Posts Tagged Obama administration
Free Wood Post – Paul Ryan: “Did I Miss the Physical Challenge Portion of the Race?”
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Free Wood Post, Humor/Parody on October 28, 2012
Paul Ryan: “Did I Miss the Physical Challenge Portion of the Race?”
October 27, 2012

This week Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan expressed concern that the ‘physical challenge’ portion of the presidential race had not yet taken place.
“To my knowledge, that segment has yet to be scheduled,” he told reporters during a campaign stop in Chicago. “Unless I was simply not notified of the date. I wouldn’t put that past the Obama administration, frankly. I’m sure they realize I present quite a challenge to Joe Biden, at least when it comes to that event.”
Asked for clarification on what he meant by the term “physical challenge”, Ryan appeared incredulous.
“It’s the part of the presidential race where the candidates compete against each other in an obstacle course,” he said. “Usually there’s some sort of climbing wall, a set of monkey bars and sometimes a ball pit. Whoever has the best time and is the first to grab the flag, wins. Do you guys really not know what I’m talking about here?”
Ryan admitted that in the days leading up to the Vice Presidential debate, he had been under the impression that the physical challenge would be directly following it.
“I thought they were going to sort of spring it on us in a surprise move,” he said. “Did you guys see me drinking all that water during the debate? That was why. I was trying to stay hydrated. Also, if you noticed me sweating a lot, it’s because I was wearing these special moisture-wicking jogging clothes under my suit in preparation. They were kind of making me overheat.”
He added, “An athlete is always prepared.”
According to Ryan, the physical challenge is a huge part of why he was tapped for VP.
“I mean, look at me,” he said. ”With my hardcore P90X routines and my sub 3-hour marathon time, am I the guy you’d turn to for policy decisions, or the one you’d want by your side at the beach, helping you kick sand in Russia’s face?”
“I don’t want to let Romney down, so I’ve been training hard for months,” Ryan added.
”When I’m not campaigning, I’m spending long days at the gym, blasting my quads and ripping my delts. Sometimes while I’m doing bicep curls I’ll look at flash cards about laws and foreign policy and stuff, but my main focus is on winning that physical challenge,” he said. ”You’ve got to keep your eyes on the prize.”
Related articles
- Watch: Vice Presidential Debate Finally Getting Some Respect? (abcnews.go.com)
- Biden and Ryan to face off in US vice-presidential debate (euronews.com)
- Joe Biden Shows Paul Ryan How a Seasoned Politician Debates, Attacked Him Fiercely On All Fronts During Vice Presidential Debate (themoderatevoice.com)
- Watch: Vice Presidential Debate: What to Expect (abcnews.go.com)
- INSTANT POLL: Joe Biden Shredded Paul Ryan In The Vice Presidential Debate (businessinsider.com)
- Watch The Presidential Debate Live Streaming Online (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
- Fox News Doctor Makes Unbelievable Claim About Joe Biden (huffingtonpost.com)
- Biden-Ryan Debate: All About Joe (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
- Video: The entire 2012 vice presidential debate (cbsnews.com)
- Watch: Jobs Numbers Boost: How Was It Possible? (abcnews.go.com)
Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate | Alternet
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Mitt Romney on October 5, 2012
Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate
Romney won praise for his performance but only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers.
October 4, 2012

Photo Credit: Gunnar Pippel/ Shutterstock.com
Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:
1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.
2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.
3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.
4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.
5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.
6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.
7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.
8) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.
9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.
10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.
11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.
12) “I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found.
13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.
14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.
15) “Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.
16) “And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach — which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.
17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.
18) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.
19) “And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable.
20) “[I]t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structuresin a 2009 health plan.
21) “Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.
22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.
23) “It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.
24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.
25) “In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”
26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”
27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger.
UPDATE
Romney has now admitted that number 26 was not true.
Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate | Alternet.
