“I think that the election [in Florida] will be substantially closer than the two polls that came out this morning. When you add the two conservatives together we clearly beat Romney. I think Romney's got a very real challenge trying to get a majority at the convention.”
Let there be no doubt that former Republican senator and presidential candidate, Bob Dole, is a Romney supporter. From a statement released by the Romney campaign today:
I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.
Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when Newt could read the writing on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.
Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. He loved picking a fight with President Clinton because he knew this would get the attention of the press. This and a myriad of other specifics like shutting down the government helped to topple Gingrich in 1998.
In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year. Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty bucket in his hand — that was a symbol of some sort for him — and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it, and I’m not certain he knew either.
The Democrats are spending millions of dollars running negative ads against Romney as they are hoping that Gingrich will be the nominee which could result in a landslide victory for Obama and a crushing defeat for Republicans from the courthouse to the White House. Democrats are not running ads against Gingrich which is further proof they want to derail Governor Romney.
In my opinion if we want to avoid a sweeping victory by Obama in November, Republicans should nominate Governor Romney as our standard bearer. He could win because he has the requisite experience in the public and private sectors. He would be a president in whom we could have confidence and he would make us proud.
During his third State of the Union address on January 24, President Barack Obama called for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes:
“Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes…Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right.”
“We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign manager. I thought that told you everything you need to know about this primary. As governor of Massachusetts [Romney] was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-tax increase and pro- gun control. Now that makes you a moderate in Massachusetts but it makes you pretty liberal in a Republican primary. That’s probably why he hired Charlie Crist’s staff.”
“Well, the banks aren't bad people. They're just overwhelmed right now. The banks are scared to death, of course. They're feeling the same thing that you're feeling.”
Read the full text transcript of the 2012 State of the Union Address:
As Prepared for Delivery -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought - and several thousand gave their lives.
We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.
On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.
And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.
Over the weekend, Romney intends to start airing an ad that will say, “While Florida families lost everything in the housing crisis, Newt Gingrich cashed in. Gingrich was paid over $1.6 million by the scandal-ridden agency that helped create the crisis.” Shockingly enough, the ad fails to mention Romney’s own investments in the government backed mortgage giants, which have netted him tens of thousands of dollars.
In a statement he wrote yesterday, the 39-year anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, President Obama defended the landmark decision:
“We must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) admitted last week that his tax rate was about 15 percent because his income mainly comes from investments that are taxed at lower rates than normal income. Romney’s income is also bolstered by the fact that several of his investments — worth millions of dollars — take advantage of offshore tax havens in the Cayman Islands to boost profits.
Many of those investments are associated with Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney co-founded, which has an extensive history of using such tax havens to boost profits at a multi-billion dollar cost to American taxpayers. Those tax havens aren’t just causing outrage among Americans, however. The Cayman Islands are a British territory, and British MP John Cryer, a former member of the British Treasury Select Committee, told the British blog Left Foot Forward that it is “a disgrace” that corporations and investors like Romney and Bain can use them to avoid paying taxes:
“As a former member of the Treasury select committee, I think it is a disgrace that the Cayman Islands, a tax haven, can enable wealthy corporations and individuals such as Mitt Romney and others in the wealthiest 1% to avoid tax and still be cloaked in secrecy. Meanwhile all across the western world, hard-working people are seeing their living standards and take-home pay stagnate or reduced.
“It reminds me of President Kennedy’s comment in his inaugural speech, ‘pay any price, bear any burden’. Except it’s hard-working, modestly paid majority who are bearing that burden.” Continue reading...
It would be such an unfair shame if public outrage forced the end of tax havens and the greedy wealthiest 1 percent worldwide had to pay their fair share of taxes. I mean, honest to God, wouldn’t you just hate to see this happen? /snark
Romney went after Newt Gingrich with a vengeance in Ormond Beach, Florida, yesterday. He attacked both Gingrich’s career as the speaker of the House in the 1990’s, and his career as a lobbyist for mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. From Romney’s remarks:
“Speaker Gingrich has also been a leader. He was a leader for four years as speaker of the House. And at the end of four years, it was proven that he was a failed leader and he had to resign in disgrace. I don’t know whether you knew that, he actually resigned after four years, in disgrace.
He was investigated over an ethics panel and had to make a payment associated with that and then his fellow Republicans, 88 percent of his Republicans voted to reprimand Gingrich. He has not had a record of successful leadership.”
