuff he wants

Ahh yes. The old "the other side hates freedom" nonsense.

When did you start thinking of Americans as two separate groups of enemies?

 

[StillBallin75]

Romney is a terrible campaigner.

ehh he's also winning, so i'd say that's irrelevant.

 

[haymarket]

We realize you hate anything that might deter the rich being soaked more and more. We realize you want a system that allows your dem masters to buy the votes of the many with the wealth of the industrious. But when we talk about "fair" it is fair to say that since everyone benefits from society everyone should pay for the benefits and not exist as parasites on others

Really Turtle..... you are smart guy... you are educated ... you are trained in the law.... do you really need to utilize this cheap and tawdry "your dem masters" bs constantly? All it does it make you look really really over the top. Do you think you can stop that sort of nonsense?

 

[Joe51]

More idiocy-you must be talking about a few billionaires. MOst of the rich you dependocrats want to soak are spending at least half or more of their income. We need an end of the class envy mindset. Rich people don't owe you anything and have no duty to spend money to make you feel better.

Half? How many of us use our entire income and then some just to keep the wheels turning. It's remarkably easy to stand on top while looking down and say, "that wasn't so bad". I would argue those still climbing have the better perspective.

Just food for thought.

 

[Joe51]

This looks like a perfect spot to ask the question I have asked hundreds of times, and never received an answer: What is a rich persons 'fair share'? In definite terms.



Maybe I am wrong, but is there a law that tells people what they must do with their money, or is this a free country?

I'll get blasted for this, I'm sure, but I would advocate that a fixed percentage of combined income is fair to all. I think it would be obvious at some income level the government would need to cut all requirements as there really is a point where it's not beneficial for the government to take their taxes out while starving the citizen. I know this flat percentage is argued to put undo strain on the lower levels because of outside taxes such as sales tax and such, but if we're going to argue it should be "fair", it cost X% of your combined total income to pay for the good you receive out of our country. I don't see how outside , being state or sales, taxes become a part of that discussion.

As to your second point, maybe it would be appropriate for us to look for ways to keep money in play. I wouldn't want to discourage saving, but should we define a line between saving and hording for the benefit of society as a whole? I don't know that I'm ready to answer that question, yet, but I think it bears discussion given the current disparity between the "haves" and "have nots". Have nots work much harder than they get credit for during most of these types of discussions, BTW.

 

[Arbo]

I'll get blasted for this, I'm sure, but I would advocate that a fixed percentage of combined income is fair to all. I think it would be obvious at some income level the government would need to cut all requirements as there really is a point where it's not beneficial for the government to take their taxes out while starving the citizen. I know this flat percentage is argued to put undo strain on the lower levels because of outside taxes such as sales tax and such, but if we're going to argue it should be "fair", it cost X% of your combined total income to pay for the good you receive out of our country. I don't see how outside , being state or sales, taxes become a part of that discussion.

It seems at first you are suggesting a flat tax, but that 'X% of your combined total income' sort of threw me off. Are you indeed talking about a flat tax, or that people with more money should pay more for any given item?

I wouldn't want to discourage saving, but should we define a line between saving and hording for the benefit of society as a whole? I don't know that I'm ready to answer that question, yet, but I think it bears discussion given the current disparity between the "haves" and "have nots". Have nots work much harder than they get credit for during most of these types of discussions, BTW.

I think anyone that achieves wealth should not have the government dictating to them what they do with that money. In general, people do not hold a job to work for the benefit of society, they hold that job to provide for themselves and their family.

 

[Peter King]

I'll get blasted for this, I'm sure, but I would advocate that a fixed percentage of combined income is fair to all. I think it would be obvious at some income level the government would need to cut all requirements as there really is a point where it's not beneficial for the government to take their taxes out while starving the citizen. I know this flat percentage is argued to put undo strain on the lower levels because of outside taxes such as sales tax and such, but if we're going to argue it should be "fair", it cost X% of your combined total income to pay for the good you receive out of our country. I don't see how outside , being state or sales, taxes become a part of that discussion.

