Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: 100 Reason To Vote For Mitt Romney Or Against Barack Obama

  1. -21
    LouPhinFan's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2006
    Posts:
    5,100
    vCash:
    8135
    Loc:
    Louisville, KY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post
    Romney is basically the GOP version of Kerry in 2004.
    Pretty much.

    I think it's real telling about how America thinks Obama has done by the fact that Obama still has to campaign pretty hard in the battle ground states. Had he been a half way decent president he could be on cruise control right now but he's still having to do some work. He should be mopping the floor with Romney but he's not.

    Obama will win in November but it won't be by the margin he should have if he was at the very least an average president.
    Insert pithy saying here.

    Quote Quote  

  2. -22
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,873
    vCash:
    3346
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Mitt Romney borrows money from the federal government to help save the winter olympics=hero.
    Barack Obama passes any sort of policy at all during his Presidency=socialist.

    Funny how that works. I was going to go through the top 10 that Troganfin listed and rip them apart like they so deserve, but its just to absurd. Paul Ryan actively tries to fire Obama and Obama's "body language" is a cause for concern. I will remember that though, the body language thing, the next time i see a Republican call Obama a socialist foreigner who eats dogs.

    Its depressing that no conservative can sit here and rationally talk about how a Mitt Romney Presidency will be a good thing. How his policies are sound and his leadership would be consistent. Instead we get crap like "A democratic president acted like a democrat! Gawd!" and "Romney believes in American Exceptionalism!!!"(with the same words that Obama would describe American Exceptionalism). Buzzwords, innuendo, negative attacks, constant constant constant deflections away from why Romney would be decent and instead direct the conversation about how bad Obama is.....it just never changes. Its enough to start making me think Obama was a great President. If he wasnt, wouldnt Republicans be able to tell me how they would do things differently?

    If there was ever a visual representation of the point ive been making, this is the thread. 7 of the first 10 points in TrojanFin's post started with the word "Obama". 70%. And yet we are suppose to vote Romney into the most powerful position on the planet. Just trust him. Right.
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  3. -23
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,873
    vCash:
    3346
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo View Post
    Ignoring the first "I'm such a victim" comment, looking at what he said, I can tell you exactly why Romney is in trouble in this election: A real contender would have his economic plan as number one, not some rhetorical nonsense like "exceptionalism."

    The economy is Obama's weakest point at the moment, regardless of whether it's all his doing. A good challenger would be going after that, not this exceptionalism and "Obama is arrogant" nonsense (Romney isn't arrogant? Bull****.). You want to know why it's hard to have a real conversation about this election? It's because of **** like this. My vote could go either way at this point, but what are some REAL reasons to vote for Romney? I care about the economy. I care about ensuring every single American (EVERY SINGLE ONE) has access to affordable healthcare. I care about getting us out of these expensive and pointless wars and not starting more. I don't think I'm in the minority in this. I also need more than "well, Romney isn't Obama." Actually, in the areas I care about, he IS Obama.

    The corporations are the primary concern of both. Not me. Not the average American. Things I don't care about? Gay marriage. Abortion issues. Whether "god" is in the pledge of allegiance. Christmas. Building some useless wall on the border. Anything to do with any church. Phantom voter fraud. If he stuck to the economy and provided how he plans on fixing it rather than simply saying "I'm not Obama," he would have more than a chance at winning. Instead he's going to make me choose between his social views and Obama's, between the odds of going into more wars with him vs Obama. He's going to lose that battle. Hell, at this rate, I'm voting for Bill Clinton.

    Obama is beatable, but if you are expecting to win with the rhetorical bull**** that makes up the top ten (can only imagine what the other 90 are), you are wasting your and everybody else's time.

    And Republicans can't talk about being partisan. This Congress was a complete waste. They refused to work on ANYTHING bipartisan. Their sole goal wasn't the betterment of the American people, it was "stop any and everything the other side puts forth, no matter what it is." Hypocrites.

    So, if you are going to come in here and spew the usual rhetorical B.S., you are going to be disappointed. But if you want to have a good discussion about stuff that actually matters, welcome! The more the merrier. It's unfortunate that several left because they could only rely on the former and didn't like it when they were challenged on it.
    You win the forum.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -24
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1152
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.

