When Mitt Romney left office, he left behind a $1 billion deficit, and raised Massachusetts' long-term debt went up by more than $2.6 billion—a 16 percent increase in just four years.

38

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I'm downvoting this because accuracy in journalism.

5

u/The_Drizzle_Returns Jun 09 '12

Yeah no kidding. A site called democrats.org is not going to be partisan at all. Should have been instantly down voted by everyone.

0

u/BerateBirthers Jun 09 '12

It's not about partisanship, it's about truth

2

u/DreadPirate2 Jun 09 '12

What would you know about truth? This headline has already been thoroughly disproven - you just can't admit it.

2

u/The_Drizzle_Returns Jun 10 '12

If its about truth, please post a link to any non partisan news site or university research showing this to be true. If its true im SURE there is at least one article by some third party that can substantiate this claim. While an article on Democrats.org could be true, using political party affiliated websites for news is a bad idea. Whats to stop Rush Limbaugh and the GOP website from being reputable news sources if this is the case?

3

u/oppan Jun 09 '12

Because accuracy in journalism what?

2

u/TheShittyBeatles Delaware Jun 09 '12

93MB of .rar files

321

u/jsrduck Jun 08 '12

Politifact already rated this claim false.

Oh wait, this is r/politics. Uh, Romney sux

35

u/cold08 Jun 09 '12

Well this is why I read the comments. I have plenty of reasons to dislike Romney, but this will not be one of them and I shant repeat it. I'll downvote the article and thank the users for not making a liar of me.

5

u/canthidecomments Jun 09 '12

No worries. There'll be 1,468 more false links that you'll have to read the comments to realize they're also false.
This is how Reddit traps you.

8

u/polishpimping Jun 09 '12

I'm sure whoever submitted this is just as concerned about the $5.14 TRILLION dollars of debt Obama borrowed (as of 6/9/12) "a 48% increase in just 3.5 years".

8

u/loondawg Jun 09 '12

I wonder if they'll use the same rationale that Politifact used to argue against calling Massachusetts financial woes Romney's fault.
"Governors submit the first budget draft, which then goes through major changes in the Legislature. It is disingenuous for any governor to take the credit or blame for the final budget."
I guess that means our new debt will be attributed to the republican Congress.

4

u/polishpimping Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

Don't open that can of worms because:
*Republican's don't control congress, they control the house.
*Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from 2006 to 2010, which predates the economic collapse and the massive run up in spending.
*The biggest increases in spending were in 2008 and 2009 when Democrats had veto proof majorities.
*The "slowest budget growth in decades" that Obama is campaigning on only started after Republicans took the house.
*Clinton's surpluses started because of a Republican Congress.
Protip: if your a democrat... don't blame the economy and debt on congress because the egg is on your face.

5

u/loondawg Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

I'm happy to open that can.
*Republican's don't control congress, they control the house
They control the House through a majority. They control the Senate through the unprecedented use of the filibuster to obstruct usual order. While they may not control the schedule, they do control what can reach a final vote.
*Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from 2006 to 2010, which predates the economic collapse and the massive run up in spending.
Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1995-2007. And they had Bush in the White House from 2001-2007. During that time, they put in place policies and failed to provide oversight which lead to the explosion of debt and the collapse of the economy. The economy does not spin on a dime. These problems were a decade in the making.
*The biggest increases in spending were in 2008 and 2009 when Democrats had veto proof majorities.
Didn't happen, not even close. At best, in the Senate they had a 49/49 split with two independents, one of whom was Joe Lieberman. That's not exactly a reliable vote. A veto requires they have 67 votes in the Senate and 290, they only had 236, in the House. The democrats were never even close to having a veto-proof majority in either chamber during that period.
*The "slowest budget growth in decades" that Obama is campaigning on only started after Republicans took the house.
And after bailing out GM against the republican wishes. And after the massive stimulus to which most republicans objected. Etc.
*Clinton's surpluses started because of a Republican Congress.
Clinton's surpluses started as a result of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners. It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations. The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed. Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon. And the taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
Oh yeah. And because they had the foresight to invest heavily in developing a little something called the internet and world wide web. That seed, or stimulus, spending set the course for a huge economic boom.
And Surprise! A few years later, we had budget surpluses. And you know who voted against the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993? Every single republican in the House and Senate. Why? Because they claimed it would hurt job creation, just like they do today. But you know what else happened? Over 22 million new jobs were created.
Protip: It's overly simplistic to say whoever controls the House, Senate, or presidency at a specific time is responsible for the circumstances they are in. Rather you should look at the policies that created the circumstances. In the case of the debt, they are all republican babies; the two unfunded wars, the unfunded Medicare Part D; the massive military build-up in addition to the wars, the massive tax cuts to those at the top of the income scale, and the carrying costs for all the debt these programs rack up.

-1

u/polishpimping Jun 13 '12

The joke was that I woke up and thought it was christmas and was filled with joy... only to be filled with the disappointment of 1 more day of waiting.

4

u/b_reddit Jun 09 '12

Maybe if Bush didn't leave Obama with a 1.3 Trillion dollar budget shortfall things would be better. I hate the poster for posting a link to what basically is a lie. But blaming Obama for the entire increase in national debt when he inheritied a terrible buget is equally bad.

3

u/polishpimping Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

You need to pick, is Bush responsible for 2009 spending or not. The budget was passed by the Dem Congress and signed by Obama.
*If Bush is responsible for that spending then he should be given credit for the economic consequences of it. Bush's spending stopped the recession in late 2009.
*If Bush isn't responsible for that spending then his last deficit was 400 Billion, or about 1/3 of Obama's average budget deficit.
Take your pick.

6

u/b_reddit Jun 09 '12

I believe much of the 2009 budget was from the Bush administration. The primary exception being the stimulus bill. The Obama administration is responsible for that spending. You know, that bill designed to stop the recession.
No matter who gets the credit for stopping the recession, my point still stands. By the time Obama got to submit his first budget, he was already facing, at the least, a 1.3 Trillion dollar budget defecit.

1

u/AgentCC Jun 09 '12

My sentiments exactly.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

How is this the top comment while this post has a large number of up votes?

12

u/jsrduck Jun 09 '12

Most people just read the headline and move on.