As to your second point, maybe it would be appropriate for us to look for ways to keep money in play. I wouldn't want to discourage saving, but should we define a line between saving and hording for the benefit of society as a whole? I don't know that I'm ready to answer that question, yet, but I think it bears discussion given the current disparity between the "haves" and "have nots". Have nots work much harder than they get credit for during most of these types of discussions, BTW.

I am not going blast, but is this the right thread for this kind of discussion? The thread is supposed to be about blunders/dumb remarks and outright lies by Mitt Romney.

 

[Joe51]

It seems at first you are suggesting a flat tax, but that 'X% of your combined total income' sort of threw me off. Are you indeed talking about a flat tax, or that people with more money should pay more for any given item?



I think anyone that achieves wealth should not have the government dictating to them what they do with that money. In general, people do not hold a job to work for the benefit of society, they hold that job to provide for themselves and their family.

I am discussing a flat tax. "Combined" was probably not important to include. Irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Obviously it made sense to me, but I didn't explain what I meant, and don't care to. Please re-read without. Sorry.

To your second point:

Does Trump work to support himself and his family? No. He and his family could live as I do for millions of lifetimes if he never earned another penny. (I live a decent life, though I expect he would have trouble adjusting.)

Most people work to support themselves and their family (99% comes to mind, but I'd better not say that lest I be judged for a "liberal" or "hippie"). If one is only spending half their income for support, why are they still working for the other half?

The obvious answer is for a rainy day, I know, but I would submit that there is a limit to how much it can rain in a day, if you're still following me. And I'm certain that there are far reaching and wide ranging implications to concentrated collections of wealth. Particularly wealth that has stagnated.


Peter King, you're right, and I'll bow out now. I just answered the questions they asked in this thread.

Edit: not they... Arbo.

 

[Arbo]

The obvious answer is for a rainy day, I know, but I would submit that there is a limit to how much it can rain in a day, if you're still following me. And I'm certain that there are far reaching and wide ranging implications to concentrated collections of wealth. Particularly wealth that has stagnated.

I would submit it is nobody decision on how rainy a the day might get, other than the person earning/putting away the money.

Go to back on topic -

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." (Romney's campaign later said he'd been hunting twice, once when he was 15, and once in 2006 at a Republican fundraiser)

 

[jgarden47]

April 9, 2012

Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers. But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.

You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.

(Wisconsin State Senator Sen. Glenn Grothman (R), who led the effort to repeal Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act because of his belief that pay discrimination is a myth driven by liberal women’s groups.)

Wisconsin State Senator Says Money Is Less Important To Women

- in two-thirds of American families, women are either primary or co-breadwinners,

- women still earn less than their male counterparts in all 50 states

- in 2009, Wisconsin ranked 36th in the nation with respect to workplace gender parity

Romney certainly didn't make this comment, but in an election year, the repeal of Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act by Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans can only further alienate the women voters the GOP nominee so desperately needs to win in a close election.

The "You could argue that money is more important for men" comment by Wisconsin GOP State Senator Sen. Glenn Grothman is already receiving national attention and has placed another huge political "albatross" around Romney's neck!

 

[IndepCentristMA]

#2 is mathematically required.

I'm sorry... when did this thread change to obvious Child's lies?

 

[IndepCentristMA]

1. Romney boasts that he unlike Obama has worked in the private sector

1. Workexperience of Obama:

Some of the relevant jobs in Obama’s work history include:
— A stint in 1983-84 as a research assistant at Business International Corp. in New York City, where he helped write a newsletter.
— Working from 1985 to 1988 as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project in Chicago;
— Working from 1993 to 2004 as an associate, and then a partner, at the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where his work included employment-discrimination and voting-rights cases. The job also overlapped with his time in the Illinois Legislature.

Well, that proves Romney wrong associate lawyer in a law firm is private sector, community organizer is also private sector, working at Business Corp. is also private sector. Also, his books writing is also IMHO private sector and it has made him the most money if I am not mistaken.

LMFAO... "a stint" ey... a good old "stint" as a research assistant where he helped write a newsletter... (that almost compares)

Come on dude... When Romney talks about working in the private sector, he means in an executive role... obviously... since theyre talking about who has the most experience to be the chief executive of the United States...