    Guess what... yes there is a lot of Obama bashing from the his opponent, because he is after all the incumbent. That's how it works. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was the same deal.
    Romney has never been president, but he did a good job as governor in Massachusetts. He has taken on more responsibility and has a proven track record. He worked with Democrats to get things done. He turned things around. If you want something pro-Romney as opposed to anti-Obama here you go:

    By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3]Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4]. He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5]
    Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] nearly $1 billion in 2005[9a],[9b],[9c] and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes.[10] By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [12]
    The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

    http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm



    Ask yourself how stimulus money has positively impacted your lives. How the creation of 159 new federal agencies due to Obamacare could possibly be a good thing? How does caving-in to union pressure (Rahm Emanuel style) helps to bring down government costs to a country that is already hemorrhaging massive debt? How does not meeting with foreign leaders can possibly help with diplomacy related issues?

    Obama = more government intervention in your lives (the very definition of socialism) - examples are Obamacare/the Auto bailout/numerous regulations (see environmental regulations or restrictions on drilling for example)

    Romney = reducing the size of what has become a bloated government - starting with Obamacare

    If you have ever complained about the DMV, the Post Office, fought a traffic ticket, etc. You realize how inefficient or how poorly run the government can be. Now imagine if that same aggravation made up 90% of your daily life.

    I lean libertarian, and I want the guy that wants less government in my life, rather than more. That's obviously not Obama, so yes by default that would be Romney.


    Here's the response I am expecting to get.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg
    Last edited by TrojanFin; 09-28-2012 at 09:24 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -25
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,294
    vCash:
    30622
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.

    Guess what... yes there is a lot of Obama bashing from the his opponent, because he is after all the incumbent. That's how it works. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was the same deal.
    Romney has never been president, but he did a good job as governor in Massachusetts. He has taken on more responsibility and has a proven track record. He worked with Democrats to get things done. He turned things around. If you want something pro-Romney as opposed to anti-Obama here you go:

    By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3]Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4]. He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5]
    Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] nearly $1 billion in 2005[9a],[9b],[9c] and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes.[10] By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [12]
    The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

    http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm



    Ask yourself how stimulus money has positively impacted your lives. How the creation of 159 new federal agencies due to Obamacare could possibly be a good thing? How does caving-in to union pressure (Rahm Emanuel style) helps to bring down government costs to a country that is already hemorrhaging massive debt? How does not meeting with foreign leaders can possibly help with diplomacy related issues?

    Obama = more government intervention in your lives (the very definition of socialism) - examples are Obamacare/the Auto bailout/numerous regulations (see environmental regulations or restrictions on drilling for example)

    Romney = reducing the size of what has become a bloated government - starting with Obamacare

    If you have ever complained about the DMV, the Post Office, fought a traffic ticket, etc. You realize how inefficient or how poorly run the government can be. Now imagine if that same aggravation made up 90% of your daily life.

    I lean libertarian, and I want the guy that wants less government in my life, rather than more. That's obviously not Obama, so yes by default that would be Romney.


    Here's the response I am expect to get.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg
    LOL. Where'd you get this from? A vending machine at the RNC?
    Quote Quote  

  6. -26
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,855
    vCash:
    19329
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.

    Guess what... yes there is a lot of Obama bashing from the his opponent, because he is after all the incumbent. That's how it works. When Bush ran against Kerry, it was the same deal.
    Romney has never been president, but he did a good job as governor in Massachusetts. He has taken on more responsibility and has a proven track record. He worked with Democrats to get things done. He turned things around. If you want something pro-Romney as opposed to anti-Obama here you go:

