Mặc ai nói ngả ,nói nghiêng ..(Bầu Cử Mỹ )

[FatDuck]

From http://peoplesworld.org/nurses-blast-romney-back-obama/


Nurses blast Romney, back Obama

by: Mark Gruenberg
October 5 2012


OAKLAND, Calif. - National Nurses United, the nation's largest union of registered nurses, has endorsed President Obama and Vice President Biden for re-election.

But the late-September statement by the 185,000-member union's board was as notable for what it didn't say as for what it did.

That's because NNU concentrated on blasting the GOP and its ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for wrecking Medicare, wanting to privatize Social Security and promoting inequality, while not mentioning Obama's achievements.

NNU was angry when Obama, in the struggle over his health care law, did not back universal government-run single-payer health care, abolishing the insurers, their high co-pays, rising premiums and denial of care. NNU and the Steelworkers led the 21-union charge for single payer health insurance.

Instead, NNU cited the "most hostile platform to workers by a major political party in decades," adopted by the GOP, and the Romney-Ryan agenda" that would further aggravate economic inequality and a downward spiral for workers and their families."

NNU has also promoted a small stock transfer tax, to both raise money to close the federal deficit and to penalize the financial finaglers whose machinations drove the U.S. into the current great recession. The tax would also trim the Wall Street speculation.

The union said it would step up its campaigns for economic equity, the speculation tax and universal health care regardless of who won in November.

"Nurses have a fundamentally different view of a civil society than the one expressed by Romney" at the GOPer's Florida fundraiser, said Ross. "We believe quality healthcare, decent housing, and proper nutrition are basic rights for everyone. Mocking people who are helped by a caring nation as 'victims' and unwilling to have 'responsibility' for their lives is antithetical to what we should be about as a people.

"Nurses care for the 47% - as well as the other 53%. It's disgraceful that many of the 47% Romney targeted are seniors and veterans. As a nation, we are better than that," Ross said. But the entire country must "demand Washington stand up to Wall Street and the 1% whose actions have inflicted so much suffering in Main Street communities."

[FatDuck]

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...publican-Party


The UnAmerican Values of Mitt Romney and today's Republican Party


by Onomastic
Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:47 PM PDT.



Yes. Un-American. Can we just admit it now? Is it all right to finally say that Romney and the majority of Congressional Republicans stand in opposition to every value that has made this country truly great?

I'm not as good a human being as President Obama. To him, every American, even those who hate him or play games with the economy to get him out of office, are always worthy of dignity and respect.

He works for all of us. I would expect nothing less. Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't have the grace of our President.

I can't read yet another report about Congressional Republicans blocking a jobs bill without being stunned by how un-American their actions are. This time it's not the American Jobs Act that would have created, at minimum, approximately 2 million jobs and boosted our GDP. They've been blocking that for over a year now, our people's desperate need for work be damned. The unemployed are, after all, only part of the not rich enough 47% that Romney and his party can't be bothered with. That includes our Veterans.

Today all but five Senate Republicans underscored that point by blocking a jobs bill that would help our unemployed Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Yes - our sons and daughters who risked their lives, health, and sanity to serve this Nation are apparently not worth the effort.

You see, the Republicans are concerned. They don't know if such a bill would really help our Veterans. After all, according to Sen. Tom Coburn (R. Okla) we just don't know if a Jobs Corp would work!

Republicans also said that job-creating provisions in measure - including establishing a veterans jobs corps to employ veterans in conservation, recreation, and resource management projects on public lands; and as firefighters and police officers - are untested.

"Nobody knows if it works," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). He warned that if Congress does not begin to exercise some restraint on spending, the deficit, which has topped more than $1 trillion in recent years, will ultimately undermine the nation's economy.

We'll get to the Senator's hand wringing worry about the deficit in a moment. But first, lets provide him with some information that may rest his fears regarding the efficacy of the Veteran's Job Corps Act. No doubt this will come as a surprise to the good Senator, but the United States actually has a history of successfull job corps programs. We even have one now! It's been part of the US. Dept of Labor since 1964.


Success Lasts a Lifetime with Job Corps

Job Corps is a free education and training program that helps young people learn a career, earn a high school diploma or GED, and find and keep a good job. For eligible young people at least 16 years of age that qualify as low income, Job Corps provides the all-around skills needed to succeed in a career and in life.

There's even a Performance Results at a Glance page, complete with an interactive map for the Senator's perusal.

If he cares to read it at all. You see, while he had no problem voting for TARP, he was a vigorous opponent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That Act awarded funds to the Job Corps.

Job Corps was awarded funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 to be used for construction, rehabilitation and acquisition, as well as operations needs. Since the act was signed into law, Job Corps implemented "green" student training programs and commenced construction projects at centers across the country, helping create and retain jobs.

Jobs. Those things that our Veterans and all our people need in order to eat and keep a roof over their heads. Jobs. Being able to hold our heads up with some dignity. Jobs. Being able to provide for our families. Jobs. Being able to contribute to our communities. Jobs. The very thing that the American People tell Congress again and again that they want, even if it means spending tax dollars to create them.

Sen.Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), said today that "Americans don't trust us." He's absolutely correct. Why would we?

The American people have repeatedly told the Senator and his Republican colleagues to pass the American Jobs Bill. a bill that would create approximately two million jobs, just for starters, and increase our GDP.

We've made it clear how we want our tax dollars spent. We've made it clear that we want our families, our neighbors, our fellow citizens to be able to hold their heads up again, free of fear and worry about where their next meal is coming from. We've made it so clear that we jammed the Hill switchboard to the point of breakdown.

