• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why Romney can't win against Obama and why he's a progressive.

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
From http://www.romneyexposed.com/2011/06/20/an-open-letter-about-mitt-romney-from-conservatives/ (Romney Exposed: An Open Letter from Conservatives):
Romney Raised Taxes And Destroyed Job Creation In Massachusetts
[...] But let’s take DeMoss at his word that Romney’s business experience will make him a good conservative president. How did his business experience help him govern Massachusetts? And did he govern as a conservative? For the last five years Romney and his supporters have cultivated an image of Romney as a fiscal superstar and who ran a very tight ship as Governor of Massachusetts. Indeed, DeMoss claims Governor Romney “turned a $3 billion deficit into a nearly $1 billion surplus, without raising taxes.” But that statement is simply not true.The reality is that Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor was an economic disaster for the state.
Governor Romney passed a host of new tax and fee increases, hitting the corporate world hard and devastating job creation. As Peter Nicholas, chairman of Boston Science Corporation, stated, “tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.” (1)
The Cato Institute reported that in his first year as Governor, Romney “proposed $140 [million] in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code.” (2) As Nicholas explains, “Romney’s tax policies were not helpful for many small businesses…when Romney took many IRS subchapter S businesses in Massachusetts and almost doubled their tax rates, it was an important disincentive to investment, growth and job creation.” (3). As Joseph Crosby of the Council on State Taxation stated, “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations.” (4)
Romney also raised taxes on business again in 2004 and 2005, for a grand total of $309 million levied upon the corporate sector. (5) He then increased taxes on business property (6), tried to raise taxes on hotels (but was stopped by the Democrat legislature!) (7), joined a coalition lobbying congress to tax internet activity (8), and supported a tax on out of state commuters. (9)
Nor did Romney fight the passage of higher rates on death taxes; indeed, his official position on a state bill was “no position.” (10). Moreover, Governor Romney supported gas tax hikes both for Massachusetts and for the federal government. (11) He also proposed a new excise tax on SUVs and a new sales tax on all used cars. (12)
Indeed, Romney failed to reduce ANY of the myriad taxes Massachusetts imposes on its citizens, even though the previous two Republican governors, William Weld and Paul Cellucci, were both able to reduce tax rates. As Governor Cellucci confirmed, Romney “did not have any broad-based tax cuts in his four years as Governor.” (13). Indeed, while Romney raised over a hundred different fees and taxes, the two previous Republican governors signed more than 40 tax reduction bills, even though Democrats controlled the legislature.
Nor are there any taxpayer groups in Massachusetts in agreement with the notion that Romney never raised taxes. As the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation stated, “fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million per year under Governor Mitt Romney….” (14) For a detailed list of the fees and taxes raised by Romney, go here: http://romneyfacts.com/assets/Romney_taxandfee_hikes.xls
We should not also forget that Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts while governor, (15) and when campaigning for Governor, refused to sign the “no new taxes” pledge, calling it “government by gimmickry.” (16) He only signed the pledge when he began to campaign for the presidency.
By Romney’s last year in office, Massachusetts was ranked by the Public Policy Institute of New York on its Cost of Doing Business Index, as the 4th most expensive state in which to do business in. (17) Data compiled by the Tax Foundation reveals that during Romney’s term, the per capita tax burden increased from 9.3% to 9.9%, a .6% increase. In real dollars, the per capita tax burden increased $1175.71 during Romney’s term. (18)
Contrary to DeMoss’s comments, Romney didn’t “turn a $3 billion dollar deficit into a nearly $1 billion surplus.” Rather, the deficit was $1.3 billion according to Factcheck.org (19) and he balanced the budget with mostly tax and fee increases with very little spending cuts. According to the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, Romney “proposed four budgets while in office…each budget increased spending over the previous year.” (20). As Club for Growth echoed, Romney’s last budget “was a whopping 10.12% larger than the preceding fiscal year.” (21) Out of the 25 freshmen Republican Governors rated by the Cato Institute on fiscal issues, Romney had the 2nd worst score. (22)
Indeed, Carla Howell, president of the Massachusetts-based Center for Small Government, is blunt about Romney’s record: “Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by ‘2 billion.’ Sometimes he claims he cut it ‘3 billion’….but these cuts were merely budget games….not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically….Romney initiated massive new spending –without any prodding.” (23)
The alleged budget surplus DeMoss refers to is also mythical. The Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation and the conservative Massachusetts think tank, Beacon Hill Institute, both challenged that notion (24). In fact, Romney left a billion dollar deficit for his successor. (25).
Romney’s budgets were also full of pork and he was infamous for lavishing money on staff salaries, incurring outlandish travel expenses, and granting pay hikes for state officials and lawmakers. (26). Moreover, he had no problem with corporate welfare, granting millions to local corporations in an effort to persuade them to NOT leave the state or to hire more workers, hardly a sign of a fiscal conservative. (27)
Finally, job growth was devastated by Romney’s policies. The Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation says that under Romney, “job growth has been anemic. [...]” (28).
Click to expand...
At least Obama has populist rhetoric and a lot of his supporters from 08 will be willing to give him a 2nd chance even though he has no intentions of giving a corrected performance. Ron Paul would have a much better record to run on than Romney, plus the fact that he's actually different from the last several progressives/neocons nominated by the GOP makes him the GOP's best hope.

We can't afford the deficits and tax increases that Romney would bring. Just like Reagan spent more than Carter, Romney will spend at least 2.5 times more year than Obama if elected. In addition to that, Romney believes that the dollar is currently too strong (he wants China to quit manipulating their currency even though that's good for American consumers) and in addition to Romney's proposed tax increases (he wants more tariffs and he wants to increase the effective average corporate tax rate).
 
Last edited:
Anarchist420 casts Wall of Text.
Crackrabbit casts Reflect.
Wall of Text hits Anarchist420 with a critical strike for 9001.
Anarchist420 dies.
Crackrabbit gains 100XP and 1000000 Gold.
 
Anarchist, you have been told repeatedly to stop misusing 'liberal' and 'progressive' in these absurd and perverse errors.
 
CrackRabbit said:
I am well aware of Romney's similarity to Gumby, and why the state he was once governor of is occasionally called "Taxachusets".
Click to expand...

Of course according to the Tax Foundation the state and local tax burden for Massachusetts was 10% in 2009. This is exactly 0.2% higher than average for the US. I've always found it funny that people think Massachusetts is some sort of super taxed place when considering how close it is to the national average.
 
CADsortaGUY said:
lol

but the .... uh hit piece... has merits despite the OP.
Click to expand...

Sure, conservatives are getting fucked this time around. Frankly I feel sorry for you guys, but what are you going to do? Either Perry or Cain would ignite the left and send moderates running. Their crazy thought to good idea ratio is way out of wack. At least Romney gives the Left an excuse to stay home on voting day. The real bitch would be having to vote for him again in 4 years if he won.

I think it's going to be a repeat of Kerry in '04. The opposition hates the sitting president, but fields what they think is their most electable candidate, but the electable candidate is so meh that the opposition ends up staying home.

Good luck, but I think it's going to be another 4 years before the turnover. You guys can probably pick up some seats in Congress though so you've got that going for you.
 
Craig234 said:
Anarchist, you have been told repeatedly to stop misusing 'liberal' and 'progressive' in these absurd and perverse errors.
Click to expand...
How was it an error? Romney and his father are Rockefeller Republicans, which was and is the progressive faction of the Republican Party (in contrast to the Old Right Robert Republican faction).

Corporatism and neoconservatism are modernly liberal. The neocons (who are former Troskyites and are pro-war, pro-centralization of power, culturally liberal/moderate, and ambivalent to the welfare state or outright for it) are ex-Troskyites and are nowhere near culturally or fiscally conservative. Being a security Republican (e.g., Bush, Romney) is NOT conservative. Woodrow "it's our collective duty to make the world safe for democracy by bombing the hell out of people" Wilson, the intellectual godfather of the neocons was a security Democrat and he was a modern liberal. Wilson's direct disciple, FDR, was a progressive corporatist from hell. No wonder Woodrow Wilson couldn't read until he was 11.
 
Anarchist, you like to adopt your own incorrect definitions of labels and are perhaps obsessive about using them as arguments. You're wrong about 'progressive'.

You don't want you and Ron Paul labelled communists, and Obama to be labelled a Libertarian. Stop being annoying misusing the label.

Mitt Romney is for a pro-wealthy economic agenda that I don't really care about your take on, it's the agenda progressives are strongly opposed to.
 
Craig234 said:
Anarchist, you like to adopt your own incorrect definitions of labels and are perhaps obsessive about using them as arguments. You're wrong about 'progressive'.

You don't want you and Ron Paul labelled communists, and Obama to be labelled a Libertarian. Stop being annoying misusing the label.

Mitt Romney is for a pro-wealthy economic agenda that I don't really care about your take on, it's the agenda progressives are strongly opposed to.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be annoying, but just because someone has a pro-wealthy agenda doesn't mean they can't be progressive. Doesn't Barney Frank have a pro-wealthy agenda and isn't he a progressive? Corporatism is progressive lite.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Not trying to be annoying, but just because someone has a pro-wealthy agenda doesn't mean they can't be progressive. Doesn't Barney Frank have a pro-wealthy agenda and isn't he a progressive? Corporatism is progressive lite.
Click to expand...

No. Frank support legislation restricting corporate and banking abuse; if he doesn't, he's not progressive.

Progressives are not 'anti-corporation' and 'anti-finance'. They're for those institutions serving the people, and against the excesses where they harm the people.

That means worker rights, and regulation on the institutions, and a good democracy.

You have your own definitions. They're wrong, when you say Romney is 'progressive'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top