Romney says on the campaign trail that he'll "get tough" with China on "Day One." But apparently, despite being embarrassed about his investments in Russian and Chinese oil companies doing business with Iran in the 2008 campaign, he still has Chinese shares.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/romney-china-stock-investments
Remember when they tell you it's good to have the rich running the US economy: the rich have been investing in China. They expect a better return from Communism than from you. And that all by itself should let you know how they really feel about the role of government in society. They are not for less government. They are for more government and less freedom.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
Getting Rid of Exit Polls the latest effort to steal elections
First, they reduced the exit polls to one firm. Then they they made that firm "correct" its results to match the reported results. And now they are eliminating exit polling entirely in 19 "sure" states, to save money.
Of course some of those "sure" states have had marked demographic movement against the Republicans in the last four years, such as Texas. Exit polling is how people found that elections had been stolen in the Ukraine some years ago, resulting in an Orange Revolution. Our media masters wish to prevent anything like that happening here, even though exit polls have found faked election results from the very machines we will be using in November.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9613
Palm Beach elections overturned after computer reported false results
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9221
Of course some of those "sure" states have had marked demographic movement against the Republicans in the last four years, such as Texas. Exit polling is how people found that elections had been stolen in the Ukraine some years ago, resulting in an Orange Revolution. Our media masters wish to prevent anything like that happening here, even though exit polls have found faked election results from the very machines we will be using in November.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9613
Palm Beach elections overturned after computer reported false results
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9221
Time's Mormon puff piece: "Pragmatism" and "Expediency" are the new euphemisms for "Lying"
It's funny, but nobody is supposed to talk about the Mormon church, Mitt Romney's biggest commitment in life - unless it is a pro-Mormon, pro-Romney piece like the one published in the October 8 issue of "Time" magazine. It was written by Jon Meacham, a long-time right winger known for his close association with Joe Scarborough
Meacham is most known for his twisted historical portraiture, trying to attribute to the Founding Fathers a faith that they never had. In 1776, 80% of American families belonged to no church (source: Ahlstrom, "Religious History of the American People"). In 1800, 90% belonged to no church. That is the real "context" of the American separation of church and state. Any description which ignores these facts is just verbiage and selective quotation. Meacham does not, it's true, attribute any born again "Christian Nation" theology to these Founding Fathers, but his effort to occupy a middle ground between Republican propaganda and the emerging historical academic consensus of a secular majority amounts to a farce worthy of Soviet propaganda.
Meacham misrepresents the Mormons as a peace loving folk, and to "explain" Romney's lying, he uses two euphemisms: "Pragmatism" and "Expediency," which in Mitt's case is because he is to "expect persecution" because of his Mormonism, and so conforms to whatever audience he is with. Thus he's not really lying, just trying to survive by fooling an expected hostile audience. The persecution expectation, if real, is not based on personal experience. Mitt Romney has never lived outside a bubble of Mormon culture. It was a small bubble when he was growing up in Michigan, which has few Mormons, but since his dad was Governor and an auto CEO, it was nevertheless a highly insulated bubble. Mitt had a car and a state police uniform and could pull people over without getting arrested as he bragged to his Stanford friends. Mitt Romney has never been "persecuted" and if he believes he would be persecuted as a Mormon, it is worth remembering that all his life he has sought out Mormon companions and Mormon associates in his social environment and career. This is not someone carrying the Mormon flag into gentile territory but someone hoping the Mormons justify his loyalty by delivering him the presidency. Bain Capital bought the nation's two largest radio networks and largest newspaper chain before Romney started his second run. This is not a brave outreach to the enemy, but a personal strategy to rely on the group for advancement.
Meacham, an Episcopalian and presumably no relation to Arizona's infamous Mormon governor with that name, is a veritable cheerleader for the Mormon faith in this article, excusing polgamy as "peopling" the desert. In truth, polygamy was reserved for the top hierarchy, and its use confirms the Romney family's exalted status within Mormondom. Mitt's story, that his ancestor married more women because he was told to, reveals the unconscious power of hierarchy in the Mormon world. An average American would never invent a story where the hero lets a church official choose his bed partners. Meacham also repeats the Romney lie that they were driven out of Mexico by revolutionaries, forgetting that many of the colony still remain in Mexico, including Romneys.
When he isn't misinforming us about Mormon history, Meacham is praising Mormon practice. Meacham gives a two paragraph rant on the wonders of Mormon "charity," neglecting that mutual aid is not generally seen as charity outside of the Mormon church, and only in a later paragraph mentioning the church expects service in return for its aid, nor did Romney's personal "charity," as opposed to the church's, normally touch any underprivileged people, let alone non-Mormons. Meacham has to go to Harry Reid (Mormon approval rating: 20 percent) and the days of FDR to pretend the Mormons are not a right-wing political machine.
The big lie, the whole point of the article, gets slipped in by little doses, when Meacham speaks of Romney's "devotion to personal liberty," and his "commitments to liberty and individualism...also have Mormon origins." Uh no. The Mormons are highly anti-individualist, as is Romney. This is a church where men and women are confined to different roles, where every day of the week is planned by the Church, including "family home evenings" on Monday. This is a church that organizes periodic mandatory visits with the faithful to prevent their falling away. The Mormons are, in that sense, the heirs to old-time Puritanism, which was a busybody religion, whose more intrusive aspects of group control have largely been abandoned by the Congregationalists, Unitarians, and other lineal descendants. Romney may believe in the power of "innovation" and "derring-do," but it is not the work of an individual entrepreneur but of a System. To vote for Romney is to vote for the Mormon System, not to vote for a liberty loving individualist. When Romney was Massachusetts governor, the "moderate" refused to grant any more liquor licenses, usually a routine administrative matter, and refused to provide correct forms for court-mandated gay marriage. He resurrected a defunct 1913 law to stop gays from other states from marrying in Massachusetts. This is not a man who has ever believed in individual liberty, and you can see it by noting the short leash his children are on. Romney runs their lives, and feels free to insult them on television.
In the end, Meacham is trying to "center" the Mormons by giving them American traits of patriotism, charity, and individualism, that they have never had. And Meacham is trying to bolster Romney by excusing his lying as the result of Joseph Smith being killed by an anti-mormon mob in 1844, and that won't fly either.
Meacham is most known for his twisted historical portraiture, trying to attribute to the Founding Fathers a faith that they never had. In 1776, 80% of American families belonged to no church (source: Ahlstrom, "Religious History of the American People"). In 1800, 90% belonged to no church. That is the real "context" of the American separation of church and state. Any description which ignores these facts is just verbiage and selective quotation. Meacham does not, it's true, attribute any born again "Christian Nation" theology to these Founding Fathers, but his effort to occupy a middle ground between Republican propaganda and the emerging historical academic consensus of a secular majority amounts to a farce worthy of Soviet propaganda.
Meacham misrepresents the Mormons as a peace loving folk, and to "explain" Romney's lying, he uses two euphemisms: "Pragmatism" and "Expediency," which in Mitt's case is because he is to "expect persecution" because of his Mormonism, and so conforms to whatever audience he is with. Thus he's not really lying, just trying to survive by fooling an expected hostile audience. The persecution expectation, if real, is not based on personal experience. Mitt Romney has never lived outside a bubble of Mormon culture. It was a small bubble when he was growing up in Michigan, which has few Mormons, but since his dad was Governor and an auto CEO, it was nevertheless a highly insulated bubble. Mitt had a car and a state police uniform and could pull people over without getting arrested as he bragged to his Stanford friends. Mitt Romney has never been "persecuted" and if he believes he would be persecuted as a Mormon, it is worth remembering that all his life he has sought out Mormon companions and Mormon associates in his social environment and career. This is not someone carrying the Mormon flag into gentile territory but someone hoping the Mormons justify his loyalty by delivering him the presidency. Bain Capital bought the nation's two largest radio networks and largest newspaper chain before Romney started his second run. This is not a brave outreach to the enemy, but a personal strategy to rely on the group for advancement.
Meacham, an Episcopalian and presumably no relation to Arizona's infamous Mormon governor with that name, is a veritable cheerleader for the Mormon faith in this article, excusing polgamy as "peopling" the desert. In truth, polygamy was reserved for the top hierarchy, and its use confirms the Romney family's exalted status within Mormondom. Mitt's story, that his ancestor married more women because he was told to, reveals the unconscious power of hierarchy in the Mormon world. An average American would never invent a story where the hero lets a church official choose his bed partners. Meacham also repeats the Romney lie that they were driven out of Mexico by revolutionaries, forgetting that many of the colony still remain in Mexico, including Romneys.
When he isn't misinforming us about Mormon history, Meacham is praising Mormon practice. Meacham gives a two paragraph rant on the wonders of Mormon "charity," neglecting that mutual aid is not generally seen as charity outside of the Mormon church, and only in a later paragraph mentioning the church expects service in return for its aid, nor did Romney's personal "charity," as opposed to the church's, normally touch any underprivileged people, let alone non-Mormons. Meacham has to go to Harry Reid (Mormon approval rating: 20 percent) and the days of FDR to pretend the Mormons are not a right-wing political machine.