We know the American Jobs Act will help our people and grow our economy. We are smarter than Republicans wish to think and, as hard as it is for them to comprehend, what happens to our fellow citizens matters. Greatly. That is why we actually do take the time to read and check out the facts. Like these -

On September 8, 2011..........Presid ent Obama laid out a series of policy proposals known collectively as the American Jobs Act. The plan included stimulus spending in the form of immediate infrastructure investments, tax credits for working Americans and employers to encourage consumer spending and job growth, and efforts to shore up state and local budgets to prevent further layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public safety officials.

The American Jobs Act never became law....because Republicans opposed it from the start, blasting it as another form of “failed stimulus” that wouldn’t help the economy. (They ignored the fact that the first “failed stimulus,” the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, wasn’t a failure at all.) One month later, the GOP blocked the bill in the Senate, preventing the creation of more than a million jobs and the added growth that multiple economists predicted would occur if the bill passed:

–Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add two percent to gross domestic product.

–The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.

–Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.

–Goldman Sachs estimated it would add 1.5 percent to GDP.

"Failed stimulus?" Not according to the Congressional Budget Office.

CBO's Estimates of ARRA's Impact on Employment and Economic Output for the Second Quarter of 2011

CBO’s Estimates of ARRA’s Impact on Employment and Economic Output

Looking at recorded spending to date along with estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies and drawing on various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. Because those sources indicate a wide range of possible effects, CBO provides high and low estimates of the likely impact, aiming to encompass most economists’ views about the effects of different policies. On that basis, CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the second quarter of calendar year 2011 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 0.8 percent and 2.5 percent,
Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points,
Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million, and

Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.4 million to 4.0 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).

The effects of ARRA on output peaked in the first half of 2010 and have since diminished, CBO estimates. The effect of ARRA on employment and unemployment are estimated to lag slightly behind the effects on output; CBO estimates that the employment effects began to wane at the end of 2010 and continued to do so in the second quarter of 2011. Still, CBO estimates that, compared with what would have occurred otherwise, ARRA will raise real GDP in 2012 by between 0.3 percent and 0.8 percent and will increase the number of people employed in 2012 by between 0.4 million and 1.1 million.

Of course, that could depend upon on one's definition of "failed." I've come to the conclusion that what actually works for average Americans IS bad policy for most of today's Republican Party and their nominee.

What else could explain their actions and policies?
...

( to be continued )

[FatDuck]

( continued )

What else explains Congressional Republicans refusal to pass a bill that gives tax breaks to companies hiring at home while eliminating tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas?

GOP senators block Dem ‘insourcing’ bill
By Ramsey Cox - 07/19/12 02:39 PM ET
Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked an "insourcing" bill from Democrats that would have ended tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas.

The Bring Jobs Home Act also would have given a tax incentives to companies that bring jobs back to the United States. The measure failed to advance on a 56-42 vote, with 60 votes needed to end debate on the bill.

Earlier in the week, Republicans also blocked the Disclose Act, which would have required the disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $10,000.

What else explains keeping the American Jobs Act blocked for over a year?

The method Republicans have used to block all jobs legislation in the past two years is the same. A jobs bill comes up, it is filled with positive things for the economy, Republicans filibuster debate, this shields them from having to make floor speeches on why they don't want tax breaks for small businesses... etc.

Why? Well, if the economy recovers too strongly before an election, Republicans will lose power. If jobs numbers look too good, people will want to keep the same party. By Republicans blocking all jobs legislation and keeping jobs numbers from improving they believe this is their ticket to power.

In other words, if you and other Americans suffer just long enough it will pay off for Republicans.

They sacrifice the citizens' jobs with the hopes that they will create more Republican jobs in Congress.

What else explains their taking the debt ceiling hostage, further endangering our economy and standing in the world?

For if we hit the debt ceiling, the government will be forced to stop paying roughly a third of its bills, because that’s the share of spending currently financed by borrowing. So will it stop sending out Social Security checks? Will it stop paying doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients? Will it stop paying the contractors supplying fuel and munitions to our military? Or will it stop paying interest on the debt?

Don’t say “none of the above.” As I’ve written before, the federal government is basically an insurance company with an army, so I’ve just described all the major components of federal spending. At least one, and probably several, of these components will face payment stoppages if federal borrowing is cut off.

And what would such payment stops do to the economy? Nothing good. Consumer spending would probably crash, as nervous seniors started wondering how to pay for rent and food. Businesses that depend on government purchases would slash payrolls and cancel investments.

Furthermore, markets might well panic, especially if interest payments are missed. And the consequences of undermining faith in U.S. debt might be especially severe because that debt plays a crucial role in many financial transactions.

What else explains their refusal to stop subsidizing big oil's obscene profits?

Exxon Mobil’s Tax Rate Drops To 13 Percent, After Making 35 Percent More Profits On Rising Gas Prices In 2011
By Rebecca Leber on Mar 26, 2012 at 6:13 pm

Exxon Mobil, the most profitable of the big five oil companies, made $41.1 billion in profits last year. Although Exxon made 35 percent more profits since 2010, its estimated effective tax rate actually dropped. Citizens for Tax Justice reported Exxon paid only 17.6 percent taxes in 2010, lower than the average American, and a Reuters analysis using the same criteria estimates that Exxon will pay only 13 percent in effective taxes for 2011. Exxon paid zero taxes to the federal government in 2009.