    By the time Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the upcoming state budget for that year would have a structural deficit of nearly $3 billion if the budget was not cut. [3]Furthermore, the existing budget passed the previous year, that would be in effect for several more months, had a projected total deficit of approximately $1.2 billion [4]. He inherited about a $650 million deficit in that budget by the time he took office. [5]
    Governor Romney convinced the legislature to allow him to immediately make changes to the existing budget. He immediately slashed spending and balanced that budget. [6] He then balanced each of the four annual budgets he created. He was dealing with a veto-proof legislature that was 85% democrat, but he was able to 'hold the line on all the spending that the democrats up there wanted to do.' [7] The budgets he submitted, fought for and succeeded in obtaining not only were balanced each year, but provided a surplus of $700 million in 2004, [8] nearly $1 billion in 2005[9a],[9b],[9c] and a surplus of $700 million in 2006. He balanced the budget every year without raising taxes.[10] By the end of his term, he had taken "Massachusetts from billions in deficit to billions in surplus". [11] He turned in a $2 billion rainy day fund at the end of his term in office. [12]
    The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

    http://www.aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm



    Ask yourself how stimulus money has positively impacted your lives. How the creation of 159 new federal agencies due to Obamacare could possibly be a good thing? How does caving-in to union pressure (Rahm Emanuel style) helps to bring down government costs to a country that is already hemorrhaging massive debt? How does not meeting with foreign leaders can possibly help with diplomacy related issues?

    Obama = more government intervention in your lives (the very definition of socialism) - examples are Obamacare/the Auto bailout/numerous regulations (see environmental regulations or restrictions on drilling for example)

    Romney = reducing the size of what has become a bloated government - starting with Obamacare

    If you have ever complained about the DMV, the Post Office, fought a traffic ticket, etc. You realize how inefficient or how poorly run the government can be. Now imagine if that same aggravation made up 90% of your daily life.

    I lean libertarian, and I want the guy that wants less government in my life, rather than more. That's obviously not Obama, so yes by default that would be Romney.


    Here's the response I am expect to get.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg
    a) Obamacare is Romneycare and vice versa.

    b) Olympics: The Olympic ran about 390 Million dollars in the minus. Romeny lobbied and got between 400 Million and 600 Million from Congress - THE FEDERAL F****** GOVERNMENT.
    Before Romney took the position, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks.[147] Plans were being made to scale back the Games to compensate for the fiscal crisis, and there were fears they might be moved away entirely
    The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[146][151][152] and $600 million[153][154] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.[154][155] It was a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics.[152][155] An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came in the form of highway and transit projects.[156]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Ro...inter_Olympics

    c) Mitt as governor????
    Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, he faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year.[163] Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion.[186][187] Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, the state ran surpluses of around $600–700 million for the last two full fiscal years Romney was in office, although it began running deficits again after that.
    So he got lucky because of his predecessor implemented a capital gains tax and he himself enacted additional fees and removed corporate tax loopholes. No kidding.

    Romney supported raising various fees, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses, to raise more than $300 million.[163][186] He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.[163][186] Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[186] Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.[163][192][193] He did so in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases.[192][193]
    Let me see: cut the expenses and increase the revenue. Sounds like Obama last summer and his idea which was tossed by Ryan and the rest of the Republican crapolas.

    And how much to the people in Mass love Romney?

    The governor had a 61 percent job approval rating in public polls after his initial fiscal actions in 2003, but it began to sink after that.[218] The frequent out-of-state travel contributed to a decline in Romney's approval rating towards the end of his term;[218][219] at 34 percent in November 2006, his rating level ranked 48th of the 50 U.S. governors.[220] Dissatisfaction with Romney's administration and the weak condition of the Republican state party were among several factors that led to Democrat Deval Patrick's 20-point win over Republican Kerry Healey, Romney's Lieutenant Governor, in the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election.[219][221]
    Here is a Romney summary on some issues:

    Unemployment and new jobs creation

    Romney’s term as governor fell during a respite between two nationwide economic recessions.[33] When he took office in early 2003, the nation as a whole was still suffering the effects of the early 2000s recession. Massachusetts was losing manufacturing jobs, and, with an economy heavily dependent on the technology sector, had been badly shaken by the dot-com bubble collapse.[34][35][36] When the national economy eventually began to improve, the state lagged behind the rest of the nation in job growth and employment.[37]

    Job growth in Massachusetts rose at a rate of 1.5 percent (compared to the national average of 5.3 percent), placing Massachusetts 47th of the 50 states in new job creation over the course of Romney’s term.[38] The annual rate of job growth was improving by his last year in office, moving Massachusetts up from last place nationally to 28th.[38][39]
    Economists note that governors generally have relatively little impact on their states' employment numbers, good or bad, as these are dominated by forces beyond their control.[38][39] The statewide health care reforms that Romney helped enact, and signed into law in April 2006, exemplified the state's national leadership role in that industry; overall, there was a 7.6 percent increase in job growth in healthcare and social assistance positions during Romney's term, the strongest growth during that time of any sector.[35] Romney also personally intervened to help attract to the state, or maintain within the state, several large employers, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Gillette division of Procter & Gamble.[36] However, some business leaders said Romney’s policies that increased fees and corporate tax revenue drove up business costs and may have weakened job growth.[35]

    On average, unemployment rates were slightly worse in the rest of the nation than in Massachusetts for the first three years of Romney’s term.[33][36] By his final year in office, the state was struggling to keep pace with the rate of falling unemployment nationwide.[33] Massachusetts’ national ranking leapt from the 29th highest in unemployment when Romney took office to the 18th by the end of his term.[33]
    Unemployment in Massachusetts rose during Romney’s first year from a rate of 5.6 percent in January 2003, when he took office, to a peak of 6.0 percent in mid 2003.[40] It then steadily declined over the remainder of his term, ending at 4.6 percent in January 2007,[40] his last month as governor, for a net improvement in unemployment of 1.0 percent.[33] Much of the improvement in unemployment was due to the loss of working-age adults who moved away from Massachusetts during the period (as the size of the population shrinks, there are fewer job seekers, so the unemployment rate falls).[34][36] Massachusetts experienced one of the highest levels of net out-migration of any state during Romney's term.[34][36]
    Fiscal policy

    During the campaign for the governorship in 2002, Romney proposed a plan that he said would balance the Massachusetts budget without raising taxes.[2] However, he refused to sign a pledge from the Massachusetts-based Citizens for Limited Taxation to not raise taxes, saying that he was against tax increases in general but did not intend to make a commitment that would prevent him from considering all options necessary to address the revenue needs of the state.[5][6] (On December 31, 2006, with his term about to end, he did sign a similar anti-tax pledge put forth by Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, as part of his soon-to-start presidential campaign.[5])
    Upon entering office, Romney faced an immediate budget shortfall for the current fiscal year and a deficit for the following year initially projected to be $3 billion, although outside analysts and the state Department of Revenue said that that projection was too high, as it was based on faulty revenue predictions.[7] (Massachusetts' fiscal year begins July 1 of the preceding calendar year.) To close the deficits, he asked for, and was granted by the state legislature, emergency powers (under the existing Section "9C" authority in state law) to make cuts in the fiscal year 2003 budget. Romney cut spending and restructured state government.[8] Romney, in concert with the legislature, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses and firearm licenses, increased fees for many other state licenses and services as well as creating new fees. In all 33 new fees were created and 57 fees were increased, including some that had not been adjusted in over a decade. Some of these were service fees, such as charging businesses more to put up signs. Opponents said the reliance on fees imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[9] The state of Massachusetts thereby raised $501 million in new income in Romneys' first year, more than any other state in the nation (New York was second with $367 million). Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.[10][11] He also increased a state gasoline fee originally intended for cleanup of contamination around underground fuel storage tanks.[3] This two cents per gallon increase made for a total effective state gasoline tax of 23.5 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue and surpluses of $40 million over the costs of the cleanup program.[3]
    Romney also implemented a "New Market Tax Credit"[12] and extended the "Investment Tax Credit" during 2003.[13]
    The additional revenue from a capital gains tax increase that had been enacted prior to Romney's taking office reduced the projected deficit by $1.3 billion. Romney approved $128 million in tax changes and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes".[3][7][14][15] Specific changes and 'loophole' closures included preventing corporations from assigning income from "intangible" assets such as trademarks to low-tax states, preventing some corporations from avoiding taxes through paper restructurings, requiring businesses that only traded securities to pay the same tax rates as of other businesses, applying sales taxes to goods bought and modified out of state before being brought in-state, eliminating a tax break of the printing of huge store catalogs, and taxing sales of software downloaded over the internet (which had previously gone untaxed) the same as software purchased on CDs bought in brick-and-mortar stores.[14][16]
    Over his full term, over $300 million of such loopholes were closed.[3][15] The loophole actions, fueled by Romney's sense of rectitude in the face of conservative and corporate critics, initially won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage, before Romney backed away from further closings towards the end of his term.[15] The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[17] In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools. This had the effect of causing property taxes to rise by five percent, their highest level in 25 years in Massachusetts.[18] In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners.[19]
    Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus.[20] Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus.[3][21] For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.[21] The state's "rainy day fund", more formally known as the Stabilization Fund, was replenished through government consolidation and reform. At the close of fiscal year 2006, the fund enjoyed a $2.155 billion balance.[21]
    Romney would declare, "We have successfully closed the largest deficit in our state's history without raising taxes,"[22] although others disputed the claim on the grounds that usage fees had gone up.
    As the state's fiscal outlook improved, Romney repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, urged the legislature to reduce the state income tax from a flat rate of 5.3 percent to 5.0 percent.[23] (In 2000, voters had approved a gradual reduction in the income tax from 5.85 to 5.0 percent; but as an emergency measure in response to the fiscal crisis, the legislature had halted the rollback at 5.3 percent in 2002.[23]) He also proposed a "tax-free shopping day",[24] a property tax relief for Seniors,[25] and a manufacturing tax credit.
    In 2006, the Massachusetts legislature approved a budget for fiscal year 2007 that required spending $450 million from the rainy day fund. Even though the state had collected a record-breaking amount of tax revenue in the fiscal year,[26] the funds were needed to cover the increased spending. Romney vetoed the transfer of funds from the contingency account. The veto was overturned by the legislature, and indeed for the 2006 budget, all 250 line-item vetoes were overturned, and for the entire year of 2006, all of Romney's vetoes of legislative bills were subsequently overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature.[15][27] In November 2006, Romney then used his emergency budget-revision authority to cut the $450 million from the budget, saying: "One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced. The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we're looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before."[28] Later, he restored some of that amount.[29]
    Upon leaving office in January 2007 (the middle of fiscal year 2007), Romney argued that he had left the state with a large budget surplus, after he cut hundreds of millions of dollars of programs. However, upon taking office, successor Governor Deval Patrick said there would be a $1 billion deficit for fiscal 2008 if existing service levels were carried over into the next year's budget.[30] At the same time, Patrick restored $384 million in the emergency budgetary authority spending cuts for fiscal 2007 that Romney had made.[29] The budget for fiscal 2008 that Patrick submitted in February 2007 included $515 million in spending cuts and $295 million in new corporate taxes.[31] As it happened, fiscal 2007 ended with a $307.1 million deficit and fiscal 2008 ended with a $495.2 million deficit.[21]
    The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship.[3] According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, from 2002 to 2006 the average rate of state and local taxes in Massachusetts rose from 9.6 percent to 10.2 percent (compared to the national rate, which rose from 9.5 percent to 9.7 percent).[32]
    This is your candidate....
    Want me to start Bain as well?

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    I am Phins_4_Ever and I approve this message
    Quote Quote  

  7. -27
    phinfan3411's Avatar
    pofo mofo

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,628
    vCash:
    3792
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I'll give it a try, i have a very hard time listening to people who actually think one of these two parties is the "one", ignoring the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence of both being so corrupt, and only interested in helping themselves, drives me crazy.

    I think Obama is terrible, the fact that he has support is mind blowing.

    I think Romney is almost a carbon copy of Obama, and will change nothing.

    I will be voting for Gary Johnson, and do not get me started on that being a empty gesture, or throwing a vote away, that is exactly what the failed two parties want you to think, hoping everyone will forget how close a third party candidate came to winning just twenty years ago.

    Throwing that aside, thought Andrew Cuomo was going to suck as the Governor of NY. He seemed to be the same type politician as all the rest, but in my opinion, although not perfect, he has been the best Governor this state has had in years.