The big lie, the whole point of the article, gets slipped in by little doses, when Meacham speaks of Romney's "devotion to personal liberty," and his "commitments to liberty and individualism...also have Mormon origins." Uh no. The Mormons are highly anti-individualist, as is Romney. This is a church where men and women are confined to different roles, where every day of the week is planned by the Church, including "family home evenings" on Monday. This is a church that organizes periodic mandatory visits with the faithful to prevent their falling away. The Mormons are, in that sense, the heirs to old-time Puritanism, which was a busybody religion, whose more intrusive aspects of group control have largely been abandoned by the Congregationalists, Unitarians, and other lineal descendants. Romney may believe in the power of "innovation" and "derring-do," but it is not the work of an individual entrepreneur but of a System. To vote for Romney is to vote for the Mormon System, not to vote for a liberty loving individualist. When Romney was Massachusetts governor, the "moderate" refused to grant any more liquor licenses, usually a routine administrative matter, and refused to provide correct forms for court-mandated gay marriage. He resurrected a defunct 1913 law to stop gays from other states from marrying in Massachusetts. This is not a man who has ever believed in individual liberty, and you can see it by noting the short leash his children are on. Romney runs their lives, and feels free to insult them on television.
In the end, Meacham is trying to "center" the Mormons by giving them American traits of patriotism, charity, and individualism, that they have never had. And Meacham is trying to bolster Romney by excusing his lying as the result of Joseph Smith being killed by an anti-mormon mob in 1844, and that won't fly either.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Romney Spokeman: Lying is good tactics
It is rare to see a defense of lying so baldly stated. The problem is that Romney is planning tax cuts for the rich, and he didn't not really abandon those positions in his debate.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2hYrdv/www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/05/romney-surrogate-claims-etch-a-sketch-lying-is-good-campaign-tactics/
So this is sort of lying about lying about lying.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2hYrdv/www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/05/romney-surrogate-claims-etch-a-sketch-lying-is-good-campaign-tactics/
So this is sort of lying about lying about lying.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Romney and voter suppression
Nothing reveals the corruption at the heart of Mitt Romney than his organized effort to prevent legal voters from casting ballots. People who care about democracy always want people to vote. Mitt Romney's father was an activist against the poll tax and other means by which blacks were disenfranchised in the South.
Mitt Romney embraces all these tactics and more. The Republican party is now engaged in the biggest campaign of vote suppression since the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960s. This link on Salon notes the ongoing efforts by Republican officials in every state to prevent people from voting.
http://www.salon.com/topic/voter_fraud/
It also shows that the Republican National Committee and several Republican state committees were working with Nathan Sproul, who had been implicated in several attempted voter suppression scandals over the last decade. They only fired him when new scandals have come to light.
It needs to be said that if the Republicans can steal this election, they will. They have no moral qualms about this. It is an entire political party at war with the United States of America, and no real patriot on the ticket would ever have allowed it.
Mitt Romney embraces all these tactics and more. The Republican party is now engaged in the biggest campaign of vote suppression since the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960s. This link on Salon notes the ongoing efforts by Republican officials in every state to prevent people from voting.
http://www.salon.com/topic/voter_fraud/
It also shows that the Republican National Committee and several Republican state committees were working with Nathan Sproul, who had been implicated in several attempted voter suppression scandals over the last decade. They only fired him when new scandals have come to light.
It needs to be said that if the Republicans can steal this election, they will. They have no moral qualms about this. It is an entire political party at war with the United States of America, and no real patriot on the ticket would ever have allowed it.
Obama should have said he was Glad Romney Changed his Mind
What could Obama have done when Mitt announced "I don't want to cut taxes on the rich" and "I'm not going to cut any taxes that would raise the deficit"? Obama should have said "Thank you, Governor, I'm glad you have changed your mind. That you no longer plan to eliminate the inheritance tax, which affects only estates larger than $5 million and creates privileged families who no longer need to work for a living, setting an example of sloth and greed that Americans don't want. Why just today, I was told you said we could lower the tax rates for everyone by eliminating the home mortgage deduction. Every year, millions of middle class families are able to afford their tax bills by claiming their mortgage payments as a deduction. Rich people don't have mortgages on their houses, as you know because you don't hold mortgages on your many homes, so when you cut everybody's taxes while eliminating the deduction, only the middle class would pay more and you would pay less. I am truly thankful you have decided these proposals you have campaigned on for the last year were not good ideas. I look forward to hearing your new proposals in this debate." It should have been shooting fish in a barrel.
When Mitt Romney said, "You shouldn't raise any taxes in a recession," the president should have said, "Mr. Romney says you shouldn't raise taxes in a recession and I agree. The government economists hired by George W. Bush tell me we haven't been in a recession since May, 2009, so now is the time to start paying for this war of convenience Mr. Bush waged in Iraq."
When Mitt Romney said, "The debt is out of control," the president should have said, "Debt is one of our biggest problems. Not public debt. Oh sure, it's a problem, but other prosperous countries like Japan have more. What's urgent is our private debt. And how did we get there? By Wall Street playing with derivatives. Mr. Romney doesn't like our financial regulation bills like Dodd-Frank. You know why? Did you know last year there were a dozen or so hedge fund operators who paid themselves a billion dollars? That's a lot of money. It's so much money that to most people it's just a number. The average monthly food stamp benefit for a poor person is $130. You could feed 7.7 million people for a month with a billion dollars. So that means with the money a dozen Wall Street people made in a year, you could feed 7.7 million Americans for a year. It's not right when a dozen people have so much money they are making decisions about what products get made, what businesses get financed, and where the nation goes economically that should be decided by millions. Every year that wealth becomes more concentrated, new business startups fall and patents decline.
"Where did those hedge fund boys get that money? You don't really hear about them taking risks and going broke. You don't hear about them starting businesses. They got it playing games with derivatives. In the last thirty years, derivatives markets have gone from being a way to smooth commodity prices in the economy, to a giant betting casino.
"And these folks in Wall Street, they've taken out more than $30 trillion in outstanding derivatives betting on their hunches. That's two years' worth of the goods and services produced by every single person in the United States. They've taken out a debt that the whole country would have to work two years to pay off with no food, no pay, no clothing, no transportation, nothing if they are wrong in their bets. Two years of slavery. Actually much longer: they'd have to keep you alive to work, right? They committed you and your children to work for nothing for years at some point in the future to pay off their bets if they go wrong. And Romney doesn't want that market regulated and its risks contained. His business partner Mr. Edward Conard has said he doesn't think these folks make enough money."
I'd like to believe Mr. Obama just had a bad night. Apparently, he was in rip-roaring form this morning in Wisconsin. I'd like to think, oh he's still smoking, and he doesn't realize that when you fly you get less oxygen, and Denver was a high altitude.....but he blew his Charlotte convention speech too, and it was low altitude and he had been in town for a few days. How can he perform so well on the stump and so badly when the whole country is watching? Do you really think the first black president of the Harvard Law Review couldn't think of replies as snappy as this? Do you really think it was a "surprise" to him that Romney lied about positions he's been campaigning on for a year? Romney has done nothing but lie for a year. It is not conceivable the president didn't know that he would, and in a most brazen manner.
It leaves the impression that somebody else is making Obama dance to a script, and whoever that is, does not have the American national interest at heart. I suppose it could be a "deep strategy." If Obama were the clear favorite, maybe emergency funds of $10 or $20 billion would roll into the other side from Bain Capital or its allies. By keeping it close, maybe Obama prevents the big money from taking over and drowning the election in cash. But they have the cash and they can spend it anyway, so it doesn't seem like that strategy would be worthwhile.
Think about Obama's term. He came out swinging in 2009, and got health care reform passed in 2010 and then....nothing. He didn't campaign in 2010 and the Democrats lost control of Congress. He acted listless until the bin Laden killing. It's true that Citizens United happened, so he might have thought they were thinking, "black man too good, let's change the rules." The Supreme Court is so reactionary, they were probably thinking exactly that. The health care reform must have been more conservative than he wished. He ended up accepting a mandate conservatives wanted that poor people be forced to buy health insurance, which the Republicans didn't even vote for, which means it was done to satisfy one demented corrupt conservative Democrat from Montana. Obama had made fun of it before, "Then let's solve homelessness by mandating that poor people buy a house." But he had a political theory to explain it: liberal presidents find it easier to make conservative changes and vice versa.
So why is he acting as though somebody burst his bubble, that change is not really possible? Threats of violence against him skyrocketed after health care reform, Gabby Giffords was shot, and the GOP made it their only mission to prevent him accomplishing anything these last two years. It must be exhausting to be so hated by so many people, and for no real reason other than they think they can get away with it. But I still have my doubts. I hope he decides not to take their money and to share with the public what they have really done that we should know about. Certainly he is not money motivated in that he didn't go into a fancy corporate job after law school. But I wouldn't bet on Obama ever sharing what is bothering him with the public. Barack Obama has always been an outsider, and he will probably keep his doubts to himself.
When Mitt Romney said, "You shouldn't raise any taxes in a recession," the president should have said, "Mr. Romney says you shouldn't raise taxes in a recession and I agree. The government economists hired by George W. Bush tell me we haven't been in a recession since May, 2009, so now is the time to start paying for this war of convenience Mr. Bush waged in Iraq."
When Mitt Romney said, "The debt is out of control," the president should have said, "Debt is one of our biggest problems. Not public debt. Oh sure, it's a problem, but other prosperous countries like Japan have more. What's urgent is our private debt. And how did we get there? By Wall Street playing with derivatives. Mr. Romney doesn't like our financial regulation bills like Dodd-Frank. You know why? Did you know last year there were a dozen or so hedge fund operators who paid themselves a billion dollars? That's a lot of money. It's so much money that to most people it's just a number. The average monthly food stamp benefit for a poor person is $130. You could feed 7.7 million people for a month with a billion dollars. So that means with the money a dozen Wall Street people made in a year, you could feed 7.7 million Americans for a year. It's not right when a dozen people have so much money they are making decisions about what products get made, what businesses get financed, and where the nation goes economically that should be decided by millions. Every year that wealth becomes more concentrated, new business startups fall and patents decline.
"Where did those hedge fund boys get that money? You don't really hear about them taking risks and going broke. You don't hear about them starting businesses. They got it playing games with derivatives. In the last thirty years, derivatives markets have gone from being a way to smooth commodity prices in the economy, to a giant betting casino.
"And these folks in Wall Street, they've taken out more than $30 trillion in outstanding derivatives betting on their hunches. That's two years' worth of the goods and services produced by every single person in the United States. They've taken out a debt that the whole country would have to work two years to pay off with no food, no pay, no clothing, no transportation, nothing if they are wrong in their bets. Two years of slavery. Actually much longer: they'd have to keep you alive to work, right? They committed you and your children to work for nothing for years at some point in the future to pay off their bets if they go wrong. And Romney doesn't want that market regulated and its risks contained. His business partner Mr. Edward Conard has said he doesn't think these folks make enough money."
I'd like to believe Mr. Obama just had a bad night. Apparently, he was in rip-roaring form this morning in Wisconsin. I'd like to think, oh he's still smoking, and he doesn't realize that when you fly you get less oxygen, and Denver was a high altitude.....but he blew his Charlotte convention speech too, and it was low altitude and he had been in town for a few days. How can he perform so well on the stump and so badly when the whole country is watching? Do you really think the first black president of the Harvard Law Review couldn't think of replies as snappy as this? Do you really think it was a "surprise" to him that Romney lied about positions he's been campaigning on for a year? Romney has done nothing but lie for a year. It is not conceivable the president didn't know that he would, and in a most brazen manner.
It leaves the impression that somebody else is making Obama dance to a script, and whoever that is, does not have the American national interest at heart. I suppose it could be a "deep strategy." If Obama were the clear favorite, maybe emergency funds of $10 or $20 billion would roll into the other side from Bain Capital or its allies. By keeping it close, maybe Obama prevents the big money from taking over and drowning the election in cash. But they have the cash and they can spend it anyway, so it doesn't seem like that strategy would be worthwhile.
Think about Obama's term. He came out swinging in 2009, and got health care reform passed in 2010 and then....nothing. He didn't campaign in 2010 and the Democrats lost control of Congress. He acted listless until the bin Laden killing. It's true that Citizens United happened, so he might have thought they were thinking, "black man too good, let's change the rules." The Supreme Court is so reactionary, they were probably thinking exactly that. The health care reform must have been more conservative than he wished. He ended up accepting a mandate conservatives wanted that poor people be forced to buy health insurance, which the Republicans didn't even vote for, which means it was done to satisfy one demented corrupt conservative Democrat from Montana. Obama had made fun of it before, "Then let's solve homelessness by mandating that poor people buy a house." But he had a political theory to explain it: liberal presidents find it easier to make conservative changes and vice versa.
So why is he acting as though somebody burst his bubble, that change is not really possible? Threats of violence against him skyrocketed after health care reform, Gabby Giffords was shot, and the GOP made it their only mission to prevent him accomplishing anything these last two years. It must be exhausting to be so hated by so many people, and for no real reason other than they think they can get away with it. But I still have my doubts. I hope he decides not to take their money and to share with the public what they have really done that we should know about. Certainly he is not money motivated in that he didn't go into a fancy corporate job after law school. But I wouldn't bet on Obama ever sharing what is bothering him with the public. Barack Obama has always been an outsider, and he will probably keep his doubts to himself.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Has Romney offered Obama money to throw the election?