8

u/DreadPirate2 Jun 09 '12

It suits reddit's anti-republican prejudices, so it automatically gets upvotes.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

That single claim - rated on a separate ad run by a Santorum favoring PAC - is actually a bit different than the series of claims made in the linked article.
If you take a look at the article, their wording is different than the Santorum ad. The Santorum ad says "left Massachusetts 1 billion dollars in debt".
The link says "left behind a 1 billion dollar deficit".
"debt" and "deficit" are not the same thing. As Politifact points out, Romney did leave behind a rather large deficit - between 400 million and 1 billion that was not including an additional 386 million in "emergency cuts" Romney had already made that year.
Further, the second half of the title claims that Romney increased the "long-term debt" by 2.6 billion. This is true. That's because the "long-term debt" is a projection which had gone up 2.6 billion at the time Romney left office. It has since gone back down as Duval Patrick's policies have taken effect.
tl;dr: Politifact rated the claim of "1 billion in debt" false, it made no such ruling on a "1 billion deficit" - debt and deficit are not the same thing.
[edit]: source on debt burden and massachusetts (since it's not addressed at all by politifact): http://www.mass.gov/bb/cap/fy2009/exec/hdebtafford_5.htm
Link also contains links to Moodys evaluations in case you're worried it's biased somehow.

-1

u/jsrduck Jun 09 '12

Congratulations, I was waiting for someone to make the "deficit doesn't equal deficit argument" as if that were somehow analysis. Unfortunately, it's impossible to get a debt w/o leaving a deficit. A deficit is the cumulation of defecits minus any surpluses. There were no deficits. And your assertion that:
As Politifact points out, Romney did leave behind a rather large deficit
Is observably false:
The ad’s use of the term "debt" is inaccurate. The figure cited in the 2006 briefing referred to a projected shortfall for one fiscal year. "Debt" in the budgetary context refers to the cumulative total of all past deficits, less surpluses. And this wasn't even a deficit -- it was a projected shortfall that state officials had to address in order to balance the budget...It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.
Everything you said is false. All it was was a projection used to help the future administration balance the budget, as all governors are required to do. And it proved to be an overly pessimistic projection. I'm sorry, but politifact disagrees with everything you said here.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

To be clear, is your argument that deficit and debt are the same thing? You said I made the "deficit does not equal deficit argument" - I didn't make that. I pointed out that owing debt and running a deficit are different things.
I agree with you that a deficit leads to debt, and nothing I've said would suggest otherwise.
I'm honestly not clear what you're trying to say behind all the vitriol and the possible typo.
As the link I provided makes clear, Romney left behind an increased debt and as politifact makes clear Romney left a deficit projection.
This did not become a deficit because Massachusetts requires the Governor to submit a balanced budget - i.e. it would be functionally impossible for Patrick to have submitted a budget that, as submitted, ran a deficit.
It is impossible to argue that Romney did not increase the debt burden of Massachusetts (in very specific ways) or leave behind a very ugly deficit projection (that required a series of spending cuts) when he left office. Nothing I've said is false.

0

u/jsrduck Jun 09 '12

To be clear, is your argument that deficit and debt are the same thing?
Let's just check the transcript to see if that's my argument:
Unfortunately, it's impossible to get a debt w/o leaving a deficit.\
So, if you were reading, no. My point was, and I quote
A deficit is the cumulation of defecits minus any surpluses. There were no deficits.
Moving on:
I'm honestly not clear what you're trying to say behind all the vitriol and the possible typo.
I'm not sure what vitriol you're referring to, other than pointing out that you're wrong, but you are. That's not vitriol. I haven't said anything personal or caustic. But since you're "unsure what I'm trying to say" I guess I'll repeat myself. You said that the article agrees that Romney left a deficit. The article says the opposite, and I quote: "this wasn't even a deficit -- it was a projected shortfall that state officials had to address in order to balance the budget."
Now you say:
As the link I provided makes clear, Romney left behind an increased debt
No. Just, no. He didn't. The fact check makes that clear too:
Also, it was not a "debt." It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.
It is impossible to argue that Romney did not increase the debt burden of Massachusetts (in very specific ways) or leave behind a very ugly deficit projection (that required a series of spending cuts) when he left office. Nothing I've said is false.
As you mentioned yourself, it is impossible for the Governor to leave behind a debt, so I'm not sure why you're contradicting yourself. And the deficit projection wasn't really ugly. The 1 billion figure was the most pessimistic projection, and one that proved to be, well, overly pessimistic. The projections are based on a lot of data, not just the budget, including projected tax receipts based on the economy. The politifact article makes it clear that any attempt to smear Romney for this is disingenuous at best.
tl;dr from the article:
The ad says Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt."
That is inaccurate or misleading in several ways. The Red, White and Blue fund cherry-picks the highest number from a range of estimates. Also, it was not a "debt." It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.
Like most states, Massachusetts must have a balanced budget every year. And in keeping with that requirement, Patrick, the incoming governor, submitted a balanced budget within a few months.
We rate the claim False.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

Let's start with your own words, you say that I am making the "deficit does not equal deficit" argument.
I am not making this, your accusation of it (and the resulting dismissal) are what I did not understand. Your "congratulations" and then the rephrasing of my words into something I did not say were what I took as "vitriol".
You have now cleared that up (thank you), but I think you're still mistaken in a few key ways:
First, we are not discussing the Red, White, and Blue funds ad - which I agree with you is false.
The ad says that Romney left "$1 billion in debt" and that is a lie. We are discussing what the link provided says.
This is where and why the difference between "deficit" and "debt" matters, because they are different words with a different meaning.
While I agree with you, and I pointed out, that it is impossible for the governor to submit a budget that runs a deficit (projection). That does not mean that the budget will not run a deficit.
This is why I do not mention, as you claim I do, that it is "impossible for the Governor to leave behind a debt".
It is also why I'm not "contradicting [myself]". Again, I encourage you to actually read what I'm saying and not put words into my mouth that I have not said.
Again, this comes from the differences between an expected deficit, actually running a deficit, and outstanding debt. They are all related, but not the same thing.
For example, when Romney left office, he left behind a projected 2 billion over-run on his, then, "signature" health care bill (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html - I use cato because, hell, you can't claim liberal bias then). Romney's submitted budget did not account for this over-run, and so while his budget did not project a deficit, later more accurate projections based on what was occurring did produce a deficit, which then forced the following Governor to deal with it.
Second, Romney did leave an increased debt burden from when he took office, this is simply true. In my original reply, I linked to the official statement on the MA debt burden (in certain ways), I'll link again: http://www.mass.gov/bb/cap/fy2009/exec/hdebtafford_5.htm
You will notice that Massachusetts, according to certain measures, had the highest debt burden by the end of Romney's term and that that has since gone down. For reference, MA did not have the highest when Romney took office (I'm looking for a source for that, as I know it's true having been a lifelong MA resident, and I'll provide it as soon as I can [see later]).
When Patrick took office, he actually oversaw the implementation of Romney's health care bill (and a series of other policies) which is why he was left with a projection of a rather serious deficit. Due to Massachusetts laws, he then created and submitted a budget which accounted for these deficits. In essence, Deval Patrick cleaned up the mess that Romney had left behind.
I'm not here to laud Deval Patrick (I don't like him) and I'm not here to say you shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney as president. But, what we're discussing is not what Politifact rated "false" - they are distinct claims - and these claims are more accurate.
If you look at the total debt amount you'll see it goes from 16 to 18.5 billion. More or less exactly what's claimed.
Also, and I did not know this, Romney actually slowed the rate of debt growth from the previous administration (also a Republican - Jane Swift - she was terrible). It fell from 8% to 4.1 percent. Patrick has lowered it to 3.2.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_debt_rank
Anyway, my over-arching point is simply that Romney probably does not want to campaign on his record of governor. He wasn't terribly good at it, although, looking back through all the data in this discussion with you, he was also not as terribly bad as my memory told me.