Every knows Obama's work as "lawyer" (which overlapped with his time in the IL Senate), and as a "community organizer" was bogus... he was lifted up by some friends in high places... Like Soros buying his house... and Henry Kissenger giving him that job in NYC... Obama did very little to deserve the position he is in at the moment... And while the lawyer was in the private sector, it wasnt dealing with the economy or creating jobs, which is the relavant experience to speak of... a community organizer is a non-profit job, and is not truly considered private sector work...

Romney on the other hand has 23 years as a top executive in business, as the president of the Salt Lake City Olympics and Organizing Committee, and as the Governor of MA. That's far more experience on dealing with the economy, and leadership of large organizations...

If you hired a head hunter to pick the best resumes from all the potential executives to lead this country Romney's resume would be near the top of the list, and Obama would never have been considered...

The other statement you forget to attribute here, is Romney stating that we are seeing that Obama is in over his head, and that America is seeing the effects of someone having to learn how to be a leader on the job... something he wouldn't have to do...

Realistically, Romney is right... Obama had never been an executive before, and his brief time in the IL Senate, and the US Senate did not give him adequate experience on being able to do things right, the first time, without having to recant on them, as Obama has so often had to do...

2. he says Obama never had the opportunity to bring people together, or has been able to do so

2. Bringing people together

Since when do community organizers not bring people togehter mr. Romney? Also, never heard of the 2008 Obama campaign which brought people together and energized young voters to become active for him and his cause.

And when talking about his own "bringing people together", how much has Romney brought people together? His business model does not install warm feeling IMHO with the employees that get fired in order to make the company as profitable as possible for Romney and his buddies, but that is just my opinion

You're right... that is just your opinion...

For Romney bringing people together...

- how about 23 years in business, in which he did business all over the world, bringing people together in business meetings, and getting things done...
- how about rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics, and bringing together people from all over the world for one of the major sporting events
- how about leading as a Republican in a state full of Democrats, and working with people on both sides of the aisle to get things done...

Barack Obama, not so much...

- a divisive racial lawyer,
- a "community organizer" who tried to benefit blacks,
- and a president who lead for 2 years with sole part control, and then once they lost control of the house, and the filibuster proof senate, has failed to get anything accomplished...

Obama is as much of a uniter as Bush was...

On this issue of no work experience, Politifact factcheck had this ruling:

PolitiFact | Romney says Barack Obama has no private sector experience

To which I would like to add that I am of the opinion that Romney also did not tell the truth when he said that Obama had never had the opportunity to bring people together or in fact had done so. I am of the opinion that he did, he was a community organizer, he has brought people together during his campaign and if you ask me, he has done these things too as president.

So on this I am ruling

Oh you're ruling it... then it must be so... :roll:

I'd also question politfact on this as with many other bogus claims they seem to make from what i've seen...

 

[IndepCentristMA]

OMFG, you could fill a warehouse with the lies Romney has told during this campaign. A very INCORRECT list here: Mitt Romney's Lies - US News and World Report

FYP...

1) At Bain Romney's company assisted in the creation of companies that went on to employee over 100,000 jobs... They don't have all the exact figures since it wasn't something they were tracking, but they gave 3 companies whose net creation was of over 110,000 jobs... Even if you subtract the losses from the handful of troubled companies that Bain was unable to turn around (in their high risk investments) there were still far less than 10K jobs lost by Bain managed/owned companies... That would leave you with a net of over 100,000 jobs... However, clearly the 100,000 jobs is a ballpark figure, and everyone is scruitinizing it like he was touting an exact figure, and they're trying to subtract a loss of 350 workers from a plant in SC, or 2000 workers lost at some other plant that closed and then relocated overseas... Those were the adverse extreme cases that they try to use to offset remarkable successes in helping create growth at companies like Staples, Sports Authority, Sealy, Dominos Pizza, etc. The truth is likely, if you went through and added all the people Romney hired at Bain Capital itself, saved at Bain Investment, created through the numerous companies that he assisted with venture capital, and then assisted in growing through private equity LBOs, the total would likely come out to more like 125-150K jobs, just from his company alone... You could add the net positive job growth at the State, and the jobs he helped save in Salt Lake City on top of that, since the games may have been moved out of the country... Those games went on to be the most profitable ever at the time... To suggest in any way that Romney doesn't have a proven track record as a successful businessman known for creating economic turnaround is being absolutely ridiculous and ignorant to the actualities of the situation...