Over the last 15 years since he left the House, he talks about great bold movements and ideas........ell, what’s he been doing for 15 years? He’s been working as a lobbyist, yeah, he’s been working as a lobbyist and selling influence around Washington.”
Gingrich’s various careers, along with his personal foibles, are easy pickings for rivals. The question is, can they make it stick? I would have thought so, but then I would not have thought that evangelicals in South Carolina would go for Gingrich with his three marriages, and penchant for conducting illicit affairs on the side.
Adding........great tweet on this from David Frum:
Look on the bright side: no more family values talk from South Carolina Republicans.
David Gregory talks to Newt Gingrich on ‘Meet the Press” yesterday about Gingrich’s lobbying activities for mortgage giants, Fannie and Freddie:
“You are running against the establishment, you're trying to run as an outsider. You talk about housing in Florida. You were a consultant, or, depending on your point of view, a lobbyist for one of the mortgage giants. I'm wondering how you think you win that inside-outside game, given your history.”
A Gingrich now on the offensive, responds to Gregory, denying any lobbying activity ever. So there.
“David, wait a second, David. David, you know better than that. I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don't try to mix these things up. The fact is I was an adviser strategically and if you look at the only thing ever published by Freddie Mac, I said you need more regulations. If you look at the only article ever written about my talking to the Congress, it was in the New York Times in July of 2008, and I said do not give them any money.
Now I opposed giving money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think they should both be broken up into four or five much smaller companies and I've long felt that. And so I think that to jump from one to the other is simply wrong. In Florida, my case is going to be very simple. You have a clear establishment candidate in Mitt Romney. Look where his money comes from, look at his background, look what he did in Massachusetts. And you have somebody whose entire career has been a Reagan populist conservative going all the way back to the 1970s.
I think that's a pretty clear contrast, and I think Floridians would like somebody who speaks for them to Washington, not somebody who speaks to the establishment to them.”
Watch the video of Gingrich denying the lobbyist claim:
Media Matters weighs in on Gingrich’s "I was not a lobbyist" claim:
The holes in Gingrich's "I was not a lobbyist" argument have been demonstrated several times over. Politifact gave the claim a "Half-True" rating, noting that it's depressingly easy and common for "consultants" who provide "strategic advice" (which is how Gingrich's campaign explained his relationship with Freddie Mac) to essentially function as lobbyists without having to register as such. The Washington Postcalled Gingrich's denials of being a lobbyist "clearly misleading," laying out all the known details of Gingrich's dealings with the mortgage giant.
The first Obama 2012 election ad was released on Thursday, January 19, and will be viewable in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. The ad focuses on President Obama’s energy record, and is bolstered by (unmentioned in the ad itself) President Obama’s recent rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
President Obama’s re-election campaign released a brief statement with the ad:
While the President has made significant achievements to ensure a clean-energy future for our country, oil executives have funded an ad campaign attacking that progress. Fighting against investments in clean energy, these secretive corporate interests are determined to protect tax breaks for oil companies that the President wants to end.
Watch:
It is worth noting that where the Obama re-election campaign said “oil executives have funded an ad campaign attacking that progress”, they are referring to the infamous Koch brothers.
For help in combatting the misinformation circulating re Solyndra, check out the archives of Think Progress.
“On the economy, the facts are these. When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course.
But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion.
All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t.
The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.
You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.”
- Conservative-Independent, Andrew Sullivan, excerpted from a Newsweek cover story. The quoted portion of the article focuses on President Obama’s job performance in regards to the economy.
Newt Gingrich just can’t stop using that old canard, the Southern dog whistle, that code for the term “welfare queens” (which don’t even exist in reality). Here’s Newt when asked what he would say to the NAACP if given the opportunity:
“More people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history. ... And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”
Really, Newt, really?
Give me a freaking break. Calling President Obama the “food stamp president” and insinuating that black people are all on food stamps, i.e., too lazy to get jobs thus live off food stamps, for Christ’s sake, is old, racist, and not based in truth. [Gingrich’s association with truth is always tenuous, but this is to the point of utterly ridiculous.]
Yes, enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has increased during the Obama administration, but as experts continually point out, and which Gingrich continually ignores, this is because of the near depression caused by the policies of Bush and company, a deep, deep recession which continues today, necessitating assistance to many more people than would be the case during better times.