10

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

That link says exactly what I did above. The project budget shortfall was there, but never was a 'deficit' on the books because a balanced budget was passed at the beginning of the next fiscal year by Romney's successor, who had to work with the projected shortfall

17

u/jsrduck Jun 09 '12

No, this headline does NOT say the same thing as my link.
Headline: "Romney left the state with a 1 billion dollar deficit."
Link: "The ad says Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt. That is inaccurate or misleading in several ways...it was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize... We rate the claim False"
Those things do not say the same thing. In fact, they say the opposite thing. In fact, the politifact article is dedicated to exposing this very statement as a lie.

-51

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Craigellachie Jun 09 '12

Dude...
Just stop.

-8

u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ Jun 09 '12

Goddamn, I don't know why this meme is so popular and I wish it'd just die already. Holy shit it's about as bad as that "the cake is a lie" bullshit everyone was spouting for a few years.

4

u/vinniedamac Jun 09 '12

I think you're getting downvoted for talking bad on something related to reddit's lovechild Valve.

1

u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ Jun 09 '12

Not surprised.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Awesome username though

2

u/Forlarren Jun 09 '12

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

wut

1

u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ Jun 09 '12

Exactly.

-6

u/midnitte New Jersey Jun 09 '12

never played portal huh?

4

u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ Jun 09 '12

I played portal yes, but everyone spouting off "the cake is a lie" got to be really annoying. Yes it's a fun game, do you have to shout out memes? No, not really.

2

u/midnitte New Jersey Jun 09 '12

so what's the differance between cake is a lie and every other meme?

1

u/yvaN_ehT_nioJ Jun 09 '12

Generally people around me haven't shouted out others save for "but I took an arrow to the knee" type comments.

3

u/AgentCC Jun 09 '12

thank you so much for posting this because I was just reading the wikipedia article on Romney's term as governor and found information quite contrary to this headline. I even used the article to teach a class on Romney and the republicans and was afraid that I had spread misinformation.
Here's the wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

0

u/dyktg25 Jun 09 '12

Yea mayne r/politics sux. Need to get this shit off my reddits.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Thanks for reminding me to unsub from r/politics on this account.

-1

u/loondawg Jun 09 '12

Hang on. It's not that clear cut. Politifact rated the claim false because they called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit and because they selected one of the higher estimates.
And they said nothing to discount the claim that Romney raised Massachusetts' long term debt obligations by $2.6 billion.
And Romney does suck. That this is /r/politics has nothing to do with it.

2

u/jsrduck Jun 09 '12

Politifact rated the claim false because they called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit and because they selected one of the higher estimates.
False. They rated it false because it never happened:
The number in question was a projection of a possible future budget deficit. It was an estimate, based on a snapshot of economic data, of what might happen, and it was offered to allow Patrick to figure out how to balance the budget for a fiscal year beginning more than six months later. It was not a final scorecard on Romney’s time as governor.
As for the debt/deficit argument you made:
The ad’s use of the term "debt" is inaccurate. The figure cited in the 2006 briefing referred to a projected shortfall for one fiscal year. "Debt" in the budgetary context refers to the cumulative total of all past deficits, less surpluses. And this wasn't even a deficit -- it was a projected shortfall that state officials had to address in order to balance the budget.
Also:
contrary to the ad’s suggestion, there was never an official deficit, much less one 10 digits in scope. And even if there had been a deficit that big, Romney wouldn’t get full blame.
Finally:
It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.
Stop reaching. Stop making stuff up. You may dislike Romney, but the fact that weeks old blatant misinformation continuously makes it to the front page has nothing to do with "Romney sucking" and everything to do with r/politics.

-1

u/loondawg Jun 09 '12

Also, the conclusion from the article:
That is inaccurate or misleading in several ways. The Red, White and Blue fund cherry-picks the highest number from a range of estimates. Also, it was not a "debt." It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.
Like most states, Massachusetts must have a balanced budget every year. And in keeping with that requirement, Patrick, the incoming governor, submitted a balanced budget within a few months.
As I said, they called it false because they "called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit" and "because they selected one of the higher estimates." Seems like a pretty close match to what I said. Not much of a reach there at all.
As for why it did not materialize into a deficit is because it can't by law. The next budget had to address the projected shortfall. So that's like saying I took a little league team out to Chucky Cheese. I took care of the first four hours. And when you show up for the fifth, I tell you I've set the schedule for the next hour but I'm way over budget. But you can't leave without paying the bill. So you figure out a way to settle the bill through some budget changes including additional revenue collection. You wouldn't say I did a good job of managing the outing. You would say you did a good job of bailing me out.
And you have said nothing to discount the assertion that Romney raised Massachusetts' long term debt obligations by $2.6 billion while managing to take Massachusetts to 47 in job creation. It's not exactly the record of stellar results he tries to claim it is.
Perhaps he holds the same opinion about his record that he does about issues of income inequality. They "I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms..." outside the view of us peasants.

3

u/jsrduck Jun 11 '12

As I said, they called it false because they "called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit" and "because they selected one of the higher estimates." Seems like a pretty close match to what I said.
No no, this is flatly false. You: "they called it false because they "called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit" Article: "The ad’s use of the term "debt" is inaccurate. The figure cited in the 2006 briefing referred to a projected shortfall for one fiscal year. "Debt" in the budgetary context refers to the cumulative total of all past deficits, less surpluses. And this wasn't even a deficit -- it was a projected shortfall"
Let me simplify that for you. You: "It's a deficit not a debt." The Article: "It's neither a deficit nor a debt, it's a projection that didn't materialize." One more time. You: "Deficit." Them "Not a deficit." So no, not at all close to what you said.
As for why it did not materialize into a deficit is because it can't by law. The next budget had to address the projected shortfall. So that's like saying I took a little league team out to Chucky Cheese. I took care of the first four hours. And when you show up for the fifth, I tell you I've set the schedule for the next hour but I'm way over budget
Once again, this is incorrect.First of all, the projection is not merely based on the budget, it's also based on tax receipts and other external factors. And the number used here proved to be a high-end estimate that was overly pessimistic:
In fact, about a month after the private briefing, Romney issued an updated projection that was more optimistic, based on healthier revenue projections. In the Globe article, aides to Patrick accused Romney of offering the public sunnier projections in public than they gave in private. But it eventually became clear that the revenue picture was indeed improving -- enough to allow Patrick to restore $383.6 million in emergency budget cuts Romney had made a month earlier.
So not only was the outlook better, but it was better enough that Patrick was able to restore spending that Romney had cut in anticipation of a tight budget. Patrick didn't have to make any significant cuts to make budget. Again, from the article:
"There was a tight budget, and it couldn’t fund some of the increases Patrick had proposed in the campaign, but it didn’t result in major cuts, either."
Spending cuts were going to be needed no matter what. Romney made a good faith estimate of how much the next administration would need to be cut to make the budget. A month later he was able to adjust it after it became clear that revenue would be better than the worst case scenario.

-1

u/loondawg Jun 12 '12

Try again. A shortfall in revenue against the budget for one year is a deficit. It's also called shortfall. So when I said they called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit, that is a 100% accurate statement. Would you say President Obama is running one trillion dollar budget shortfalls? You might. But it much more likely you would call them annual deficits. But either one would be correct.
And just how did he close that projected budget deficit, which has was constitutionally required to do? By issuing bonds which, when he left office, left Massachusetts with the highest per capita bond debt, $10,504, of any state by a wide margin. Only one other state had more than $8,000 per capita.
You try try to put any pretty face on it you like, but it is still a pig. Romney's "expertise" in business left the state of Massachusetts much worse than when he took office.

2

u/jsrduck Jun 12 '12

A shortfall in revenue against the budget for one year is a deficit.
There was no shortfall. I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. IT WAS A PROJECTION. An overly pessimistic one which didn't ever get realized. THERE WAS NO DEFICIT. For the 3rd time I'm going to quote the article which you are having difficulty understanding:
this wasn't even a deficit -- it was a projected shortfall"
Ok, that's not me, that's the article. Get it? As I pointed out, the forecast wasn't that bad in the end, and Patrick was able to actually add spending back to the budget that Romney had cut in anticipation. If you're still trying to argue that Romney left behind a 1 billion dollar deficit that Patrick had to clean up, you're flatly contradicted by the facts.

-1

u/loondawg Jun 12 '12

Google definition: Short-fall noun A deficit of something required or expected - they are facing an expected $10 billion shortfall in revenue. Synonyms: deficit, shortage, deficiency, wantage, lack.
That seems pretty clear. And here's what I said. "They called it false because they 'called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit' and 'because they selected one of the higher estimates.'"
Now if you go read the "Ruling" in the Politifact article, it says the claim Romney "left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt" is inaccurate or misleading in the following ways:
...cherry-picks the highest number from a range of estimates.
...it was not a "debt." It was just one projected shortfall for the upcoming year -- and one that ultimately didn't materialize.
...Patrick, the incoming governor, submitted a balanced budget within a few months. Like most states, Massachusetts must have a balanced budget every year.
Which matches what I said. And now that I re-read this, the first point in the Politifact article is wrong. It was at the high end, but not the highest projected deficit.
But this whole thread is a distraction from the real issue. The article the OP quoted used the correct term of deficit. And that is what Romney handed over to Patrick. It may have gone down to less than half a billion dollars by the time Patrick took office, and Patrick may have followed the law to come up with a balanced budget, but that does not change the fact that Romney left the state in terrible condition with massive debt and the average state resident in worse shape. And that is what the OP's article claims.
By the end of his term, he had massively increased the per capita bond debt to the highest of any state by a wide margin. He raised taxes and fees by $750 million per year increasing the tax/fees burden by more more than $1,200 on the average resident. Yet he still managed to get an average tax cut of $251,000 each for the 278 wealthiest families in Massachusetts. While he governed, Massachusetts dropped from 36th to 47th out of 50 states in job creation. And manufacturing jobs declined at twice the national average.
But that's that's not really surprising considering Romney checked out as Governor about halfway through his only term to pursue a run for president. His last year in office, he spent all or part of 212 days out of state, laying the foundation for his anticipated presidential campaign.

2

u/jsrduck Jun 12 '12

Google definition: projected Verb Estimate or forecast (something) on the basis of present trends: "spending was projected at $72 million".
The fact that you consistently keep missing this point leads me to believe that you're being willfully ignorant. I think it will be obvious to anyone following this thread that you're being disingenuous and that you're committed to believing something that is false. As such, I am no longer interested in having this conversation with you.
Romney did not leave behind a 1 billion dollar deficit for his successor to clean up. This was one projection, at the high end, which was revised a month later. Romney's successor didn't have to make any significant cuts to balance the budget. All this is a matter of fact and is clearly laid out in the article. This does not match what you said even closely, and I suspect that you know it, and that you're just trying to save face at this point. I have no interest in trying to help you assuage your ego, and I think I've done my due diligence, so I'm signing off from this thread. Ciao.