Reuters compares the 45 percent tax rate Exxon claims it pays to the effective rate estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice — a rate that’s even lower than Mitt Romney’s tax rate. Chevron, which made $26.9 billion profit in 2011, paid 19 percent:

Citizens for Tax Justice considers U.S. profits and U.S. taxes paid only. By that measure, Exxon Mobil paid 13 percent of its U.S. income in taxes after deductions and benefits in 2011, according to a Reuters calculation of securities filings.

It is a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.

Still, the three-year average for telecom companies is 8 percent; for information technology services companies, it is 2.5 percent, according to CTJ.

What else explains Mitt Romney's chief energy adviser Harold Hamm's testimony during a Congressional hearing?

In a congressional hearing Thursday, Continental Resources CEO and Mitt Romney’s chief energy adviser Harold Hamm asked to preserve the oil industry’s billions in tax breaks, although his company pays little in federal taxes. The oil firm has earned more than $1.8 billion profit over five years by dominating the oil shale boom in North Dakota.

In his prepared testimony, Hamm defends tax breaks by pointing to his own company, saying, “Continental’s effective tax rate is 38%!” But according to Citizens for Tax Justice, Continental paid an average 2.2 percent tax rate, or $40 million, over five years.

Hamm claims a higher tax rate by including deferred taxes the company hasn’t paid. It’s a popular tactic, used by oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute. CTJ shows that Continental Resources has paid federal income taxes as low as 0.1 percent in the last five years:

What else explains Senate Republicans defeating a bill that would help our sons and daughters returning home from war to an unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans at 12.7% — more than 4 percentage points higher than the national average?

G.O.P. Blocks Veteran Jobs Bill
By LAWRENCE DOWNES
Veterans won’t be getting a new, billion-dollar jobs program, not from this Senate. Republicans on Wednesday afternoon blocked a vote on the Veterans Job Corps Bill after Jeff Sessions of Alabama raised a point of order — he said the bill violated a cap on spending agreed to by Congress last year. The bill’s sponsor, Patty Murray of Washington, said that shouldn’t matter, since the bill’s cost was fully offset by new revenues. She said Mr. Sessions and his party colleagues had been furiously generating excuses to oppose the bill, and were now exploiting a technicality to deny thousands of veterans a shot at getting hired as police officers, firefighters and parks workers, among other things.

The vote was 58-40; the bill needed 60 votes to proceed.

It would be easier to admire the Republicans’ late-breaking fiscal scrupulosity if their motives — denying the Obama administration any kind of victory this year, whatever the cost to jobless vets — weren’t so transparent. It’s probably useful to remind Republicans like John McCain (a “nay” on the jobs bill) that wounded, jobless and homeless veterans aren’t a fact of nature. They’re a product of the wars that Congress members voted for, the war debt they piled on, and the economy they helped ruin.

“It’s unbelievable that even after more than a decade of war, many Republicans still will not acknowledge that the treatment of our veterans is a cost of war,” Ms. Murray said in a statement after the vote.

This does -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09...layer_embedded

And so does this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0N...layer_embedded

How can Congressional Republican actions be described as anything but un-american? How can their actions be seen as anything but abusive to the very people they have sworn to serve?

And that debt that they all say they're so very, very, worried about? Not really.

They created most of it in the first place, after all. It didn't matter to them when they voted to keep two wars off the books, give tax breaks to the fortunate few, or broke the economỵ

It doesn't really matter to them now. The debt is just another weapon used to harm President Obama's re-election. In the Republican equation of what it takes to achieve and hold political power, that their hostage taking of the debt ceiling harms the American people is not a bug, it's a feature. The pain given to average Americans by Republican votes against jobs or raising the debt ceiling or anything else is the desired result.

It's all woven of the same arrogant ignorance, disdain, and unconcern voiced by the Republican candidate for the Presidency, "I don't care about the poor," Mitt Romney.

Indeed. Or the unemployed, seniors, the disabled, the hungry, our Veterans, our businesses on Main Street or our history as a Nation.

Today's Republicans have turned their backs on the lessons learned by the generation that returned home from battle fields in Europe and Asia after World War II. That "Greatest Generation" is so named, in part, because they went on to build the greatest economy the world had known.

They were the good guys who saved the world from fascism and then turned around and rebuilt the countries they had defeated. They created the greatest economy known to man - one based on values of shared sacrifice and reward. They believed that progress stemmed from our collective efforts, not from narrow interest-group wrangling or the Ayn Rand go-it-alone playbook.

The Greatest Generation became who they are, not alone, but with government programs that paid for education, job training, and housing. Together they created the largest expansion of the middle class in history. Our people and government working together made manifest the American Dream that future generations inherited and built upon.

Today's Republicans are destroying that dream. They are betraying what the Greatest Generation and its heirs fought so hard to build and safeguard - all in the name of political expediency.

Four of the Republican Senators who voted today against the Veterans' Job Corps Act helped write it. It was a bipartisan bill, until it was time to vote during a Presidential Election.

There is no arithmetic that makes sense, nor virtue to be found in what they are doing.

As President Clinton said, none of it adds up. Just do the math.

9:37 PM PT: There is another Greatest Generation, a generation of Civil Rights leaders that risked it all to make life better for All of America's people. Those rights so dearly paid for are under attack. blue jersey mom has written a powerful diary honoring them and what we need to do to ensure that the rights they fought and died for are not lost.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...er-Suppression

Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 2:17 AM PT: These are the 40 Republican Senators who voted against the Veterans' Job Corps Act, among other things.

