Dirty Harry is now Crazy Uncle Harry
- Thread starter rumpleforeskiin
- Start date
I'd like to point out that American hobbyists on middle-class incomes better hope that the Republicans don't win the upcoming election, or else they better start saving their hard-earned pennies if they want to go visit Montreal in the next four years. The Romney/Ryan ticket has already promised they'd raise the income of middle-class earners. Heck, someone has to pay for the millionaires/billionaires' pay cuts, right? 
As for the American hobbyists who earn over $250 000 per year, you don't have to worry. You'll likely be able to hobby in Mtl for as long & as often as you wish!
As for the American hobbyists who earn over $250 000 per year, you don't have to worry. You'll likely be able to hobby in Mtl for as long & as often as you wish!
After watching this week's GOP convention. i must admit that my favorite performers were Ann Romney, Condoleeza Rice & Paul Ryan.
However, after two days of doing research on Paul Ryan's speech claims, i discovered that half of the stuff he said during his speech were blatant lies.
This came as a shock to many who've been close to this life-long Washington politician (who, by the way, voted for everything that wound up increasing the debt), who firmly believed in Ryan's honesty & refused to think (until now) that he'd sell out & blatantly lie for the sake of the cause. Worse when it occurred on a stage in front of a worldwide audience of millions.
Did Jeb Bush speak at the convention? If he did, i missed it. He's one of the very few top Republicans that i still respect. However, considering the current political scene within the GOP party of today, he knows himself that he likely wouldn't stand a chance to win a nomination as his party's candidate for a future election.
Recently, Governor Bush (he used to be governor of Florida) admitted in a television interview (on 'Meet the Press', i believe) that Ronald Reagan likely wouldn't stand a chance of getting nominated today considering the currently state & mentality of the GOP party, led by fringe right-wing radicals.
And finally, to counteract the GOP's use of Eastwood, the Democrats are considering having their 'mystery guest speaker' perform next to an 'imaginary Romney' sitting on a chair inside a empty warehouse closed by Romney's Bain Capital, where its jobs were either terminated or shipped offshore to India or China.
However, after two days of doing research on Paul Ryan's speech claims, i discovered that half of the stuff he said during his speech were blatant lies.
This came as a shock to many who've been close to this life-long Washington politician (who, by the way, voted for everything that wound up increasing the debt), who firmly believed in Ryan's honesty & refused to think (until now) that he'd sell out & blatantly lie for the sake of the cause. Worse when it occurred on a stage in front of a worldwide audience of millions.
Did Jeb Bush speak at the convention? If he did, i missed it. He's one of the very few top Republicans that i still respect. However, considering the current political scene within the GOP party of today, he knows himself that he likely wouldn't stand a chance to win a nomination as his party's candidate for a future election.
Recently, Governor Bush (he used to be governor of Florida) admitted in a television interview (on 'Meet the Press', i believe) that Ronald Reagan likely wouldn't stand a chance of getting nominated today considering the currently state & mentality of the GOP party, led by fringe right-wing radicals.
And finally, to counteract the GOP's use of Eastwood, the Democrats are considering having their 'mystery guest speaker' perform next to an 'imaginary Romney' sitting on a chair inside a empty warehouse closed by Romney's Bain Capital, where its jobs were either terminated or shipped offshore to India or China.
Recently, Governor Bush (he used to be governor of Florida) admitted in a television interview (on 'Meet the Press', i believe) that Ronald Reagan likely wouldn't stand a chance of getting nominated today considering the currently state & mentality of the GOP party, led by fringe right-wing radicals.
And finally, to counteract the GOP's use of Eastwood, the Democrats are considering having their 'mystery guest speaker' perform next to an 'imaginary Romney' sitting on a chair inside a empty warehouse closed by Romney's Bain Capital, where its jobs were either terminated or shipped offshore to India or China.
Yeah, right wing radicals. Right. Imaginary tales like a empty warehouse closed by Bain Capital. For your information, Bain Capital took over failing companies and turned them around. They did not ship off jobs to India or China. How can one tell if someone is lying (like Ryan, which he has not), if that person tells a lie like jobs being shipped to India or China by Bain Capital. Or calls the GOP a bunch of right-wing radicals (which they are not). The Democrats are left-wing radicals though.
I'd like to point out that American hobbyists on middle-class incomes better hope that the Republicans don't win the upcoming election, or else they better start saving their hard-earned pennies if they want to go visit Montreal in the next four years. The Romney/Ryan ticket has already promised they'd raise the income of middle-class earners. Heck, someone has to pay for the millionaires/billionaires' pay cuts, right?
As for the American hobbyists who earn over $250 000 per year, you don't have to worry. You'll likely be able to hobby in Mtl for as long & as often as you wish!
Absolutely, not true. Just a repeat of the Obama lying talking points. The Republican ticket has promised not to raise taxes on anyone. It's the Democrats (eg Senator Patty Murray) who has said that they want to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Lie, lie, lie. Sounds like the Obama Campaign. Good job on campaigning for the lying party.
That's "income tax", Doc, not "income", a typo I'm sure. And, yes, middle income earners will pay, on average, $2000 more under the Romney plan, while Romney's own income tax will drop to under 1%. How is that possible, you ask. Simple. Income from the actual work you do, will still be taxed; income from investments and dividends, capital gains, will no longer be taxed. Romney's plan will give billions and billions of tax breaks to those who need it least. It's been pointed out that seven of the ten richest congressmen are Democrats. I say hurrah to these seven who are not as selfish as their Republican counterparts and realize that they aren't paying their fair share.The Romney/Ryan ticket has already promised they'd raise the income of middle-class earners. Heck, someone has to pay for the millionaires/billionaires' pay cuts, right?
It's also been pointed out that Bill Maher doesn't have much talent, or tact, and that there's no humor in his insults...by someone who never watches him. That's a perfect example of how Republicans operate. The spout what they're told to think, without facts or personal knowledge. They are not to be blamed, however; Fox News tells them what to think so why should they bother to find out for themselves?
It's also been pointed out that Democrats want to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's also first-order bullshit. They only want the taxes to expire on the portion of income that's over $250,000. I don't imagine that too many merbites will have much to worry about here.
The biggest losers will be people over 65. Romney and Ryan want to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with vouchers. "What, your treatment cost $80,000 and you only got a voucher for $15,000? Too bad, we don't care. We got our tax break, our new yacht, and a shiny new offshore account in the Cayman Islands."
Actually, more than half, Doc. Someone fortunately did the hard work and went through Ryan's speech and found seven things he said that were true. Here they are:
"There she is — my Mom, Betty."
Fact-check: True. Paul Ryan's mom was there.
"My Dad, a small-town lawyer, was also named Paul."
Fact-check: True. Paul Ryan's father was named Paul.
"I live on the same block where I grew up."
Fact-check: True. Ryan still lives on the same block where he grew up.
"President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis."
Fact-check: True. President Obama came to office during an economic crisis.
"My home state voted for President Obama."
Fact-check: True. Obama carried Wisconsin in 2008.
"My wonderful grandma, Janet, had Alzheimer's and moved in with Mom and me."
Fact-check: True. Ryan's grandmother moved in with him and his mother.
"[President Obama] created a bipartisan debt commission."
Fact-check: True. President Obama created a bipartisan debt commission.
"Mom was 50 when my Dad died."
Fact-check: True. Ryan's mother was 50 years old when his father died.
"Mitt and I also go to different churches."
Fact-check: True. Ryan is Catholic, while Romney is a Mormon.
Of course he also blamed Obama for an auto plant that closed before he took office, emblematic of the Republicans trying to blame Obama for all of Bush's fuck-ups. If you recall, the whole world's economic system was on the verge of collapse when he took office and it was only his decisions that saved it. The entire world owes the Obama team a huge debt of gratitude. Yes, the economy is in lousy shape, but considering the mess that he inherited, it's surprising that we're not in the worldwide depression that we were on the edge of four years ago.
And this from Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster, ""We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.". That's right, folks. They're going to lie through their teeth and hope there are enough fools to suck it all in.
Absolutely, not true. Where is the source?
Well, I have a source. The man himself, Mitt Romney: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Where in any of the above raises Middle Class taxpayers taxes by $2000? In fact, it cuts their taxes by at least 20 percent, and more.
It maintains the current tax rates on interest, dividends and capital gains; therefore Mitt Romney's taxes won't go down. In fact, person's under $200,000 adjusted growth income will have no tax on interest, dividends and capital gains. Gee, that's middle class isn't it?
Bill Maher isn't witty because he's obnoxious. That's how I see it. Others who agree with his slanted views may see it differently. Maher has under a million viewers a week. His ratings are not that high.
It has been well published that Obamacare takes away $700 Billion from Medicare and gives it to Obamacare. Seniors are going to be socked by Obamacare. Obamacare will pay less to healthcare providers. Some doctors have been dropping Medicare from their practice. This will accelerate under Obamacare. Obamacare also cuts or bundles (see third article) the payments for some very basic and needed services for seniors who need dialysis. The law does not go by need. If a senior is on a marginal income and needs dialysis, they will be screwed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...ts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/
http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/medicare
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/study-bundling-medical-payments-a-key-feature-of-obamacare-can-harm-patients/
In fact, under Paul Ryan's plan, anyone over the age of 55 will be able to keep Medicare. Anyone under 55 will have a choice. Ryan even co-authored another bill other than his original plan with a Liberal Congressman Ron Wyden. Wyden is currently backtracking on his plan with Ryan since Ryan has been nominated as Vice President. I guess he is trying to save face with Democrats instead of being truthful?
But the truth is, Obamacare will hurt seniors. Paul Ryan's plan will change eventually medicare to a subsidized insurance plan, subsidizing those who need it more, with more subsidy. Even today, seniors need additional private insurance plans, because medicare is not a cover it all plan by the government.
After watching this week's GOP convention. i must admit that my favorite performers were Ann Romney, Condoleeza Rice & Paul Ryan.
However, after two days of doing research on Paul Ryan's speech claims, i discovered that half of the stuff he said during his speech were blatant lies.
This came as a shock to many who've been close to this life-long Washington politician (who, by the way, voted for everything that wound up increasing the debt), who firmly believed in Ryan's honesty & refused to think (until now) that he'd sell out & blatantly lie for the sake of the cause. Worse when it occurred on a stage in front of a worldwide audience of millions.
Did Jeb Bush speak at the convention? If he did, i missed it. He's one of the very few top Republicans that i still respect. However, considering the current political scene within the GOP party of today, he knows himself that he likely wouldn't stand a chance to win a nomination as his party's candidate for a future election.
Recently, Governor Bush (he used to be governor of Florida) admitted in a television interview (on 'Meet the Press', i believe) that Ronald Reagan likely wouldn't stand a chance of getting nominated today considering the currently state & mentality of the GOP party, led by fringe right-wing radicals.
And finally, to counteract the GOP's use of Eastwood, the Democrats are considering having their 'mystery guest speaker' perform next to an 'imaginary Romney' sitting on a chair inside a empty warehouse closed by Romney's Bain Capital, where its jobs were either terminated or shipped offshore to India or China.
Really? Like what were the lies? Care to comment? Or is this just one of those basic patented liberal smears without backing up the claim? Obama does that often and lies on the other end. He is the pro.
Why Romney Left Massachusetts, Chose Not To Seek Re-election.
OMG!
You mean in order to test Romney's truthfulness you want to go straight to Romney's campaign where the only purpose is promoting him. :lol: So to test Capone you would go to Capone's promoters. :crazy: This is the same guy who runs away from the health care reform he signed in Massachusetts. Do you always seek out the most possibly biased source to get your information.
Have you ever heard the term "creditable source"???
Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts record: proof of ‘strong leadership’?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ng-leadership/2012/06/12/gJQArQUQXV_blog.html
“Mitt Romney on Day One: the difference is strong leadership.”
-- Narration from Romney campaign video
Mitt Romney’s campaign released this ad Friday in defense of the GOP candidate’s governing background. Up to this point, the campaign’s focus seemed to be on attacking President Obama’s economic record and promising a stronger recovery should Romney win the election in November.
That all changed last week when Obama’s campaign posted a video describing the Romney governorship as a series of broken promises on jobs, taxes and debt. The Republican challenger shot back with this “Strong Leadership” video that tells a very different story about his record.
How can the two sides have such disparate takes on the same picture? Let’s take a look at Romney’s claims to see if they’re any more accurate than the rhetoric that earned two Pinocchios for the Obama team.
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.”
The Romney campaign based this claim on a comparison of every Massachusetts governor who held office during the past decade -- looking at the full term for each person, even if it extends past the decade mark. The list includes Jane Swift, Romney and Deval Patrick, in chronological order.
The first thing we should point out is that we’re looking at very different time frames and economic conditions for each governor.
In terms of time, Swift served about 21 months from roughly April 2001 through December 2002. She inherited the governorship when Paul Cellucci resigned the post to become U.S. Ambassador to Canada in 2001.
Romney served a full four-year term, or 48 months, and opted against running for reelection. Patrick won the governorship in January 2007, and he’s in the midst of a second term -- he has 64 months on record with the BLS.
As for economic conditions, Romney has an advantage: he’s the only governor on the list who wasn’t in office during a national recession. His term fell conveniently between two rough spells.
By comparison, the first economic downturn of the George W. Bush era took hold at about the same time Swift became governor, and the Great Recession started about one year after Patrick’s first term began.
Setting all that aside, the GOP presidential candidate definitely has the best jobs record when you look at the past “decade.” Here are the numbers, based on statewide employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Average monthly change (during the 10 year time frame Romney refers to)
Swift: -6,800 jobs
Romney: +600 jobs
Patrick: -300 jobs
So Romney’s meager numbers earn him the top prize in this case, but we should note that the tenor changes if you compare his tenure with earlier times.
Let’s apply the same metric to the period before Romney left office. This time, the “decade” includes Romney, Swift, Cellucci (July 29, 1997 – April 10, 2001) and William Weld (January 3, 1991 – July 29, 1997). For what it’s worth, Cellucci took over the governorship after President Bush nominated Weld to be U.S. Ambassador to Mexico; the Senate rejected that nomination.
Here are the numbers:
Average monthly change (compared with other recent governors not restricted to Romney's 10-year time frame)
Weld: +2,500 jobs
Cellucci: +5,800 jobs
Swift: -6,800 jobs
Romney: +600 jobs
As you can see, Romney gets crushed by two of his predecessors. Anyone examining his employment numbers when he left office could have criticized him for having “one of the worst jobs records in a decade.”
At the end of the day, Romney’s paltry job numbers only look good within the context of the last 10 years, which represent the worst economic period for Massachusetts since the Ford-Carter-Reagan era.
“Romney reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.”
Romney’s campaign appears to be using the Bay State’s non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate from the last full month Romney was in office, December 2006. Indeed, unemployment stood at 4.7 percent at that time, representing a drop from the 5.6 the GOP candidate inherited.
But there’s a catch. Massachusetts had a higher unemployment rate than the 4.4 percent national average when Romney’s term ended. In fairness, the Bay State had a slightly better four-year average than the nation during Romney’s tenure: 5.1 percent for the U.S. compared to 5 percent for Massachusetts.
The point is that Romney struggled to keep up with the pack down the stretch. His state had the 29th highest jobless rate in the nation when he took office, and it rose to 18th highest by the time he left.
“He balanced every budget without raising taxes.”
We mentioned in a previous column that Romney promised not to raise taxes during one of his 2002 gubernatorial debates. Here’s what he said:
“Let me make this very clear, I will not, in my budget next year, have any tax increases. I will fight taxes at every turn. The problem with increasing taxes is it puts a burden on working families. They can’t afford it . . . I will not sign a tax increase passed by the Legislature.”
True to his word, Romney didn’t approve any general hikes in tax rates, but he did increase fees and close tax loopholes, both of which brought in additional revenue. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimated that the former governor raised an extra $750 million per year through fees and loophole closures.
This is a matter of semantics, because Romney didn’t technically raise tax rates. But one thing should be perfectly clear: he didn’t balance the budget with tough cuts and greater government efficiency alone.
(Readers can read about Romney’s record on taxes in a past column from our biographical series on the former governor.)
“He did it by bringing parties together to cut through gridlock.”
Our colleagues at FactCheck.org already established that the Democrat-led legislature overturned about 700 of Romney’s 800 vetoes. With these numbers in mind, it’s hard to believe that the governor was seeing eye-to-eye with lawmakers.
Granted, lots of legislation passed despite serious differences between Romney and the mostly Democratic legislators. But that doesn’t mean the governor made it happen.
Democrats held a supermajority during Romney’s tenure, meaning they had a fairly easy time passing legislation -- they could overturn any veto with relative ease. As such, many bills passed despite Romney, not because of the former governor’s supposed negotiating skills.
Democrats and even some Republicans fought Romney to the end on a long list of issues ranging from minimum-wage increases to embryonic stem-cell research.
One of the most noteworthy bipartisan measures to come out of the Romney era was the Massachusetts health-care reform law that the presumptive GOP nominee never seems to mention any more -- not even when we asked his campaign to name a few of his signature bipartisan accomplishments. (This video clip of the signing ceremony shows Romney praising the late Sen. Edward Kennedy(D) for his “absolutely essential” assistance in getting the law passed.) Even so, Romney vetoed eight provisions from the bill, and the legislature overturned each one.
The Romney campaign did not respond to requests for comment on any of these quotes.
The Pinocchio Test
The new Romney ad claims the GOP challenger boasts the best Massachusetts jobs record in a decade, but it doesn’t account for the fact that his tenure fell between two national recessions that give him an advantage over the governors who directly preceded and succeeded him. Furthermore, the candidate’s lackluster employment numbers are far from best if you expand the timeline past 10 years.
The ad also failed to mention that Massachusetts had a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the nation by the time Romney left office and that it wasn’t keeping pace with other states during his tenure.
The campaign claims Romney balanced the Massachusetts budget without raising taxes, but he closed tax loopholes and raised fees to the tune of $750 million per year. It wasn’t all cuts and efficiencies that helped him close the gap.
Finally, the campaign exaggerated by suggesting that Romney worked in bipartisan fashion to cut through gridlock. The number of overturned vetoes during his tenure suggests he failed to reconcile differences with Democrats in hundreds upon hundreds of instances.
On balance, the Romney campaign earns two Pinocchios for its “Strong Leadership” ad.
Two Pinocchios
The best that can be said about Romney is the general situation didn't get worst, but regarding touting himself as a business man who can get the country out of the current problems he generally fails to make the situation much better...if so. CONCLUSION - there is no indication in his Massachusetts record that he personally had a very positive impact without the general economic conditions nationwide changing to assist him, and even then the state rankings barely changed.
He hasn't any experience running a government during an economic recession, and didn't achieve much in positive times. IN SUM: ROMNEY EQUALS INEFFECTIVE!
Cheers,
Merlot
OMG!
You mean in order to test Romney's truthfulness you want to go straight to Romney's campaign where the only purpose is promoting him. :lol: So to test Capone you would go to Capone's promoters. :crazy: This is the same guy who runs away from the health care reform he signed in Massachusetts. Do you always seek out the most possibly biased source to get your information.
Have you ever heard the term "creditable source"???
Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts record: proof of ‘strong leadership’?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ng-leadership/2012/06/12/gJQArQUQXV_blog.html
“Mitt Romney on Day One: the difference is strong leadership.”
-- Narration from Romney campaign video
Mitt Romney’s campaign released this ad Friday in defense of the GOP candidate’s governing background. Up to this point, the campaign’s focus seemed to be on attacking President Obama’s economic record and promising a stronger recovery should Romney win the election in November.
That all changed last week when Obama’s campaign posted a video describing the Romney governorship as a series of broken promises on jobs, taxes and debt. The Republican challenger shot back with this “Strong Leadership” video that tells a very different story about his record.
How can the two sides have such disparate takes on the same picture? Let’s take a look at Romney’s claims to see if they’re any more accurate than the rhetoric that earned two Pinocchios for the Obama team.
“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.”
The Romney campaign based this claim on a comparison of every Massachusetts governor who held office during the past decade -- looking at the full term for each person, even if it extends past the decade mark. The list includes Jane Swift, Romney and Deval Patrick, in chronological order.
The first thing we should point out is that we’re looking at very different time frames and economic conditions for each governor.
In terms of time, Swift served about 21 months from roughly April 2001 through December 2002. She inherited the governorship when Paul Cellucci resigned the post to become U.S. Ambassador to Canada in 2001.
Romney served a full four-year term, or 48 months, and opted against running for reelection. Patrick won the governorship in January 2007, and he’s in the midst of a second term -- he has 64 months on record with the BLS.
As for economic conditions, Romney has an advantage: he’s the only governor on the list who wasn’t in office during a national recession. His term fell conveniently between two rough spells.
By comparison, the first economic downturn of the George W. Bush era took hold at about the same time Swift became governor, and the Great Recession started about one year after Patrick’s first term began.
Setting all that aside, the GOP presidential candidate definitely has the best jobs record when you look at the past “decade.” Here are the numbers, based on statewide employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Average monthly change (during the 10 year time frame Romney refers to)
Swift: -6,800 jobs
Romney: +600 jobs
Patrick: -300 jobs
So Romney’s meager numbers earn him the top prize in this case, but we should note that the tenor changes if you compare his tenure with earlier times.
Let’s apply the same metric to the period before Romney left office. This time, the “decade” includes Romney, Swift, Cellucci (July 29, 1997 – April 10, 2001) and William Weld (January 3, 1991 – July 29, 1997). For what it’s worth, Cellucci took over the governorship after President Bush nominated Weld to be U.S. Ambassador to Mexico; the Senate rejected that nomination.
Here are the numbers:
Average monthly change (compared with other recent governors not restricted to Romney's 10-year time frame)
Weld: +2,500 jobs
Cellucci: +5,800 jobs
Swift: -6,800 jobs
Romney: +600 jobs
As you can see, Romney gets crushed by two of his predecessors. Anyone examining his employment numbers when he left office could have criticized him for having “one of the worst jobs records in a decade.”
At the end of the day, Romney’s paltry job numbers only look good within the context of the last 10 years, which represent the worst economic period for Massachusetts since the Ford-Carter-Reagan era.
“Romney reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.”
Romney’s campaign appears to be using the Bay State’s non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate from the last full month Romney was in office, December 2006. Indeed, unemployment stood at 4.7 percent at that time, representing a drop from the 5.6 the GOP candidate inherited.
But there’s a catch. Massachusetts had a higher unemployment rate than the 4.4 percent national average when Romney’s term ended. In fairness, the Bay State had a slightly better four-year average than the nation during Romney’s tenure: 5.1 percent for the U.S. compared to 5 percent for Massachusetts.
The point is that Romney struggled to keep up with the pack down the stretch. His state had the 29th highest jobless rate in the nation when he took office, and it rose to 18th highest by the time he left.
“He balanced every budget without raising taxes.”
We mentioned in a previous column that Romney promised not to raise taxes during one of his 2002 gubernatorial debates. Here’s what he said:
“Let me make this very clear, I will not, in my budget next year, have any tax increases. I will fight taxes at every turn. The problem with increasing taxes is it puts a burden on working families. They can’t afford it . . . I will not sign a tax increase passed by the Legislature.”
True to his word, Romney didn’t approve any general hikes in tax rates, but he did increase fees and close tax loopholes, both of which brought in additional revenue. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimated that the former governor raised an extra $750 million per year through fees and loophole closures.
This is a matter of semantics, because Romney didn’t technically raise tax rates. But one thing should be perfectly clear: he didn’t balance the budget with tough cuts and greater government efficiency alone.
(Readers can read about Romney’s record on taxes in a past column from our biographical series on the former governor.)
“He did it by bringing parties together to cut through gridlock.”
Our colleagues at FactCheck.org already established that the Democrat-led legislature overturned about 700 of Romney’s 800 vetoes. With these numbers in mind, it’s hard to believe that the governor was seeing eye-to-eye with lawmakers.
Granted, lots of legislation passed despite serious differences between Romney and the mostly Democratic legislators. But that doesn’t mean the governor made it happen.
Democrats held a supermajority during Romney’s tenure, meaning they had a fairly easy time passing legislation -- they could overturn any veto with relative ease. As such, many bills passed despite Romney, not because of the former governor’s supposed negotiating skills.
Democrats and even some Republicans fought Romney to the end on a long list of issues ranging from minimum-wage increases to embryonic stem-cell research.
One of the most noteworthy bipartisan measures to come out of the Romney era was the Massachusetts health-care reform law that the presumptive GOP nominee never seems to mention any more -- not even when we asked his campaign to name a few of his signature bipartisan accomplishments. (This video clip of the signing ceremony shows Romney praising the late Sen. Edward Kennedy(D) for his “absolutely essential” assistance in getting the law passed.) Even so, Romney vetoed eight provisions from the bill, and the legislature overturned each one.
The Romney campaign did not respond to requests for comment on any of these quotes.
The Pinocchio Test
The new Romney ad claims the GOP challenger boasts the best Massachusetts jobs record in a decade, but it doesn’t account for the fact that his tenure fell between two national recessions that give him an advantage over the governors who directly preceded and succeeded him. Furthermore, the candidate’s lackluster employment numbers are far from best if you expand the timeline past 10 years.
The ad also failed to mention that Massachusetts had a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the nation by the time Romney left office and that it wasn’t keeping pace with other states during his tenure.
The campaign claims Romney balanced the Massachusetts budget without raising taxes, but he closed tax loopholes and raised fees to the tune of $750 million per year. It wasn’t all cuts and efficiencies that helped him close the gap.
Finally, the campaign exaggerated by suggesting that Romney worked in bipartisan fashion to cut through gridlock. The number of overturned vetoes during his tenure suggests he failed to reconcile differences with Democrats in hundreds upon hundreds of instances.
On balance, the Romney campaign earns two Pinocchios for its “Strong Leadership” ad.
Two Pinocchios
The best that can be said about Romney is the general situation didn't get worst, but regarding touting himself as a business man who can get the country out of the current problems he generally fails to make the situation much better...if so. CONCLUSION - there is no indication in his Massachusetts record that he personally had a very positive impact without the general economic conditions nationwide changing to assist him, and even then the state rankings barely changed.
He hasn't any experience running a government during an economic recession, and didn't achieve much in positive times. IN SUM: ROMNEY EQUALS INEFFECTIVE!
Cheers,
Merlot
Here ya go!
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13834/paul-ryan-lies-6-biggest-lies-from-the-ryan-rnc-speech
And now Ryan is exposed again for his lie about his amazing prowess in marathon running: http://www.policymic.com/articles/13972/paul-ryan-lies-again-marathon-time-not-true/206594
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13834/paul-ryan-lies-6-biggest-lies-from-the-ryan-rnc-speech
And now Ryan is exposed again for his lie about his amazing prowess in marathon running: http://www.policymic.com/articles/13972/paul-ryan-lies-again-marathon-time-not-true/206594
Merlot, what's a creditable source? Can I get it at my bank?
Anyhow, thank you for posting the Obama talking points. It took up much space. It's not worth much. Here are some facts, from Factcheck.org about Romney's record as governor:
[h=1]Obama Twists Romney’s Economic Record[/h]Obama campaign ad takes aim at Romney's time as Massachusetts governor.
[h=2]Summary[/h]A new ad from the Obama campaign takes aim at Mitt Romney’s performance as governor of Massachusetts, claiming he had “one of the worst economic records in the country.” But the ad overreaches with several of its claims.
- The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.
- The ad’s claim that Romney “cut taxes for millionaires” isn’t as black-and-white as billed. Romney opposed a plan to impose a capital gains tax retroactively, insisting on delaying the hike eight months. That’s different than pushing for a tax cut.
- The ad claims that Romney raised taxes on the middle class. It’s true that Romney imposed a number of fees, but none of them targeted middle-income persons. Also, Romney proposed cutting the state income tax three times — a measure that would have resulted in tax cuts for all taxpayers — but he was rebuffed every time by the state’s Democratic Legislature.
- The ad claims Romney “left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt.” It’s true that long-term bond debt — used for capital improvements — rose under Romney, as it had in the years before he took office. But Romney wasn’t piling up yearly deficits to support operating expenses the way the federal government is, because Massachusetts requires balanced budgets.
- The ad claims that when Romney was governor, “Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average.” That’s close to true, but the state lost a greater number of manufacturing jobs in the four years before Romney took office, and more in the four years after he left. In fact, the rate of job loss in manufacturing slowed during Romney’s time as governor.
- The ad claims Romney “outsourced call center jobs to India.” Not exactly. What he did was veto a measure that would have prevented the state from doing business with a state contractor that was locating state customer-service calls in India. Democrats who controlled the Legislature could have overridden the veto, but didn’t. The veto was supported by leading newspapers as a savings to taxpayers.
Massachusetts ‘Fell’ to 47th?
The ad puts a new twist on a well-worn statistic used by Democrats (and by Republican rivals during the primary) that when Romney was governor, Massachusetts “fell to 47th in job creation.” It’s true that over Romney’s four years as governor, the state ranked 47th out of 50 states in percentage of job growth. It had ranked 37th in the four years prior. And it’s also true that Massachusetts added only 49,100 net jobs for an increase of about 1.5 percent, which was far slower than the national average of 5.3 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But there’s another way to look at the numbers.We looked at BLS figures for each year of Romney’s tenure. (This is tricky business. State rankings can shift depending on which start and stop dates one selects. We looked at January to January, seasonally adjusted figures to coincide most closely to when Romney took office Jan. 2, 2003 and left office Jan. 4, 2007). In the 12 months before he took office, the state ranked 50th in job creation, and for his first 12 months in office, that remained 50th. But by his final year the state ranked 28th. That’s still mediocre, but an improvement, and not a decline, as the ad would lead viewers to believe.
It’s a point made by Romney backers — including campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom on ABC’s“This Week” on June 3., and senior adviser Ed Gillespie on “Fox News Sunday” the same day. But they exaggerate slightly by comparing Romney’s first year to his last, and by saying he went from 50th to 30th. But that would absolve Romney of all responsibility for job creation in his first year, a concession Republicans never grant to Obama.
The year before Romney took office, employment in Massachusetts fell by 1.84 percent. That put it in 50th, dead last. Massachusetts remained 50th in Romney’s first year, but the ranking steadily improved year by year. In Romney’s last year in office, the state saw a 1.32 percent increase in jobs, ranking Massachusetts 28th. Again, those are one-year snapshots as opposed to the cumulative four-year number.
Our fact-checking colleagues at the Washington Post put together a chart comparing the jobs records of Obama, as president, and Romney, as Massachusetts governor, at similar points in their terms of office. Ironically, what the chart shows is a fairly similar trajectory under both men.
Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, June 1: The similarities are actually more striking than the differences. Both men took office as the economy was plunging, but the hole (in percentage terms) turned out to be much deeper for Obama. The jobs picture started to turn around for both men at about the same time, but because Romney’s job deficit was comparatively smaller, he moved into positive territory sooner — though it still took him 36 months.
Voters have been bombarded with jobs statistics throughout this campaign season and that doesn’t seem likely to abate any time soon. What should be clear by now is that jobs data can be sliced in many different ways to suit one’s purposes. And we will offer our usual caveat that most economic experts we speak to caution not to put too much weight on blaming or praising governors for state jobs statistics.
“The governor has very little control over our local economy,” said Michael Widmer, of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “The numbers are the numbers, but the larger reality is that these external forces are what really drove it. The numbers reflect larger economic realities.”
Tax Cuts for Millionaires?
The ad claims that as governor, Romney “cut taxes for millionaires like himself.” Like many political claims, there’s a grain of something here, but it’s not as black-and-white as the ad suggests. More accurately, Romney delayed for one year a proposed retroactive tax hike that disproportionately hit the wealthy. We’ll explain.In 2002, before Romney became governor, the Legislature enacted a package of tax increases to deal with a deficit crisis. The package included a capital gains tax that was slated to go into effect in May 2002. But that tax was challenged in court and the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ultimately struck down the tax, ruling that it was unconstitutional for the tax to go into effect halfway through the year. That left the state Legislature with two possible remedies: have the tax kick in on Jan. 1, 2003 — and refund eight months’ worth of capital gains tax revenue — or make it retroactive to Jan. 1., 2002, adding another four months’ worth of tax revenue. The Democratic Legislature decided to make it retroactive to the start of 2002.
The Boston Globe reported that as a result, 48,000 taxpayers got a tax bill seeking the additional four months’ capital gains taxes, retroactively. The amount owed was an average of $4,200 each. About $78 million was owed by just 278 wealthy people who would have to pay an average of $281,000 each, theGlobe reported. So that’s where the ad’s claim about tax cuts for millionaires comes from.
Romney argued it was unfair for people who made decisions, like selling their home, based on the tax law in place at the time to be forced to retroactively buck up. Romney argued that “the state made a mistake, and in all fairness, we have to make sure that people are not taxed retroactively.” He proposedthat anyone who paid the tax in 2002 get a rebate.
The Boston Globe’s editorial page said it was simply the right thing to do. The nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation also urged the state Legislature to refund the 2002 money.
The Legislature was inundated with angry letters from folks who got notices of their retroactive tax bills. And in December 2005, Senate President Robert Travaglini and House Speaker Sal DiMasi, both Democrats, said folks could ignore those tax bills.
According to the Boston Herald, “Travaglini and DiMasi said they weren’t caving to public outrage over the issue — just trying to right a wrong.”
“It’s based on fairness,” Travaglini said.
Romney promptly signed legislation to refund any increased tax paid in 2002 and have the tax hike begin in 2003, and he vowed to donate anything he received back to charity. And, we should note, the tax was still in effect from 2003 forward.
Raised Taxes on the Middle Class?
The Obama ad claims that Romney cut taxes for the wealthy, “while raising them on the middle class.”Although Romney opposed across-the-board tax increases, he did raise a number of fees. In 2003, Romney doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline. All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year.
But none of those fees specifically targeted the middle class, or even fell more heavily on the middle class. In fact, some of them — such as boat registration fees — probably fell more on the wealthy. The most revenue came from a fee on registering a deed with the state when you purchase a home. That certainly hit middle-income taxpayers, but also wealthy and lower-income people.
We should also note that in 2004, 2005 and 2006, Romney proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent — which would have provided a bit of tax relief to everyone, including the middle class. In every case, his efforts were rebuffed by the Democratic Legislature.
You can read more:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/
Come on, DD. You know better than quoting entire posts. The mods don't like this & have threatened to ban people for this kind of stuff.
I read the link. It's funny. All the author is saying is what Paul Ryan is saying is not so, without offering one source or fact to prove that Ryan is not telling the truth.
The author does this at every point, even saying that Obama is not blaming Bush, but to this day Obama blames Bush.
The author in this link is like a 5-year-old kid sticking his tongue out saying "Nah, nah, nah, nah nah, Paul Ryan is a liar. Cause I say so."
This link is rubbish. Can't you do better?
Come on, DD. You know better than quoting entire posts. The mods don't like this & have threatened to ban people for this kind of stuff.
Doc, a double standard. How about Merlot? You don't say anything about him.
How come you are threatening me? You don't like what I say?
Besides, my post was in response to his post, which was a quote of an entire article.
Honestly guys, I intend to do whatever I can so political threads are no longer allowed on MERB.
The only other option could possibly be a separate section, like the sports section but, since the intensity of political threads goes beyond the effect of who's the best goalie, as far as the importance the topic have on society, I don't think the separate section is a good idea. To top it off, moderators simply don't have time to moderate such section.
There's a few of these political threads active at this time and anybody reading the first few posts don't need to read the remaining of the thread: they all go round-and-round.
MERB is a board that's supposed to be about the sex industry and MERB does very well without political threads. I don't see any gains to allow them, only problems. There are plenty of boards about political topics for those who want to discuss such matter. There's already a sport forum that goes
Lately, moderators spend more time revising political threads than they do on sex-related stuff. That's not normal.
Thanks
The only other option could possibly be a separate section, like the sports section but, since the intensity of political threads goes beyond the effect of who's the best goalie, as far as the importance the topic have on society, I don't think the separate section is a good idea. To top it off, moderators simply don't have time to moderate such section.
There's a few of these political threads active at this time and anybody reading the first few posts don't need to read the remaining of the thread: they all go round-and-round.
MERB is a board that's supposed to be about the sex industry and MERB does very well without political threads. I don't see any gains to allow them, only problems. There are plenty of boards about political topics for those who want to discuss such matter. There's already a sport forum that goes
Lately, moderators spend more time revising political threads than they do on sex-related stuff. That's not normal.
Thanks
Say what?? Where did i threaten you? I'm not a mod, have never been one, and never will be one.
All i said was that mods have in the past threatened to suspend people using long quotes in their posts. Merlot knows how they & I feel about this, so i didn't have to address him. Don't take it so personal, i was just pointing this out in a friendly way.
p.s. DD, i welcome your input in any thread you post in. We don't always have to agree on things, but i respect you and your views, whether different from mine or not.
Maybe then you might as well consider shutting down the entire board.
Just because you don't think people should discuss politics on a board such as this one doesn't mean that you're correct. A sex board such as this needs other topics in order to attract people & encourage people to post. People would get bored surfing here if the board would be dedicated entirely to sex since there aren't enough posts made about the escort business in order to keep the traffic from coming, and there comes a time where you need to look elsewhere in order to keep it interesting to surf to.
Take a look at Terb....a board that brings in close to $1 million to its creator, who also happens to own this very one here....there are much more different topics than this one here, but the traffic there is immense & its popularity is huge.
So far, i think the political threads have been rather civil considering they are threads involving politics.
My personal belief as a decade-long proud member of Merb is that the more threads we have dealing in various topics, the more value it brings to the board. And considering that this is a time when discussing politics is at a 3 to 4-year high, then it's normal that members enjoy discussing political topics on a board such as this one. Why? Because they share a love of this board.
Now that has infinitely more credibility than spouting dogma. Good job. But how can anyone think that using the person in question promoting himself is creditable!
True,
Believe me, I've been holding back from more posts because that's all it is. It's the same reason I'm now largely absent from the sport threads. Maybe it should be restricted to Canadian politics despite large American participation on the board to cut down the finger pointing cycle. You will get enough work with Canadian issue alone.
It would also be a great idea to ELIMINATE the free-for-alls completely. I'm sure the mods have noticed it has only helped to increase bitter feelings on all sides. They've been a bad idea from the start, failing to release tensions and instead magnifying it.
Good luck,
Merlot
Give me a break. No one's insulting anyone and whatever happens in these threads isn't carrying over into other parts of the board. I hardly bother coming here anymore because the board has gotten so fucking boring! Finally there's a few threads that actually get a bit of action going and people posting and you want to close them? I miss the good old days with the down and dirty political discussions with GG but I don't think any of the mods today were even around then. This place has become so dull and antiseptic that it might as well be a Republican bible study board.
I have a suggestion for the mods...why don't you do what you always tell everyone else to do? If you don't like a topic, then don't read it. Check to see if the rules are being broken and if they aren't then just let everyone have their fun. People who can't take the heat don't have to post or read the threads they don't like. You know...act like adults?
PEople come here to have some fun. How about letting them for a change?
I have a suggestion for the mods...why don't you do what you always tell everyone else to do? If you don't like a topic, then don't read it. Check to see if the rules are being broken and if they aren't then just let everyone have their fun. People who can't take the heat don't have to post or read the threads they don't like. You know...act like adults?
PEople come here to have some fun. How about letting them for a change?
