PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney Question for Anti-Mitt Romney Folks




tennman
10-30-2012, 11:25 AM
The libertarians I run around with are mixed in whether or not they'll be voting for Romney or writing in Paul (a vote for Obama is, of course, unthinkable). However, one comment that I keep hearing confuses me because it ignore history. That is, they will say that the deficit will continue to go up no matter who is elected. Really?

Romney took Massachusetts from debt to surplus (didn't raise taxes either). The Olympics hired him for the specific purpose of getting rid of their debt. All he's ever done is successfully eliminate debt. So why would someone think he wouldn't do it when even more eyes are on him to do so? I get that he's not the perfect candidate, but in terms of sending the debt and deficit the other way (thus helping the weak dollar) I can't see how I can logically doubt he'd do it. Obama on the other hand, only has a history of debt (record debt in fact).

So what are your thoughts?

RickyJ
10-30-2012, 11:28 AM
A vote for Romney is unthinkable. And the "facts" you just listed about Romney are just plain wrong.

CaptUSA
10-30-2012, 11:37 AM
Have you heard him talk about increasing military spending? Have you seen Paul Ryan's budget? (You know the one Romney says was a little too severe)

They want to increase spending. Maybe a tiny bit slower than Obama, but still... INCREASE SPENDING?!!

mdameron
10-30-2012, 11:38 AM
A vote for Romney is unthinkable. And the "facts" you just listed about Romney are just plain wrong.

You didn't give any reason for your statement though, so as far as the OP is concerned a vote for Romney is still justified.

This is something that makes me angry about politics (and we libertarians are as guilty of it as anyone else.) Person A and asks a question and person B responds with a belligerent remark that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to facilitate further discussion. Many times we libertarians think that such a remark will help sway doubting minds to our side because we are "clearing up the error," but it actually has the opposite effect.

I urge everyone on our side to spend more time backing statements with fact and less time being dogmatic and belligerent, especially around election time. I understand the temptation to put people or wrong ideas in their place, but it just isn't an effective way to win the battle.

/end rant

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 11:44 AM
Romney didn't take over Massachusetts when it had enough debt that servicing that debt required a significant portion of the GDP.

Taxachusetts could not declare war on Iran.

When you say the state was left with no debt, are you looking at whether the Big Dig required a bond issue?

Romney's plan, which we know no details about but which he has hinted at, takes over a decade to get to a balanced budget. We've heard that before, like from Reagan, but we'll set that aside for the moment. If he can't serve for more than eight years, and his plan takes twelve or more, how can he see it through?

Has Romney flip flopped before?

And then there's the question of do you want someone in charge of a republic who silenced the citizen delegates at his own convention? When maintaining a republic is important to one, this hardly inspires confidence. Accuse us of being butthurt if you will. At the end of the day, citizens were silenced at the Republican convention. This isn't merely ironic. It's frightening.

Nope, sorry. No faith. And without specifics, faith would be required.

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 11:54 AM
Romney didn't take over Massachusetts when it had enough debt that servicing that debt required a significant portion of the GDP.

Taxachusetts could not declare war on Iran.

When you say the state was left with no debt, are you looking at whether the Big Dig required a bond issue?

Romney's plan, which we know no details about but which he has hinted at, takes over a decade to get to a balanced budget. We've heard that before, like from Reagan, but we'll set that aside for the moment. If he can't serve for more than eight years, and his plan takes twelve or more, how can he see it through?

Has Romney flip flopped before?

And then there's the question of do you want someone in charge of a republic who silenced the citizen delegates at his own convention? When maintaining a republic is important to one, this hardly inspires confidence. Accuse us of being butthurt if you will. At the end of the day, citizens were silenced at the Republican convention. This isn't merely ironic. It's frightening.

Nope, sorry. No faith. And without specifics, faith would be required.
The plan does not balance the budget for 28 years (which is in itself laughable that congresses and administrations will abide by a plan put out 28 years prior, and at worst is simply not sustainable to spend, increase military spending and acrue interest on $15 trillion and counting until then).

Ryan's budget plan is the equivalent of a kid procrastinating and making empty promises because he doesn't want to do his homework. It's not a plan at all like Dr. Paul and Rand's plans that would balance it in 1 term.

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 11:57 AM
Thank you, Mr. Grinch.

So, the plan might work if, one, Romney's two or three successors stick to it, two, nothing major and unforeseen happens, and three, people don't stop buying our bonds long before then.

Long odds.

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 11:58 AM
As for the olympics hiring him to eliminate their debt, I'd say that it's much easier to manage an event that can actually bring in more money than it spends. However, he has made no such promises to do the same in his tenure as president.

Just because you're a successful businessman does not mean that you're going to the same in government that only exists to spend tax money, not to turn a profit. When have these corrupt politicians ever cared about balancing the budget? It ain't their pocketbooks that are taking the hit as they get fat on kickbacks and backdoor deals. It's ours, and they clearly couldn't care less.

surf
10-30-2012, 12:05 PM
these gov't debt figures generally don't include underfunded (wonderful, from a gov't workers viewpoint) pension obligations which. if accurately calculated, make the "obligations" an even more depressing figure. Mitt doesn't seem to acknowledge this and neither does Obama.

we (meaning this country) have one simple way to ease a large chunk of this growing debt burden and perhaps save a bit of dollar value. it's called either "peace" or "non-intervention."

these concepts just don't register with Romney (or Obama). if Romney were intelligent enough to acknowledge this he'd probably get many votes from those of us here. but he isn't.

that is why many of us here with a libertarian viewpoint will not vote for Romney. this is why, i would argue, that Romney will not remotely "reduce" the debt obligation of this country but will continue to increase it.

fisharmor
10-30-2012, 12:08 PM
Look, what he and his organization did at the RNC are not only unforgivable to RP supporters... they're also a crystal clear indicator of his character.
He had the nomination sewn up. There was no credible threat.
Yet he took great pains to have Dr. Paul kicked in the nuts repeatedly.
He was very careful to piss off all the grassroots activists.
He went out of his way to change the nomination process to make dissent impossible in the future.

The burden is on you and every other pseudolibertarian posting this same crap here recently:
Explain to me why I should reward this behavior.

RickyJ
10-30-2012, 12:11 PM
You didn't give any reason for your statement though, so as far as the OP is concerned a vote for Romney is still justified.





Please, he has the ability to search the facts just like I do. I am not going to give keep regurgitating the same facts and give out links to such propaganda as his unendingly. I don't have the time for it. When I have time, I do it, but for now it was enough to say he is wrong about his "facts" about Romney. If you have the time then do it instead of complaining that I didn't do it!

rpfocus
10-30-2012, 12:11 PM
You didn't give any reason for your statement though, so as far as the OP is concerned a vote for Romney is still justified.

This is something that makes me angry about politics (and we libertarians are as guilty of it as anyone else.) Person A and asks a question and person B responds with a belligerent remark that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to facilitate further discussion. Many times we libertarians think that such a remark will help sway doubting minds to our side because we are "clearing up the error," but it actually has the opposite effect.

I urge everyone on our side to spend more time backing statements with fact and less time being dogmatic and belligerent, especially around election time. I understand the temptation to put people or wrong ideas in their place, but it just isn't an effective way to win the battle.

/end rant

It could be fatigue from people trying to persuade others that Romney is better than Obama (and usually that, by extension, you should vote for Romney). The OP starts with the remark "a vote for Obama is, of course, unthinkable". AS IF we all share his view that Romney is any better. In my opinion they are both equally bad, and my opinion is shared by many Libertarian and Independent voters. Perhaps RickyJ was just trying to nip that in the bud, if so, I can't say I blame him. I'm an independent, and the 'Romney is better than Obama' argument is meaningless to me, as my priority is to support Independent and Liberty candidates - and Romney is CERTAINLY not one of those.

I'm sure the tone of discussion will change for the better after election day, I also have a feeling we will be seeing far less 'Romney Is Great Because' topics after election.

CaptUSA
10-30-2012, 12:11 PM
The Romney folks have really been hitting us hard these last few days. Do you think they are trying to understand, or are they just playing the odds that a couple of us may throw him a vote?

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 12:15 PM
Explain to me why I should reward this behavior.

And remember--we are principled and concerned with the long term health of this nation. Which means you can't do this without telling us how this behavior is actually good for a republic whose citizens yearn to breathe free.

georgiaboy
10-30-2012, 12:30 PM
Romney took Massachusetts from debt to surplus (didn't raise taxes either). The Olympics hired him for the specific purpose of getting rid of their debt. All he's ever done is successfully eliminate debt.

talking points. can only begin to imagine how these can be stated with a straight face.

Oh, yeah, that's right. I remember all the layoffs, downsizing, union busting, and budget cuts Romney implemented in Taxachusetts. /sarcasm

ninepointfive
10-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Look, what he and his organization did at the RNC are not only unforgivable to RP supporters... they're also a crystal clear indicator of his character.
He had the nomination sewn up. There was no credible threat.
Yet he took great pains to have Dr. Paul kicked in the nuts repeatedly.
He was very careful to piss off all the grassroots activists.
He went out of his way to change the nomination process to make dissent impossible in the future.

The burden is on you and every other pseudolibertarian posting this same crap here recently:
Explain to me why I should reward this behavior.

I'm with you here - but I bet the RNC people had a lot more of an active role in that.

tsai3904
10-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Romney took Massachusetts from debt to surplus (didn't raise taxes either). The Olympics hired him for the specific purpose of getting rid of their debt. All he's ever done is successfully eliminate debt. So why would someone think he wouldn't do it when even more eyes are on him to do so?

Romney was Governor from January 03 to January 07.

In FY 03, MA had debt of $16.636 billion.
In FY 07, MA had debt of $24.312 billion.

You can find these figures in the reports here (do a search for "Debt Administration" in the pdfs):
http://www.mass.gov/osc/publications-and-reports/financial-reports/cafr-reports.html


Also, this notion that Romney balanced the budget every year while he was Governor is ridiculous. I'm not sure exactly how its done in MA, but in IL, there is a requirement to balance the budget every year. What they do is project their revenues to match their projected expenses and that's called balancing their budget. As we all know, IL is drowning in debt even though they balance their budget every year.

rpfocus
10-30-2012, 12:37 PM
The Romney folks have really been hitting us hard these last few days. Do you think they are trying to understand, or are they just playing the odds that a couple of us may throw him a vote?

Yeah, they hit DailyPaul too. They start off spamming Anti-Obama BS, see who bites, then hit you with some Pro-Romney BS. As if we don't already know how shady the GOP is from the abuse they gave us during the primaries. I guess the good news is that they'll start vaporizing shortly.

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 12:51 PM
The Romney folks have really been hitting us hard these last few days. Do you think they are trying to understand, or are they just playing the odds that a couple of us may throw him a vote?

No ,they're trying to guilt-trip us into voting for Romney with "lesser of two evils" BS. It's sad really, that they don't seem to know who theyr'e talknig to, and may not even be aware of how completely corrupt the candidate they're supporting is... Or maybe they just don't care.

This sums up best why it's incredibly laughable to even ask us to throw Romney a bone after how he treated all of us and Dr. Paul. We've witnessed it first-hand over and over:


Look, what he and his organization did at the RNC are not only unforgivable to RP supporters... they're also a crystal clear indicator of his character.
He had the nomination sewn up. There was no credible threat.
Yet he took great pains to have Dr. Paul kicked in the nuts repeatedly.
He was very careful to piss off all the grassroots activists.
He went out of his way to change the nomination process to make dissent impossible in the future.

The burden is on you and every other pseudolibertarian posting this same crap here recently:
Explain to me why I should reward this behavior.

helmuth_hubener
10-30-2012, 01:15 PM
Romney took Massachusetts from debt to surplus (didn't raise taxes either). This is a claim. Politicians can make claims. When they do, they should be assumed to be lies. This is because the American people like politicians to make claims, and they are very comfortable being lied to.

Here is what the Massachusetts state budget has looked like recently.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&units=b&size=m&year=1995_2010&sname=MA&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=19.54_19.79_20.15_20.98_21.28_23.24_25.5 5_26.56_26.27_31.59_30.35_31.89_35.12_36.97_39.14_ 42.70

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Tax%20Revenue&units=b&size=m&year=1992_2010&sname=MA&bar=1&stack=0&col=c&legend=Total%20Direct%20Revenue-state_Social%20Insurance%20Taxes-state_Ad-valorem%20Taxes-state_Fees%20and%20Charges-state_Income%20Taxes-state&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=15.83_16.52_16.85_18.34_19.37_20.73_21.7 8_22.67_26.22_25.09_21.45_25.24_32.70_33.64_36.66_ 39.71_34.04_21.45_37.04&spending1=1.88_1.81_1.46_2.12_2.03_2.19_1.71_1.66_ 1.74_1.93_2.14_2.29_2.52_2.61_3.13_2.81_2.81_2.82_ 3.30&spending2=3.81_4.05_4.26_4.42_4.52_4.91_5.10_5.45_ 5.80_6.11_6.10_6.40_6.71_7.01_7.08_7.19_7.39_7.31_ 8.13&spending3=1.42_1.51_1.56_1.62_1.81_1.91_1.70_1.68_ 1.75_1.92_1.86_2.19_2.72_3.18_3.27_3.54_4.07_4.41_ 4.27&spending4=6.09_6.33_6.75_7.18_7.93_8.40_9.39_9.29_ 10.35_11.11_8.73_9.21_10.13_11.02_12.34_13.51_14.6 8_12.39_11.96

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Gross%20Public%20Debt&units=b&size=m&year=1995_2010&sname=MA&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=27.73_29.29_29.39_32.83_35.80_38.96_42.1 5_45.22_48.48_57.16_60.01_63.80_68.45_71.89_74.60_ 73.94

Can you spot the years of fiscal responsibility when Crook Romney was Head Crook?

I can't either.

The answer, by the way, is that he was Head Crook from 2003 to 2007. During that time, tax revenue went massively up, every single year. Spending went through the roof, from $25 to $35 billion. Only one year, 2005, did spending go down, but that that just got it back on the main upward curve (Romney's 2004 budget had been particularly profligate in its "spending" -- code for destruction of wealth). And the debt went up massively, every single year, because as much as Romney increased the stealing, he increased the wealth destruction even more.

There are the facts, and only the facts. Gary Johnson supporters don't like the New Mexico facts. I don't expect Mitt Romney supporters will like the Massachusetts facts.

Todd
10-30-2012, 01:51 PM
All he's ever done is successfully eliminate debt. So why would someone think he wouldn't do it when even more eyes are on him to do so?

How do you explain Obama then? Because all eyes have been on him for FOUR years and he promised to reduce debt too.

And on November 7, 60 million people are going to turn out and vote for him AGAIN.

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 01:57 PM
To sum this thread up, Mitt Romney has been far more anti-us than we've been anti-Romney. Blowback is a bitch.

mdameron
10-30-2012, 03:00 PM
Please, he has the ability to search the facts just like I do. I am not going to give keep regurgitating the same facts and give out links to such propaganda as his unendingly. I don't have the time for it. When I have time, I do it, but for now it was enough to say he is wrong about his "facts" about Romney. If you have the time then do it instead of complaining that I didn't do it!

You're right, and my comment wasn't the most productive either. Sometimes when you get caught up in the emotion you can be a hypocrite, accusing someone else of exactly what you are doing. Sorry for that!!!

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 03:05 PM
To sum this thread up, Mitt Romney has been far more anti-us than we've been anti-Romney. Blowback is a bitch.

+rep

But I can think of another moral to this story. If you want to maintain your delusions about your quasi-hero, don't bring them here and try to infect us with them. We'll not only burst your balloon, we'll stomp on it too.