Watch Fox News amplify Gingrich’s message:
So did President George W. Bush preside over the highest number of food stamp recipients in history? Thus far, yes. 11 Alive in Atlanta [emphasis mine] fact-checked Gingrich:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service tracks month-to-month figures dating back to January 2001. The numbers show that the total of food stamp recipients rose to 14.2 million during President Obama's administration.
The highest in history so far is President George W. Bush. The number of food stamp recipients grew to nearly 14.7 million while he was in office. But, that's eight years in office, compared to President Obama who has not finished his first term.
It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.
One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps, according to the Department of Agriculture.
The figures also show the rise in food stamps began before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation plunged into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.
So, who gets food stamps?
The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP (food stamp) program's beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:
-- 47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
-- 8% were age 60 or older.
-- 41% lived in a household with earnings from a job - the so-called "working poor."
-- The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.
-- 36% were white (non-Hispanic), 22% were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10% were Hispanic.
Oh, and by the way, Newt and Fox liars, the state with the highest number of Americans eligible for and receiving food stamps is Nevada. [Nevada, where if I had to venture a guess, I’d say that there might be maybe fifteen whole black people living in the entire state of Nevada.]
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), a prominent supporter of the food stamp program:
“People now see that it’s necessary to have a strong food stamp program.”
“I was deeply radicalized by the 2000 election. At first I couldn’t believe that then-candidate George W. Bush was saying so many clearly, provably false things; then I couldn’t believe that nobody in the news media was willing to point out the lies. (At the time, the Times actually told me that I couldn’t use the l-word either). That was when I formulated my “views differ on shape of planet” motto.
Now, however, Mitt Romney seems determined to rehabilitate Bush’s reputation, by running a campaign so dishonest that it makes Bush look like a model of truth-telling.
I mean, is there anything at all in Romney’s stump speech that’s true? It’s all based on attacking Obama for apologizing for America, which he didn’t, on making deep cuts in defense, which he also didn’t, and on being a radical redistributionist who wants equality of outcomes, which he isn’t. When the issue turns to jobs, Romney makes false assertions both about Obama’s record and about his own. I can’t find a single true assertion anywhere.”
- Paul Krugman on Mitt Romney’s lies about President Obama, as well as Romney’s lies about his own record.
Adding.......this quote came from a piece (which I missed) posted by Krugman on January 13.
“I've released all of my tax returns...and I released them every year after I filed them, right after I filed them, to the public of New Jersey so they can see everything. And I think that's the right way to go and that's what I would tell Gov. Romney to do.”
- Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) on Morning Joe today, urges Mitt Romney to release his tax returns.
Romney is unlikely to release his tax return until he is ready to release his 2011 return, which will intentionally be vastly different than his previous year returns.
The reason is simple. He won’t release prior years because all of his income is from investments, and thus he pays primarily capital gains tax. The top rate for cap gains tax is 15%. Most of those who live solely on investment income use loopholes to pay an even lower rate than 15%, and Romney does not want the public to know that he pays so much less in taxes than they do.
Also. Bain Capital has an offshore account, and Romney is still listed as the president of Bain Capital on that account. Romney himself also has offshore accounts which he will not wish to disclose to American taxpayers.
Bob Cesca in a post entitled “What’s at Stake in This Election?”, on President Obama’s mission to resurrect America’s ailing middle class by reversing the doctrine of Reaganomics:
“President Obama is slowly rolling back the doctrine of Reaganomics. The long-term goal of the administration is to reverse this highly entrenched policy mindset. It’s a doctrine that mandates deregulation, “government is the problem,” lower taxes for the rich, a suffocation of the middle class and so forth. If Romney wins, that’s the end of that. Romney will be able to ride the progress of the Obama recovery and claim credit for it while simultaneously repealing and rolling back everything the president accomplished.”
“On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. If George Bush had taken out bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership, and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.
Obama’s foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower’s or George H.W. Bush’s, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage. It is forged by someone interested in advancing American interests—not asserting an ideology and enforcing it regardless of the consequences by force of arms. By hanging back a little, by “leading from behind” in Libya and elsewhere, Obama has made other countries actively seek America’s help and reappreciate our role. As an antidote to the bad feelings of the Iraq War, it has worked close to perfectly.”