(Side note: Since the pix doesn't show up, here is the list of 40 Republicans who voted against Veterans' Job Corps Act and thereby effectively keep America's veterans unemployed:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchinson (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Mark Kirk and James Inhofe did not vote. )


Early voting is happening in thirty states. Please get your absentee ballots now and vote. The tide is turning and we will defeat those who treat our Veterans and us, so contemptuously.

[XeOm]

Xin lỗi Ba Búa. Tiếng Việt tôi không tốt nên không dịch được. Đọc và viết tiếng Việt là điều khó với tôi. Nếu Ba Búa dùng Google translate thì có thể hiểu đại khái, tuy không đúng 100% nhưng vì tiếng Việt của Ba Búa tốt nên có thể hiểu.

Bác khg cần viết dài. Tiếng Việt của bác yếu thì chỉ viết 1 ý là đủ. Ý kiến của tự bác viết ra bao giờ cũng "nặng ký" hơn là mang bài vào. Vietland cũng sẽ hay hơn vì có nhiều suy nghĩ hơn.

Chúc tiếng Việt của bác mau tiến bộ, ^_^

[FatDuck]

Bác khg cần viết dài. Tiếng Việt của bác yếu thì chỉ viết 1 ý là đủ. Ý kiến của tự bác viết ra bao giờ cũng "nặng ký" hơn là mang bài vào. Vietland cũng sẽ hay hơn vì có nhiều suy nghĩ hơn.

Chúc tiếng Việt của bác mau tiến bộ, ^_^

Tôi không có đủ ngữ vựng tiếng Việt trong vấn đề socio political issues. Tôi chỉ đủ ngữ vựng cho những vấn đề tào lao như thi hoa hậu việt tại California :D . Nếu tôi viết ý kiến về socio political issues thì tôi phải dùng American English :p nên tốt hơn là tôi mang bài từ các Web site Mỹ vào. Giống như để cân bằng lại số bài của die-hard Republican fans mang về từ các Web site Việt.

Cám ơn lời chúc của XeOm, tôi sẽ cố gắng.

[FatDuck]

From http://www.care2.com/causes/10-sketc...tt-romney.html


10 Sketchy Investments By Mitt Romney
by Judy MollandOctober 16, 2012 6:00 am


“We’re gonna crack down on China when they manipulate their currency, when they steal our goods, when they don’t protect our intellectual property. We’re gonna make sure that China understands we mean business. Trade is gonna work for us, not just for them.”

– Mitt Romney speaking at a rally in Virginia last month, as reported by NPR.

So why has the Republican candidate for President made investments in China?

According to Mother Jones, who examined his recent tax returns:

between 2008 and 2011 Romney invested more than a half million dollars in the stocks of 10 Chinese companies—including firms that embezzled, partnered with Iran, and stole US intellectual property.

In fact, the Romney funds have found their way to more than 10 Chinese destinations, but let’s check the biggest amounts:

1. Global-Tech Appliances Inc

At the time that Romney was in charge of Bain Capital, the firm invested millions in this company that employed 5,000 young women to make household appliances. A report published by the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, states that Mitt Romney “knowingly invested in a brutal Chinese Dongguan sweatshop in China, which made small appliances in sweatshop conditions for Hamilton Beach, Sunbeam, Proctor Silex and Revlon behind barbed wire fences in the town of Qing-Xi.”

2. GOME

Through a Bain Capital fund, Romney has invested between $500,000 and $1 million in GOME, a Chinese electronics company. Microsoft Corporation is currently suing GOME for pirating versions of its Windows and Office software. Hum, isn’t intellectual property theft exactly what Romney keeps saying he will crack down on?

3. China National Offshore Oil Corporation (Cnooc Limited)

The New York Times reports that in 2009 and 2010, the W. Mitt Romney blind trust invested over $77,000 in shares of Cnooc Limited, the state-owned Chinese oil company. Cnooc does business with Iran’s energy sector, and this was at a time that US sanctions called for all companies doing business with Iran to divest all their interests.

4. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)

From Mother Jones:
“Gov. Romney believes China should be labeled a currency manipulator,” his spokeswoman said recently, “and he will move to label them as such on Day One.” Yet the candidate invested in Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the country’s largest bank. Some experts say that China’s central bank still exerts power over ICBC (which was privatized in 2005) to carry out the country’s monetary policy.

5. China Life Insurance

About a fifth of Romney’s China profits came from New China Life Insurance. In case you’re not yet convinced that Romney has been involved in some shady investment practices, you need to know that in 2009, China’s National Audit Office found that the company had embezzled money by overstating sales and lining executives’ pockets with millions of yuan. Guan Guoliang, former chairman of the company, was sentenced to six years in prison on charge of embezzlement of 200 million yuan in company funds.

6. New Oriental Education and Technology

In 2001, Educational Testing Service sued New Oriental for stealing and distributing test questions for admission to US universities. A Chinese court ordered New Oriental to pay over $1 million, though this was subsequently reduced. Romney may complain vigorously that the Chinese are intellectual property thieves, but he made more than $20,000 from the nearly $60,000 he invested in New Oriental shares.

7. Li & Fung Limited

This is a company that has benefited enormously from American outsourcing: it manages business for such companies as Toys R Us, Target, Walmart and Timberland. Three years ago, for example, Liz Claiborne decided to sell its sourcing operations—which handle all aspects of production, from finding materials to manufacturing garments—to Li & Fung Group for $83 million. The Romneys invested around $15,000 and made just over $1,000.