Related articles
- Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate (alternet.org)
- Fact Check: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes During the Debate | Alternet (djackson325.newsvine.com)
- Igor Volsky – At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes (prn.fm)
- How Many Myths Can Mittens Spew in 38 Minutes of a Debate? (pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com)
- Here’s the 27 myths Romney told in 38 minutes at last night’s debate (thinkprogress.org)
- At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes (poisonivyherself.wordpress.com)
- Forbes 400 List Reveals Why the Greedy Rich Fully Deserve Your Contempt – And Jesus’s | Alternet (mbcalyn.com)
- At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes (humboldtdems.wordpress.com)
- Romney’s big Medicare lie takes center stage in debate (dailykos.com)
- At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes (nationofchange.org)
Romney ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit – Bloomberg
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Mitt Romney on September 27, 2012
Romney ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit
By Jesse Drucker - Sep 27, 2012 11:41 AM CT
In January 1999, a trust set up by Mitt Romney for his children and grandchildren reaped a 1,000 percent return on the sale of shares in Internet advertising firm DoubleClick Inc.
If Romney had given the cash directly, he could have owed a gift tax at a rate as high as 55 percent. He avoided gift and estate taxes by using a type of generation-skipping trust known to tax planners by the nickname: “I Dig It.”
The sale of DoubleClick shares received before the company went public, detailed in previously unreported securities filings reviewed by Bloomberg News, sheds new light on Romney’s estate planning — the art of leaving assets for heirs while avoiding taxes. The Republican presidential candidate used a trust considered one of the most effective techniques for the wealthy to bypass estate and gift taxes. The Obama administration proposed cracking down on the tax benefits in February.
While Romney’s tax avoidance is both legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become increasingly awkward for his candidacy since the disclosure of his remarks at a May fundraiser. He said that the nearly one-half of Americans who pay no income taxes are “dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims.”
Trust’s Funds
Romney’s effective income tax rate in 2011 was about 14 percent. He has also enhanced his family’s wealth by moving assets worth $100 million into a trust while taking steps to avoid paying any gift taxes. The trust’s value isn’t counted in the $250 million that his campaign cites as Romney’s net worth.
The bulk of the trust’s income comes from Romney’s interests in Bain Capital funds, hedge funds and other investments, according to his 2011 tax return. The return doesn’t show how much Romney paid for these holdings, nor the value assigned to them when he gave them to the trust, so it’s unclear how much in total the trust has saved in gift and estate taxes.
“People like Mitt Romney make a lot of money, but they pay very little income tax,” said Victor Fleischer, a tax law professor at the University of Colorado who has written extensively about private equity and taxes. “Then by dodging the estate and gift tax, they are able to build dynastic wealth. These DoubleClick documents really show that tax planning in action.”
The Obama administration estimates that closing the loophole Romney used would bring the federal government almost $1 billion in the coming decade.
‘Laughable’ Estimate
That’s a “laughable” under-estimate, said Stephen Breitstone, co-head of the taxation and wealth preservation group at law firm Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone LLP. A single billionaire could pay $500 million more in estate taxes if these trusts are shut down by the Obama administration, Breitstone said.
Romney or his trust received shares in DoubleClick eight months before the company went public in 1998. The trust sold them less than a year after the IPO. The trust’s sale of the DoubleClick stake made it possible to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate and gift taxes.
Multimillionaires use such trusts to avoid those taxes in three ways. First, they can assign a low value to assets they donate to the trust. Second, when the trust sells assets at a profit, the donors can pay the relatively low capital gains taxes on behalf of the trust. By doing so, they leave more money in the trust, untouched by the much higher gift tax. Third, by paying those taxes, they can reduce the pile of wealth eventually subject to an estate tax when they die.
Giving Money
High net-worth individuals often use trusts as a legal means of giving money to their children while incurring the least possible taxes. In 2010, about 3 million U.S. trusts and estates reported more than $91 billion in income.
The type of trust used by Romney is so important to the wealthy that ending its tax benefits “would put an end to much of estate planning as we know it,” Breitstone said.
Romney has vowed as president to cut the gift tax rate and repeal the federal estate tax altogether — calling it the “Death Tax.” In its “Believe in America” jobs plan released last year, the Romney campaign said that this tax “creates a series of perverse incentives that encourages the most complicated and convoluted tax-avoidance schemes at tremendous cost to all involved.”