- Conservative-Independent, Andrew Sullivan, on Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments, from a really excellent cover story for Newsweek.
Adding........you should read the entire piece. It’s not only brilliant, but it tells the truth about the Obama presidency in a way that hasn’t been done before. While I disagree with Sullivan on several points (the most egregious point being that Obama signed indefinite detention of American citizens into law. Indefinite detention of American citizens was not “signed into law” by President Obama, it was already law, a fact which Sullivan does not point out.)
“Allowing Michael Moore to speak for Leftwing America as an intellectual leader with no accountability, or interruption, is suicide because what Moore is doing is depressing the vote and giving aid to the GOP who are there waiting like violent pedophiles for Democracy Elementary School to let out. It would be less crazy if we weren't staring down the possibility of a right wing consolidation of the three branches of the U.S. government this year. He's rarely objective, but a subjective purveyor of one-eyed character composite sketches, and he says the things he says as if right wing jackboots and flackies aren't relentlessly beating down the doors of American power. Apparently the Democratic party are equally to blame for not being brutal enough to override democracy, or effectively assuage the 60 million idiots who voted for Sarah Palin in 2008.
The Democratic party didn't depress voter turnout in 2010, Michael Moore and company did with their incessant misplaced attacks, self-promotion, and short-sighted idea of movement politics.
We don't need a vote depressing third party spoiler. We need to hold the line and move incrementally forward, not stopping even for Michael Moore's slow ass.”
This is the full 28 minute video created by a pro-Gingrich PAC, and it does a pretty good job of highlighting Romney’s career as a corporate raider with Bain Capital.
“I predict to you that there will be huge scandals associated with this huge flood of money.”
- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), commenting on the ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010(Citizens United) that allowed the introduction of Super PACs into our politics.
It’s little wonder that Mitt Romney, the cofounder of private-equity firm Bain Capital, has banked more than $1.1 million from the financial-services industry for his presidential run. Romney still has strong ties to Wall Street, and each year his own bank account benefits to the tune of millions of dollars, per his retirement agreement with Bain.
1. Romney likes to fire people, New Hampshire, January 2012:
“If I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people.”
I know that there are some who say, ‘Let’s just get more money from the higher-income people, let’s just tax them some more,’ and I understand that’s popular in a lot of people’s minds. But just don’t forget that old Margaret Thatcher line, ‘Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.’”
“I’m a Democrat — I’m a believer. I think he’s done a wonderful job, I think he’s having a tough time in a difficult environment. I root for him. I root for the President of the United States.”
- Actor and Progressive activist, George Clooney, when asked if he is supporting President Obama in 2012.
“Those of us who believe in free markets and those of us who believe that, in fact, the whole goals of investment is entrepreneurship and job creation, would find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever, legal ways to loot out a company.”
“They're whitewashing his career now. We had a scheme where the rich got richer. I did it, and I feel good about it. But I'm not planning to run for office.”
“As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years. On every measure you’ve got, the state was a substantial under-performer.”
“Voters are just now meeting the Real Romney — the buyout tycoon who executed takeovers, bankrupted businesses, and sent jobs overseas while killing American jobs.”
5. Newt Gingrich to Mitt Romney, (who pretended that he didn’t run for reelection in Mass. because he wasn’t interested in being a career politician) during the Republican primary debate leading up to the New Hampshire primary election:
“Can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney?The fact is, you ran in '94 (for the Senate) and lost. That's why you weren't serving in the Senate with Rick Santorum. The fact is, you had a very bad re-election rating (as governor in 2006), you dropped out of office, you had been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president. You have been running consistently for years and years and years. So this idea that suddenly citizenship showed up in your mind, just level with the American people. You've been running for -- at least since the 1990s.”
“Mitt Romney has never worried about pink slip. He might have worried about not having enough of them to hand out. But he’s not worried about losing his job.”
“If I’m going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people.”
And yet, Mitt Romney’s tax plan benefits millionaires to the tune of $150,000 each, and billionaires $500,000 each, while it takes dollars away from the poor, and especially from families with children. Romney’s tax plan gives little or no benefit to middle class households, and the implementation of the plan would cause the deficit to sky rocket, all so Mitt Romney can buy the favorable opinion, and thus the financial support, of his fellow one percenters. Think Progress:
The Tax Policy Center released an analysis today showing that, contrary to Romney’s rhetoric, the overwhelming majority of the benefits under the plan would go to the wealthy. In fact, compared to the policy in place today, Romney’s plan would give millionaires a $150,000 tax cut, while raising taxes on many low-income families:
A sizable number of low-income families would see their taxes go up. For instance, about 15 percent of those in the $10,000 to $20,000 income group would get an average tax cut of about $140, but 20 percent would get hit with an average tax increase of $1,000, mostly because Romney would bring back the less generous versions of those refundable credits.
About one-third of those in $40,000 to $50,000 group would get a tax cut that would average about $400, but about one-six would face a tax increase of nearly twice as much.
Almost every millionaire would get a tax cut averaging roughly $150,000. As a group, those making $1 million or more would receive nearly half the benefit of Romney’s tax plan.
Romney plan hits hardest those making less than $40,000, and primarily those households with children, as he would undo President Obama’s expansion of the child tax credit.
And Romney’s proposal only gets more lucrative for those at the very top of the income scale, giving those in the richest 0.1 percent an annual tax cut of nearly half a million dollars. In 2015 alone, the plan would add $600 billion to the deficit.
Sounds a lot like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
“Frankly I don’t think bringing a Bain mentality to this economy — to running this economy — makes him a strong candidate. I don’t think shifting and moving around on positions – fundamental positions – is one that people are going to embrace. Trust is a big issue in the presidency. I think there’s a big trust issue here.”
- David Axelrod talking about GOP frontrunner, Mitt Romney, on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday.
Adding......Harder, Mr. Axelrod. You need to hit him harder.
In Gwinnett County, Georgia, they thought it would be a good idea for elementary school kids to learn their math along with some mental imagery of slavery. This was a terrible idea:
Third graders in in Gwinnett County, Ga., were given math homework Wednesday that asked questions about slavery and beatings.
Christopher Braxton told ABC News affiliate WSB-TV in Atlanta that he couldn't believe the assignment his 8-year-old son brought home from of Beaver Ridge Elementary school in Norcross.
"It kind of blew me away," Braxton said. "Do you see what I see? Do you really see what I see? He's not answering this question."
The question read, "Each tree had 56 oranges. If eight slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?"
Another math problem read, "If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?"
Another question asked how many baskets of cotton Frederick filled.
"I was furious at that point," Braxton said.
As if there are not already enough ignorant white people in the South, still longing for the days of plantations and white supremacy. A school district that makes light of the subjugation of a whole class of human beings in teaching children about math.
I can’t find the words to say how truly despicable I find this to be.
UPDATE: Wed., Jan. 18
The unidentified teacher responsible for the questions has resigned.
A Beaver Ridge Elementary School teacher involved in giving slavery themed math questions to students has resigned, a Gwinnett County Schools spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday.
The unidentified teacher quit during a human resources investigation into the origin of the homework assignment. School officials said one teacher created the slave math questions, which used references to beatings and picking cotton to link a history lesson about Frederick Douglass to math computation. It was used in four classrooms.
“You are the first political candidate I've ever come out to meet in my entire life. I listened to your speech in Iowa the other night and that’s exactly what I wanted to hear for so many years. I hate darkies and homos too. God bless you.”
- Arnie Snood, one of Rick Santorum’s Iowa supporters.
Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul all have one thing in common other than their party affiliation - they are all beloved by white supremacists and homophobes.
“I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
- Rick Santorum derides poor black people in Iowa last week, using a racist dog-whistle that has become typical of GOP talking points during this election cycle. Santorum should know that only 9% of public assistance recipients in Iowa are actually black. 39% of public assistance recipients are white.
Santorum should probably switch to an attack on poor white people. Or hey, maybe he could make gay people (another group for which Santorum has no love) out to be the major recipients of government assistance.
“I’ve looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video. In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn’t say black. I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.”
- Rick Santorum on CBS with John King [after being called out by civil rights groups], denying his racist comment of the day before, ridiculously claiming that he didn’t say ‘black’ people, he said ‘blah’ people.
Ahem.......the ‘Blah’ community is rightfully outraged by Santorum’s inaccurate and racist remarks.
“I will go to the NAACP convention, and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps.”
- In New Hampshire yesterday, Newt Gingrich let-the-freak-banner-fly in a blatantly racist statement. Someone should tell Newt that the majority of food stamp recipients aren’t black.
Recent Comments