8. and 9. Youku.com and Tencent Holdings

From Mother Jones:
Romney investments included two of China’s internet giants: Tencent, the creator of the country’s most popular chat program, and Youku, which some describe as China’s YouTube. (The Romneys lost about $8,000 in Youku and a negligible amount in Tencent.) ”If you’re one of these Chinese internet companies, you factor in for your overhead and operating costs an entire division of people whose job it is to adhere to government censorship and surveillance requirements,” says Rebecca MacKinnon, a former Beijing bureau chief for CNN. “Obviously foreign investment is paying for that.”

10. Hang Lung Properties

Hang Lung is a huge real estate developer in Hong Kong, and is now investing $8.5 billion in mainland China. The Romneys invested $43,300 and profited $22,600 when they sold their shares.

The amounts of financial gain and loss involved in these Chinese transactions are minuscule compared to the Romney fortune, and many were sold on August 10 of this year, the day before a Republican debate. But that’s not the point.

Isn’t it just a little disingenuous for Romney’s campaign to criticize President Obama repeatedly for failing to take a tough line against Chinese trade practices, after he himself has promoted Chinese companies with his own investments?

These investments by Romney are yet more proof that Mitt will say anything to gain the upper hand, even if it involves twisting the truth.

[FatDuck]

See Romney's hypocritical rhetoric on the "great wall of China" at http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-ba...2517/#49422517

[FatDuck]

From http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news...d-job-creator/


Romney's Real Record as a 'Job Creator'
By Todd Stauffer Last updated on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:18 p.m. CDT


I'm writing this before the second presidential debate, so I can't tell you now whether you heard a lot or a little about Sensata. It's an automotive parts company in Illinois whose manufacturing operation is being moved to China by Bain Capital, reportedly going so far as to have its American workers train their Chinese counterparts.

Mitt Romney detractors have jumped on the videos and stories coming from Sensata employees, saying it paints Romney and his old firm in a bad light. The American workers have asked Romney to intervene with his Bain buddies; he's declined.

Romney supporters say he isn't accountable for Bain, because money he makes from the company is held in a blind trust.

As a Saints fan, I'm forced to point out that there is no "commissioner" of Wall Street; unlike Sean Payton under BountyGate, it's my understanding that Mitt Romney is perfectly free to contact the management of Bain and discuss business.

He just doesn't want to. The ethic appears to be that since Romney only profits from what Bain does--instead of deciding how those profits are made--then he's somehow squeaky clean.

This new mention of Bain brings renewed scrutiny to Romney's claims as a "job creator"--a boast he makes while pointing to his years at Bain Capital and to his record as a one-term governor of Massachusetts.

Both, it turns out, offer a shaky support for the "job creator" claim.

Two points about Romney as governor. First, he's made hay recently of the idea that he "worked across the aisle" when he was governor, conjuring the image of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill rolling up their shirtsleeves in the Oval Office.

According to reporters and columnists who witnessed it, though, Romney's one term in Massachusetts went a little differently. "He put a velvet rope across the door to keep people from walking into the governor's offices," wrote Rick Holmes of the MetroWest Daily News, quoting Massachusetts Rep. David Linsky. "He commandeered an elevator for his exclusive use," in the capitol, so as not to mix with the chattel.

Romney vetoed more than 800 bills sent to him by the Democratic Legislature, which overrode them all. By the time he announced he wouldn't seek a second term, Romney was 16 points down in the polls to his Democratic opponent; he ended his term with a 34-percent approval rating.

As for jobs? Remember that Romney was in office from 2003-2007, at a time wedged between two recessions and marked by considerable job growth in the country. Under his leadership, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts did fall--but much slower than in most other states. The state averaged 47th in job creation over his term. That put Massachusetts ahead of three states--rust-belt states Ohio and Michigan, and Louisiana, which Katrina hit in 2005.

Unemployment went down by one percentage point while Romney was governor, but it turns out a considerable chunk of that single-digit drop was due to the out-migration of working-aged adults. The Los Angeles Times reported that Massachusetts saw a net loss of 220,000 residents during Romney's term in office, one of the highest population losses in the country.

One of the bright spots was health care, where the implementation of "Romneycare" effected a 7.6 percent increase in positions in Massachusetts, the strongest growth in that sector in the country. This is, oddly, something that Romney now opposes replicating at a national level, despite its success.

Romney's other justification for being a "job creator" is his time spent in the private sector as CEO and owner of Bain Capital. Bain Capital specializes in leveraged buyouts (LBOs)--getting a controlling stake in companies by putting up a small percentage of their own money, then taking out massive loans against the company's own credit line (the "leverage" part). Bain takes fees throughout the process for the "management services" rendered to the acquired company.

The debt stays with the company; if it can weather crushing new debt, it'll continue to function. If not, it goes bankrupt.

This all started back in the "Greed is Good" Gordon Gecko 1980s, but, as Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone pointed out in September, Bain's approach isn't a "hostile takeover." Instead, it generally promises current management lucrative bonuses to sign off on the deal--and get on board the gravy train. Then, the newly procured company pays Bain--typically--millions of dollars a year in fees, plus whatever dividends or stock payouts Bain can "harvest"--literally Romney's word--from the company.

Taibbi notes that this approach to LBOs is compared to a mob tactic called a "bust out"--taking over a legitimate business, buying a bunch of stuff on credit and then bankrupting it (or, in the case of the mob, burning it to the ground for the insurance money). If you select the right target and credit, it's easy money. It just takes a sell-job to bring Wall Street banks on board and willingness to part-out the company and send its workers packing. (Romney's phrase is "creative destruction.")

So now the leveraged company is saddled with loan repayments, and it owes Bain millions a year. Solution? Cut jobs, cut wages, outsource, sell off machines; do whatever it takes to generate a return for the shareholder--Bain. And Mitt Romney.

But we're talking about whether he created jobs, right? Then it's worth asking what Mitt Romney, himself, said about his job-creating prowess at Bain. According to Taibbi, Romney wrote in his book, "Turnaround," that "I never actually ran one of our investments. That was left to management."

Real "job creators" run their businesses. They have business plans, they execute strategies, they sell, they hire and fire. But that's not what companies like Bain Capital do. "(Job creation) was not his or Bain's or the industry's primary objective. The objective of the LBO business is maximizing returns for investors," said Marc Wolpow, a former Bain colleague of Romney's, in Taibbi's story.

Taibbi writes that Romney has never once taken any responsibility for an acquisition's failure, despite some big blowouts--Stage Stores (a merger of Bealls Brothers and Palais Royal) ended up bankrupt in 2000, while Bain took $175 million in returns from the investment. Romney bought Ampad in 1992, loaded it with debt, took Ampad public and made $100 million before the company was bankrupt and hundreds lost their jobs. KB Toys went bankrupt by 2004; Bain made $83 million in fees and "dividend recapitalization."

Which is to say this: Comparing Mitt Romney to a businessman who creates jobs is like comparing a junkyard owner to Ford. Sure, they both know a little something about making money from steel and wires.

But if both tried to sell you a car, which would you drive?

[Hoàng Nguyên]

From http://peoplesworld.org/nurses-blast-romney-back-obama/


Nurses blast Romney, back Obama

by: Mark Gruenberg
October 5 2012


OAKLAND, Calif. - National Nurses United, the nation's largest union of registered nurses, has endorsed President Obama and Vice President Biden for re-election.

But the late-September statement by the 185,000-member union's board was as notable for what it didn't say as for what it did.

That's because NNU concentrated on blasting the GOP and its ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for wrecking Medicare, wanting to privatize Social Security and promoting inequality, while not mentioning Obama's achievements.

NNU was angry when Obama, in the struggle over his health care law, did not back universal government-run single-payer health care, abolishing the insurers, their high co-pays, rising premiums and denial of care. NNU and the Steelworkers led the 21-union charge for single payer health insurance.

Instead, NNU cited the "most hostile platform to workers by a major political party in decades," adopted by the GOP, and the Romney-Ryan agenda" that would further aggravate economic inequality and a downward spiral for workers and their families."

NNU has also promoted a small stock transfer tax, to both raise money to close the federal deficit and to penalize the financial finaglers whose machinations drove the U.S. into the current great recession. The tax would also trim the Wall Street speculation.

The union said it would step up its campaigns for economic equity, the speculation tax and universal health care regardless of who won in November.

"Nurses have a fundamentally different view of a civil society than the one expressed by Romney" at the GOPer's Florida fundraiser, said Ross. "We believe quality healthcare, decent housing, and proper nutrition are basic rights for everyone. Mocking people who are helped by a caring nation as 'victims' and unwilling to have 'responsibility' for their lives is antithetical to what we should be about as a people.

"Nurses care for the 47% - as well as the other 53%. It's disgraceful that many of the 47% Romney targeted are seniors and veterans. As a nation, we are better than that," Ross said. But the entire country must "demand Washington stand up to Wall Street and the 1% whose actions have inflicted so much suffering in Main Street communities."

Nurses back ObamaCare, ObamaCare a long overdue, shame on America without Obamacare

[FatDuck]

From http://consortiumnews.com/2012/10/16...-middle-class/

How Romney Harms the Middle Class

October 16, 2012

When seeking the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney promised to keep the Bush tax cuts and tack on a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Now, he struggles to explain how that would work, but even the status quo has helped the rich and damaged the middle class, says former Republican William Frey.


By William Frey

So why are many small business owners rejecting what in 2012 passes for “conservatism” in the GOP? Could it be that they see through Mitt Romney’s arithmetic? Could it be they are nauseated by a GOP that wants to shift even more of the tax burden to the middle class?

Perhaps tiring of paying significantly higher rates than the historically low rates now paid by billionaires, hedge fund managers, other investment executives, and Republican presidential candidates?

President Dwight Eisenhower, who represented a different era of Republican.
Or might they find it offensive when a politician falsely maligns “the 47%” of fellow Americans for “not paying taxes”, when that same politician in reality has an effective federal tax rate virtually the same, or even slightly lower, than some of those he maligns?

Let’s start by comparing the CURRENT total federal tax rates for a small business owner with the tax rates for Gov. Romney:

–$103,637 just happens to be the average net income, according a Treasury Department report of a shareholder/owner of a business organized as an S corporation which is large enough to have employees. So this represents a fairly typical small businessman (perhaps, for example, an electrical contractor), who, while perhaps not “wealthy,” is successful enough to employ himself and others, and have a net income of about twice the current median household income of $50,221.

To compare apples to apples, we will assume this typical small business owner and spouse, like Mitt and Ann Romney, file a joint return, have no additional dependents, and that the $103,637 represents their total joint income.

The taxes on this small business owner’s income of $103,637 in 2011 is as follows:

•Payroll/Self Employment tax: (13.3% total, Social Security FICA 10.4% : $9,954, Medicare 2.9% : $3,005) : $12,729
•(“ordinary”) Income Tax: (with standard deduction of $11,600, and 2 exemption of $3700) : $11,819
•Capital Gains Tax : zero
•Total Federal Tax : $24,548
•Total Effective Federal Tax Rate : 23.6%
(If, in addition to the standard deduction and exemptions, this couple’s joint return were to include a self employed health insurance deduction, and retirement plan contributions totaling $25,494, the income tax portion would be reduced to $7,066, and the total federal tax would be $19,795, yielding a total effective federal tax rate of 19.1%. Prior to, and subsequent to the expiration of the 2% payroll tax holiday, the applicable Self-Employment tax rate of 15.3% would apply, which would yield a total effective federal tax rate of between 21.1% and 25.6%.)

Meanwhile, the tax on the $21.7 million of Mitt Romney’s 2010 income was taxed at a rate of 13.9% (14.1% in 2011). A key reason for his low tax rate was the large proportion taxed at capital gains rates, as detailed by Bruce Bartlett, in “Exploring Mitt Romney’s Taxes and Tax Plan”, and “Mitt Romney, Carried Interest, & Capital Gains”.

(The preferential tax treatment of capital gains at these historically low rates is also the basis for taxing of the compensation of hedge fund managers and executives at investment firms at similar capital gains rates through the “carried interest loophole.”)

Let’s now consider the taxation of a member of the maligned “47%”. An illuminating example would be that of a family of 4, with 2 minor children, and an income of $42,700. This income is 15% below the median household income, and is a relevant example as it represents the point at which the child tax credit and earned income credit for a family with two qualifying children (combined $2,709 credits for that level of income) balances out their $2,709 federal income tax on “ordinary” income.

This means that for this family, filing a joint return, using the standard $11,600 deduction and the two $3,700 personal exemptions, they pay “no income tax.” Assuming this family has no capital gains, we can now summarize the federal taxation on the $42,700 income of these four Americans who are counted among the “47%” who “pay no taxes” :

•Income Tax: zero
•Capital Gains Tax: zero
•Payroll/Self-Employment Tax: $5,244 – $5,679 (12.3% to 13.3%) (see footnote)
•Total Federal Tax: $5,244 – $5,679
•Total Effective Federal Tax Rate: 12.3% to 13.3%
Note that while the total federal tax rate (12.3% to 13.3%) is slightly under Mitt Romney’s 2010 federal tax rate of 13.9%, or his 2011 federal tax rate of 14.1%, as the result of the 2% payroll tax holiday from 2011 through the end of 2012. Prior to, and subsequent to the expiration of this 2% waiver, the Payroll/Self-Employment Tax, as well as the Total Effective Federal Tax, on this family’s $42,700 income was and will be 2 percentage points higher. That is, the Total Federal Tax Rate on their $38,900 income was and will be 14.3% to 15.3%.

Which is to say, this family of four, part of the “47%” who “pays no taxes,” will again have a total effective federal tax rate that is between 0.3 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points HIGHER than the total effective federal tax rate on Mitt Romney’s combined 2010 and 2011 income.

Note that the 12.3% to 13.3% ($5,244 to $5,679) range calculated for this family’s Payroll/Self-Employment tax is due to the fact that we have not stipulated whether this income was self-employment income or wages. (The IRS reports that the average net income for a Schedule C/Sole Proprietorship return, which includes both full-time and part-time ventures, is $20,854. Clearly, the “47%” include both wage earners and the self-employed.)

This range (of 12.3% to 13.3%) is caused by the fact that, in the case of Self-Employment tax, the tax is calculated on 92.35% of the self-employment income.

The effective abandonment of the principle of progressive taxation has resulted in a harshly regressive system that taxes financial elites at rates much lower than middle-class entrepreneurs (in Mitt Romney’s case at rates –13.9% to 14.1% — significantly lower than the federal tax rate — 19.1% to 25.6% — of a small business owner earning roughly $100k) — and which taxes these financial elites with over $20 million in annual earnings at roughly the same federal tax rate as it taxes a hard-working member of “the 47%” who is falsely maligned as “paying no taxes.”


Wasn’t Always So

This striking departure from American tradition is illustrated by contrasting both the business practices and the taxation of Mitt Romney and that of his father George.

George Romney successfully ran American Motors for eight years, restoring the company’s fortunes with a focus on compacts, and saving the jobs of many American workers. George Romney then served as governor of Michigan from 1963-1969, before seeking the Republican nomination president in 1968. When he ran for president 44 years ago, George Romney released, (not two years and a summary of prior taxes paid), but, in their entirety, a full 12 years of federal tax returns.

From these returns we see that in George Romney’s best year, 1960, he earned $660,000, equivalent to approximately $5 million today. We also learn that George Romney paid, in 1960, 36% of his income in federal taxes, and paid 37% of his income in taxes over the entire 12-year period.

As Paul Krugman has pointed out, this was, in part, because he “seldom took advantage of loopholes to escape his tax obligations,” but mostly because, in the 1950s and 1960s (the era of the longest sustained economic expansion in our history), taxation of the very wealthy was at much higher levels than today, with effective federal tax rates in the range of twice today’s rates.


Hijacking of Social Security Trust Fund
It may be of interest to small business owners (and other Americans) that:

•not only has the capital gains income of Mitt Romney and others in his bracket exempt from “ordinary” income taxation,
•not only has it been exempt from Social Security FICA and Medicare contributions,
but that the lowering of capital gains rates to historically low levels occurred in 2003 simultaneous with two unfunded war deficits.

And the single largest creditor that financed the bonds which made possible this slashing of capital gains rates was not China (as Gov. Romney likes to imply). It was (and is) the Social Security Trust Fund. ($2.7 trillion)

In other words, the surpluses accumulated because of the regular 15.3% retirement contributions typical small business owners and others have paid, on most (and in some cases on every cent) of their lifetime earnings, have been loaned so that the most wealthy could enjoy historically low taxes, even during a time of war and trillion-dollar deficits.