You have to wonder after seeing Obama's poor performance in the debate tonight. He did land some blows on Romney, but didn't call him a liar when Romney lied and did not defend himself from several lies that Romney has made over and over. I'm a terrible debater and I would have done better than Obama tonight. The average man in the street would have. Obama never even mentioned Romney's 47% remark, which has been the biggest gaffe of the campaign.
First of all there is the lie that Obamacare is cutting $716 billion from Medicare. Obama said, it's only cutting reimbursements, not benefits, but that's not enough of a response. It was a great opportunity for a teachable moment. Medicare Advantage is a perfect example of failed conservative social engineering.
http://www.hapnetwork.org/medicare-advantage/ship-resource-guide/overview.pdf
Medicare works by the government reimbursing private (and public) care providers on a fee for service basis. In order to control costs, Medicare instituted Diagnostic Related Guidelines to fix the customary charges for various procedures. Doctors howled, but because Medicare and Congress allowed them to increase charges more than inflation, they mostly signed on.
In 1998 a Republican Congress said this is stupid. We could save tons of money if more efficient private companies were to compete and offer things like preventive care that could reduce expenses for the whole system. Private companies were encouraged to compete by getting a per capita subsidy for enrollees, and it was expected that they would make such efficiencies from preventive care they would make money. Now one may question the likelihood of big preventive savings on seniors, but they blithely pushed ahead. Instead they all lost money, and by 2003 half had left the business and enrollees were down to about 10% of seniors, from 17% when the program started.
In 2003, the Republicans "fixed" their failed program by upping the subsidy, so now Medicare Advantage costs the government 12% more per person than original Medicare. Enrollment has gone up to 26% of seniors because private insurers are keen to get the new higher subsidies, yet studies show they are not giving better or more benefits to seniors, and numerous marketing abuses by insurance companies constructing these plans have left many seniors without proper care.
Privatization cost more and delivered less care. Obamacare cut the extra subsidy without cutting benefits. That is to say, if companies stop offering plans because their rates have been cut, then people will still get original Medicare. Congressman Ryan is so on board with this idea that he had "cost savings" in his budget that exactly matched what Obama was going to get by cancelling Medicare Advantage's extra subsidies (which was estimated at $515 billion, but Romney always inflates numbers).
Romney, however, says Obama is cutting Medicare, which is a lie because 1) Obama is only cutting Medicare Advantage, not Medicare; 2) There is no evidence seniors are benefiting from the extra subsidies provided by the government to private insurance companies under Medicare Advantage; 3) Romney's own VP has made budget proposals which assume the same cuts; and 4) Romney proposes freezing Medicaid payments to the states, which will primarily affect the elderly in nursing homes with reduced benefits. Under Obamacare the elderly will still get Medicare at the same reimbursement rate that has always been offered to most of them and Medicaid; but under Romney's plan many seniors will not.
The Republicans have been making this claim of Medicare cuts at every rally and at every opportunity. By now Obama should have had an easy snappy answer to it. He doesn't. Most likely, the snappy retorts his people have thought of did not do well in Focus groups. Fine, but the damage from leaving big charges like this apparently unrefuted is much more serious than coming up with an answer some people don't understand. It's Debate 101: Do not let the opponent make unrefuted charges.
The second obvious failure was on Dodd-Frank. Romney makes an incredible claim that people can't get mortgages because banks won't issue them; and banks won't issue them because Obama's regulators have not been clear about qualifying mortgages. This is a lie. It's true that the "qualifying mortgages" have not been finalized due to industry and government foot dragging. It is not true that any lending going on now is therefore curtailed. Quite the opposite.
http://www.sourceoftitle.com/article.aspx?uniq=7014
The purpose of Dodd-Frank was to force banks to evaluate credit risk in the mortgages they write. During the last decade it was clear that banks were writing mortgages to anyone with no thought of the credit worthiness of the buyers because they could sell the mortgages and didn't need to worry about the repayment. So Dodd-Frank's notion was that by making them keep 5% (1 in 20) of the mortgages they write, banks would have an incentive to exercise due professional care in evaluating mortgages. That was unacceptable to industry, which said they wouldn't write any mortgages on that basis, showing in effect that they were no longer in the business of evaluating credit risk. In truth, they were overexposed in real estate and needed to reduce their exposure in that market by cutting lending, but they couldn't admit that to the government which is frantic for them to support the real estate market. So Dodd-Frank said, okay, if buyers are highly qualified (such as putting a 20% downpayment and making monthly payments less than 28% of buyer income), you don't have keep any of the mortgages and you can carry on as before. Industry thinks those credit requirements are too steep. The idea of offering an exception was to keep mortgage markets going, and support markets for the mortgages the banks have already sold. The whole idea of the "qualifying residential mortgage" then, was to keep the banks lending. However, to prevent that from being so profitable it would be the only lending the banks would do, closing fees were to be capped at 3% on those super high quality mortgages, including title insurance and all the rest.
