Governor Romney

1. 61

   Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

   Romney left the Mass. governorship with a 34% approval rating. What makes people think he'll do a bang uo job as president?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What's more important? An approval rating, or getting the job done?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         And what job did he get done with such a low approval rating?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            1 - He balanced all 4 of his budgets, and the budget for the year before he took office.
            
            2 - He grew the state's emergency fund to over $2 billion.
            
            3 - He took the state from 50th in job creation to 27th.
            
            4 - He reduced unemployment from 5.6%(it peaked early his first year at 6%) to 4.6%.
            
            5 - He worked with the legislature to make Romneycare.
            
            6 - He improved the state's schools, even while cutting spending.
            
            7 - He kept his campaign promise to protect the current laws in regards to gay marriage(everyone thinks he flip-flopped on gay marriage, but he never has. People just take his statements out of context to try and make it look that way) even though he personally opposed it.
            
            8 - He expanded gun rights for citizens except for in the case of 'assault weapons'. He didn't pursue any new restrictions in gun rights, nor did he sign any legislation that restricted gun rights(another common misconception).
            
            9 - He put forward more strict laws in regards to drunk driving, which resulted in drunk-related traffic accidents being cut in half.
            
            There's a lot more, but Romney upset people for a lot of reasons. The biggest reason, is almost everything he did was bipartisan, moderate, centrist. He never went for everything the D's wanted, and never went for everything the R's wanted. As a result, he got things done, but people didn't like it.
            
            Think about it. He balanced 5 budgets in 4 years. He decreased spending on education, while increasing the state's quality of education to first in the nation. He reduced unemployment by nearly 1.5%(to a level that is near the theoretical lowest point). He took the state from dead-last, to 27th in job creation. He kept all of his campaign promises... he did a lot, if we're honest.
            
            
            
            Education: (from the National Center for Education Statistics)
            
            4th Grade Math increased from 242(6th) in 2003 to 252(1st) in 2007.
            4th Grade Reading increased from 228(3rd) in 2003 to 236(1st) in 2007.
            4th Grade Science increased from 242(6th) in 2003 to 252(1st) in 2007.
            
            8th Grade Math increased from 287(3rd) in 2003 to 298(1st) in 2007.
            8th Grade Reading remained at 273(1st) in 2003 to 273(1st) in 2007.

            replyreport
      2. 71

         Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Jaxson.
         
         Getting the job done for whom? Obviously, he was not getting the job done for two-thirds of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. One of the questions to be answered this election year is which candidate is expected to benefit the lower and middle-income earners the most. After all, they are the segment that has suffered the most from the Great Recession. They are the Americans, not the wealthy, who are struggling to pay their mortgages and to feed their families. Even Gov. Romney admitted the wealthiest among us do not need any help! Gallup reports “More Americans believe middle-income earners would be better off in four years if President Barack Obama is re-elected than if Mitt Romney wins, by 53% to 43%. The public also says lower-income Americans would be better off under an Obama presidency, while, by an even larger margin, they say upper-income Americans would do better under Romney.” A full 75% of those interviewed said Upper-income Americans would benefit the most if Romney is elected and they are probably right. {1}
         
         A Romney win in November will toll the death of Medicare, shift Medicaid and the tax bill to the states, and take healthcare insurance away from the poorest among us.  It will mean he and those in his income bracket will be able to skim more wealth into there own pockets while millions of Americans sink below the poverty line. This is the Romney/Ryan message: protect the wealth of the wealthy and leave the most needy to manage for themselves.
         
         {1} http://www.gallup.com/poll/157799/obama … icans.aspx

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Quill, it's really simple. Look at almost anything he did, and you'll see he did it from a moderate perspective. R's aren't happy because 'it's not conservative enough'. D's aren't happy because 'it's too conservative'.
            
            The budget, for example. He didn't increase taxes on the wealthy. D's don't like that. He increased fees in relation with inflation. R's don't like that. He cut spending, D's don't like that. He eliminated tax deductions(loopholes), R's don't like that.
            
            What's more important? The result, or how happy people are with it?
            
            
            
            I'm disappointed in that last bit Quill... there are so many things you cover, without actually covering any specifics.
            
            Shall we start by discussing the 10th Amendment?

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hi Jaxson. Please forgive me for not providing specifics. The Romney/Ryan “plans” have had extensive coverage in the news. How silly of me to think the specifics would be obvious to anyone following media reports. Me bad!
               
               I said, a Romney win in November would “shift Medicaid and the tax bill to the states.”
               
               Romney wants the federal government to give states block grants essentially shifting the cost control burden for Medicaid from the federal budget to state budgets. Tax savings for the average citizen: nada! Block grants will be reduced 34% by 2022 meaning state taxes must increase to make up the difference. Again, tax savings for the average citizen: nada! An Urban Institute analysis of Ryan's budget proposal found block grants would lead states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021 and cut reimbursements to health care providers by 31%. The average citizen will be paying for the healthcare of 14 to 27 million poor Americans dropped from Medicaid. At least 62% of Ryan's $5.3 trillion in non-defense budget cuts over 10 years come from programs that serve the poor. Up to 10 million people could lose nutrition assistance since $134 billion would be cut from the program over 10 years. {1} Gov. Romney’s pledge not to increase taxes for the middle class is a lie because he knows the real truth.
               
               I said a Romney win in November would take healthcare insurance away from the poorest among us.
               
               Actually, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it before I did. They determined that Obamacare would expand healthcare coverage to 30 million Americans not insured today. {2} Romney’s pledged to repeal the ACA would prevent the poor from accessing this healthcare insurance.
               
               I said a Romney win in November would toll the death of Medicare.
               
               By repealing Obamacare, analysts find the insolvency of Medicare will be eight years sooner than projected earlier. {3} In addition, repealing Obamacare would eliminate expanded coverage of prescription drugs, free wellness care, and preventive checkups designed to reduce total government costs in the long term.
               
               I said a Romney win in November would allow those in his income bracket to skim more wealth into there own pockets.
               
               Everyone heard Gov. Romney claim not to lower taxes for the rich. In a rather etch-a-sketch way he said he would eliminate loopholes that currently reduce the tax bills of the wealthy. Which loopholes? Well, he refuses to say. But here is the flaw in his “plan.” The benefits gained from his lower tax rates are greater than the total of ALL of the loopholes. Those earning more than $1M, like him, would realize a windfall tax break of $250K a year. {4} That is about $100K more than millionaires would receive on average if Congress extended the Bush tax cuts in effect today but made no other changes to the tax code.
               
               So, Jaxson, here are some specifics for you. I hope you are less disappointed now.
               
               Peace and bliss.
               
               {1} http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/13/news/ec … /index.htm
               {2} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … imates.pdf
               {3} http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us/po … /pD0PFqUyQ
               {4}  http://www.ctj.org/pdf/romneyryanmillionaires.pdf

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No, not really.
                  
                  I can post all I want, but nothing I say will actually get addressed. I've done it before, not going to do it again.
                  
                  Take the taxes. You're being simply unfair, possibly dishonest, by saying that it's not good enough for Romney to say all deductions would be on the table.
                  
                  If he named them all, one by one, would that somehow be better?
                  
                  It's simply dishonest. If he says all of them, that means all of them. And, he has a history of fulfilling campaign promises, running a balanced budget, solving problems, and reaching across the aisle.
                  
                  But that doesn't matter, does it? You'll just continue to say that Romney's plan can't/won't/might not work, even though he has explained two different ways it can be addressed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     “Possibly dishonest?”  Sorry, Jaxson, end of discussion!
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Eh, I don't care anymore. There's no point in trying to have a real conversation with people who aren't willing to have a real conversation.
                        
                        Not a single person who is bashing on Romney for not naming deductions can explain why saying 'all of them' isn't as good as giving a list of examples... it's an ever-changing goalpost. If you were mistaken, instead of dishonest, you shouldn't have taken offence at my statement, but instead you might have said 'well, I guess saying all of them is as effective as individually naming all of them'.
                        
                        But hey, it's politics, right? Dishonesty is what it's all about.

                        replyreport
                     2. 72

                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I recall my grandfather's advice about not getting in a pissing match with a skunk.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Is he the one who taught you that an 'honest discussion' consists of ignoring your opponent's arguments and questions, making ever-changing demands, and purposefully lying?

                           replyreport
               2. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Ugh, I'm going to do it again.
                  
                  Ok, right now, the average person with $1 million in income pays $240,000 in taxes. 24% effective tax rate.
                  
                  If Romney reduced the marginal rate for those making $1 million to, say, 26%, and limited deductions to $75,000, then a person making $1 million would pay, at a minimum, 26% on $925,000, or $240,500.
                  
                  So NO! The benefit from the lower tax rates is NOT greater than all the deductions and exemptions. I can explain this very clearly.
                  
                  You have to lower marginal rates to below the current effective rates for that statement to be true.
                  
                  Quill, if the marginal rate were 24% on all income, with no deductions... what rate would someone making $1 million be?

                  replyreport
               3. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  While I'm at it... you need to learn that things covered in the media, even extensively, aren't reliable.
                  
                  Examples:
                  
                  Romney said "Let Detroit go bankrupt". Right? Wrong.
                  GE didn't pay taxes, and instead got a refund. Right? Wrong.
                  
                  I could come up with a lot more if I weren't so tired.

                  replyreport