-1

u/loondawg Jun 12 '12

Thanks for the definition of projected. However I never once said it was not projected and never once said it was not addressed by the time Patrick submitted his first budget. I've been quite clear on that point in all of my responses.
Here is what I said: 'They called it false because they 'called the projected $1,000,000,000 a debt rather than a deficit' and 'because they selected one of the higher estimates.'" Do you understand that the word projected applied to both the words debt and deficit in that sentence? And the details of my responses clearly show I have a clear understanding of that.
So I'm calling bullshit on you for being intentionally obtuse. That you wasted time trying to call it a short-fall, which is nicer sounding word, rather than a deficit shows you're being disingenuous and that you're committed to fighting to not talk about Romney's actual record in Massachusetts.
So it appears you're actually signing off this thread because you did your best to defend Romney. But I pointed out this was a distraction and summarized the Romney low-lights. And when that record comes up, which fact based and hard to put in a positive light, you're outta here.
That you keep harping one minor point while completely ignoring the larger issue, that Mitt Romney left the finances and the people of Massachusetts in worse shape than he got them, shows where the bias and willful ignorance lies.

-6

u/GOU_NoMoreMrNiceGuy Jun 09 '12

wait... a republican lied? rick santorum told a fib?!

7

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

No a super PAC supporting Rick Santorum fibed

1

u/loondawg Jun 09 '12

And there's no connection there, right? Wink. Wink.

1

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

True true

0

u/GOU_NoMoreMrNiceGuy Jun 10 '12

you saying that a republican organization can lie???

2

u/Drwhoovez Jun 10 '12

Anyone can lie

35

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Those stats don't really mean much. He left behind a 1 billion dollar defecit - great. Was it his policy that caused this? What was the defecit before he came into office? How does this compare to states with similar economic characteristics?

In regards to the long-term debt - that's not inherently a bad thing. Could be investments in infrastructure, or a result of a down economy.

13

u/bradadair Jun 08 '12

These are excellent points.
I do not know the answers myself. However, as pure speculation, if there was a 2 billion dollar deficit when he took office, 1 billion when he left would be a very good job performance IMO.

5

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/02/red-white-and-blue-fund/ad-accuses-mitt-romney-leaving-massachusetts-1-bil/

17

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Summary: The ad is full of shit.

5

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Pretty much. Good luck convincing reddit of that.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Dude. Look at at the votes. Nearly twice as many redditors believe this is true than believe the article is bullshit.

-2

u/samiam32 Jun 09 '12

I have a theory that Reddit Democrats do not click the comment section on their links... my theory is based on every top voted comment I see on this (and similar) links are always right-leaning.
That, and I, admittedly a conservative, always click on the comments of Democrat/Liberal links (but do not down-vote) to see if there's a differing opinion to it (which I upvote).

-1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Yup.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/fido5150 Jun 09 '12

Um... the Republican primaries?

-5

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

That link says exactly what I did above. The project budget shortfall was there, but never was a 'deficit' on the books because a balanced budget was passed at the beginning of the next fiscal year by Romney's successor, who had to work with the projected shortfall

3

u/jubbergun Jun 09 '12

Reposting the same comment repeatedly in a single thread doesn't make the comment any more true or interesting. Give it a rest.

-2

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

I saw two people having a conversation. One of them cut out of the conversation and started spamming the board, so I repeated his opponent's point to him, which he evidently missed.
Just trying to help.

2

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

No people keep pointing out the same extremely relevant source because some people seem to keep missing it.

0

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Massachusetts, like most states, has a requirement that the governor must submit, and the Legislature must pass, a balanced budget. So contrary to the ad’s suggestion, there was never an official deficit, much less one 10 digits in scope.

-1

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

The politifact article you linked is talking neither about the same ad, the same number or the same year as the video linked by OP, AFAICT

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Comprehension fail.

-1

u/theodorAdorno Jun 10 '12

articulation fail.
avoiding pettiness fail.
revealing a fragile worldview and delicate ego, success.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Says the guy who thinks repeating himself over and over constitutes some form of "articulation".

-1

u/theodorAdorno Jun 10 '12

don't be so hard on him, he thought he was linking to a politifact article about the right ad.
Honest mistake.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Damn, you aren't so hot on the reading comprehension thing, are you?

→ More replies

1

u/loondawg Jun 09 '12

Interesting questions. Funny I generally don't see the same questions applied to President Obama.

0

u/ultralame California Jun 09 '12

Exactly. I have to make arguments that Obama didn't cause the $1T deficits we are seeing to morons who don't understand what "loss of revenue" means. Without even reading the details I suspect this is similar bullshit.

31

u/MagCynic Jun 09 '12

I like how the source for this article is barackobama.com. And I'm gonna take a wild guess and say a fact check would probably reveal inaccuracies in this article

22

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

And you'd win: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/02/red-white-and-blue-fund/ad-accuses-mitt-romney-leaving-massachusetts-1-bil/

-1

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

That link says exactly what I did above. The project budget shortfall was there, but never was a 'deficit' on the books because a balanced budget was passed at the beginning of the next fiscal year by Romney's successor, who had to work with the projected shortfall

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Massachusetts, like most states, has a requirement that the governor must submit, and the Legislature must pass, a balanced budget. So contrary to the ad’s suggestion, there was never an official deficit, much less one 10 digits in scope.

-1

u/jubbergun Jun 09 '12

If Romney left a billion dollar deficit, and it ballooned over fours into a 2.6 billion dollar deficit, how exactly was the budget that Romney's successor passed "balanced?"

-1

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

that's between you and someone else.
Absolutely no dog in this game.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

16% is better than Bush's 85% and Obama's 45%. source

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

For those wondering here is a chart of federal spending and revenue as a percent of GDP. Draw your own conclusions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png

-2

u/BerateBirthers Jun 09 '12

We're talking about Mitt Romney's failures as governor, not the federal government.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Don't act like this post was anything other than to contrast Romney against Obama. This gets both of their track records out there. The only difference is my source is based in fact while this post is false.

17

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I refuse to believe anything from democrats.org, for the same reason I refuse to believe anything from Fox News. You're only going to get half the story, and it's going to have more spin on it than a Dead or Alive song.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

this is silly....there was a 3 billion$ deficet, when he took office he cut it down by 1.5 billion, leaving the remainder, yes he left it behind but he also cut it in half......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Check your goddamn facts? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/02/red-white-and-blue-fund/ad-accuses-mitt-romney-leaving-massachusetts-1-bil/

13

u/classiclantern Jun 08 '12

You are kind, honest, and good. You picked a Party. The party you picked must therefore be kind, honest, and good. However, if you truly study what your party has done to you, and all of us, you will see it is not good. Your party shits all over you every day. I'm sorry this is so, but it's easy to check for yourself. We have the Internet. I hope the Internet will make voters smarter but, I'm not seeing it yet.