All thanks to the largess of a retirement insurance fund to which some of the very wealthy (those that structured their income to be in the form of capital gains) were sometimes exempt from contribution.

So, now that we have turned tax rates upside down, and created a tax system when the top one per cent are now taxed at:

•historically low rates (with effective tax rates approximately half of what the most wealthy paid in the 1950s and 60s, during the most sustained period of economic expansion and prosperity in American history), and
•rates that are much lower than the rates for small business owners and other working Americans, and
•in the same ball park, or perhaps slightly lower, than the actual federal tax rate for many of the 47% of Americans who have been falsely maligned as “paying no taxes”
what is Mitt Romney’s proposed “solution”?

A $5 trillion tax cut that further reduces taxes on the top 1% who already pay the lowest rates, and further shifts the burden to the middle class, including small business owners.

When polls showed widespread rejection of his approach, Mitt Romney’s response has been to nominally backtrack, making the unsupported (and arithmetically impossible) claim that his tax cuts will not decrease the burden on financial elites, will not increase the burden on the middle class, and will not increase the deficit.

But he refuses to provide specifics (other than to state he will not consider raising the historically low capital gains tax, or closing the “carried interest” loophole, which allows hedge fund managers and other investment executives to have their compensation taxed as capital gains). Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan … well, he “doesn’t have time” to reveal the details.

As for Social Security, what are Republican plans for the program which is an essential part of the retirement for over 90% of Americans, whose $2.7 trillion surplus purchased the bonds that made possible the slashing of tax rates for the 1% even as simultaneous wars were waged)?

Now that the $2.7 trillion surplus (invested by law in Treasury bonds) is needed for its intended purpose, paying the retirement benefits of those whose taxes BUILT that $2.7 trillion surplus,

•does Romney intend to let tax rates for the 1% return to historic norms so those bonds owned by the Social Security Trust Fund can be honored?
•or does Romney intend to cut Social Security benefits so that the Trust Fund is NEVER repaid, NEVER uses those funds for their intended purpose, effectively formalizing the permanent theft “borrowing” of the Social Security Trust Fund so that income tax rates for the 1% can remain at historic lows?

The Republican Party of Eisenhower, while certainly a party of free enterprise, recognized both the legitimacy and essential nature of Social Security to Americans of all economic classes. In 1956, after Eisenhower’s first four years, the Republican platform stated:

“The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million.”

Social Security’s broad and bipartisan support, and success, has rested upon its establishment as a self-funded retirement program, with benefits paid from an independent Trust Fund (whose surpluses are required, by law, to be invested in United States Treasury securities, which are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States of America).

But the ideologues of today’s Republican Party seek to break from this fundamental American understanding of Social Security:

In 2010, Republicans, introduced bills into both House and Senate that would have prioritized the honoring of bonds held by China over those held by the Social Security Trust Fund, and which would have treated Social Security benefits payments the same as other general revenue expenditures, ignoring both the statutory and moral right of the Social Security system to the surpluses loaned to the Treasury.

And by preventing the Social Security Trustees from making payments from the independent Trust Fund, it would have ratcheted up the political pressure to cut Social Security benefits so that general revenue expenditures could continue to be financed by Social Security funds.

The essential fact is that the $2.7 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund will fund full benefits into the mid 2030′s with no changes whatsoever (past a significant portion of the baby boom). Changes to enable permanent solvency (as opposed to continuing, on a permanent basis, the “loaning” of Social Security funds to subsidize general revenues) are relatively minor.

In order to deprive Americans of their funded benefits, ideological enemies of Social Security do not have to openly “steal” the Trust Fund. All that is necessary is to change to accounting definitions of “sustainable solvency” so as to require a definition of solvency that will require changes so draconian that the Trust Fund will keep trillions on permanent “loan” to the Treasury, which will enable the continuation of general revenue deficits to be funded by Social Security surpluses, thereby subsidizing tax cuts for the most wealthy.

Now in 2012, Mitt Romney selects a running mate who, beyond being an ideological enemy of Social Security, maligns Social Security as “socialism.” (Paradoxically, if Republicans can succeed in permanently hijacking the Social Security Trust Fund to fund general expenditures, thereby subsidizing tax cuts for the 1%, they will have transformed Social Security from a self-funded retirement program INTO “socialism for the 1%”).


Not Eisenhower’s GOP

The Republican Party of 2012 is certainly not the GOP of Dwight D. Eisenhower, much less that of trust-busting conservationist Theodore Roosevelt.

Although the narrow agenda of the Republican Party of 2012 would exclude almost all past Republicans, right-wingers have been persistent and skilled at using wedge issues to convince their base to vote against their own interests.

But Americans are increasingly seeing that the survival of the middle class, more important than mere self-interest, is vital to the survival of our democratic republic itself.

And in this struggle for survival, middle-class Americans are finding no friend in the Republican Party of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.



William Frey, M.D. is a medical doctor and a former Republican who broke with the party over its increasing radicalization and its failure to resist the Bush-Cheney administration’s shift toward empire and the assault on individual liberty. [This article first appeared at http://www.former-republican.com/]


----------------------------

Side notes (my own words, not plagiarized from somebody else's article ;) ):
- American-borns currently not within the 1% who vote for the GOP <----- need to be sent back to school so they can re-take American history lessons and learn to appreciate true American ideals.
- "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" - Edmund Burk.