Romney-Obama Debate Thread

Did Mitt leave Massachusetts in better shape when he left than when he first took office? I believe he did.

Will Mitt leave the USA in better shape when he finsihes his term of office as President? I believe he will.

Will Obama leave the USA in better shape when he finishes his term of office as President? I have seen absolutely no evidence that he will.

no, he didn't. any other governor would have balanced the budget, some might have done it in a way that didn't balance it on the backs of working people, some might not have, but they all would have balanced it.

you're free to believe whatever myths you choose.

We both live in MA but feel differently about the answers to those questions. Your response sounds a bit mythical to me.

My big issue with Romney is that Romneycare fines me if I choose not to buy insurance just like Obamacare. The reason Romneycare isn't as bad to me as Obamacare is because, well before Obamacare, I could move out of this state if I didn't like receiving a penalty in the form of taxes for not buying a private company's product. Now I can't.

Romney also brought gay marriage to massachussetts. He may have resisted it but he, in the end, compromised on it. Shows good leadership and a willingness to not be as partisan as the current President.

Under Romney Massachusetts’ Unemployment Rate Fell From 5.6% To 4.7% During The Romney Administration. Verify on BLS.GOV

Mitt Romney Entered Office Facing A $3 Billion Budget Shortfall And Left The State With A $2 Billion Rainy Day Fund: Governor Romney Closed A Nearly $3 Billion Shortfall Without Raising Taxes And Balanced Four Budgets http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/us/politics/16romney.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 <-- nytimes!

if by compromise you mean he chose not to fight a losing battle in the courts, yeah, he compromised.

he had nothing to do with unemployment rate in mass for good or bad. he neither creatred nor eliminated any jobs.

the governor of mass by law has to balance the budget. he raised every fee in the state multiple times. you can call that not raising taxes technically, but it's raising taxes in everything but name.
 
no, he didn't. any other governor would have balanced the budget, some might have done it in a way that didn't balance it on the backs of working people, some might not have, but they all would have balanced it.

you're free to believe whatever myths you choose.

We both live in MA but feel differently about the answers to those questions. Your response sounds a bit mythical to me.

My big issue with Romney is that Romneycare fines me if I choose not to buy insurance just like Obamacare. The reason Romneycare isn't as bad to me as Obamacare is because, well before Obamacare, I could move out of this state if I didn't like receiving a penalty in the form of taxes for not buying a private company's product. Now I can't.

Romney also brought gay marriage to massachussetts. He may have resisted it but he, in the end, compromised on it. Shows good leadership and a willingness to not be as partisan as the current President.

Under Romney Massachusetts’ Unemployment Rate Fell From 5.6% To 4.7% During The Romney Administration. Verify on BLS.GOV

Mitt Romney Entered Office Facing A $3 Billion Budget Shortfall And Left The State With A $2 Billion Rainy Day Fund: Governor Romney Closed A Nearly $3 Billion Shortfall Without Raising Taxes And Balanced Four Budgets http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/us/politics/16romney.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 <-- nytimes!

Romney also enjoyed a 50% or better approval rating in Mass, about as good as a Republican governor cold ever expect in a deep blue state, right up to the last months when he announced that he would not run for re-election. So he had to be doing something right.

Again, Romney is not everything I want in a President. But right now, the USA is in deep shit and unless we elect a President with his head on straight and ability to get things done, we could be screwed for a very long time. Romney is head and shoulders more able than Obama with those most necessary qualities we have to have.

bill weld had approval ratings in the 70% range. Weld ended the state's borrowing, controlled Medicaid spending, reduced property taxes and balanced seven budgets in a row

he won reelection by the highest margin of any governor in the history of mass.

he's a republican

try harder
 
We both live in MA but feel differently about the answers to those questions. Your response sounds a bit mythical to me.

My big issue with Romney is that Romneycare fines me if I choose not to buy insurance just like Obamacare. The reason Romneycare isn't as bad to me as Obamacare is because, well before Obamacare, I could move out of this state if I didn't like receiving a penalty in the form of taxes for not buying a private company's product. Now I can't.

Romney also brought gay marriage to massachussetts. He may have resisted it but he, in the end, compromised on it. Shows good leadership and a willingness to not be as partisan as the current President.

Under Romney Massachusetts&#8217; Unemployment Rate Fell From 5.6% To 4.7% During The Romney Administration. Verify on BLS.GOV

Mitt Romney Entered Office Facing A $3 Billion Budget Shortfall And Left The State With A $2 Billion Rainy Day Fund: Governor Romney Closed A Nearly $3 Billion Shortfall Without Raising Taxes And Balanced Four Budgets http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/us/politics/16romney.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 <-- nytimes!

Romney also enjoyed a 50% or better approval rating in Mass, about as good as a Republican governor cold ever expect in a deep blue state, right up to the last months when he announced that he would not run for re-election. So he had to be doing something right.

Again, Romney is not everything I want in a President. But right now, the USA is in deep shit and unless we elect a President with his head on straight and ability to get things done, we could be screwed for a very long time. Romney is head and shoulders more able than Obama with those most necessary qualities we have to have.

bill weld had approval ratings in the 70% range. Weld ended the state's borrowing, controlled Medicaid spending, reduced property taxes and balanced seven budgets in a row

he won reelection by the highest margin of any governor in the history of mass.

he's a republican

try harder

Weld was one of a string of Republican governors and served not long after Massachusetts supported Ronald Reagan twice. And he took over when Massachusetts was having even worse financial problems than it did a decade later. But that was a much different and less hateful political climate than you found during the Bush years when Mitt served. So yes Weld did well in Massachusetts, but probably would not have been nearly as popular if he had served when Mitt served. I was referring to current times when partisanship is much more viscious than it was then.
 
bullshit. he did it by cutting local aid to the bone and increasing every fee he could find.

and i can assure you, he pissed off plenty of people.

not least because he spent the majority of his term running for president.

as for the horse puckey about states rights and federal powers, if that lets you sleep at night, knock yourself out.

Did Mitt leave Massachusetts in better shape when he left than when he first took office? I believe he did.

Will Mitt leave the USA in better shape when he finsihes his term of office as President? I believe he will.

Will Obama leave the USA in better shape when he finishes his term of office as President? I have seen absolutely no evidence that he will.

no, he didn't. any other governor would have balanced the budget, some might have done it in a way that didn't balance it on the backs of working people, some might not have, but they all would have balanced it.

you're free to believe whatever myths you choose.



LOL! "Would have" LOL! :rolleyes: Nevermind that 'how' part.
 
Last edited:
Just to set the record straight:

The national debt when Bush took office 1-20-2001 - $5,727,776,738,305 (unacceptable)
The national debt when Bush left office 1-20-2008 - $10,626,877,048,913 (unacceptable)
Increase the 8 years of Bush administration - $4,899,100,310,608 (unacceptable)

The national debt 10-1-2012 after a few days over 3 years, 8 months of the Obama administration: $16,159,487,013,300 (unacceptable)
Increase for the slightly more than 3 years 8 months of the Obama administration - $5,532,609,964,387 (unaccceptable)

But. . . .the deficit in 2007 was 162 billion and dropping
The deficit in 2008 was 459 billion, but 400 billion of that was Tarp that Obama voted for.

The deficit in 2009 - $1.413 trillion ($400 billion of that was the other half of Tarp)
The deficit in 2010 - $1.294 trillion
The deficit in 2011 - $1.299 trillion
The deficit in 2012 to date - $1.1 trillion and increasing by billions every day and covered with borrowed or inflationary money.

And there are trillion dollar deficits projected as far as the eye can see.

So Obama wants to spend more and more INVESTING in this and that.
Romney wants to stop spending on anything that we don't have to spend money on; not spend money on non essentials that we don't have and don't have to spend.

Which is the more responsible approach? Which is the better stewardship of the people's money that we worked damn hard for?
why use fiscal years on the deficit figures and not use fiscal year on the debt figures? shouldn't you at least be consistent and use fiscal years on both?
 
Romney also enjoyed a 50% or better approval rating in Mass, about as good as a Republican governor cold ever expect in a deep blue state, right up to the last months when he announced that he would not run for re-election. So he had to be doing something right.

Again, Romney is not everything I want in a President. But right now, the USA is in deep shit and unless we elect a President with his head on straight and ability to get things done, we could be screwed for a very long time. Romney is head and shoulders more able than Obama with those most necessary qualities we have to have.

bill weld had approval ratings in the 70% range. Weld ended the state's borrowing, controlled Medicaid spending, reduced property taxes and balanced seven budgets in a row

he won reelection by the highest margin of any governor in the history of mass.

he's a republican

try harder

Weld was one of a string of Republican governors and served not long after Massachusetts supported Ronald Reagan twice. And he took over when Massachusetts was having even worse financial problems than it did a decade later. But that was a much different and less hateful political climate than you found during the Bush years when Mitt served. So yes Weld did well in Massachusetts, but probably would not have been nearly as popular if he had served when Mitt served. I was referring to current times when partisanship is much more viscious than it was then.
the total avg. tax burden on massachusetts residents was 9.6% when Romney took office and was 10.2% when he left office.......

He raised taxes to balance the budget....fees ARE taxes.

He raised taxes on businesses bigtime....he called them closing tax loopholes, but net result.... he RAISED taxes on those businesses.
 
Just to set the record straight:

The national debt when Bush took office 1-20-2001 - $5,727,776,738,305 (unacceptable)
The national debt when Bush left office 1-20-2008 - $10,626,877,048,913 (unacceptable)
Increase the 8 years of Bush administration - $4,899,100,310,608 (unacceptable)

The national debt 10-1-2012 after a few days over 3 years, 8 months of the Obama administration: $16,159,487,013,300 (unacceptable)
Increase for the slightly more than 3 years 8 months of the Obama administration - $5,532,609,964,387 (unaccceptable)

But. . . .the deficit in 2007 was 162 billion and dropping
The deficit in 2008 was 459 billion, but 400 billion of that was Tarp that Obama voted for.

The deficit in 2009 - $1.413 trillion ($400 billion of that was the other half of Tarp)
The deficit in 2010 - $1.294 trillion
The deficit in 2011 - $1.299 trillion
The deficit in 2012 to date - $1.1 trillion and increasing by billions every day and covered with borrowed or inflationary money.

And there are trillion dollar deficits projected as far as the eye can see.

So Obama wants to spend more and more INVESTING in this and that.
Romney wants to stop spending on anything that we don't have to spend money on; not spend money on non essentials that we don't have and don't have to spend.

Which is the more responsible approach? Which is the better stewardship of the people's money that we worked damn hard for?
why use fiscal years on the deficit figures and not use fiscal year on the debt figures? shouldn't you at least be consistent and use fiscal years on both?

Fiscal years? I used 12-month years for both. And does it matter? Can you defend trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see no matter who is in office?

And I accept those who hate Romney will nitpick his record in every respect while objecting mightily if the same standards or expectations are made of Obama. I am not fond of nitpicking or double standards.

I honestly don't care who gets to elected to office if they have the right motives, have the right values, and the right skill set. And I believe Romney has all three. I do not believe Obama ever did.
 
Last edited:
This is the first of many debates... and Obama is just setting Romney up for the kill. Romney told a lot of lies last night and changed his story on a few issues. I can smell the BS from here.
 
Just to set the record straight:

The national debt when Bush took office 1-20-2001 - $5,727,776,738,305 (unacceptable)
The national debt when Bush left office 1-20-2008 - $10,626,877,048,913 (unacceptable)
Increase the 8 years of Bush administration - $4,899,100,310,608 (unacceptable)

The national debt 10-1-2012 after a few days over 3 years, 8 months of the Obama administration: $16,159,487,013,300 (unacceptable)
Increase for the slightly more than 3 years 8 months of the Obama administration - $5,532,609,964,387 (unaccceptable)

But. . . .the deficit in 2007 was 162 billion and dropping
The deficit in 2008 was 459 billion, but 400 billion of that was Tarp that Obama voted for.

The deficit in 2009 - $1.413 trillion ($400 billion of that was the other half of Tarp)
The deficit in 2010 - $1.294 trillion
The deficit in 2011 - $1.299 trillion
The deficit in 2012 to date - $1.1 trillion and increasing by billions every day and covered with borrowed or inflationary money.

And there are trillion dollar deficits projected as far as the eye can see.

So Obama wants to spend more and more INVESTING in this and that.
Romney wants to stop spending on anything that we don't have to spend money on; not spend money on non essentials that we don't have and don't have to spend.

Which is the more responsible approach? Which is the better stewardship of the people's money that we worked damn hard for?
why use fiscal years on the deficit figures and not use fiscal year on the debt figures? shouldn't you at least be consistent and use fiscal years on both?

Fiscal years? I used 12-month years for both. And does it matter? Can you defend trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see no matter who is in office?

And I accept those who hate Romney will nitpick his record in every respect while objecting mightily if the same standards or expectations are made of Obama. I am not fond of nitpicking or double standards.

I honestly don't care who gets to elected to office if they have the right motives, have the right values, and the right skill set. And I believe Romney has all three. I do not believe Obama ever did.

When the facts aren't defensible you get comments like that Fox..but I know you know this ;).
 
Did Mitt leave Massachusetts in better shape when he left than when he first took office? I believe he did.

Will Mitt leave the USA in better shape when he finsihes his term of office as President? I believe he will.

Will Obama leave the USA in better shape when he finishes his term of office as President? I have seen absolutely no evidence that he will.

no, he didn't. any other governor would have balanced the budget, some might have done it in a way that didn't balance it on the backs of working people, some might not have, but they all would have balanced it.

you're free to believe whatever myths you choose.



LOL! "Would have" LOL! :rolleyes: Nevermind that 'how' part.

by law they have to balance the budget so yes, they would have.

you can go back to licking mitt's ass now
 
Okay the funniest excuse for Obama's poor debate performance yet:

On MSNBC's program "The Spin Cycle" yesterday afternoon, the black guy on the panel said the reason Obama can't be a good debater because he is black. If he debates like Romney debated, he will come across as an angry black man.

I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up. :)
 
bill weld had approval ratings in the 70% range. Weld ended the state's borrowing, controlled Medicaid spending, reduced property taxes and balanced seven budgets in a row

he won reelection by the highest margin of any governor in the history of mass.

he's a republican

try harder

Weld was one of a string of Republican governors and served not long after Massachusetts supported Ronald Reagan twice. And he took over when Massachusetts was having even worse financial problems than it did a decade later. But that was a much different and less hateful political climate than you found during the Bush years when Mitt served. So yes Weld did well in Massachusetts, but probably would not have been nearly as popular if he had served when Mitt served. I was referring to current times when partisanship is much more viscious than it was then.
the total avg. tax burden on massachusetts residents was 9.6% when Romney took office and was 10.2% when he left office.......

He raised taxes to balance the budget....fees ARE taxes.

He raised taxes on businesses bigtime....he called them closing tax loopholes, but net result.... he RAISED taxes on those businesses.

Then you are simply gonna LOVE Obamacare.....which isn't a tax according to Dear Ruler, but is according to the SCOTUS.
 
no, he didn't. any other governor would have balanced the budget, some might have done it in a way that didn't balance it on the backs of working people, some might not have, but they all would have balanced it.

you're free to believe whatever myths you choose.



LOL! "Would have" LOL! :rolleyes: Nevermind that 'how' part.

by law they have to balance the budget so yes, they would have.

you can go back to licking mitt's ass now



Nevermind the 'how' part? Nevermind that the law does not prohibit carrying a deficit over to the next year?

Go back to New York.
 

Forum List

Back
Top