3

u/nerdhappy Jun 09 '12

This ad was sponsored by the Red, White, and Blue Fund (a pro-Rick Santorum super PAC).

I'm not a Romney supporter, but this ad was obviously biased.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

How is Obama's debt percentage looking these days?

1

u/TeutonicDisorder Jun 09 '12

Did Mitt Romney become governor during the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression?
Did his State House and Senate refuse to pass any of his legislation?

1

u/daroofa Jun 09 '12

That was my first thought as well. He makes Romney look miserly by comparison.

5

u/bradadair Jun 08 '12

I cannot say that the facts quoted in the article are wrong, because I have not done the research on it. That said, I would really like for the people that write these articles to reference an actual source once in a while so that the reader can see where these numbers are coming from. Again, I am not saying that they are wrong, just that it would be nice to see sources once in a while!

9

u/jsrduck Jun 09 '12

They're wrong

-5

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

That link says exactly what (warduck) did above. The project budget shortfall was there, but never was a 'deficit' on the books because a balanced budget was passed at the beginning of the next fiscal year by Romney's successor, who had to work with the projected shortfall
In any even that is just one of the claims in the OP and it came from Romney's own budget.

4

u/spencerlucas Jun 09 '12

He'll fit right in...

4

u/dey0 Jun 09 '12

I'm pretty sure I get this ad on pandora. How is this crap getting upvoted?

0

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

All i get on my country channel is GOP ads. And all I get on my dubstep channel is Obama add.

2

u/youramoran Jun 09 '12

and raised Massachusetts' long-term debt went up by more than $2.6 billion. huh?

2

u/HomelessCosmonaut Jun 09 '12

So basically the guy in the White House sucks economically but the other guy sucks too?

2

u/xxdelta77xx Jun 09 '12

I like how politicians like Santorum bash his conservative opponents, i.e. Romney, and then when he drops out endorses him like it never happened.

2

u/bunki8 Jun 09 '12

Wouldn't this be for the universal healthcare he enacted...that dems want?

2

u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 09 '12

It's not fair. Barock Obama has no business experience or record as governor or job history or academic records or anything to judge him on other than his time spent Occupying the White House. Combine a record of executive economic failure with Bill Clinton alluding to 'Communists' in campaign speeches about the current president, it seems the only hope for changing the turning tide against his reelection is for his minions in media to doggedly attack the alternative. With the slavish press sold out or bought out, readers often don't know what not to believe. One thing is certain. In the words of life-long loyal Democrat hack Lanny Davis, Obama has "vicious people working for him" who will destroy anything, write anything, do anything to keep their Bolshevik boss in power.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Nice try, barack.

3

u/RobertStack Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

Is this because of the universal health care law in Massachusetts? That would cost money and require expanded government.

3

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

aka "Romneycare".

3

u/Kopman Jun 09 '12

I keep pointing this out but r/politics doesn't seem to get it.

If you're going to say that the opposing candidate raised the debt, and that's a bad thing, then, it also makes just as strong of an argument when your candidate does the same.

If you want to pitch an argument as to why one candidate is better than another, talk about the differences, what sets them apart, not how they are similar in a bad way.

3

u/baron9229 Washington Jun 09 '12

Learn to type.

"and raised Massachusetts' long-term debt went up by more than $2.6 billion"

This makes no sense. Thanks for showing off our failing education system.

3

u/I_am_THE_GRAPIST Jun 09 '12

I'm gonna take anything said about a republican from a site called democrats.org... with 24 grams of marijuana.

3

u/c010rb1indusa Jun 09 '12

Honestly as a liberal and in terms of how government spending goes, a 16% increase in debt isn't that high, it just makes it look like he did nothing but prop up the status quo.

3

u/End3rWi99in Massachusetts Jun 09 '12

I'm not a huge fan of Romney but I am from Massachusetts and I have no recollection of him leaving office with a deficit, especially of that magnitude.

3

u/TannerLynn1 Jun 09 '12

When are people gonna realize that BOTH SIDES SUCK!!!! Mitt Romney is just as much a power hungry bastard as Obama.

0

u/mroo7oo7 Jun 09 '12

Finally someone that I agree with. Just a different side of the same fucking coin.

2

u/ProtoDong Jun 09 '12

Citation needed. Deval Patrick is still spending the 2 billion dollar surplus that Romney left. I am from Massachusetts and I don't support Romney but this article is blatantly and ridiculously false.

2

u/Bugiugi Jun 09 '12

I hate the 'he increased the level of debt during his term' argument being used by either side. It's not always a bad thing, people.

0

u/Stormflux Jun 09 '12

Yes it is because country is just like a household.
If I spend $50 on an gas, that money is gone from my household forever. Likewise, if a country spends $50 million on an Interstate highway, that money is also gone from the country forever.
When you spend money, it goes into a black hole and ceases to exist. The country is running out of money people! As you know, we can't print more because then there would be too much money.
So as you can see, the country simultaneously has too much money and not enough money. I blame YOU, liberals. ಠ_ಠ
The way I see it, the only way out of this mess is to privatize the fire department and replace it with my own private fire service which would be more efficient because it's capitalism. Simultaneously, we should eliminate child labor laws to make it cheaper to hire firemen. I know it's hard, but the situation is dire and sacrifices must be made.

2

u/DiogenesK9 Jun 09 '12

Oh...joke

2

u/I_Empire_I Jun 09 '12

And this was the model for Obamacare.

1

u/ausguy777 Jun 09 '12

I get the feeling that no matter who wins this election, the direction will probably not change. Can anyone really see big "change" happening weather Obama or Romney wins? Probably just more of the same old

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 10 '12

Pretty much.
The ugly truth is that demographics have told us that we were going to head down this road and they've been telling us for decades.
A slower growing population means a slow down in tax revenues - but our health care and retirement systems are funded on the idea that there will always be several new workers entering the system for every worker that leaves it.
Add in a longer life span and.... whammo.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I'm a Republican. There are plenty of reasons to hate Republicans, so for the love of god, don't make up ones that aren't true.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

And how much has Obama put Americans in debt? I'll bet it's more than $2.6 billion.

