Mitt Romney is a Liar (as a GOP Candidate)
This is a short debate. Only 3 rounds.
No trolling, no semantics.
I must prove that Romney as a GOP candidate has lied at least 10 times.
R2: Argument, CON rebuttal
R3: Rebuttals and Closing
Due to the last word advantage, CON will only have the opportunity to rebut 5 of PRO's points in R3. PRO will only be able to rebut 7 points in the final round if necessary.
Mitt Romney: This guy (http://www.google.com...)
I look forward to hearing your arguments!
Thanks for accepting.
1) "Obama has signed Zero free trade agreements." 
Reality: Obama has signed and passed 3 free trade agreements. 
2) "I'm not proposing any tax cuts for myself and my rich friends." 
Reality: Romney plan cuts taxes for wealthy. 
3) "25 million people are out of work because of Barack Obama. And so I'll compare my experience in the private sector where, net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs." 
Reality: Not true at all.
4) "Eliminating "Obamacare" saves $95 billion a year." 
Reality: The CBO showed that the ACA would add to the deficit significantly over time. 
5) "Barack Obama has never worked in the private sector before he was President."
Reality: Obama was a private attorney, author, community organizer, worked at Harvard, and worked at Baskin Robbins as a teenager. 
6) "This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements. He said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip."
Reality: Obama bluntly opposed the attacks on the Israelis. 
7) "My plans will... will not add to our deficit. They will abolish it."
Reality: To think that you can cut 20% of federal income taxes and balance the budget is absurd as well as untrue. 
8) "Only one president has ever cut Medicare for seniors in this country... Barack Obama."
Reality: Obama did not cut Medicare at all. And other Presidents have, including Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  Obama's plan reduced Medicare spending, but through reducing costs, not cutting Medicare.
9) "This is the slowest job recovery since Hoover."
Reality: The Carter/Reagan and Nixon recoveries were slower. 
10) "Today more people are out of work in America than employed in Canada."
Reality: Not true. In US, 16.7 million unemployed. In Canada, 17.2 million employed. 
11) "I pay a 50% tax rate."
Reality: A 14% rate is not 50%.  
12) "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign."
Reality: Campaign is deep in lobbyists. 
13) "I received the endorsement of the NRA as governor of Massachusetts."
Reality: Romney admits himself that its false later on. 
14) "The Red Sox waited 87 long years to win the World Series."
Reality: They waited 86 years. 
15) "Obama has not completed his campaign goals."
Reality: Obama has stood closely to his campaign goals pretty much. 
16) "We didn't just slow the rate of growth of government (in Massachusetts), we actually cut it."
Reality: Spending grew 5% a year under Romney. 
17) "The president gave the auto companies to the UAW."
Reality: Not true. 
******Next round, I can rebut 7 points, CON can rebut only 5 points.
1) On Mitt Romney's website (my opponents first source), it does indeed say on the side that zero trade deals have been signed by President Obama. The source my opponent gives to refute this claim is a deal that was passed by Congress in October 2011. I have frequented Mitt Romney's website often throughout the campaign because I've kept up closely with te GOP race (I'm a Ron Paul supporter). I haven't seen any changes. The latest date mentioned on the page is August 2011. It is fully possible that this page was written before the trade deal my opponent mentioned was passed, in which case this would not be intentionally false. If my opponent can present a trade deal that Obama signed before August 2011 or a similar statement made by Romney after October 2011, I will concede this point.
2) He does plan on cutting rates across the board. However, the source my opponent sites says he also plans "to make up the lost revenue by limiting deductions, credits and other tax benefits for wealthy Americans." There is a lot of evidence that the reason why the most wealthy people in the U.S. do not pay as much in taxes is because of all of the loopholes and deductions that they get.  There is also evidence that lower tax rates do not amount to a lower amount paid. The total tax revenues from the wealthy actually were higher under Bush than now.  This has a lot to do with the economy. If Romney can get the economy back going again, as he seems to truly believe he can, the Federal government would take in more money from the top income earners.
3) This source seems incredibly biased. Obama's recovery has been a nightmare (see my response to 9). I saved this one for last and do not have enough space left. Let's talk this one on the next round.
4) CBO's projections often change. A later release in March 2012 by the CBO estimated ObamaCare would cost $1.76T over the next ten years, which averages to $176 billion a year.  Long term deficit savings are hard to depend on considering President Obama won't be President 10 years from now.
5) I concede this point, but I think we all know what Romney means. Obama has never been a business guy. All of his meaningful career positions have been closely related to public policy. Even as a professor, he worked for universities that are heavily subsidized. The Baskin Robins job seems like a stretch. Romney's claim is basically that President Obama is blind to what it's like to run a business under current tax and regulatory policies because he has always been on the public policy side of things.
6) I concede this point. This was an example of typical political rhetoric.
7) A Romney presidency might add to the deficit, but my opponent's comment does not prove that. In fact, cutting taxes has proven to be successful in raising tax revenues and cutting deficits. According to a recent article from the Cato Institute, "Canada's federal corporate tax rate has been cut from 38 percent in the early 1980s to just 15 percent today. Despite the much lower rate, tax revenues have not declined. Indeed, corporate tax revenues averaged 2.1 percent of GDP during the 1980s and a slightly higher 2.3 percent during the 2000s." In addition, "[in] 2012, Canada is expecting to collect 1.9 percent of GDP in federal corporate income taxes with a 15 percent corporate tax rate. The United States is expecting to collect 1.6 percent of GDP at a 35 percent corporate tax rate." 
8) Medicare never had any cuts from 1966 to 1999.  President Bush's Medicare Part D added to Medicare spending. Presidents like to lie and say they're making cuts. Certain laws were passed, but most cuts were just cuts in projected growth. Those are not cuts. Give evidence that under a certain President between 1933 and 2008, total Medicare spending went down and I will concede.
9) This economic recovery has been much slower than the ones my opponent mentioned when looking at total jobs lost by months since peak employment. 
10) As the PolitiFact article explained, it was based on numbers that they claimed were a stretch. It is true that many part-time workers are not making nearly as much as they need to become self-sustaining individuals. It's reasonable to consider many part-time workers unemployed, but that's up for debate.
11) My opponent is ignoring the important explanation behind why he said the 50% as seen when he said it . Corporate income taxes are a tax on all employees of those corporations. If there was no corporate income tax and we only taxed individual income, he would have received a lot more income than he did. Because the corporation is taxed before they pay him dividends, 35% of his income is taken before it is even considered his income. There is a similar problem with taxes in general. Suppose the income tax is 25%. If I pay you $100,000, the government will tax it (at, say, 25%). If you pay another person the remainder of that money ($75,000), they will tax it again at 25%. Is that person being taxed at 25%? Or 25% + .25(25%) = 31.25% with an arbitrary transaction made in between? When money goes into a corporation's bank, it doesn't go to any particular person until that corporation pays their employees and their shareholders.
12) Fair enough, but that was in 2008. Give evidence that he has lobbyists working for his current 2012 campaign.
13) I partially concede. It sounds like he backpedaled on this one. But was he saying that he received the NRA endorsement in 2002? or in 2007 when he was running for President? Also, he may have slipped on this one. He did pass some legislation as governor in cooperation with the NRA. That might have been what he was talking about even though they did not endorse him during his 2002 campaign. I will concede given more clarity on the context of his quote on Meet the Press.
14) A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.  Not sure if saying 87 instead of 86 had any deliberate intent to deceive. Politicians (and all people for that matter) misspeak often.
15) Since my opponent seems to have an affinity to PolitiFact, I'll give him the link to their four pages of Obama's broken campaign promises.  Among the most important of these to me personally was his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, to have diplomacy with Iran (), and to reduce the deficit (). More of these promises are mentioned here: .
16) I concede this point.
17) There was no source  in my opponent's sources.
I'm skeptical of many of my opponent's sources because many of them are from PolitiFact. PolitiFact has some great articles, but they've been criticized for being fairly liberally biased. See  or do a Google search of "PolitiFact bias". It would give my opponent more credibility to give more diverse sources.
I have conceded on points 5, 6, 13 (partially), 16, but the goal is to prove he lied 10 times.
1) Opponent Conceded
2) My opponent basically states that "[Mitt] does plan on cutting rates across the board." Therefore, Romney's plan DOES CUT TAXES for the wealthy. And Romney has not specified any cuts in deductions. So, we cannot assume Romney would do such a thing. So the Romney plan does cut taxes for the wealthy overall. - Win
3) The main point of this point is that Romney was lying when he said that "25 million people are unemployed because of Obama."
That is obviously not true, therefore a lie.
The picture shows that private sector jobs are slightly up, net under Obama. And government has shrank.
4) The article I posted earlier showed that the ACA reduced the deficit by several billion over 10 years, net. Thus, Romney was lying when he said that eliminating the ACA would reduce the deficit, because it is false. Win.
5) Opponent conceded.
6) Opponent conceded.
7) Under Romney's current tax plan, and which programs he plans to cut, net his plan, as my source last round proves, increases the deficit. This includes any growth that may occur from the tax cuts. Win.
8) My opponent basically says that Medicare has never been cut. So, he says indirectly that Romney was wrong and was lying. FTW, Reagan increased revenue for Medicare. Win.
9) Since I can only rebut 7 points, I concede this one.
10) If the people are earning an income, they are not unemployed. If Romney HAD SAID, "Today more people are out of work in America or working part time than employed in Canada." it would've been true. Romney however didn't say this. Therefore, it was a lie. Win.
11) I can rebut 7 points. I concede this one. Even though Romney only paid a 14% tax rate as I proved.
12) Concede. For sake of 7.
13) Opponent conceded. Romney was talking that the NRA endorsed him as governor of Massachusetts, what they never did (clarification).
14) I concede this point.
15) The statement Romney said (currently, in the past few hours the link went down) was that Obama has not completed his campaign goals. Now, that is not true Obama has completed at least 47% of his campaign promises, with others "in the works." 
16) Opponent conceded.
17) We all know that the UAW does not own the auto companies. A lie. The auto companies are corporations. Their website proves it too. 
So, I win points, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 17.
Therefore, I win. Thanks for the debate.
Here are my responses to five of the points Pro made.
2) My opponent takes me out of context. Paying attention to rate cuts and ignoring other proposed reforms is misleading. A tax cut on the wealthy is when the immediate consequence of some tax reform policy will reduce the real income of the government and increase the real income of the wealthy. Romney has specified cuts in deductions. One is the mortgage interest deduction, which is one of the largest deductions the Federal government gives out and almost exclusively benefits the wealthy.  I gave evidence that eliminating these loopholes could drastically raise taxes on the rich. Obama correctly brings up that many wealthy people pay a relatively small rate, but that's not because the rates are too low. Romney's personal income tax rates would still be higher than the rates Obama claims the wealthy pay. It's mostly because of ridiculous deductions and loopholes, as well as the problem with capital gains and corporate income taxes constituting double taxation. That's the problem with our tax code. It's too complicated and lobbyists rig it to reward the politically connected. Romney has proposed to fix that. I win.
4) Regardless of long term affects, eliminating the ACA would cut $1.76T from outlays over the next ten years according to the CBO report I posted. There are disagreements about the affects on the long-term deficit reduction of the ACA. The Medicare trustee reported just the opposite of the CBO — that it could raise the deficit as much as $527 billion.  My opponent's claim relies on long-term projections, which are almost always inaccurate and depend heavily on which source you're looking at. The cost of nearly every one of Obama's fiscal policies have been underestimated by his administration, including his promises to reduce the deficit while President. What evidence do we have to believe this will be any different? Romney did not lie about this. I win.
8) I never said Medicare has never been cut. I said none of the Presidents you listed actually cut Medicare spending, which is in agreement with Romney's statement. Certain policies moved around the money and changed the organization, but Medicare spending always went up under Reagan, Nixon, Bush, etc. Obama on the other hand, through the ACA, cuts Medicare funding as is discussed in several of the articles both of us have posted. Romney did not lie about this. I win.
15) Romney said, "Obama has not completed his campaign goals." My opponent said, "The statement Romney said (currently, in the past few hours the link went down) was that Obama has not completed his campaign goals. Now, that is not true Obama has completed at least 47% of his campaign promises, with others 'in the works.'" My opponent claimed Obama has completed at least 47% of his campaign goals and there is no doubt that he has not completed all of them. I listed several. I showed PolitiFact had four pages of campaign promises broken. PolitiFact says 14% of Obama's campaign promises have been broken. In short, Obama may have completed some of his campaign goals, but it is clearly not a lie to say he has not completed his campaign goals. Guantanamo Bay is still open and he promised his White House would be without lobbyists. There are countless others. My opponent has conceded on this and I win.
17) According to the PolitiFact article my opponent shared, "That's how an independent health care trust for UAW beneficiaries ended up owning Chrysler and GM stock. As of February 2012, the trust holds a 41.5 percent stake in Chrysler and a 10.3 percent stake in General Motors." These percentages are more than enough for these beneficiaries to have a strong part of the corporate decision making. UAW had a lot of power during the auto bailouts because of Obama's partiality to the unions.  This is a classic example of crony capitalism, in which politically connected organizations get control over things they previous did not have much of a stake in through government intervention. Romney never claimed any false details. I win.
I have given a rebuttal to 5 of Pro's points. Most of these statements from Mitt Romney were "gotcha" type quotes that are easy to take out of context and are open to multiple interpretations. With these types of interpretations that Pro presented, pretty much everything that almost any politician says is a lie. I concede that Romney has said some deceitful things, but Pro failed to adequately defend most of the statements he claimed were lies.
Consider voting Con based on the evidence I have presented and the defense I have given. People may very well completely disagree with Romney's ideas on policy, but he is not a blatant liar. I'd say that to be a liar, one has to pretty consistently make false statements with the intention of deceit. On a day-to-day basis, both Romney and Obama tell the truth about what their visions for the country are and they both bring up valid concerns about each other's policies. They've both occasionally said deceitful and false things, but not enough to earn either of them the title "liar".
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|