The Romney campaign did not respond to a list of questions about the tax avoidance transactions.
‘Scrupulously Complied’
When it released his 2011 tax returns last week, the Romney campaign said in a statement that the Republican nominee “has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed.”
Use of these types of trusts has grown as the wealthy employ increasingly sophisticated techniques to avoid both estate and gift taxes on money they transfer to their families.
A longtime target of Republicans, the estate tax currently imposes a 35 percent rate on estates greater than $10.24 million for a married couple. The gift tax — intended to prevent individuals from avoiding the estate tax by giving away assets before death — imposes a 35 percent tax on a married couple’s transfers above $26,000 in a year or $10.24 million over a lifetime. The top estate and gift tax rates were 55 percent during the 1990s, when Romney’s trust was established, and they are scheduled to rise to 55 percent again next year.
Romney Trust
The formal name for Romney’s shelter is the Ann and Mitt Romney 1995 Family Trust. Capital gains, interest and dividends from its holdings accounted for about a quarter of Romney’s 2011 income of $13.7 million.
Romney set up his trust in 1995 when he was chief executive officer of Bain Capital. At the time, trusts were a common estate planning device at the buyout firm, securities filings show. Other executives establishing trusts that same year included Joshua Bekenstein, one of the original Bain Capital directors, and Robert F. White, one of Romney’s closest political advisers, who described himself as the nominee’s “wingman” in a speech at the Republican National Convention last month.
Bain Capital directed questions for Bekenstein and White to a spokesman who didn’t respond to them.
Digging It
Romney’s vehicle is known as an “intentionally defective grantor trust” or by the acronym IDGT — hence the nickname: “I Dig It.” Such trusts permit donors to give potentially unlimited amounts to children free of estate and gift taxes.
Here’s how they work: the person setting up the trust, like Romney, contributes assets such as an interest in a fund or shares in a company. If he makes that contribution before those assets appreciate — particularly when they are privately held and difficult to value — he can claim the gift tax obligation is low or non-existent since the declared value is low or zero.
If the trust generates any income — such as by selling stock — the eventual tax bill is the responsibility of Romney, not the trust. By paying the capital gains tax, which was 20 percent in the late 1990s and is now 15 percent, he can avoid depleting the funds in the trust — in essence making an additional donation that’s free of gift taxes.
That benefit in particular makes this type of trust “a more powerful driver of wealth transfer in estate planning than almost anything else,” said Breitstone, the wealth preservation attorney.
Wealth Transfer
In 2008, a presentation by an attorney at Boston law firm Ropes & Gray LLP, which represents Bain and Romney, laid out a strategy for avoiding gift taxes by conservatively stating the value of assets put into a trust. The firm’s chairman, R. Bradford Malt, is the manager of Romney’s family trusts.
In the 2008 presentation at a legal education conference in Boston, a partner at the firm, Marc J. Bloostein, outlined various strategies to minimize the estate and gift tax bills for private-equity executives.
Bloostein, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, said it was common during the 1990s for lawyers to advise clients to value their stake in a fund’s future profits — called carried interest in the private equity world — at zero for gift tax purposes, according to his presentation reviewed by Bloomberg News. This could permit the donors to avoid a gift tax on the contribution, even if that compensation became very valuable. In 2005, proposed regulations from the IRS discouraged the practice.
Big Profit
Romney, Bekenstein, and White all had DoubleClick shares wind up in trusts. In June 1997, DoubleClick announced a $40 million investment by a group including Bain Capital, eventually giving the buyout firm a 17.7 percent stake in the Internet marketing company.
Like at other private-equity firms, Bain managers were permitted to co-invest personally in the firm’s deals. Romney’s DoubleClick filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission inidcate that he or his trust received some of the company’s shares as a co-investor, and others as his stake in Bain’s future profits, or carried interest.
Romney did make a big profit for his heirs. Romney, or his trust, received the first batch of DoubleClick shares in June of 1997, when Bain made its initial investment in DoubleClick.
In February of 1998, DoubleClick went public. Its shares nearly quintupled over the next 12 months.
