Getting back to the prior discussion. Apologize in advance for the long read.
@ TheWalrus -You should be one to talk since most of your snarky comments could be found inside a fortune cookie. Even so, just know I respect you as a fellow finfan.LOL. Where'd you get this from? A vending machine at the RNC?
@ dolphins9954 - If I was Glenn Beck, I would charge you for my opinions. So to answer your question, no.
Hate to burst your bubble, but it is a two-party system. It has been for some time. Realizing that, you have to find the candidate that is most aligned with your views, and try to change the party from within. That's not Obama, and I don't see Progressivism as ever being compatible with Libertarianism.
I'll tell you what, though, I will buy you a beer if ever a true Libertarian becomes POTUS.
Just don't tell me how to "lean", because that wouldn't be very Libertarian of you.
@ phins_4_ever -
There are differences. For starters, one was issued at a state-level and the other would be instituted on a national level. This is huge only in that Romneycare relied on Federal Support to help pay for it. Not exactly sure where the Federal Government is going to go to pay for it when Obamacare goes broke.a) Obamacare is Romneycare and vice versa.
Mitt was trying appease Democrats with the creation of Romneycare. The result was a bipartisan effort, which Mitt later admitted was a mistake. This is what he gets for reaching across the aisle.
So why would the POTUS create a model of healthcare based on one that was admittedly flawed? Seems pretty dumb. At least Mitt learns from mistakes made, even if he did have the best intentions.
Here's a quick overview contrasting the two as well from the guy running against Obamacare.
Nicely glossed over.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.
If it was so easy to fix, why was it necessary to call in Romney to fix the problem? Anyone can simply ask for federal tax dollars especially for something like the Olympics right?
Let's look at the situation.
In the aftermath of a bribery scandal surrounding the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, an inquiry held in camera expelled several IOC members, but cleared Samaranch [President of the IOC] of wrongdoing. Samaranch set up a commission to investigate the corruption and introduced reform of the bid process as a result of the scandal.
In 2001, Samaranch did not apply for the presidency again.
Interesting that the IOC President quit just before the Olympic Games. Maybe it was too much for him to handle. Again, a point of emphasis, the Olympics would likely have left the states if not for Mitt's intervention. He obviously new how to handle things with the IOC better than Obama bringing the Olympics to Chicago.
The Games had also been damaged by allegations of bribery against top officials including prior committee president and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and committee vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.
Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government provided between approximately $400 million and $600 million of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies.
So you conveniently leave out that $300 million were in part to help with security that resulted under the special circumstances of 9-11. It's odd there is no exact amount when it comes to millions of dollars provided by Uncle Sam, because to our Federal government that is small potatoes. However, when you look at the over all budget, that is in the billion column, again there was a lot money to be made up and millions of dollars given by the Fed does seem like that much especially when security made up half that.
According to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (despite this being a partisan source, the figures below are simply facts)
When Mitt Romney came on board, the budget for the 2002 Olympics was $1.45 billion, but it was $380 million in deficit.
To cut to the chase on the numbers, Romney cut $200 million out of the budget (a 15% cut) and finished $100 million in the black...
For example, having a daily "Olympic Newspaper..." Why not let the papers in Salt Lake City handle that job? And so they did.
No limos for VIPS. No lavish hotel suites or parties for the IOC or anyone else. All business.
Romney also donated each of his three years' of salary - $275,000 per year - to charity? Additionally, he personally donated about $1,000,000 of his personal money to the Olympics.
c) Mitt as governor????
So he got lucky because of his predecessor implemented a capital gains tax and he himself enacted additional fees and removed corporate tax loopholes.
Just clicked on a random citation from your "wiki" research to come up with these nuggets.
Romney attempted to do good:
Every annual budget Romney proposed contained the income tax cut, but the Legislature failed each time to give it any serious consideration.
The failed proposals included civil service reform and cutting bureaucracy in transportation, higher education and the courts. Romney pegged the waste and inefficiency at $1 billion.
Democrats controlled more than 80 percent of seats in the house and senate, far more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a Romney veto.
James Nuzzo, a Massachusetts Republican analyst, said it's an academic argument because no amount of grandstanding or sure-handed politicking by Romney would have made a difference.
"He never gave up on trying for an income tax rollback. They just wouldn't cooperate," said Anderson, a member of the Romney campaign's fiscal advisory board. "He talked about it often and not just as an economic issue but one that showed respect for the voters."
There's more widespread agreement that Romney was an effective check on the free-spending desires of lawmakers. The four budgets Romney had control over proposed spending 7 percent more during those four years, which is less than the rate of inflation; however his budget was amended in the legislature and ended up increasing spending 9 percent, still less than the rate inflation.
"Anyone familiar with Massachusetts government would acknowledge it's a pretty difficult place for a fiscal conservative to thrive," said Donohue, an adviser with the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.
Despite more than 20 successful years of turning around troubled private companies, however, Romney got the legislature to accept little of his efficiency/reorganization agenda.
Sounds like obstructionism on part of the state-legislative Democrats if you ask me. Here I thought the Republicans were the only ones that did that according to what I read online.
Despite such objections by Mitt's oppenents, however, he was able to:
The state of Massachusetts took in about $18 billion in revenue in Romney's final year in office.
At any event, Massachusetts' ranking on state tax burden improved during that period from sixth highest the year Romney took office to 11th when he left.
At the height of the capital gains tax battle, Romney's office sent notices to all the affected residents about the impending increase, which clogged the legislative switchboard with hundreds of irate callers.
"Due to the public pressure applied, Governor Romney was able to get the legislature to back down. That was a huge political victory for him," said Romney Communications Director Erik Fehrnstrom.
Regarding Unemployment (going back to the original wiki):
Why bold?:the state lagged behind the rest of the nation in job growth and employment.
Only to have it negated by the following line in your list of damning facts and figures.
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.
As for Romney's popularity:
A. Massachusetts = Blue State
B. Romney was seen as an outsider, and sadly not one of the Boston cronies.
The frequent out-of-state travel contributed to a decline in Romney's approval rating towards the end of his term;
C. The economy was starting to take a turn for the worst nationally. Usually those in power get blamed.
It's a business. What about it? (again from wiki)
In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.
Romney was an entrepreneur and started a business. Good for him.
The firm's first significant success was a 1986 investment to help start Staples Inc.
That company has done alright, and has helped to created jobs. They have this little arena in Los Angeles if I recall.
The firm invested in or acquired Accuride, Brookstone,Domino's Pizza, Sealy Corporation, Sports Authority, and Artisan Entertainment, as well as some lesser-known companies in the industrial and medical sectors.
Looks like I can thank Mitt for making my high school summer job at Domino's possible.
In 1990, facing financial collapse, Bain & Company asked Romney to return. He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991, drawing a symbolic salary of one dollar (he remained managing general partner of Bain Capital during this time). He managed an effort to restructure Bain & Company's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while rallying the firm's one thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bain and the other founding partners giving up control, and increasing fiscal transparency.
Mitt to the rescue, yet again. Not seeing the problem.
I know what the counter-argument is. What about all those people that got laid off? Honestly, show me a company that has never laid off people. As for some unscrupulous companies that they did business with. A company of Bain's size is bound to make some bad decisions, but none of it directly reflects on Mitt Romney.
At this point I don't expect to change anyone's mind. It seems like they are made up at this point. I enjoyed doing a little more reading on the Mitt concerning his drawbacks and strengths. I know a lot of people that think Obama and Romney are one of the same. I like to think even if the candidates are not "ideal" that there is still one that is superior.
Again I like to play the role of the contrarian, and after the effort put into this post, I may just stick to the football forums for awhile.