However, all these provisions can't take effect until the the details of the "qualified" mortgages are nailed down, which means that effectively the reform hasn't happened yet. So the banks are free to do whatever they want, contrary to Romney's claim. The financial people, as well as other real estate professionals, are dragging their feet on the government's proposed qualifying standards so they can keep their fees high and maybe overturn the whole law. Obama is dragging to prevent a temporary dip in the lending that would happen when standards are put in place. So the regulations have not taken effect, and any banks who want to lend in the mortgage industry have a strong incentive to do it right now, making Romney's claim the opposite of what is actually happening. Banks are writing more mortgages than they would without Dodd-Frank.
The problem here is that the government wants to stop the banks writing bad mortgages, which means fewer mortgages, and to reduce their overall exposure to real estate fluctuations; and at the same time, the government wants to put a floor under the current market, which has lost more value than it did during the Great Depression, so the market can recover more quickly. These goals are incompatible, but the Obama administration in not getting that rule finalized has tended to support the current immediate market rather than cope with the long-term changes required. Romney wants to eliminate any thought of long term structural reform, which leaves the banking system highly vulnerable to any shock affecting real estate. Remember the lie: Romney says Dodd-Frank is too much regulation, and it has hurt the economy by not being implemented. It makes no sense on its face and since his own goal is to repeal the new regulation, is doubly absurd.
Obama didn't respond effectively to that lie either. That's just two examples. Throughout the debate he seemed to be trying to make peace with Romney instead of pressuring him on his lies. It's obvious that Obama has some kind of Stockholm Syndrome response to Republican opposition, and I can only wonder if they've tried to buy him off as their best chance to win the election. Going into the debate, it was unclear how Obama could contrive to lose the election except by going off script and saying something deranged. Obama did not, but he did surprise everyone. By refusing to fight back when attacked, even though the attacks could not have come as any kind of surprise - granted it started out with Romney outrageously claiming he would not reduce taxes on the rich, which all his plans do - Obama came across as someone who has no fight in him at all. It's as though he thinks his performance sells itself even though he has been in politics long enough to know better.
First of all there is the lie that Obamacare is cutting $716 billion from Medicare. Obama said, it's only cutting reimbursements, not benefits, but that's not enough of a response. It was a great opportunity for a teachable moment. Medicare Advantage is a perfect example of failed conservative social engineering.
http://www.hapnetwork.org/medicare-advantage/ship-resource-guide/overview.pdf
Medicare works by the government reimbursing private (and public) care providers on a fee for service basis. In order to control costs, Medicare instituted Diagnostic Related Guidelines to fix the customary charges for various procedures. Doctors howled, but because Medicare and Congress allowed them to increase charges more than inflation, they mostly signed on.
In 1998 a Republican Congress said this is stupid. We could save tons of money if more efficient private companies were to compete and offer things like preventive care that could reduce expenses for the whole system. Private companies were encouraged to compete by getting a per capita subsidy for enrollees, and it was expected that they would make such efficiencies from preventive care they would make money. Now one may question the likelihood of big preventive savings on seniors, but they blithely pushed ahead. Instead they all lost money, and by 2003 half had left the business and enrollees were down to about 10% of seniors, from 17% when the program started.
In 2003, the Republicans "fixed" their failed program by upping the subsidy, so now Medicare Advantage costs the government 12% more per person than original Medicare. Enrollment has gone up to 26% of seniors because private insurers are keen to get the new higher subsidies, yet studies show they are not giving better or more benefits to seniors, and numerous marketing abuses by insurance companies constructing these plans have left many seniors without proper care.
Privatization cost more and delivered less care. Obamacare cut the extra subsidy without cutting benefits. That is to say, if companies stop offering plans because their rates have been cut, then people will still get original Medicare. Congressman Ryan is so on board with this idea that he had "cost savings" in his budget that exactly matched what Obama was going to get by cancelling Medicare Advantage's extra subsidies (which was estimated at $515 billion, but Romney always inflates numbers).
Romney, however, says Obama is cutting Medicare, which is a lie because 1) Obama is only cutting Medicare Advantage, not Medicare; 2) There is no evidence seniors are benefiting from the extra subsidies provided by the government to private insurance companies under Medicare Advantage; 3) Romney's own VP has made budget proposals which assume the same cuts; and 4) Romney proposes freezing Medicaid payments to the states, which will primarily affect the elderly in nursing homes with reduced benefits. Under Obamacare the elderly will still get Medicare at the same reimbursement rate that has always been offered to most of them and Medicaid; but under Romney's plan many seniors will not.
The Republicans have been making this claim of Medicare cuts at every rally and at every opportunity. By now Obama should have had an easy snappy answer to it. He doesn't. Most likely, the snappy retorts his people have thought of did not do well in Focus groups. Fine, but the damage from leaving big charges like this apparently unrefuted is much more serious than coming up with an answer some people don't understand. It's Debate 101: Do not let the opponent make unrefuted charges.
The second obvious failure was on Dodd-Frank. Romney makes an incredible claim that people can't get mortgages because banks won't issue them; and banks won't issue them because Obama's regulators have not been clear about qualifying mortgages. This is a lie. It's true that the "qualifying mortgages" have not been finalized due to industry and government foot dragging. It is not true that any lending going on now is therefore curtailed. Quite the opposite.
http://www.sourceoftitle.com/article.aspx?uniq=7014
The purpose of Dodd-Frank was to force banks to evaluate credit risk in the mortgages they write. During the last decade it was clear that banks were writing mortgages to anyone with no thought of the credit worthiness of the buyers because they could sell the mortgages and didn't need to worry about the repayment. So Dodd-Frank's notion was that by making them keep 5% (1 in 20) of the mortgages they write, banks would have an incentive to exercise due professional care in evaluating mortgages. That was unacceptable to industry, which said they wouldn't write any mortgages on that basis, showing in effect that they were no longer in the business of evaluating credit risk. In truth, they were overexposed in real estate and needed to reduce their exposure in that market by cutting lending, but they couldn't admit that to the government which is frantic for them to support the real estate market. So Dodd-Frank said, okay, if buyers are highly qualified (such as putting a 20% downpayment and making monthly payments less than 28% of buyer income), you don't have keep any of the mortgages and you can carry on as before. Industry thinks those credit requirements are too steep. The idea of offering an exception was to keep mortgage markets going, and support markets for the mortgages the banks have already sold. The whole idea of the "qualifying residential mortgage" then, was to keep the banks lending. However, to prevent that from being so profitable it would be the only lending the banks would do, closing fees were to be capped at 3% on those super high quality mortgages, including title insurance and all the rest.
However, all these provisions can't take effect until the the details of the "qualified" mortgages are nailed down, which means that effectively the reform hasn't happened yet. So the banks are free to do whatever they want, contrary to Romney's claim. The financial people, as well as other real estate professionals, are dragging their feet on the government's proposed qualifying standards so they can keep their fees high and maybe overturn the whole law. Obama is dragging to prevent a temporary dip in the lending that would happen when standards are put in place. So the regulations have not taken effect, and any banks who want to lend in the mortgage industry have a strong incentive to do it right now, making Romney's claim the opposite of what is actually happening. Banks are writing more mortgages than they would without Dodd-Frank.
The problem here is that the government wants to stop the banks writing bad mortgages, which means fewer mortgages, and to reduce their overall exposure to real estate fluctuations; and at the same time, the government wants to put a floor under the current market, which has lost more value than it did during the Great Depression, so the market can recover more quickly. These goals are incompatible, but the Obama administration in not getting that rule finalized has tended to support the current immediate market rather than cope with the long-term changes required. Romney wants to eliminate any thought of long term structural reform, which leaves the banking system highly vulnerable to any shock affecting real estate. Remember the lie: Romney says Dodd-Frank is too much regulation, and it has hurt the economy by not being implemented. It makes no sense on its face and since his own goal is to repeal the new regulation, is doubly absurd.
Obama didn't respond effectively to that lie either. That's just two examples. Throughout the debate he seemed to be trying to make peace with Romney instead of pressuring him on his lies. It's obvious that Obama has some kind of Stockholm Syndrome response to Republican opposition, and I can only wonder if they've tried to buy him off as their best chance to win the election. Going into the debate, it was unclear how Obama could contrive to lose the election except by going off script and saying something deranged. Obama did not, but he did surprise everyone. By refusing to fight back when attacked, even though the attacks could not have come as any kind of surprise - granted it started out with Romney outrageously claiming he would not reduce taxes on the rich, which all his plans do - Obama came across as someone who has no fight in him at all. It's as though he thinks his performance sells itself even though he has been in politics long enough to know better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)