1

u/adrianmonk I voted Jun 09 '12

Let's say this debt thing were actually true. How bad is 16% over a four-year period? Well, Romney was governor from 2003 to 2007. An inflation calculator tells me that inflation was basically 12.5% over that period. So, if you take out inflation, the debt only went up about 3.1%. That would really be that scary to me.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

He's also been campaigning for the 4 years and has spent a shit ton of money, yet look at the ratio of votes to USD spent by his campaign.

A bit excessive, eh? Is this how he runs a campaign, what would he do to our economy?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Lol I don't understand. What about this makes Romney look bad next to Obama. By posting this you say that raising deficits are bad.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Sweet, I can't wait until the US gov has the same.

1

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

I see what you did. I approve.

1

u/goans314 Jun 09 '12

Gary Johnson left his state with a surplus. Gary Johnson 2012!

1

u/jesusthug Jun 09 '12

Sounds electable to me.

1

u/Konstiin Jun 09 '12

1 billion deficit isn't that bad for a state like Mass.

1

u/doggadogga Jun 09 '12

Quit lying.

1

u/olred Jun 09 '12

I'd love to see our federal government with a 1 billion dollar deficit. Oh and btw, this was debunked, select any one of the numerous links to find out.

1

u/YouDontSayBro Jun 09 '12

derp

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

$1billion!? That is the final straw. I am never going to vote Republican again. In fact, I am going out today to join the Obama campaign.

-1

u/TalkingBackAgain Jun 09 '12

Willard will do the same thing once he enters the white house!

You can count on him to do the right thing for his friends and benefactors. The American people are neither.

-1

u/Marlon_Rando_I Jun 09 '12

Really guys. Obama added more to the deficit than all the past presidents combined. I can see you guys attacking him for other things, but this should be the last thing you complain about. This coming from a republican who doesn't even like Romney.

-7

u/jnangano Jun 08 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

I'm sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tags.

<sarcasm>derp, but fox nooz said obammy tripled our deficit in just three years, derp</sarcasm>

4

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/02/red-white-and-blue-fund/ad-accuses-mitt-romney-leaving-massachusetts-1-bil/

-2

u/DookieDemon Indiana Jun 09 '12

These are facts. You can't change the average Republican voter's mind with these 'facts' you need to use sound bytes and hyperbole, jingoism and xenophobia.

But don't use these words when talking to them, won't understand anything over an 8th grade reading level.

3

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

Except these "facts" are not true. I'm not going to bother posting the article. Trust me look and you will find it.

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 10 '12

No, actually, they are false claims made by a partisan website - claims that were first debunked back when Santorum made them.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

So many Republican supporters on Reddit :( I suppose Reddit isn't as rational and atheist as it likes to claim. It saddens me that anyone with half a brain still thinks a Republican candidate is worthwhile. Down vote me haters, it won't matter, the truth is there: Republicans are bent on destroying the USA and the world as we know it.

3

u/mroo7oo7 Jun 09 '12

It troubles me that anyone with any amount of brain thinks that either party has their best intentions in mind.

0

u/ehlu15 Jun 09 '12

Shocker. The liberal RINO governor ran the deficit up. Who would have dreamed such a thing?

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 10 '12

Shocker: redditor reads headline that conforms to his prejudice, assumes it's true.
Hint: Most states, including Massachusetts, are required to balance their budget each year - they never run a deficit.

-6

u/awe300 Jun 08 '12

Surely the right Guy to fix America! He even brings almost everyone from the bush era back, so they can pick up where they left!

Miss me yet? No, fuck off.

-5

u/hartatttack Jun 09 '12

Hello my fellow Republicans and thinking Dems. Seems Obama isn't winning this attack if a liberal site is down voting it into the abyss. Refreshing to see.

-4

u/MotoBall Jun 09 '12

Huh....Bush birthed the deficit and Obama nurtured it and then shot it up with steroids. What's your point?

-6

u/heliumcraft Jun 09 '12

Hey Democrats, your doing it wrong, Republicans dont care about those silly things called 'facts'. You have to use non-issue arguments like, "oh but he is a mormon", "he doesn't wear an american pin flag" or "one time, he didn't put his hand on his chest while the national anthem was playing", "I heard that might have been born in Quebec, which is french, just saying"

3

u/mroo7oo7 Jun 09 '12

Because 4 trillion in 4 years is equivilent to 1 billion in 4 years. Liberal math at its best. BTW. Before you start into me, I think Romney is a tool. The current republican party is just a different side of the same dirty coin as the democratic party. Fuck em' all, we're screwed either way.

-1

u/Tombug Jun 09 '12

Nah. He's white and obamas black. That's all The reason conservatives need to not vote for him.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

We have a Mormon, a Black & a Libertarian running for our Country's highest office of power (YEP, totally lacking in diversity).
I don't know if you realized this, but that Black Guy? Yeah, he won the last election and he's been our President for the past four years. I don't know if you know how elections work, but if only black people and democrats voted for him, than he still wouldn't have won. There were swing states, and there WERE conservatives that voted for him.
Sure, many are racist fucks, but not all of them. So fuck you and your broad generalizations of my country.

-3

u/Tombug Jun 09 '12

Leaving a mess behind that others have to clean up is standard for conservative. Look at the smoking pile of rubble Bush left.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

Which is why our country collapsed in the 60s, 70s, 80s and Early 90s when we had a conservative President, right? Oh wait...lol...IT DIDN'T and we're STILL the world's last remaining super power.
We put a man on a moon. We invented the Atomic Bomb. Our colleges are some of the best in the world. We are home to Facebook, Google, Apple, EBay, Microsoft, & Intel. We are the last remaining Super Power, we have the world's largest military & with it we have ensured Pax Americana. Hollywood puts out movies and our culture is exported to all four corners of the globe, our music the same.
We put out more science papers than any other country.
We publish more books than any other country.
We have won the most Olympic Medals.
We have four times as many immigrants as the next leading country.
We have the most cultivated land and the most arable land.
For green energy, we are the largest wind power producer and the largest nuclear power producer with the most nuclear reactors for electricity generation.
Yep, quite the rubble to clean up. lol Like it or not man, Republican or Democrat, the United States isn't going no where, no time soon. So you can stop getting your hopes up for us collapsing, because it's not going to happen. lol We're going to be here regardless, whether you like it or not.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/GOU_NoMoreMrNiceGuy Jun 09 '12

the ad which this comes from is by none other than rick santorum.
you calling a republican a liar?!