In January 1999, Romney’s trust sold $746,000 worth of DoubleClick shares, for a gain of about $674,000, or an almost 1,000 percent return, according to an attachment to an April 30, 1999, filing by Romney with the SEC. The three-page attachment contains the details of trades by dozens of Bain investors that got DoubleClick shares.
No Tax
Because those shares were already in the trust before the sale, no gift or estate tax would be owed on the trust’s receipt of that cash. And according to the tax law governing an “I Dig It” trust, Romney, not the trust, would be responsible for paying any capital gains tax triggered by the sale, potentially as high as $140,000. Gains in the trust for Romney’s heirs remain free of gift taxes and potential estate taxes.
Romney sold additional DoubleClick shares in at least two other transactions, securities filings show.
DoubleClick was purchased by Google Inc. (GOOG) for $3.2 billion in 2008.
Public exposure of Romney’s various tax avoidance tactics may spur legislation cracking down on them, according to Breitstone.
Romney “uses every trick in the book,” Breitstone said. “It’s going to be harder to do tax planning in the future. He’s bringing attention to things that weren’t getting attention.”
Romney ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit – Bloomberg.
Related articles
- I Do Not Understand Why This Is Not Tax Fraud… (delong.typepad.com)
- Romney’s ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit (taxprof.typepad.com)
- Romney ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit – Bloomberg (xbradtc.wordpress.com)
- Mitt Romney saves on gift taxes, helping to build family’s wealth (boston.com)
- Mitt Romney saves on gift taxes, helping to build family’s wealth (boston.com)
- Romney ‘I Dig It’ Trust Gives Heirs Triple Benefit (bloomberg.com)
- Quote of the Day: Romney Is Ruining Things For All the Other Rich Guys (motherjones.com)
- Tax Loophole Benefiting Romney’s Estate Costs U.S. $1 Trillion Over Ten Years (thinkprogress.org)
- Mitt’s malware (cannonfire.blogspot.com)
- Romney avoided tax on 1999 dot-com riches with trust nicknamed, “I Dig It” (boingboing.net)
Cagle Post » No More ‘Mr Nice Guy’ Foreign Policy
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective on September 19, 2012
No More ‘Mr Nice Guy’ Foreign Policy
As truth’s brilliant light breaks through the fogginess of mistruth as to the reason behind the violent anti-American sentiment currently burning its way across the globe, one thing is for sure: An internet YouTube video is not the culprit, and those who say it is are either seriously misinformed, trying to deflect blame, delusional, lying — or a little of each.

Eric Allie / PoliticalCartoons.com
Of all the terrible scenes portraying the violence this past week, the picture most concerning is that of the video’s creator — an American citizen protected by our Constitution’s First Amendment — being ushered away by federal agents purportedly due to a potential parole violation. Sure. Got it. Or, maybe… it was an attempt to throw red meat to those in the Mideast region who seem to wear their religious sensibilities on their sleeves, since repeated apologies have not worked… Just thinking out loud here.
Let’s be honest; the Obama administration’s “Mr. Nice Guy” approach has failed miserably; those teethed on bloodshed view congeniality as weakness rather than strength. As a result, the Mideast region burns today with a raging fire kindled by fear and uncertainty because, as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice so eloquently stated during the recent Republican National Convention, the world no longer has an answer to a most pressing question “Where does America stand.” Every which way but loose, it seems.
In the past, America has always stood against evil regimes and ideologies, and stood for, as Ms. Rice said, “free peoples and free markets.” Because we have an administration that wishes to stand on all sides of every issue, the world is more dangerous than it was when everyone clearly understood our position.
Attempting to have it both ways eventually forces us to either stand for our founding principles or reject them — as recently happened when the Obama administration made the preposterous decision to sacrifice our First Amendment rights on the altar of political correctness. For the unaware, the administration recently asked Google to remove the YouTube video from the internet. Thankfully, Google refused. In so doing, the Obama administration sent a loud and clear message to Muslim extremists that our Constitution is subservient to their extremist beliefs.
The leader on the ground, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif, story doesn’t mesh with the White House’s canard regarding the video. el-Megarif told Al Jazerra he believed the attacks on the embassy in Libya were preplanned by “experienced masterminds” quite possibly connected to al Qaeda. From the BVD bombing attempt, to the failed Times Square bomb plot, and the Fort Hood massacre, the Obama administration has tried to paint a picture that Islamic extremism is a non-issue.
Sure, bin Laden’s dead (and GM’s alive, lest we forget), but getting one heckova lucky opportunity to sign your name to a military operation does not sound foreign policy make.
During his Cairo speech in 2009, Obama promised his leadership would be better than his predecessor’s. Obama vowed, “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.” One look at the flags, as dark as the Jihad they represent, rising across the Middle East will tell you who appears to be winning.
The world longs for and urgently needs American leadership but it is missing in action. The gut-wrenching scene at Joint Base Andrews last week of four American flag-draped coffins holding the remains of patriots savagely murdered in Benghazi is proof-positive as to how badly the world needs to know where America stands.
Cagle Post » No More ‘Mr Nice Guy’ Foreign Policy.
Related articles
- UN ambassador says Libya attack was spontaneous – Newsday (newsday.com)
- Libyan President Contradicts Administration on Benghazi Attack (nationalreview.com)
- UN ambassador says Libya attack was spontaneous (cnsnews.com)
- Lie Like Your Presidency Depends On It (cornhusker4palin.newsvine.com)
- UN ambassador says Libya attack was spontaneous (news.yahoo.com)
- U.N. ambassador says Libya attack was spontaneous (wvgazette.com)
- New information suggests White House knew about pending attack on U.S. consulate in Libya (redalertpolitics.com)
- Should America Apologize For Being Attacked? (myconservativethoughts.wordpress.com)
- UN ambassador points to turbulent time in Mideast (kansascity.com)
- Rice: Romney criticism of White House response to protests a ‘vacuous charge’ (thehill.com)
Romney: ‘We Should Never Apologize For American Values Or Japanese Internment Camps’ | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Humor/Parody, The Onion on September 13, 2012
Romney: ‘We Should Never Apologize For American Values Or Japanese Internment Camps’

JACKSONVILLE, FL—Criticizing the Obama administration’s response to the current crisis in Libya and Egypt, Mitt Romney told reporters Wednesday that we should never, under any circumstance, apologize for the values that make this country great, such as our belief in the right to practice religion without persecution, our commitment to the freedom of assembly, or the overwhelming xenophobia that led to the relocation and internment of more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. “As Americans, we should never feel the need to question who we are or what we stand for, whether it’s our strong commitment to family or whether we’re rounding up a group of innocent people, separating them from their friends and loved ones, and putting them into what are essentially overcrowded prisons because they happen to be of Japanese descent,” Romney told the assembled press corps, adding that free speech and concentration camps are American ideals that should be cherished, not second-guessed. “So if you ask me, should we ever apologize for freedom, justice, honor, or how we perverted those beliefs to justify one of the most horrifying acts of prejudice in American history, the answer is no.” When asked by reporters what American values are exactly, or what the phrase American values even means, Romney stared at the press, blinked several times, and walked off stage.![]()
Related articles
- Romney: ‘We Should Never Apologize For American Values Or Japanese Internment Camps’ (theonion.com)
- Utah museum to honor Japanese internment camp (sacbee.com)
- Paul Ryan Cuts $120 Million In Wasteful Spending From Romney Campaign | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source (mbcalyn.com)
- Romney Stares Uncomprehendingly At $1 Bill | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source (mbcalyn.com)
- Utah museum to honor Japanese internment camp (cbsnews.com)
- Best They Could Get Accepts Republican Nomination | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source (mbcalyn.com)
- Utah museum to honor Japanese internment camp (abc4.com)
- You: Japanese American internment camp museum breaks ground in Utah (latimes.com)
- Embassy Row (slate.com)
- Romney Privately Wondering How In The Name Of Fuck He’s Going To Appeal To Asian Voters | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source (mbcalyn.com)





Recent Comments