The main one (via TPM):
"See, Obama did say "terror" in talking about the deaths in Benghazi, Libya. BUT, he didn't mean it the right way. Okay? So no more talk of this, and we'll just chalk this up to another Romney win. BYE!"Nah. That is not reality. Sorry, conservatives. Like with Fast & Furious, what you want to claim just isn't real.
And it was bad that, some time after the fact, you tried to make political hay with dead federal agents. But with Benghazi, you were trying to use these 4 deaths as political weapons while their families were still being informed. You took a still developing foreign policy dilemma of your nation and tried to twist it for short term political game. In the olden days you are so fond of, I'm sure you have a word for the sort of malcontents that would stoop so low. Look it up, look in a mirror, and use it.
Here's the debate exchange again, for your enjoyment:
But coming out of this debate I'd suggest they should be worried plenty about much of what Mitt Romney said tonight.
One spot I find ripe is his panicked defense of his tax and budget numbers. In his race to just shut down the president's clear rebuttal of his plan, Romney started to try and list his mathematical experience:
- He's run a business.
- He's run the Olympics.
- He's run a state.
Well then. That's that, right?
In business, what happen? He made money for himself. He actually did help some businesses. And the others? The ones that got laden in loans, much of which went to pay him and Bain? How's that math exactly? Does he really want us going back and checking those numbers? I think not. And, those undecided probably deserve to learn more about Mitt's numbers.
In the Olympics, what happen? Oh, my. He likes to give us a vague sunshiny view of those Utah Olympics, doesn't he? How did Romney help them? Most of the fund raising was done. The planning and construction was already underway. What did Mitt do? He went and got the federal government to hand over $1.5 billion in tax revenue. An amount so amazingly far outside what the government has been asked or willing to invest in Olympic events ever before. That was Mitt's big maths win there, getting the government to just come in and cover the costs for him. Such a keen business mind. He even admits, the Olympics wouldn't of happen, if not for the government intervention. ...That almost sounds like a joke, when you think of everything Romney has been saying this year. But this is what Mitt Romney had to admit in 2004. And most of this money went into a slush fund to spend on wealthy donors. Say, this REALLY is sounding like a Mitt Romney plan, isn't it?
In Massachusetts, when Romney came in they had law on the books forcing balanced budgets. And the state was already in a crisis. The Democratic legislature wanted to use taxes to save public services, and Romney ran against this. He promised cuts in wasteful spending, which he said would right things. When he got into office the hole in the budget was huge. And he began cutting into the budget. He wanted to layoff public workers. He wanted to make cuts to Medicaid. He wanted to make cuts to public universities. He wanted to make cuts to public hospitals. All of the cuts hit cities and towns, who had no choice but to raise their taxes to compensate and survive. That is Mitt Romney's math. Raise taxes at all on anyone? Hell, no! Cut Medicaid and hospital support? Sure.
Some more from Mitt's time in Massachusetts.
... Romney aggressively pursued federal government assistance when he was the governor of Massachusetts. It was not, however, a BIG FUCKING SURPRISE to learn that he balanced the budget by taking millions of dollars from something called the Catastrophic Illness in Children Relief Fund.You can learn more about the Mitt's ploy at the Wonkette.
In his first budget proposal [as governor], Romney promised balancing the budget without tapping reserves, and “without the use of fiscal gimmicks.” However, buried in the details, he suggested tapping reserves such as taking $4 million from the Catastrophic Illness in Children Relief Fund, and he included fiscal gimmicks to maximize and divert federal aid into his general state coffers … The Wall Street Journal labeled such financing mechanisms “Medicaid Money Laundering” and a “swindle.”Translation: after these gimmicks are deployed, it LOOKS like the state has spent money on Poors and is thus eligible to get money from federal Medicaid coffers. But in reality, the state HASN’T spent the money on Poors.
Also, Up With Chris Hayes looked at the results of Mitt in business.
They run through a list and have more discussions of what happen helps create the great success story of Mitts, known as Staples.
- Nearly half of those working at it are part time workers.
- The retail sales force is make around $20,000 a year, putting them beneath the poverty line in the United States. (It's one of the 50 largest low wage employers.)
Go to the link for more on this. But look at this. How does this company thrive, and drive out smaller local paper and office supply businesses? Keeping workers just at part time, and keeping it's sales force in poverty. This is how China takes business. It's also how Walmart helps bolster it's profits (as I've noted before).
Honestly. Mitt has nothing to brag about when it comes to his numbers, math, or job creation. He's been quite a menace all around.