2) As the article states, Romney's claim that $2M jobs have been lost is accurate... also with a net job loss its hard to say you created new jobs... furthermore most of the job growth has been either government jobs, or rehiring of GM autoworkers that were laid off then hired back by the company which has benefited greatly from a $17B loan, a $7B loan, a $25B buyout, and assistance to its union from both candian and us government money... Also, this is jobs created under his administration's economic policies, as oposed to the comparison of Romney's actual creation of jobs in the private sector... If you compare, Romney's administration had a net positive job growth... Obama's has not

3) Obama increased the number of people on welfare, and put in place policies which rewarded states for how many people they could put on welfare... He created a massive amount of Corporate Welfare for his Wall St buddies... He massively increased farm subsidies... He was the architect not of the auto-bailout, but the GM buyout... Then he added a massive entitlement program, ObamaCare... so to say that Obama hasn't increased the entitlement society is just plain ignorant...

4) Which defense cuts? Oh... IDK... how about these ones;
Obama: With Coming Cuts To Defense, New Military Will Be Leaner, Still Superior | Fox News
Obama Unveils Defense Cuts While Iran Threatens War | Fox News
Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts
Obama Military Spending Defended By Carl Levin
Obama's defense cuts are too timid - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...osing-bases-to-cut-budget.html?pagewanted=all
Obama proposes defense cut after decade of growth | Reuters
Obama: Defense cuts will mean 'leaner' U.S. military forces - Los Angeles Times
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...p artment_cuts_are_surprisingly_modest_.html

So... why is it that FOX News, USA Today, the Huffington Post, CNN, the NY Times, Reuters, the LA Times, Slate, etc. all have articles discussing the defense cuts which Leon Panetta orchestrated for the President, but this guy writing for US News wants to call Romney a liar for stating that Obama shouldn't be cutting military spending? Cuz they're dead wrong...

5) No I don't suppose they'll apologize to Romney for this false horrible partisan opinion attack on his character... However, regarding Romney's statements about Obama going around apologizing for America, that's just what he did...

He started in the State of the Union Address...
then went on a US Apology Tour in his first 100 days...
Then he apologized for the Quran burnings...


6) OMFG... Seriously? A tongue and cheek reference to the fact that Wolf Blitzer has a funny first name and Mitt also has a funny first name makes him a liar? Romney has never shied from the fact that his parents named him Willard Mitt Romney... He just chose as an adult that he wanted to be called Mitt... There's nothing out of the ordinary for that... No one called him William Jefferson Blythe, they called him Bill Clinton... no one called Thomas P ONeill Thomas, they called him Tip... no one called Spiro Agno by his name of Spiro Anagnostopoulos... former Israeli Prime minister David Ben-Gurion was born David Green, and Golda Maier was Golda Mabovitz... Ross Perot was born Henry Perot... No one called him Leslie Lynch King, they called him Gerald Ford... Hiram Ulysses Grant, is better known as Ulysses S Grant... TX Governor Rick Perry is actually James Richard Perry... Newt Gingrich was Newton MacPherson... To say Romney is a liar because he said his name is Mitt Romney, one he has been operating as since he was 19 is ridiculous...

 

[AdamT]

LMFAO... "a stint" ey... a good old "stint" as a research assistant where he helped write a newsletter... (that almost compares)

Come on dude... When Romney talks about working in the private sector, he means in an executive role... obviously

Funny, I would say that he obviously means what his words say. :lol: Romney is a serial liar.

 

[AdamT]

FYP...

The Independent(lol)Centrist(rofl)MA apology tour continues.... :lol: