Forget Bain, Let's Talk about Massachusetts

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (89 posts)

76
Mighty Momposted 11 years ago
Finally.
Let's talk about financial experience for the job of POTUS.

Mitt Romney talks a lot about his time as a corporate buyout specialist, but you know what we don't hear very much about?

His experience as governor of Massachusetts.

That may be because he made promises to the people of his state during his '02 campaign that sound an awful lot like the ones he's making to the country today -- and he failed to deliver on them.

Just like now, he claimed his success in the private sector meant he'd be able to create jobs, cut taxes, and bring down the debt.

He did the opposite.

Even as the rest of the country was enjoying a brightening economy, during Romney's term Massachusetts plummeted to 47th out of 50 states in job creation; manufacturing jobs declined at twice the national average; and for the first time since 1995, its unemployment rate was above the national average.

Long-term debt ballooned by more than $2.6 billion -- leaving the people of Massachusetts with the highest per capita debt of any state in the nation. State spending increased every single year, and Romney raised taxes and fees by $750 million per year -- leading to a higher state and local tax burden of $1,200 for every Bay Stater. Over his term, fees at public colleges skyrocketed by 63 percent, and during his first year, K-12 schools saw the second-largest percentage cuts, per student, in the nation.

All that in just four years.

Mitt Romney promised more jobs, less debt, and smaller government for Massachusetts based solely on his experience as a corporate buyout specialist. Turns out that being good at maximizing profits for yourself and your investors, but leaving companies bankrupt and workers without jobs, doesn't exactly prepare you to lead a state -- or a country.

Yet Romney's out there making the same empty promises all over again.
The bottom line? Romney Economics didn't work for Massachusetts then, and it won't work for America now.
reply report
1. 59
  ylime120posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wow that opened my eyes quite a bit! I think Obama has a bit of the same thing going on, but more experience. Experience! I think that is what would have to guide my vote on this election year. Obama has, hopefully, learned how to better lead the nation. I also think that he did not realize how bad the economy was going to get before he joined office. But then again four years should've been enough to change things at least a bit!
  reply report
  76
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I dare say four years have opened Obama's eyes quite a bit, too!
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hardly stellar is it.
  reply report
3. 60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus.[23] Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus.[3][24] For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.[24] 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.[24]"
  
  Yeah, 4 billion in debt when he entered office and turned it into a surpluss in four years. I would love to see that kind of failurein Washington
  reply report
  74
  Fuller-Lifeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  surplus with the jobless record of third last in the nation within four years, and the highest school fees? How about outsourcing the government?
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You know how small Mass is? It can only employ so many people. When he took office unemplyment was 6.6 % when he left was 4.7%. Hmmm Wonder why unemployment went down if he did not put people to work.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And the homeless rate? and poverty level?
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  When Romney was Govenor, .25% now 2.6%, an all time high and has steadily grown over the last 2 years .Poverty was 8.9%(2007) and is now 11.9%
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you. Much appreciated.
  
  Interesting side effects for Romney's governorship.
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The result of GOP policy. Started for me in 03....
  
  Took longer for some to catch up...they had more to lose.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LMC
  
  What caught up to you under Romney? I'm real curious, isn't the fact the unemployment rate went down under Romney, or that the homeless rate went down, or that the poverty rate held level while the rest of the countries rose. Notice from the numbers I posted for CASGIL how much the homeless rate and the poverty level has risen after Romney was governor, the biggest rise within the last two years, long after Romney was gone.
  
  Yeah I guess you don't like the result of GOP policies, I guess you like high unemployment, high poverty levels, higher homeless rates, out-of-control spending, budget deficits, and since that's what it was not going on in 2003 it happened much later like you said it took time to catch up. You had to get a Democratic governor back in office to get those things you like to happen
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Poverty was 8.9%(2007) and is now 11.9%"
  
  Mine began in 03. Simple to understand.
  
  It started with the cost of food....that was the most noticeable. It was something like this: "What? $50.00 doesn't buy ANYTHING anymore!!"
  
  and it has gradually gone on from there....
  
  Higher cost of food
  gas
  heat
  electricity
  rent
  products
  necesstities
  
  you name it.
  
  And my wages.....after 11 years at job....good but not great. Certainly not enough to meet cost of living.
  
  And YET....richy-rich's incomes have grown and grown and GROWN!
  
  Listen to the people in Mass to find out about RMoney---not your stats on paper.
  Wiz had a very good link. TRUTH to power!
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LMC,
  
  So now you want to ignore stats because they go against what you spew. Facts our facts unlike the bloggers and unsubstantiated links that you post the trying get your point across.
  
  You are at your current job for 11 years. So that means you got that job under the Bush administration, very interesting since Bush screwed your life. Did your wages keep up with cost-of-living, of course not. We have had this discussion before, I have written an article over it about a year ago. The interesting part about the cost of products rising at the pace they do, is that they blame labor. I have proven several times with documented numbers that that is not true. Take for example cars. The labor rate on a car is at the lowest it has ever been in history. The labor rate on a car sitting on the showroom floor a 6%. Only 6% of that sticker price was the cost of labor, yet every time auto manufacturers look to make a cut its salaries. Seems to me you would save more money making cuts in the other 94%.
  
  I am going to make an assumption about your salary, but on average middle-class salaries since 1980 have gone up 45%, the top 1% average salaries have gone up 55%, the lower wage earners that are under the middle class have had an average salary increase of 300%. Those are documented numbers from the BLS.gov site. During that same time. Lower wage earners class got slightly bigger, the middle class got smaller, and the 1% group grew. Recently released statistics now show that under Obama the 1% group has shrunk 21%, the middle class continues to strike, the low wage earner group is growing at the largest rate in history.
  
  I don't know if the mainstream media will get that story out there, but when they do it will prove Obama's policies are not benefiting anybody.
  reply report
  61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Talk about ignoring stats, AV—YOU have a convenient way of doing what you criticize others for doing: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/96791?p … ost2108915
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone know that under Carter their was Stagflation.
  
  "In economics, stagflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high and the economic growth rate slows down and unemployment remains steadily high."
  
  Economic growth is low, could not be 12%
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Obama's policies HAVE benefitted me. I get $400.00 off my income before they start taxing.
  
  My 17 yr old daughter can rest easy about Health insurance when she goes to college.
  
  My older daughter's friend just had a baby with Down's Syndrome....thank GOD insurance can't count that against her anymore!
  
  But I guess, to you and your crew, we aren't anybody
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wow how unique you are to get $400 off your income before taxing. No one else does.
  
  Your 17 years old could always rest easy about health care, she was always covered and you know it.
  
  Children being born with coverage were always covered no matter what, even if there was a handicap or illness involved. You got what you already had. And you believe Obama gave that to you? Really
  report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Have certain people always had no manners, or is it just me?
  
  1. "Obama had previously signed a tax cut that benefited nearly all working families and was in effect from 2009 through 2010. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit was part of the stimulus bill he signed shortly after taking office.
  
  That credit was worth a maximum of $400 per person, or $800 for couples during those years"
  http://factcheck.org/2012/05/a-bogus-ta … nst-obama/
  
  2. I know nothing of the sort. She'll be 18 in July....wouldn't she then have been on her own as an adult?
  
  3. Is an out-and-out lie. People were denied ALL the time for pre-existing conditions....including pregnancy! This is a HUGE deal, and a great benefit for us non-Romney's of the world.
  
  Of course, he's vowed to demolish it first thing....at the same time he delivers a massive tax cut...hmmmmm, huge tax cut, no healthcare reform...who does this remind you of............??think hard
  report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  We have manners, you just refuse to accept the facts.
  
  1. What you received was not a tax cut as you claimed it to be. What you got was the same thing that Bush gave you, check to go spend on stimulus. When Bush did that for you you made fun of him totally blowing off what you got, but now that Obama did well the seas have parted as the illustrious one has taken care of LMC. But I guess you don't see the hypocrisy do you?
  
  2. You say you know nothing of the sort, you certainly did. You were one of the people saying how thankful you were to be able to include your child to she was 26. I told you then that the law already included students until they were 24, I know that to be a fact as my daughter is just turning 26 and will no longer be covered and my son has two years to go. But of course that's only if the child goes to college. If your daughter decides to not go to college and enter the workforce she will not be covered under your policy, even under Obama care. I'll also told you that there were options on insurance policies before Obama care was even a Bill that would've allowed you to pay for next two years for your daughter to stay insured. The playing innocence game is over.
  
  3. Would she stated here by saying out and out lie is different than what you stated earlier. You stated a child who was born with down syndrome was now going to be safe under insurance for Obama care. You see that's not true, if you had insurance and your child is born with down syndrome, the insurance company will cover that child. That has nothing to do with pre-existing. But since you brought up pre-existing, it is true that a good number of companies would not cover a pre-existing condition, but a majority of them did. Although law did was to force those that did not cover pre-existing to do so. I've said is the only good thing in Obama Care.
  
  By the way he's not promising to deliver a massive tax cut anybody, he is promising to visit tax codes and redo them, big difference
  report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  People left the state in droves.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Really LMC,
  
  How come the census reports shows an increase in population in Massachusetts? Did the people leave and come back?
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago
Mitt doesn't want to talk about his leadership in Massachusetts for several reasons, but the biggest reason of all is Romneycare, the plan upon which Obamacare is based. It might upset the right-wingers.
reply report
1. 76
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So true PP.
  We need a separate thread chronicling all the "I was for it before I was against it" Romney flip-flops.
  He stands for whatever he thinks will appease whoever he's with at the moment.
  reply report
  59
  ylime120posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree! He defiantly seems like the puppet type to me!
  reply report
70
Cagsilposted 11 years ago
I find that his Romneycare is a violation of my rights. Forcing me to buy healthcare isn't something which should be allowed.

So much for equal rights.
reply report
1. 76
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's why healthcare should be provided free like it is in other civilized countries worldwide.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have no problem with healthcare being paid for. My understanding is that healthcare is nothing more than an industry, like that of making cars. To give government control over this particular industry isn't going to curb healthcare costs, that's pure BS/fiction.
  
  This example I'm going to use is not perfect, but is only an example.
  
  When a criminal in prison is executed for a crime, the drugs used come from the pharma companies- the pharma companies charge outrageous prices because and on purpose, government is flipping the bill through taxpayer revenue sources.
  
  These companies know they can charge whatever they want to because government is the primary source of the revenue.
  
  Same with healthcare when government is involved.
  reply report
  74
  Fuller-Lifeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And you think it would be cheaper if government is not involved, really? With all the sharks out there?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If competition isn't greedily crushed by those who are so corrupted that they rather gouge every nickel and dime, from every citizen, then I'm sorry, that's not ethical business and they should be put out of business.
  There very, very, very few sharks out there. There are many people attempting to give a valuable product/goods or services to market.
  
  So, until you open your eyes about the world around and learn that EDUCATION of citizens is more important than anything else in the world.
  
  The last thing we need is a continuation of the willful ignorance in this country.
  reply report
61
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago
Meanwhile . . . .

reply report
1. 60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  When I almost died a year and a half ago, forget the cost of the doctors, hospital, nurses and all the rest. I was on a ventalator in life support. Just that alone was $10,000 per day and I was on it for just over 2 months. Anyone want to pay my medical bills?
  reply report
60
Cody Hodgeposted 11 years ago
AV,

I'm curious as to where you are getting your stats from. From what I understand a lot of the Mass. turnaround actually occurred after Mitt left.
reply report
1. 76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good question. I think it's alter-reality news.
  Mass has improved greatly since Mittens left. Not while he was here
  
  1. I never go any kind of tax cut or rebate under Bush.....sorry av, you do not live my life.
  
  2. I don't believe you.
  
  3. No--what I stated is that before the ACA--insurance companies dumped patiens with pre-existing conditions because they cost too much to care for: bottom line, you know. They can't do that anymnore....by law. I think that's a good thing.
  
  You better tell Mitt to change his language then. He's out there as the second coming of you know who.
  
  but he's so much nastier.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LMC,
  
  You amaze me about how much you claim you know, but in reality it turns out to be very little.
  
  1.You should have received 2 rebate checks under Bush, the first was signed in 2001, the other in 2008.The one in 2008, Obama likes to try and take credit for, but he had nothing to do with it.
  
  The first check was in response to the devestated economy from 2001.
  http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-07/poli … LLPOLITICS
  
  http://www.infoplease.com/spot/01taxrefund.html
  
  As I said, the credit you claim came from Obama was actuallly approved under Bush in 2008, and yet you recieved it so do not claim you did not. This was the second check you received from that bad old Bush.
  
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1969910/posts
  http://www.fantix.com/bushtaxrebate.htm
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22725498/ns … 8zHxrCmh2A
  
  2. Isa not a lie but a fact, sorry if it does not fit your agenda. Just ask anyone who had kids that went to college and had a family insurance plan as you claim you have, before Obamacare a student could stay on a parents policy till 24. Spew all you want, but it is a fact.
  
  3. No here is what you said "My older daughter's friend just had a baby with Down's Syndrome....thank GOD insurance can't count that against her anymore!"
  
  You are saying the policy was going to drop that kid because she was born with down syndrome, but thanks to Obamacare she would not. In reality she would not have been dropped.
  
  Spin, try to change the subject, try to change what you said. Did you think because you move the response down here instead of after my last comment I would not see it and address it?
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  YOU stick to the subject!
  
  Are you saying insurance companies weren't dropping people for pre-existing conditions?
  reply report
2. 60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Cody,
  
  From the state of Massachusetts census, form their budget reports, from their statistic reports.
  
  Google and do some research and you too will find them.
  reply report
61
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

reply report
1. 60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Corperate profits are at an all time high by percentages, but not in acutal numbers
  reply report
  61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Just more of your deceit, AV—percentages ARE numbers. You don't care about anything but the bottom line, though you disguise it well with feigned concern for the middle class.
  
  Some people will eat their young for a buck while they preach family values . . .
  
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No deciet Wiz, facts. Ge revenues dropped 8.2% in 2010 by $32.18 billion yet GE posted its highest profit by percentage posting an $14.2 billion dollar profit on 139 billion in revenues.
  
  In 2008 Ge revenues was 183 billion and had a profit of 11 billion.
  
  So as you can see, business is making record profits by percentage on profits yet the gross revenues are less today than just 3 years ago.
  
  Wallmart, Target and many more are seeing less revenues, but due to the recession they streamlined, eliminated jobs, waste and now have a higher % profit on those less revenues.
  
  Wiz, you can just spew all you want, sorry what you rant does not align with the facts.
  reply report
  73
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wallmart, Target and many more are seeing less revenues, but due to the recession they streamlined, eliminated jobs, waste and now have a higher % profit on those less revenues.
  So, low taxes don't create jobs after all.
  
  Thank you for that excellent demonstration of this fact.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Lower taxes would have created jobs, remember, they eliminated jobs and steamlined do to lack of revenues. Lower taxes would increase revenues as business would invest in growth.
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How come it hasn't worked in 9 years and 3 cuts? It's bulloney, that's why.
  
  Gold plated Dung.
  
  Higher taxes would increase revenue for we the people.
  
  Lowering taxes eliminates jobs.--they send them overseas with their money.
  
  No US taxes, no US workers. Just US money in their pockets.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It actually did, just that the Democratic controlled congress spent it all
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ahahaha!
  
  That a joke?
  
  I'll take it as one.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Its a fact, you know it but will not acknowledge the facts. Under Bush the breaks created the highest revenues in history, under the Dems, we have spent more than in history
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't acknowledge fantasy as reality. TYVM
  
  We see the world as if we don't live in the same one.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The facts are there , you just chose to ignore them, then attack and spin.
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe, but that is only if the businesses actually hire American workers. Companies these days are more inclined to hire third-world workers to save more money.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good point Cody
  reply report
  73
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But the businesses didn't invest in 'growth.' They're scaling back their workforces instead, which is the opposite of what the "low taxes=growth" fools are trying to tell us.
  
  Also, lower taxes haven't increased revenues.
  
  You can have your own opinions, but you don't get to make up your own facts.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly Jeff, they are scaling back because they cannot invest in growth. If the taxes are lowered they would invest in growth and their revenues will be much larger than they are now.
  
  Lower taxes where? Since Obama has come along all we see is higher taxes, taxes increases in sheeps clothing and higher regulations.
  
  So lower tax rates do not increase revenues, are you sure about that. Let's take a look shall we
  
  Federal Government Revenues in Billions
  
  2000 Clinton $1992.
  2001 Bush $1863
  2002 Bush $1782
  2003 Bush $1782-Bush Tax cuts
  2004 Bush $1889
  2005 Bush $2153- is that increased revenues I see
  2006 Bush $2409
  2007 Bush $2569_Increased?
  2008 Bush $2524
  2009 Obama $2105 first year tax increase and regulations
  2010 Obama $2167
  2011 Obama $2300
  
  Lower taxes have indeed increased revenues.
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That graph doesn't prove that it was tax cuts that increased revenues. That is simply one possibility.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, even when shown the facts the left cannot accept them so they blow them off. Unreal.
  
  Then you explain why there was a 900 billion dollar increase in revenues after tax breaks and why there was a drop of 420 billion in one year after tax increases, new regulations and the like. Everyone says Bush and his devestating recession, yet he had the highest revenues in history, they plumetted under Obama and have not come back yet. Not to mention the highest spending under Bush was 2.7 trillion and Obama, if the CBO is correct on their predictions for year 2012, will spend 4.2 trillion dollars. he spent 3.6 trillion in 2011 but he is spending less than anyone Obama says.
  reply report
  61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Utter malarkey!
  
  Bush2 went nuts with tax breaks for the rich, two reckless and stupidly fought wars that were never paid for and not on the books (therefor juking your stats), a blind eye, laze-faire and non-regulation business & finance practice and you make this absurd Pollyanna leap of faith with your jaundiced vision of economics.
  
  Those revenues created all of the fat-cats and billionaires who then bought our congress, the Supreme Court and the media outright—lock stock and barrel!
  
  It brought us the dysfunctional government we now have thanks to the Tea Baggers who were concocted by Dick Armey and funded by lobbyists and their profit-puppeteers who made the killing.
  
  America is dying thanks to that "revenue!"
  
  reply report
  61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And your point is what—conglomerates should be making even higher profits so the serfs can get a few more crumbs?
  
  You're just another cheerleader for profiteers and exploiters of resources—human and otherwise.
  
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I had no point other than to correct you when you claimed profits were at an all time high.
  
  And how is your 401K if profits are at an all time high? Should you not have a killer 401K if there were record dollars in profits? Do not forget the left wants to tax the 401K
  reply report
  73
  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So, what are the actual numbers, then? I'm sure you can demonstrate the difference for us, and show how corporate profits are actually down.
  reply report
76
lovemychrisposted 11 years ago
I did not recieve any rebate check from W. Don't believe me--I don't care!

I'm not spinning anything. You are trying to convince me that Bush was good for me.

I lived it.....you didn't.
Bushco was a horror show.

Sadistic and bad for the economy. In that order.
reply report
60
Cody Hodgeposted 11 years ago
Romney was apparently able to turn things around with a mixture of spending cuts and fee increases.

Unfortunately, he won't be able to do that if elected president. The GOP will demand that he make sure that tax cuts for the rich stay in place while giving him little leverage to do anything else.

Or..

The GOP will allow him to enact a plan that mixes decreased spending with increased taxes on the wealthy. The same plan that Barack Obama wanted to try during the latest debt crisis. In fact, it was the same plan that reportedly was endorsed by several GOP leaders in private during the debate. However, the Tea Party hawks wouldn't hear of it.
reply report
1. 60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You know Cody, not one Republican ever said they where not in favor of a tax hike, they said after you make all the cuts you can, eliminate all the waste and eliminate job duplication, then and only then should a tax increase be on the table.
  
  Cody, I have said why not give Obama just what he wants and tax the 1%ers. Collect all that money for 1 year, lets sit down with all that money and pay the bills. We can pay the interest on the national debt for 10 days. Well there is 355 days of interest left to pay not to mention all the rest of the bills, now what?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "not one Republican ever said they where not in favor of a tax hike, they said after you make all the cuts you can, eliminate all the waste and eliminate job duplication, then and only then should a tax increase be on the table."
  
  Really? Then why did 238 representatives and 41 senators from the 112th Congress sign Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax Pledge. Did you somehow miss that tidbit of important information?
  
  http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge
  reply report
  61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Smooch!
  
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Back atcha!
  
  reply report
  61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL!
  
  I'll raise you . . .
  
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yea, again nothing like only giving half the story
  
  Her is the actual pledge.
  
  " ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
  TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. "
  Notice the pledge does not say no tax hikes ever, it gives a condition before approving tax increases.
  
  Again, no tax hikes without eliminating waste, wonder where I heard that before.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here is the pledge in its entirety:
  
  Taxpayer Protection Pledge
  I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____
  district of the) state of ______ and to the American
  people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts
  to increase the marginal income tax rate for
  individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any
  net reduction or elimination of deductions and
  credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further
  reducing tax rates.
  
  It says nothing about eliminating waste. It states that increases in marginal income tax rate will be opposed without condition. It also states that reduction or elimination of deductions will be opposed "unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
  
  Where do you see anything about eliminating waste? Do I need new contact lenses?
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, we're being a little dramatic here.
  
  No one ever said it would wipe out the debt. However, it would go a long way toward making that first dent in reducing the deficit. And you have to remember we're not talking about going back to the days of Reagan and before when the top tax brackets were 70-90 percent. No, we're merely talking about going back to top brackets as they were in the 90's.
  
  Instead, the GOP would rather cut social security, a program that the American people pay into. Although, it's apparently an "entitlement." That's like saying your car is an entitlement after you spend 60 months paying it off.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Having a license to drive said car is a privilege according to political figures of Mass. This means, it's a granted privilege for you to drive. It's not a right.
  
  Which is something I find ridiculous.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Cody,
  
  I understand the tax rate you are talking about from the 90s, is the same rate Obama is touting. I'm sorry that you find the facts to be dramatic, but that's the fact. The 4% tax increase that were talking about on the top 1%ers does not add up to a lot of money to make a difference of any kind in the budget. That is a part the Democrats are missing out on. They would much rather raise taxes than cut waste out of the budget. I asked a question earlier and actually in several other forums and not one person has answered.
  
  The sewer line on your street has broken. Your house is full to the top with sewage. So what would you do, raise the roof on the house what you pump out the shit?
  
  Your making a claim that the GOP would rather cut Social Security. In reality they are not looking to cut Social Security benefits for anybody. What they're looking to do is eliminate waste and fraud and by doing so will save Social Security billions of dollars. If you read the proposals that been put forth by the Republicans you would see that to be true, however you don't get to see that because Harry Reid tables the bills they die and don't get the light of day. Then Harry Reid and the Democrats run up and say the Republicans have no plan to go to cut your benefits. Shame on them for lying to the American people because they know better.
  
  And if you truly worried about Social Security and the health of it why are you not pissed off with what Obama has done to the Social Security program? The last audit for Social Security which was made public just a month ago shows that because of Obama's cuts to Social Security, the Social Security trust fund will now go broke Three years earlier and the Social Security disability fund will go broke in 2016. Yes you read it correctly 2016.
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxy4eJxx … re=related
  
  Its a video of Office Space re-cut to be portrayed as a drama.
  
  My point is that you can take your facts, cherry-pick them, spin them and a your conspiracy theory becomes reality.
  
  And social security being somehow insolvent by 2016. Oh boy....you actually believe that?
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Cody,
  
  You really can't read can you.
  
  " Social Security disability fund will go broke in 2016"
  
  Notice the word disability, you do see it right? You do understand that Social Security and Social Security disability are two different funds? How many more times are you going to publish a half truth? I find it funny that you talk about spending and trying to create a reality because you are by far the biggest offender I have ever seen here on hub pages or in the forums.
  
  This is from the latest report that you claim is a spin,
  
  "After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year."
  
  "However, the Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the long-range test nor the short-range test. DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year. The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now."
  
  http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
  
  Cody, take some serious advice. Stop following Democratic talking points, stop watching MSNBC, I suggest strongly that you do some real honest research on your own.
  
  By the way you do know why Social Security is going broke three years earlier right? It is because of the payroll tax cut Obama put in place and I want everybody was going to harm Social Security, and you all mocked me, well here's me saying told you so.
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That last paragraph makes you sound like some sort of villian in a comic book or something.
  
  Anyways...
  
  That report said nothing about social security going broke. It just said there was less money going into it right now. As for SS, since they are projecting it to still be around in 2086, I assume its not in any real danger. Also, making projections for anything more than a couple of years is an inexact science. You don't know how the economy will actually perform over the next 75 years. The payroll tax cut will also be repealed at some point, I'm sure.
  
  As for the SSDI, I'm sure the government will figure something out.
  
  In conclusion, the sky is not falling. I also don't watch MSNBC, but if I did, I'm sure the reporting is much better than on Fox News.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Cody,
  
  I knew you would do this, so now you and only you are blowing off the Social Security audited report that Social Security is going to go broke. I suggest you go back and read about what they truly said about 2086.
  