    So, i know EXACTLY how bad Obama is, he is just as bad as most of the rest before him ( Eisenhower was the last great leader we had, in my opinion), and i THINK Romney will be the same way, but, like Cuomo, he MIGHT surprise you.

    That is the only reasonable thought i could come up with to vote Romney, but don't vote for him, vote for Johnson, and lets actually try to get change started.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -28
    Gonzo's Avatar
    Administrator

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2004
    Posts:
    20,567
    vCash:
    18438
    Loc:
    Brooklyn
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Hydra logo
Gift received at 05-21-2014, 12:20 PM from DisturbedShifty1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by phinfan3411 View Post
    I'll give it a try, i have a very hard time listening to people who actually think one of these two parties is the "one", ignoring the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence of both being so corrupt, and only interested in helping themselves, drives me crazy.

    I think Obama is terrible, the fact that he has support is mind blowing.

    I think Romney is almost a carbon copy of Obama, and will change nothing.

    I will be voting for Gary Johnson, and do not get me started on that being a empty gesture, or throwing a vote away, that is exactly what the failed two parties want you to think, hoping everyone will forget how close a third party candidate came to winning just twenty years ago.

    Throwing that aside, thought Andrew Cuomo was going to suck as the Governor of NY. He seemed to be the same type politician as all the rest, but in my opinion, although not perfect, he has been the best Governor this state has had in years.

    So, i know EXACTLY how bad Obama is, he is just as bad as most of the rest before him ( Eisenhower was the last great leader we had, in my opinion), and i THINK Romney will be the same way, but, like Cuomo, he MIGHT surprise you.

    That is the only reasonable thought i could come up with to vote Romney, but don't vote for him, vote for Johnson, and lets actually try to get change started.
    No vote is thrown away. At the very least it's a statement that you don't like the direction of the government and you don't believe either of these fools can correct it.





    Quote Quote  

  9. -29
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,873
    vCash:
    3346
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    I didn't know there was any prize to be won. I see those deciding the winners obviously have something in common with the replacement refs.
    Mitt Romney offered an ambitious plan Friday to try to forestall a recession, proposing a $250 billion economic stimulus package with sweeteners for supply-side conservatives, older Americans and corporations.

    Mr. Romney’s proposal, outlined in a telephone interview during a campaign swing through Nevada, is grounded in new, permanent income tax reductions. It is also double the size of stimulus packages offered by two of the Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and far exceeds the $145 billion plan that President Bush suggested to Congress on Friday.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/us...mney.html?_r=2&

    Romney supports bailouts(so long as their banks, and Romney tried to take credit for the auto bailout), supports government mandated universal health care, supports using the government to prevent people from voting, supports using the federal government to prevent people from getting married, supports using the federal government to prevent women from having abortions, supports using American troops to overthrown other overthrow and occupy other countries, supports an increase in spending(so long as its to the military), supports stimulus spending.....remind me again how Mitt Romney will lead to small government?

    And your right, Obama is the incumbent. His record is available to all, his direction is clear, and his plans are waiting on approval from the House(which will never happen as Republicans have publically stated their opposition towards "compromise" or, you know, governing). Its up to Romney to show the American people how his Presidency would be different. He has failed to do so. He continues to fail in that regard. I have no problem with Obama bashing....so long as i get something positive about Romney. Romney has done half that but still cant tell people why his time in office would be better. All he keeps saying is "Hey, look at how bad that other guy is!!!!". What leadership!

    Didnt you start the thread on the premise of convincing people to vote for Romney? I can understand why voting for Romney isnt considered a prize though.

    And no one voting for Romney should bring up foreign leader visits. I mean, come on...
    Quote Quote  

  10. -30
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,294
    vCash:
    30622
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    1. Romney- “American Exceptionalism”
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-04-2012, 07:05 PM
  2. Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama First Debate Preview
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2012, 08:58 AM
  3. Mitt Romney on war powers......
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2012, 05:37 PM
  4. Mitt Romney Will Not Run For Re-Election
    By Blitz in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-17-2005, 05:39 AM
  5. Who's Mitt Romney?
    By spydertl79 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2005, 02:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •