Zombaypirate;1075630 wrote:http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/09/27/analyst_puts_increase_in_fees_taxes_at_700m/

Romney not only spends he raises taxes.

Hmmm Tax and spend liberal.

Yeah the liberals on this site posing as conservatives may fool the idiots, but they will never fool real true conservatives.

Tax and spend is tax and spend no matter how you try to spin it and rationalize it. Face the facts, Romney is a liberal piece of crap that will run this country into the ground and make it more of a cesspool.

Mass was 47th in job creation out of 50 while Romney was governor. Yes this is exactly what this country needs right now.

“$240 million -- Romney's fee hikes on targeted services like highway billboards, multiple copies of driver's licenses, bar exams, etc
“$260 million -- Fee hikes that were passed prior to Romney's first year in office, yet did not take effect until Romney was in office
“$150 million -- Romney closed corporate tax loopholes

“Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday. Michael J. Widmer — president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which closely tracks state finances — said the state has raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as ‘closing loopholes.’ ”

sjmvsfscs08;1075643 wrote:No it's quite simple and you don't need much spin to EXPLAIN ****.

He didn't raise any taxes to fund any new programs; he raised taxes because Massachusetts was facing the worst budget crisis in its history and with a state legislature that is 85% Democrat you're not going to be able to cut programs.

HOW DO YOU GET UNDERSTAND THAT?? It's ****ing Massachusetts!!

Also, on the fees/taxes:



And literally in the same damn article you showed me, this little gem:



Ohhhhhhh what a liberal!! HIDE THE CHILDREN!!!

Zombaypirate;1075648 wrote:Hmm same crap I hear from people defending Obama what do ya know?
Next thing I will hear is that Obama is good fiscal conservative.

Let us keep this simple. Fiscal conservative means lower taxes lower spending. Any variation of that makes you fiscally liberal. Romney just happens to be a tax and spend liberal. I guess that beats the spend without tax liberal.

You asked for evidence that he spends I provided said evidence you lose.

"We decided we were not going to raise taxes, and we found that some fees hadn't been raised in as many as 20 years. These were not broad-based fees for things like getting your driver's license or your license plate for your car, but instead something like the cost of a sign on the interstate and how much it was going to cost to publish a McDonald's or a Burger King sign on the interstate. We went from, like, $200 a sign to $2,000 a sign," said Romney.

sjmvsfscs08;1075656 wrote:The evidence you provided shows Romney solving the biggest budgetary crisis in Massachusetts' long history, so it's a gigantic ****ing fail on your part. If anything, you showed him being a pragmatist.

And you didn't show him raising taxes, you showed him raising fees.



The "fiscal conservatives means lower taxes lower spending. Any variation of that makes you fiscally liberal." line was great. I literally laughed out loud at this. Your view of the world is truly ****ed up if you can make such gigantic generalizations such at this.

Face it, Romney solved Massachusetts' horrific budget problem without raising taxes and by using his knowledge of business/law (e.g. the corporate loopholes) and common sense/pragmatism (e.g. the fee rising). He is not a liberal. Calm the hell down.

Zombaypirate;1075672 wrote:Selective reading, a true liberal trait.

Please reread the first 5 words of this from Boston.com http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/09/27/analyst_puts_increase_in_fees_taxes_at_700m/

Fees and taxes have increased.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/

Real world experience has shown that a governor is limited in his power to influence the course of economic development in a state. A full-time governor who is deeply committed to the economic well-being of a state's workers can, however, make some difference. The state unfortunately did not receive such leadership over most of the past four years. Jokes about Massachusetts may receive some half-hearted laughter on the national campaign trail, but few working men and women in Massachusetts should see anything funny about the state's lackluster economic performance during the Romney years.


You are supporting a stinkin filthy liberal and sitting here trying to pass this piece of crap as fiscally conservative. YOU ARE WRONG STOP SPINNING THE LIBERAL AS A CONSERVATIVE.

How many more articles of his utter failure do you want?

sjmvsfscs08;1075694 wrote:You tell me I have selective reading and then ask me to read five words. Am I the only one seeing the irony here? That very same article credits him for saving the state's financial situation. You haven't shown me any articles of any failure, that's what is so laughable about you. You show articles that support my position. What the hell is in your head?

You make it sound like the state was in economic disrepair, but the unemployment (<5%) figures paint a much different picture. I would think the "working men and women in Massachusetts" also generally liked his governorship, consider two-thirds still love Romneycare. Hell I haven't even begun to argue that in the job creation during that decade was due to a housing bubble (1 house = 2 jobs) and Massachusetts didn't experience that, or how after the dotcom bubble Massachusetts was crushed because of their tech sector and those jobs simply never returned. Or a slew of other conditions that you aren't taking into account because it's apparently spin to ask WHY.

Also Reagan raised taxes, is he a "stinkin filthy liberal?" What about George HW Bush? Those must be baaaaad dudes.

sjmvsfscs08;1075643 wrote:No it's quite simple and you don't need much spin to EXPLAIN ****.

He didn't raise any taxes to fund any new programs; he raised taxes because Massachusetts was facing the worst budget crisis in its history and with a state legislature that is 85% Democrat you're not going to be able to cut programs.

HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?? It's ****ing Massachusetts!!

Also, on the fees/taxes:



And literally in the same damn article you showed me, this little gem:



Ohhhhhhh what a liberal!! HIDE THE CHILDREN!!!

Zombaypirate;1075749 wrote:And I rest my case. This is exactly why the US is in massive debt because of liberal idiots who make apologies for the liberals that are ruining this country.

Good luck with your children owing even more money to the massive liberal debt.

dwccrew;1075796 wrote:I'm not trying to get into a shouting match at all, but to raise taxes in order to maintain a budget is a liberal trait. A conservative trait would be to cut the spending instead of raising taxes. Now I understand that Romney was in a very liberal state, however, I don't believe he is what we need.

Just ahead of three more Republican nominating contests, a new poll -- a snapshot in time -- shows former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum leading President Barack Obama in a one-on-one matchup. The Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for one day only -- Feb. 5. -- marks the first time Santorum has held a lead over Obama in potential matchups.

It&#8217;s a small lead for Santorum -- 1 percentage point, giving him a 45-44 percent edge over Obama.
&#8220;This is the first time Santorum has ever led the president in any poll,&#8221; the Rasmussen poll said. &#8220;Several other GOP challengers have led the president a single time in the polls, including Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. Each man briefly held the lead while they were surging in the polls, only to fall quickly. It remains to be seen what will happen to Santorum&#8217;s support.&#8221;

The same daily tracking poll finds Obama actually beating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul. Neither Obama nor the other GOP candidates gets a majority in any of the hypothetical matchups

jhay78;1077585 wrote:Santorum only Republican beating Obama head-to-head right now?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/santorum-only-gop-candidate-beating-obama-rasmussen-daily-poll-finds

Cleveland Buck;1077734 wrote:That's Rasmussen, who is the undisputed most accurate pollster over the past 10 years.

majorspark;1077763 wrote:I dunno. Obama is pissing off the catholics.

I Wear Pants;1077975 wrote:Santorum pisses off anyone who isn't brain dead.

I Wear Pants;1077984 wrote:I would bet my house on Obama if Santorum was the GOP candidate. Not that I'd be happy about that victory but it's what would happen.

I Wear Pants;1077984 wrote:I would bet my house on Obama if Santorum was the GOP candidate.

majorspark;1078004 wrote:Your bet is probably a safe one. The brain dead votes will be eclipsed by the actual dead rising to vote for Obama.

sleeper;1078181 wrote:I'll bet my house Obama beats Romney.