  The payroll tax cut will be repealed at some point, really that's your argument, not that the payroll tax cut is currently hurting the trust fund. Of course there will repeal, probably the day before the fun goes broke
  
  As for SSDI I'm sure the government will figure something out
  
  Again that your argument. Well, if the government could figure it out, there would be no national debt, the budget would be balanced, Medicaid would not be in trouble, Medicare would not be in trouble, Social Security would not be in trouble, disability would not be in trouble, gas prices would be lower, electricity rates would not be skyrocketing, we wouldn't have electric cars paid for by Obama that could go more than 40 miles...
  
  In other words all is right with the world.
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You really think we can project out to 2086 in any reliable manner? Do you think that back in 1937 they could have predicted what the economy would look like today? Ironically enough, there was also a severe economic downturn and were just years away from fighting two wars at once. Sound familiar?
  
  As for "The government will figure it out..
  
  That means they aren't going to let the thing go broke even if it were actually going to do so.
  
  And yes, the payroll tax cut will be repealed at some point. It is just one of many different variables that make it possible to know what things will look like in 2033, 2086 or even 2016. Again, the sky is not falling.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Believe what you want, just do not look up. Keep them blinders on.
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So basically anyone who puts forth a logical argument is just keeping the blinders on?
  reply report
76
lovemychrisposted 11 years ago
Hmm, here's another who co-signs my Filibuster claim, which you say is not true.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201206040010
reply report
1. 60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yea Media Matters, what a real credible source. You believe them over the records of the US Senate. The records that are in the Library of Congress.
  
  Yea keep doing that LMC. no wonder you sound just like MSNBC, since Media Matters writes their scripts for them
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Fox Contributor Christopher Hahn Again Calls Out GOP's Constant Obstructionism"
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Read the GOVERNMENT report showing Reid envokes clotures on the same day which means there was no filibuster, go to the link I provided above of Reid and company accussing the GOP of fillerbustering on May 8th, but the bill they were accused of filerbustering did not get to the Senate floor till May 16th.
  
  Keep on the blinders LMC, they serve you well
  reply report
  76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh NOW you trust a gvt report? I though they were the problem? I thought they lied?
  
  You diss me when you think it's msnbc. When the info comes from fox---you gotta believe!
  
  Sorry--I listen to you as much as you listen to me.
  
  And I only wish Reid and Dems had fought back harder and stronger. They won, after all. Everything has been done to please the Baggers.
  
  And it's never enough.
  reply report
61
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago
reply report
61
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago
reply report
1. 76
  lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's so obvious, even a blind person can see it....
  
  Those with sight lack eye to see. Inner eye. Soul-tuition.
  reply report
76
Mighty Momposted 11 years ago
Love these "rock and a hard place" corners the GOP stallwarts just love to paint Obama into.
Had he NOT enacted the payroll tax cuts, he would be getting even more flak (like that"s possible) for not helping businesses enough in a down economy.
But since he chose to do that to stimulate the economy, now he's getting heckled (notice not by Dems) for the ricochet effect on SSI.

How hypocritical of the GOP to suddenly be worried about Social Security disability, or any "entitlement fund" that rewards slackers -- running out of money.
Reminds me of the sudden and equally disingenuous concern over JOBS which they have patently obfuscated on for Obama's first 3 years.

Go ahead and talk out of both sides of your mouths.
Doesn't make anything you say any more believable.
reply report
1. 60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wait...that can't be right.
  
  The GOP has told us over and over again that Obama is the worst president ever. Don't you know he is a socialist who hates America?
  
  And the GOP is never wrong!
  
  (:
  reply report
  76
  Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well those are well established FACTS, Cody.
  You know as well as I do.
  Obama IS the worst president ever.
  He hates America.
  But it appears the GOP has their "ists" confused. Again.
  If he were truly a socialist he would never in a million years jeopardize a public welfare program like SSI, now would he?
  Maybe he is a fascist, instead.
  Or maybe (God forbid) he is a cleverly disguised capitalist who lowered taxes on businesses so they could better survive this sucko economy of ours.
  Then again, maybe it doesn't matter what label we give him.
  Because no matter what we say, and no matter what he does, Obama is still the worst president ever. He hates America.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Forget Bain, Let's Talk about Massachusetts

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Forget Bain, Let's Talk about Massachusetts

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies