Mitt Romney, is the BENEDICT ARNOLD of 2010 (like every other year).
Check out where FReepers have uncovered something very big.
Why don't you go defend Romney on this, too.
Posted on 06/20/2011 5:27:59 PM PDT by lowbridge
"People have a right to say, 'Why is it that your state was 47th in the country in job creation when you were governor?' " Axelrod said on CNN's "State of the Union."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Obama reeeaaaallllly wants to run against Mittens. I can't say I blame him.
Under the RINO Romney, Massachusetts was NOT 47th,
it was 48th among the states.
Hey Axelhole, how about asking Gov. Perry that?
Oh, that’s right, you won’t like the answer.
Hey MittCare Romney, how’s it feel to be outed by a fellow leftscum? LOL!
LLS
Oh, that’s easy: sky-high taxes and massive regulatory burdens put in place during decades of absolute Democratic control of every aspect of state government.
Proud Californian.
An overwhelmingly democratic and bankrupt state has a republican for 4 years, and Axelrod thinks it helps the democrats to point out their lagging GAINS in employment in a time when Obama and the democratic congress has destroyed our economy?
You are SUCH a RomneyBOT.
Massachusetts had Republican governors and a surplus
UNTIL Romney-the-Carpetbagger.
William Weld was your kind of Republican, no doubt.
And we are talking about job creation, not surplus.
And we are a site attacking stupid democrats, not trying to justify their stupidity because we hate Romney.
And sorry, but Massachussets is a liberal hellhole, and has been for a long time. You may wish it was different, you probably want a unicorn too.
Measuring Up - FY 2000 . Of course, it's a liberal policy thinktank, because that's what you find in Mass.
Here's another link discussing the budget deficits in the years 2000-2004, again before Mr. Carpetbagger showed up: 2002/03, revenues fell back to $22.68 billion while expenditures rose to $22.8 billion. In 2002/03, general fund revenues fell further, to $22.022 billion. Massachusetts's budget deficit for 2002/03 was estimated at a relatively mild 2.6% of the state budget, but projections for 2003/04 are for a budget deficit equal to 11% of the budget. In 2000/01, the state's starting balance was equal to 13.6% of expenditures; by 2002/03, the starting balance equaled only 1.4% of expenditures.
Here's a liberal website which blamed tax cutting for damaging the Mass. economy. About what you expect from the typical liberal mindset of Mass., but you wouldn't expect freepers to be agreeing with them: This was because the state made substantial income tax cuts and the sales tax has not kept pace with changes in the economy
Here's another web site which explains how most of the new england states lost their surpluses starting in 2001, with Massachusetts the worst of the bunch: The Fiscal Condition of the New England States: An Update
no point in you defending Obama's absurd statements; being an Obama apologist, even for a worthy cause, demeans you and your cause.
Hit ‘im again, hit ‘im again, harder, harder!
Check out where FReepers have uncovered something very big.
Why don't you go defend Romney on this, too.
Well #47 is not too bad when theres 57 states...
And the appropriate response is “Because my state is dominated by Democrats, which also explains why the US is in last place for job creation under President Obama.”
Or, stronger, perhaps:
“Because Massachusetts’ legislature is run by a coterie of hard-left anti-business Progressives and their useful rubberstamp idiots, who not only prevent jobs from being created but actively drive jobs out of the state.
President Obama’s inclusion of the same type of people in his cabinet and Administration, and the Democrats majority in the Senate, and their adoption of the same anti-business agenda explains why America’s job creation record under Obama is so poor.
When Republicans see a boat sinking, they head for shallower waters, start pumping and try to stop the leak; when Democrats see a boat sinking, they drill another hole in the bottom to let the water out.”
I’m not even defending anybody here, why would I go somewhere else.
You are the one who is defending Obama here. I know you are obsessed with Romney, but that doesn’t mean you should defend Obama. I doubt the site likes people defending Obama, even if it’s to attack Romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.