Monday, October 29, 2012

Some Of Romney's Biggest Debate Lies


Here are the seven biggest lies Romney told: LINK

ROMNEY THE LIAR:
“We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office.”

This is flatly false.
The Bureau of Labor statistics just revised estimates from March 2011 to March 2012 upwards by 386,000 jobs—meaning that Obama crossed the magic imaginary barrier of net job creation for his term, and has actually created a net positive 125,000 jobs. This is a simple fact. And there have been 868,000 jobs created in the private sector during this time, which have been offset by public sector job losses—something Mitt Romney would like to see continue.

Moreover, this is an awful tough metric to judge Obama on in the first place. As he’s fond of mentioning, the economy was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month when he took office—so holding him to a net job creation standard means he has to make up for those massive losses that were out of his control entirely. But he’s still done it.

ROMNEY THE LIAR:
“I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.”

Recall back in March, when Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri introduced a bill that would allow employers to deny contraceptive coverage to employees.

Mitt Romney THE LIAR said: “Of course I support the Blunt amendment…. Of course Roy Blunt, who is my liaison to the Senate, is someone I support and of course I support that amendment. I clearly want to have religious exemption from Obamacare…. I really think all Americans should be allowed to get around this religious exemption.”

This one is pretty simple.

ROMNEY THE LIAR:
“I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now. The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that’ll stay the same. Middle-income people are going to get a tax break.”

A Center for American Progress examination of Romney’s tax plan concluded that the top 10 percent of income earners would reap half of the plan’s benefits, and the top 1 percent would reap one-third of the benefits.

Romney tries to dodge this unassailable fact by saying he’ll cut deductions for the wealthy—but he refuses to say which ones. He’s also ruled out raising the tax breaks the wealthy get on capital gains and dividends. This lead the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center to conclude that Romney would have to end up cutting deductions used by the middle class to make his math work—thus raising their taxes.

ROMNEY THE LIAR: “As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land.”

Obama immediately challenged this point, leading to the first of many back-and-forths between the president and Romney. But Obama was right. It’s true that drilling on public lands dropped 14 percent in 2011, but it went up 15 percent the year before. Overall oil production on federal lands is up under Obama—and Romney is being extremely dishonest in singling out the one year that it dropped.

We must pause here to note that—since the oil drilled on federal land in the United States has zero impact on global gas prices, since it’s such a trivial amount—it’s not such a hot idea, and not one Obama should be particularly proud of increasing. But he did increase it.

Also, it should be noted that Romney plainly said later in the debate that “coal jobs are not up.” In fact, 1,500 jobs in the coal industry have been created since Obama took office.

ROMNEY THE LIAR: “And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that…[Massachusetts] had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.”



First of all, that effort was spearheaded by a nonpartisan coalition of women’s groups, not Romney. Second, the number of women in high-level appointed positions declined 27.6 during his tenure as governor.

Also, there were no binders full of women at Bain Capital—there were no female partners at that firm during the 1980s and 1990s, according to The Boston Globe. Today, only four of forty-nine of the firm’s managing directors are women.

More importantly, as my colleague Ben Adler notes, Romney has opposed pay equity for women in much more substantive policy ways beyond these anecdotes—opposing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

ROMNEY THE LIAR: “I want to make sure we keep our Pell Grant program growing.”

This is simply not true. Romney and his running mate would cut Pell Grants—Romney has been vague on the issue, using ominous budgetspeak that he wants to “refocus” Pell Grant dollars to “place the program on a responsible long-term path,” but Paul Ryan has been far more specific—his budget would cut Pell Grants for up to 1 million students.

ROMNEY THE LIAR:
“We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know. This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that’s what I’m going to do.”

Romney is joining many other members of the Republican party in saying the Keystone Pipeline is a job-creation engine. It’s not. The Cornell Global Labor Institute says it would create only 2,500 to 4,650 short-term construction jobs while it was being built—and the State Department found similar numbers in its environmental review of the project. That’s not enough to impact the unemployment rate, and is notably far, far less than the millions of jobs independent analysts say would be created by Obama’s American Jobs Act, which focuses on many infrastructure projects and increased hiring of teachers and public safety workers.

http://fakeposters.com.s3.amazonaws.com/results/2012/10/20/6bwv4qps4r.jpg

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Mitt Romney's Wife's Ass

Scared of YOU!