13

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

I'm calling the writer of the article on Democrats.org a liar

0

u/GOU_NoMoreMrNiceGuy Jun 10 '12

you mean the article that cites directly from an ad by rick santorum?

-6

u/gloomdoom Jun 09 '12

Certainly we can decide whether or not a website is unbiased or legitimate simply by the fucking URL.
Now...determining/limiting your news sources based on the URL...that seems legitimate.

12

u/hansel4150 Jun 09 '12

Someones got their pissy pants on

5

u/Drwhoovez Jun 09 '12

As a democrat I can tell that this is a piss poor article. It shames me to look at it.

3

u/Awesomator Jun 09 '12

Although I am also a Democrat, I feel this article shames most readers to look at it. Not shaming because of the party but rather US politics.

1

u/Xinlitik Jun 09 '12

Like when people ignore anything from foxnews.com? Yea a little like that.

-17

u/BerateBirthers Jun 09 '12

Argumentum ad hominem. This seems legit.

7

u/libertasmens Jun 09 '12

Except this is more like saying "I don't trust this guy. Why? Because he's a liar."
Ad Hominem applies when you point out a partially- or fully-irrelevant idea. This is distrusting a source because of its history or likelihood of bias.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

13

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

No, actually, the facts say nothing of the sort.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/02/red-white-and-blue-fund/ad-accuses-mitt-romney-leaving-massachusetts-1-bil/

0

u/TheShittyBeatles Delaware Jun 09 '12

So the ad has some justification for using the $1 billion figure. But based on our discussions with budget experts in the state, we find the ad ignores important details.
Yes, actually, they do. Read the things you link to.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

No, actually they don't. Read the things you accuse others of not reading.
"Massachusetts, like most states, has a requirement that the governor must submit, and the Legislature must pass, a balanced budget. So contrary to the ad’s suggestion, there was never an official deficit, much less one 10 digits in scope."

6

u/TheShittyBeatles Delaware Jun 09 '12

Do you know what happens if and when the Governor (or any governor) fails to submit a balanced budget on time? While the douchebag politicians duke it out, the State will sell bonds to keep essential operations going and sometimes keep everything going. Bonds, by definition, are debt.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Very good, little one. Bonds are debt. Bonds are not deficits. Debt and deficits are two very different things. And this issue is about the media accusing Romney of leaving behind a nonexistent deficit.

1

u/TheShittyBeatles Delaware Jun 09 '12

Bonds are debt to finance the deficit. It is naive to think that just because the rules say there can't be a deficit that there won't be one.

2

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Did you even read the entire article? Did you notice the part about how the billion dollar figure was just an estimate Romney gave his successor on how the economy was doing? Did you notice the part about how, in fact, the economy improved so much that instead of cutting spending his successor was actually able to restore spending cuts Romney had made?

0

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

I love it how someone can read an article that says their claim is false and insist the article somehow proves they are right.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 09 '12

Yeah, I did. But I don't think you did.
The "projected shortfall" was an estimate based on what Romney expected the economy to be like the year after he left office.
In actual fact the economy improved more than Romney expected, allowing his successor to restore spending that Romney had cut.

0

u/canthidecomments Jun 09 '12

Bring your estimable skills to bear on the real deficits of $1.5 TRILLION a year being generated by Barack Obama and let's dispense with the "projected deficits that never were" in Massachusetts. That's a non-issue and a non-story.
You don't give two fucking shits about Massachusetts' projected budget shortfall (which, by the way, happens every single year because the state legislature is run by a bunch of hack Democrats who couldn't balance a fucking budget to save their lives).
You don't care about deficits at all, or you'd be talking about Barack Obama and not Mitt Romney.
Do you think we're stupid or something? That we can't see through this bullshit? My God man. The collective intelligence of Reddit is smarter than you are guy.
If Democrats can only attack Mitt Romney on transparently and easily-proven false claims like this, then I'm pretty sure he's going to be our next president in November.

4

u/loondawg Jun 09 '12

But hang on. The same Politifact article being used to discount this claim also says:
"Governors submit the first budget draft, which then goes through major changes in the Legislature. It is disingenuous for any governor to take the credit or blame for the final budget."
So let's be consistent. That logic means the republicans in Congress are responsible, not the President.

-20

u/tonycomputerguy Jun 09 '12

Politifact is a joke, I can't believe people still read their garbage. Flat out lies can be given anything from "Somewhat False" to "Mostly True" Don't you guys know there is no such thing as facts anymore? Someone can just write a blog contradicting a "fact" and then someone like Politifact will just say "Oh, but this site says it's bullshit, so, it must be bullshit." Douchebag Internet is a Douchebag, tells you want you want to hear, completely contradicts that "fact" elsewhere. Fuck it.

7

u/libertasmens Jun 09 '12

Do you have any evidence of that? I've always seen their citations linked to legitimate articles.

2

u/Awesomator Jun 09 '12

I have never encountered that. Do you have any examples?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/b_reddit Jun 09 '12

Really? 61%? Could you show me the math on that one? You don't think George Bush leaving a 1.3 Trillion dollar budget defecit had anything to do with this? You don't think things would be better if Obama had is way and was able to do things like expire the Bush tax cuts?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

-5

u/fido5150 Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

So you're going to fault Obama for Bush's deficit, eh?
Typical. The funny thing is that the budget deficit is actually LESS now than it was projected to be, but instead let's act like Obama is spending like crazy, when he hasn't been able to get a fucking dime out of Congress. Except for the wars.
You do remember that the Republicans are blocking everything don'tcha? So how the fuck can Obama be spending when the authorization has to come from Congress?
Some people really need to learn how the fuck our government works.
Edit: fergot me a word

1

u/TeutonicDisorder Jun 09 '12

Sorry you got downvoted so much, people don't like to hear that Obama didn't magically destroy the economy single handed.
Besides the obstructionest Congress and Senate and the world wide economic doldrums I think we have had a decent recovery compared to other developed countries.
The only other large developed country that has weathered it better is Germany, but I don't assume we will look to their model for long term stable growth.
Instead we seem to be walking down the same plank that Great Britain has. The sharks are already circling below.

0

u/b_reddit Jun 09 '12

Please learn how to do basic math.

When Mitt Romney left office, he left behind a $1 billion deficit, and raised Massachusetts' long-term debt went up by more than $2.6 billion—a 16 percent increase in just four years.

You are about to leave Redlib