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.
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!
"Romney stated that Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus. Official state figures said that fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus. For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures. 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."
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
surplus with the jobless record of third last in the nation within four years, and the highest school fees? How about outsourcing the government?
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.
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%
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Interesting side effects for Romney's governorship.
The result of GOP policy. Started for me in 03....
Took longer for some to catch up...they had more to lose.
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
"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
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!
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.
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
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%
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
That's why healthcare should be provided free like it is in other civilized countries worldwide.
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.
And you think it would be cheaper if government is not involved, really? With all the sharks out there?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.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?
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.
Corperate profits are at an all time high by percentages, but not in acutal numbers
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
It actually did, just that the Democratic controlled congress spent it all
That a joke?
I'll take it as one.
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
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.
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.
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.
That graph doesn't prove that it was tax cuts that increased revenues. That is simply one possibility.
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.
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!"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
That last paragraph makes you sound like some sort of villian in a comic book or something.
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, here's another who co-signs my Filibuster claim, which you say is not true.
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
"Fox Contributor Christopher Hahn Again Calls Out GOP's Constant Obstructionism"
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
by schoolgirlforreal6 years ago
So, feel free to comment on other people's avatars or ask questions, and start by commenting on Yours Me: This is really (what's her name?) oh, Katy Perry.
by Cagsil7 years ago
Hello Hubbers, I know, me again and yes I am here to make a point. And, unfortunately, my feathers, per se, are already ruffled, by the ridiculous thinking of some people. I will be writing my next Hub about this,...
by schoolgirlforreal6 years ago
I feel like I could have ptsd or add or ocd but i'm bipolar and I have bad anxiety and social anxietyI have fear of heights and I get anxiety when driving late at night--once it gets dark outat times of panic I felt...
by screaming4 years ago
Romney argued and won that the individual mandate was absolutely the heart of a successful health care plan in his state. Now he says differently?
by manlypoetryman7 years ago
I have no doubt that we all have opinions and beliefs on various topics. (Man...I know I do!)But...I'd be lying to you...if I told you that was why I was here! It's...
by davidwagar6 years ago
I am using AdSense for over a year now but i am not satisfied with my earnings. I am getting 50-100$ per month which is obviously not good.What do you guys think about AdSense earnings?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.