A lot of people are intrigued by first lady Michelle Obama's ass but what about Ann Romney's ass? In spite of all the hoopla, the truth is Michelle Obama has a palty 38" inch ass. Ann Romney's ass is much much bigger. Before I show you Ann Romney's ass you will need to look at a lot of other big asses to fully appreciate the magnitude of Ann's ass. I will be posting many photos of Ann Romney's bare ass.

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/michelle_o.jpg
First lady got back? Where?




http://www.mytinyphone.com/uploads/users/cacique/132571.jpg



http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1345864244447261.jpg

http://data.whicdn.com/images/26499391/sexy-ass-wildammo-36_large.jpg

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeCNi79Psdtf6BwITULeHqM6226aaie2X_SMTSQ59dsEGyXQeapTYy1IS8gTG3JKC3LKwzKBRCKbkZyJDq3RCZWNFT_gNi74LGOl4hNaaKsAKEZWNWsGQJ3u18PQ9Ih1rGLOJoJNOd8EI/s1600/serena+williams+bikini.jpg

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/639856/1043974.jpg

http://tracykrulik.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/jackass.jpg

http://stealingdonkeys.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/donkey-oatie-image.jpg


DRUM ROLL PLEASE!

Ladies and gentleman..... Ann Romney's ASS!


http://llwproductions.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/mitt-stupid-quote-1.jpg
What an ass!



http://i.qkme.me/35r4k2.jpg
What an ass!


http://elbrooklyntaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/mitt-romney-dumb-unemployed.jpg
What an ass!




http://handbill.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/60Y1.jpg
What an ass!


http://fakeposters.com.s3.amazonaws.com/results/2012/10/20/6bwv4qps4r.jpg
What an ass!



Battle Ships and Bayonets: A ReBlog From Teddy Bear of the Biggest Fattest Blog

Most of my readers know Dr Gerald "Teddy" Bear but for those who don't let it suffice to say that the Teddy Bear is a Renaissance man and really fat. Teddy is multi talented and among his talents is cartooning parody. The images in the article are the work of Teddy Bear. Please see more of his work on The Biggest Fattest Blog. HERE

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKBaVG0g63KRAvxDME2vwVIzVegtuAgyv0MJyO6hdYhmhoMjBvuAftKvL5br_fJubuhBLnpk3IHLvTThG8L-vWVzQJ3fdxL-visdTBnEKRfqTFi_LL-9KbszqvCaXrWY1hK-Z1qKyBITSs/s226/Teddy+Bear+14.JPG
The Mighty and Majestic Teddy Bear
 

Sunday, October 28, 2012 by Teddy Bear

THE THIRD AND FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE OF OCTOBER 22,2012 - WOW! BATTLESHIPS AND HORSES AND BAYONETS!

MITT ROMNEY POLITICALLY DROPPED HIS PANTS AS PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA EXPOSED HIM AS A MORONIC FOOL AND AN ABSOLUTE TOOL TO BOOT!!!

OK, Democratic President Barack Obama didn't do very well in his first Presidential debate with Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, back in Tuesday, October 3,2012. The one fault I see in Obama, is that he is just too much of a gentleman and he needed to be more aggressive.

The only reason why Nit-wit Mitt Romney won in the first Presidential debate, is because he's a smooth talking liar, and a 
really good liar can often sound very convincing.

I believe that President Obama was sincere, honest, and truthful during the first debate. But, he simply should have been a little bit more aggressive, and tried to call Romney out on his bull shit!!!
Yeah, people are more likely to believe a smooth talking liar than to believe a non-aggressive person who is telling the truth.
  
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. 
Mark Twain

Then . . . on Thursday, October 11,2012 was the Vice-presidential between Democratic Vice-president, Joe Biden, and Republican Vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan. 

Yeah! Joe Bidden mopped up the debate floor with Paul Ryan!!!
Yeah! Way to go Joe!!!


This calls for for a drink in celebration!

Then came the second Presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 16,2012 and as usual, Mitt Romney lied like a piss-socked wet rug on a shit-house floor!


Yeah! Liar liar, pants on fire! His nose is longer than a telephone wire!

Oh! But it gets even better!!!

Then, came the third and final Presidential debate on Monday, October 22,2012 between Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential candidate Shit Romney!


Here is where Mitt Romney politically drops his pants and exposes himself for what he really is! Yeah, a moronic fool and an absolute tool to boot!

It was during their discussion on the military and foreign policy when Mitt Romney made the following comment . . .

"The Navy is too small and has fewer ships than it did in 1916."

 To which, Obama replied . . . . .

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."


And Obama went on to say . . .

"It's not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's 'What are our capabilities?'"

WOW! Obama made Romney look like an absolute fool!!!

OK, I'm sure that I love horses as much as Mitt Romney does. In fact, I like animals much more than Mitt Romney, because, unlike him . . . I would NEVER strap a dog down on top of a car and go for a 12 hour drive!!!

 Anyway . . . . . . .

Here is a really cute video game I found at:
And here is a screen shot I took while playing the video.
 Horses and Bayonets Game: Help 
Obama win! Throw horses and 
bayonets on Mitt Romney!
To play this game, you just simply click your mouse on the screen to drop horses and bayonets on Mitt Romney as he quickly moves from side to side.
So, just go to the above mentioned web site link.
And have fun! 

Thank's Teddy for this article but I would like to say that Romney's Lie About the Navy goes much deeper. Romney also lied about the airforce. Politifact called it a pants on fire lie.  Romney's Lie About the Navy and Airforce CLICK HERE
 http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."--Mitt Romney--

Professional Liar Mitt Romney on Monday, January 16th, 2012 in a Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.


Posted Image


During the Jan. 16, 2012, Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., former Massachusetts Gov. and professional liar Mitt Romney took aim at President Barack Obama’s support for the U.S. military.

"The most extraordinary thing that's happened with this military authorization is the president is planning on cutting $1 trillion out of military spending," Romney said. "Our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947. We are cutting our number of troops. We are not giving the veterans the care they deserve. We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth. And I will fight to make sure America retains military superiority."

This comment includes a lot of separate claims, but after a number of readers contacted us, we decided to focus on two of them: "Our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917," and, "Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."

His underlying point: The U.S. military has been seriously weakened compared to what it was 50 and 100 years ago.

We’ll look at both the numbers as well as the larger context. But as you'll see below, using the number of military ships and airplanes is an outdated practice that one expert says "doesn't pass 'the giggle test.' "

The Navy numbers

The Romney campaign didn’t get back to us, but we found their likely sourcing when we contacted the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.


In January 2010, Heritage published a report titled, "The State of the U.S. Military." Citing data from the Naval History and Heritage Command, a part of the Defense Department, the report said that "the U.S. Navy’s fleet today contains the smallest number of ships since 1916. The total number of active ships in the Navy declined from 592 to 283 between 1989 and 2009."

We looked up the original data, and the Heritage report does reflect the trend line correctly (though Romney said 1917 rather than 1916, something we won’t quibble with). In 1916, the U.S. Navy had 245 active ships, a number that eventually peaked during World War II, then fell, then peaked again more modestly during the Korean War, followed by a slow, consistent decline over the next five decades.

In recent years, the number of active ships has fallen low enough to approach its 1916 level. In both 2009 (the most recent year of the Heritage report) and 2011, the number was 285.

So Romney has a point. However, even using this metric -- which, as we’ll argue later, is an imperfect one for measuring military strength -- this is not the lowest level since 1916.

The same data set shows that during the years 2005 to 2008, the number of active ships was 282, 281, 278 and 282, respectively -- each of which were below the levels of 2009, 2010 and 2011. In other words, each of the final four years under George W. Bush saw lower levels of active ships than any of the three years under Obama. The number of surface warships also bottomed out in 2005 under Bush, later rising by about 10 percent under Obama.

Such figures undercut Romney’s use of the statistic as a weapon against Obama.

The Air Force numbers

How about the Air Force? First, let’s look at the total number of aircraft.

We found extensive data in a report titled, "Arsenal of Airpower: USAF Aircraft Inventory, 1950-2009," authored by retired Air Force Col. James C. Ruehrmund Jr. and Christopher J. Bowie and published in November 2010 by the Mitchell Institute, a research and analysis organization founded by the Air Force Association.

The figures for 2009 show 5,988 total aircraft (4,460 active, 375 reserve and 1,153 in the Air National Guard). That’s a lower number than any year going back at least to 1950, the earliest year tallied in the report. So while we don’t have data going back to 1947, the specific year Romney cited, his claim about the size of the Air Force seems credible. (Figure 2 on page 5 of the Mitchell Institute report provides a good graphical representation of the numerical patterns over time.)

Now, let’s look at the age of the Air Force’s assets.

The Heritage report includes a chart titled, "The Oldest Air Force in U.S. History," referencing an October 2005 Government Accountability Office report, "DOD Needs to Identify and Address Gaps and Potential Risks in Program Strategies and Funding Priorities for Selected Equipment." We couldn’t find specific support in the GAO report for the claim that the Air Force of today (or, to be precise, the Air Force of 2005 when Bush was president) was the oldest since 1947. However, the report, combined with the analysis of experts we asked, suggest that it’s a fair conclusion.

The GAO looked at 30 pieces of equipment from various branches (not just the Air Force) and found that "reported readiness rates declined between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 for most of these items. The decline in readiness, which occurred more markedly in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, generally resulted from (1) the continued high use of equipment to support current operations and (2) maintenance issues caused by the advancing ages and complexity of the systems."

Charles Morrison, a researcher at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the U.S. "bought more aircraft in the early 1950s than in all the years combined from 1956 to 2011, clearly at the cost of an older fleet."

So let’s sum up so far. On the number of naval ships, Romney is close, except that he overlooked the four years of lower numbers under Bush. Meanwhile, he’s correct on the number of aircraft and is most likely correct on the age of aircraft.

Adding some context

But what do those numbers mean? Not much, a variety of experts told us.

Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

As for the Air Force, many U.S. planes may be old, but they "have been modernized with amazing sensors and munitions even when the airframes themselves haven’t been," said Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Human factors matter, too. "The vast superiority of the U.S. Air Force has little to do with number of planes, but with vastly superior training, in-flight coordination and control, as well as precision targeting and superior missiles," said Charles Knight, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Institute.

Ruehrmund and Bowie write in their report that "although the overall force level is lower, the capabilities of the current force in almost all respects far exceed that of the huge Air Force of the 1950s. Today’s Air Force can maintain surveillance of the planet with space and air-breathing systems; strike with precision any point on the globe within hours; deploy air power and joint forces with unprecedented speed and agility; and provide high-bandwidth secure communications and navigation assistance to the entire joint force."

Increasingly crucial today are pilotless aerial vehicles, some of which are more commonly known as drones.

"The Air Force now buys more unmanned than manned aircraft every year, and that trend is not going to change," said Lance Janda, a historian at Cameron University. "Within our lifetime, I think you’ll see an end to manned combat aircraft, because unmanned planes are more capable and a lot cheaper."

For a sense of comparison, in 1947, "it took dozens of planes and literally hundreds of bombs to destroy a single target because they were so inaccurate," said Todd Harrison, a fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "But thanks to smart bombs and stealthy aircraft, today it only takes a single plane and often a single bomb to destroy a target."

Or as John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, puts it: "Would anyone care to trade today's Navy or Air Force for either service at any point in the 20th century?"

There’s also another problem with Romney’s claim.
He appears to be throwing blame on Obama, which is problematic because military buildups and draw-downs these days take years to run their course. Just look at the long, slow declines in the number of ships and aircraft. These are not turn-on-a-dime events that can be pegged to one president.

"Ships are so expensive that they have to be built over long periods of time, and at a pace that accounts for the retirement from service of other ships as well," Janda said. "We also have to space the building out over long periods of time to keep our major shipyards working at a rate that’s sustainable over several decades, because you can’t let them go under and then try to reform them in time of war. So Congress and the president make decisions each year regarding the needs of the Navy that do not come to fruition for decades, making it ridiculous to give blame or praise to the president for the current situation."

All this said, there are lots of serious issues facing the military that Obama, or whoever defeats him in 2012, will have to address.

One is the age of the Air Force’s assets, which is probably Romney’s strongest point. And despite the technological advantages of today’s military, there are limitations to having a smaller number of ships and aircraft. For instance, both branches, and especially the Navy, have to be able to position enough assets around the world where they are needed.

And having a "small but sophisticated military is also risky," said Thomas Bruscino, a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. "If the Navy loses one carrier to enemy action, for any reason, that loss would be catastrophic in a way such a loss would not have been in the past," Bruscino said. "Likewise, the Air Force cannot afford to lose even small numbers of the highly sophisticated airframes of today."

Still, most experts we spoke to felt that Romney’s critique was misguided. Knight went so far as to offer this reply:

"If Mr. Romney wants a truly stark example of diminished military capability, he should compare today’s horse cavalry to that in 1917, or even 1941 when there were still 15 active horse-cavalry regiments in the Army. Today there has been total disarmament of horse cavalry,’ he might say, ‘leaving our nation defenseless in this regard.’ His chosen comparisons are almost as absurd."

Our ruling

This is a great example of a politician using more or less accurate statistics to make a meaningless claim. Judging by the numbers alone, Romney was close to accurate. In recent years, the number of Navy and Air Force assets has sunk to levels not seen in decades, although the number of ships has risen slightly under Obama.

However, a wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.

Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones, comparing today’s military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an egregious comparison of apples and oranges. Today’s military and political leaders face real challenges in determining the right mix of assets to deal with current and future threats, but Romney’s glib suggestion that today’s military posture is in any way similar to that of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947 is preposterous.

In addition, Romney appears to be using the statistic as a critique of the current administration, while experts tell us that both draw-downs and buildups of military equipment occur over long periods of time and can't be pegged to one president. Put it all together and you have a statement that, despite being close to accurate in its numbers, uses those numbers in service of a ridiculous point. Pants on Fire.
 



 

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: ""My party is full of racists."

Colin Powell's former chief of staff condemned the Republican Party on Friday night, telling MSNBC's Ed Schultz, "My party is full of racists."

http://my.coffeepartyusa.com/page/-/col%20wilkerson.jpg

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson made the comment in response to Mitt Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu's suggestion on Thursday that Powell's endorsement of President Barack Obama's re-election was motivated by race. Wilkerson, who served as Powell's chief of staff when the general was secretary of state during the first George W. Bush term, told Schultz that he respected Sununu "as a Republican, as a member of my party," but did not "have any respect for the integrity of the position that [Sununu] seemed to codify."

When asked by Schultz what, if anything, the remark said about the attitudes of the Republican Party, Wilkerson said:
My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people -- not all of them, but most of them -- who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable.
The retired colonel also said that "to say that Colin Powell would endorse President Obama because of his skin color is like saying Mother Theresa worked for profit."

Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama for the second time on Thursday morning -- he also backed the president in 2008 -- saying on CBS' "This Morning" that he was "more comfortable with President Obama and his administration" than with Romney on a host of issues.

http://www.quovadisdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/sununu-2.jpg
Liar and crook Mitt Romney with racist liar John Sununu


Sununu, no stranger to incendiary rhetoric this election cycle, reacted to the endorsement on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," saying that "when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama."

Obama himself dismissed Sununu's suggestion on Friday, telling radio host Michael Smerconish:
Any suggestion that Gen. Powell would make such a profound statement in such an important election based on anything but what he thought was what's going to be best for America doesn't make much sense.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Romney's Economic Record As Governor

 The Following article is a re-blog from Romney the Liar http://romneytheliar.blogspot.com/


http://ukiahcommunityblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/r3.jpg?w=228&h=338

ROMNEY THE LIAR SLAMS OBAMA FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH ***HIGHER*** THAN MASSACHUSETTS HAD WHEN ROMNEY WAS GOVERNOR

http://romneytheliar...264676436205598

That Willard. Isn't he a funny guy? And multitalented, too--liar, fraud, hypocrite, coward, human chameleon. I mean, his repertoire is VAST. Now he is attacking Obama because the 2% rise in GDP in the last quarter was supposedly weak. Here is the growth rate record from Willard's time as Massachusetts governor:

According to data from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, average real GDP growth was 1.5 percent per year in Massachusetts from 2002 to 2006. For each of the years Romney was in office, the economy grew 1.49 percent, 1.86 percent, 1.14 percent and 1.43 percent, respectively.

And how did Romney assess the economic growth of the state under his leadership? “When we took office, the state economy was in a tailspin. Today, jobs are being created by the thousands and our economy is stronger,” he said in early 2006, his last year in office. So less than 2 percent was good then, but 2 percent is bad now.

And one could argue that Romney had an easier task than Obama. During Romney’s tenure in the governor’s mansion, the national economy grew at a much fast clip than Massachusetts’, staying comfortably above 2 percent every year. National GDP even broke 3 percent one year and doubled the state’s growth another year. On the campaign trail in 2002, Romney promised jobs creation “second to none in the history of the state.” After four years, the state had added 31,000 jobs — a growth rate of less than 1 percent while the country as a whole added 5 percent more jobs.

Willard--your one-stop center for 24/7 lies, deception, and hypocrisy.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Romney's Record As Governor

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyl9BAQdmKvReHoymxpwV85NZh7TME2jgAk1DpKeJNv3pFffJZ05eaRMs6HtwldRyzeMETsMB30gZ0kcZalm7Dw-S_l3pyhD_z6i5bXUsHTVDYlgb1CTaPuOXxxDYIj8tEUNkJ-eKed3UG/s1600/vulture-capitalist-willard-mitt-romney-jpg-gregvanderlaan.jpg

There is a huge difference between businessman/entrepreneur/captain of industry and a corporate raider and vulture capitalist like liar Mitt Romney.  People like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Henry Ford represent the true visionaries and capitalists that create jobs and grow economies. Mitt Romney never created a business that actually created any product, service or jobs.  All Romney has ever done is convince investors to give him money to help him and Bain Capital execute leveraged buyouts of companies. In many cases the investor got screwed, companies were raped and workers lost their jobs but in every case Romney made money. There are name for people who do that. Sometimes they are called bookies and other times they are called pimps. Romney is both a pimp and a bookie.  Romney calling himself a businessman laughable. Romney showed just how clueless he is when he said, "let Detroit go bankrupt.

Here is why that was clueless. Romney tried to back pedal on that one by saying that GM and Chrysler needed to go through a structured bankruptcy and then get funding from the banks. The problem with that is that the banks were failing and also needed a bailout and President Bush did exactly that and he also started the bailout of Detroit and President Obama expertly managed it. Every financial expert and economist knew Romeny was full of shit and he still is.

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.

3. Lost 14 percent of its manufacturing jobs: Massachusetts lost 14 percent of its manufacturing jobs during Romney’s time in office, according to Sum. The loss was double the rate that the nation as a whole lost manufacturing jobs. In 2004, Romney vetoed legislation that would have banned companies doing business with the state from outsourcing jobs to other countries.

4. Experienced “below average” economic growth and was “often near the bottom”: “There was not one measure where the state did well under his term in office. We were below average and often near the bottom,” Sum told the Washington Post in February. As a result, the state was more comparable to Rust Belt states like Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio than it was to other high-tech economies it typically competes with.
 
5. Piled on more debt than any other state: Romney left Massachusetts residents with $10,504 in per capita bond debt, the highest of any state in the nation when he left office in 2007. The state ranked second in debt as a percentage of personal income. Romney regularly omits those statistics from his Massachusetts record, instead touting the fact that he balanced the state’s budget (he was constitutionally required to do so). He wouldn’t be much different as president: his proposed tax plan adds more than $10 trillion to the national debt

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Job-Killing-Vulture-Capitalist.jpg

Thursday, October 25, 2012

220 MPH Cadillac CTS! Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!

I'm a Ford man but goddamn it that new Caddy is pound for pound and dollar for dollar is the best car on the planet. This car makes this fat boy's tuckered out heart beat strong and proud. I believe this master piece of American engineering tops out on the dyno and over whopping 800 hp. (I love to say the word whopping as it reminds me Burger King's Whopper.



I always liked Mustangs more than Camaros but while I would still own a Mustang the new Camaro is just as good. The 707-hp Chevy Camaro ZL1 hit a spine tingling 204 MPH in the video below.



This VR 1200 twin turbo coup produces 1066 horsepower and the rear wheels. Holy fucking shit!

Only an asshole would want to see the US car industry go bankrupt. Mitt Romney is a flaming fucking asshole.



ROMNEY THE LIAR ***STILL*** LYING ABOUT CHRYSLER AND JEEP PRODUCTION

Even though Chrysler has already flatly denied Willard lying assertion that all Jeep production is moving to China, Willard is STILL RUNNING commercials in Ohio claiming that very thing! Incredible. Oh, and by the way, in response to Willard's fantastic lie that he of all people (!) saved the auto industry, the CEO of GM, when asked about the matter by reporter Dean Reynolds,  made the following statement:

"Did President Obama save General Motors?" Reynolds asked

"Without the money, without the funding, it would have been very problematic," said Akerson. "At the risk of alienating a whole lot of potential customers, I would say the Obama administration did a good job."

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and other critics have argued the bailout was unnecessary, and that the regular bankruptcy process would have made GM and Chrysler stronger companies.

"Would that have happened?" Reynolds asked.

"Not in my opinion," asked Akerson. "It would have been in bankruptcy for years and I think you could have written off this company, this industry and this country."


And right-wingers are STILL arguing that it was a bad idea!!

That's why the forces of sanity--mostly the Democrats--have to win over the forces of ideological fanaticism--the Republicans