Still don't have anything except "Not Obama", do you?

Romney isn't Bush. Bush was a big spender...really more like a democrat. I think Romney will get things under control, and Ryan will help him actually address the hard problems.

Raees wrote: I see. So you'd want to follow the one who led you in there and got you lost in the forest in the first place. That's using your noggin'.

That's what the current president is doing, isn't it? Following the same flawed demand side economics that led us into the forest of debt to begin with? Not only following it, he's actually running through the forest with nary a look at the compass to tell him where he's at.

You mean the RMoney that took Massachusetts from 36th to 47th in job creation? And who added $500 million in new taxes (by calling it "fees"?) And left the state with $1 billion in NEW DEBT? And didn't run for a second term because his approval ratings were so low he knew he couldn't be reelected?...You meant THAT RMoney?

Yeah, sounds like he knows how to deal with "hard problems"... Just suck up the money, and leave it for someone else to cleanup.

Democracy4Sale wrote: You mean the RMoney that took Massachusetts from 36th to 47th in job creation? And who added $500 million in new taxes (by calling it "fees"?) And left the state with $1 billion in NEW DEBT? And didn't run for a second term because his approval ratings were so low he knew he couldn't be reelected?...You meant THAT RMoney?

Yeah, sounds like he knows how to deal with "hard problems"... Just suck up the money, and leave it for someone else to cleanup.

BZZZZ...wrong answer. Even your own fact check site which you like to reference says your statements are wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obama- ... ic-record/

You mean the part about " [Unemployment] was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure" (but was improving)... You mean like unemployment was running -750,000/month when Obama took office, but is improving now? So which person is okay for you if "it was/is improving now?" I can never remember which part of the hypocrisy I'm supposed to buy into?

You mean the part about "left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt.” It’s true that long-term bond debt — used for capital improvements — rose under Romney" So, it was $2.6 Billion, instead of $1 billion... My bad...

So, the part about raising $500 million in fees is true...But you're maintaining it was only on "the rich"? Really?

24 Fees Mitt Romney Tried To Raise In Massachusetts

1. A Fee on the Blind
2. A Fee for the Mentally Handicapped
3. A Fee for Having Tuberculosis
4. A Fee on Volunteer Firefighters and EMTs
5. A Fee for Golfing
6. A Fee for Cremating the Dead
7. A Fee for Prison Phone Calls
8. A Fee for Driving Permits
9. Romney Quadrupled Gun Fees
10. A Fee on Cottages
11. A Fee on Ice Skaters
12. A Fee for Barbers
13. A Fee on Hairdressers
14. A Fee on Nurses
15. A Fee on Pharmacists
16. A Fee on Plumbers.
17. A Fee on Psychologists
18. A Fee on Realtors
19. A Fee on Home Inspectors
20. A Fee on Auto Repair Shops
21. A Fee for Divorce
22. A Fee for Changing Your Name
23. A Fee on Milk
24. A Fee on Funeral Directors

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... ssachusett

Actually, I call bullsh*t....

Apparently, the Supreme Court thought they were "taxes" and not "fees":

Ruling threatens Romney's 'no tax' record in Mass.

BOSTON (AP) — As governor, Mitt Romney raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new and higher fees to help Massachusetts close a looming budget gap — all the while seeking to preserve a no-new-tax record as he eyed a run for president.

Now, the Supreme Court decision that upheld President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law is threatening to unravel Romney's no-tax claim, even as it hands the GOP a rallying cry in the presidential contest.

At issue is whether the so-called "individual mandate" at the core of both the federal law signed by Obama and the 2006 state law signed by Romney is a penalty or a tax. The mandate requires everyone who can afford insurance to have it or face what Massachusetts officials have called a penalty.

In the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said the mandate could be considered a tax and was therefore constitutional.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07- ... n-mass-dot

So the claim that he "didn't raise taxes" (but only "fees") is totally bogus... Got it.

I'll let the part about "not running for a second term because his approval ratings were so low" stand... Since you only use FactCheck when you think it suits your purpose, and deny it all other times, I still call bullsh*t....

So, we can continue to trade Googled potshots at each other...

1) Do you really think you are going to change anybody's mind about who to vote for?
2) You still don't have anything other than "He's the 'Not-Obama'..."

Thanks for playing...

Democracy4Sale wrote: So, we can continue to trade Googled potshots at each other...

1) Do you really think you are going to change anybody's mind about who to vote for?
2) You still don't have anything other than "He's the 'Not-Obama'..."

Thanks for playing...

1) Nope, not anyone here, and neither are you. But I have fun bantering...especially since I am right!
2) Yes, I told you. Romney at least has some experience at turning around failing businesses. That alone is enough compared to Obama, who only knows how to subsidize failing businesses...then they still fail.

Romney has experience with loading up failing business with debt (that others are responsible for), sucking out the money, making money for his buddies, breaking contracts, and shoving the employees out the door, and saddling the U.S. Government (read: taxpayers) with the money required to cover the Pensions he raided, (under the Federal Pension Protection Act)...

Give me a break...

I think I'll wear my button tomorrow that says "Ask me how many homes I own?"

"In Romney's world, the cars get the elevator, the workers get the shaft." -- Jennifer Granholm

Democracy4Sale wrote: Romney has experience with loading up failing business with debt (that others are responsible for), sucking out the money, making money for his buddies, breaking contracts, and shoving the employees out the door, and saddling the U.S. Government (read: taxpayers) with the money required to cover the Pensions he raided, (under the Federal Pension Protection Act)...

Give me a break...

I think I'll wear my button tomorrow that says "Ask me how many homes I own?"

"In Romney's world, the cars get the elevator, the workers get the shaft." -- Jennifer Granholm

You are a partisan, as am I. Romney did his job. He was able to save some companies, and the many people who work there today are likely happy. How did he raid pensions? Isn't that illegal? Or do you mean the pensions disappeared for the defunct businesses?

I don't care how many homes he owns. I care that he has a clue about economics, and has SOME success...something Obama cannot claim. He can't even get his own party to pass a budget for him.

RenegadeCJ wrote: How did he raid pensions? Isn't that illegal? Or do you mean the pensions disappeared for the defunct businesses?

Why don't you try Googling for yourself for a change?... (Or is it too tough for you to wade through all the bogus articles in the Rightie echo-chamber to get to the truth?

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/07/ho ... andsomely/

But here's one salient section:

Bain froze the workers’ pension benefits and converted them from a defined benefit plan, in which employees were entitled to 75% of the average of their last three years’ salaries, to a cash-balance plan in which they would get a lump sum equal to what they were owed in 1999. Workers were furious. They threatened to sue, but never went through with the lawsuit because they were fearful of losing their jobs. Dade saved $10 to $40 million with this stratagem. The very month Dade did the conversion, it used the projected savings as the basis to borrow $421 million placing Dade in even more debt.

The result was that Dade paid Bain and its partner, Goldman Sachs, the entire amount as a dividend. Bain and Goldman had only put down $81 million to buy the company in the first place. Yet, in June 1999 they received $365 million from the dividend—a gain of 4.3 times their initial investment. Consequently, Dade’s debt more then doubled to $871 million in order to make this huge payment to Bain and Goldman.

Romney had left operational management of Bain that year, though his disclosures show that he owned 16.5 percent of the Bain partnership responsible for the Dade investment until at least 2001. In order to make their loan payments, Dade had to cut not only R&D but also the core of the company. It sold off assets and fired workers. Nevertheless, the whole thing came crashing down in 2002 when Dade filed for bankruptcy protection. It was the end of Bain’s and Goldman’s involvement with Dade. They had looted the entire company, raided the pension fund, albeit indirectly, and caused mega job losses. They had ruined a previously successful company.

Nevertheless, Romney could turn around calmly, face the cameras and proclaim himself a “successful businessman” for having made hundreds of millions of dollars for himself and his investors. Bain and Goldman had made a $280 million profit on an investment of only $85 million. Is this what America is all about? Is this what freedom consists of? Romney seems to think so.

But, hey, they're only American workers...And we wouldn't want to do anything that would interfere with the "job-creators" (read: killers) getting wealthier, now would we? I think all of that extra money that was supposed to trickle-down from RMoney trickled into accounts in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Switzerland instead....

You know what happens when the pension fund gets raided?.. The U.S. government has to pick up the tab...(under the Federal Pension Protection Act)