Stubborn Facts on Romney and Taxes

[SheepTimeProductions]

He's comming back -_- brace yourself

[MrConservativeTalk]

Romney balanced the states budget, set up a rainy-day fund, held spending down to a 2.8% increase, and lowered taxes on income and capital gains. The property tax hikes were caused my local governments that didn't want to be fiscally conservative. Romney has a strong record on tax cuts and spending restraint.

[DavidDLPE]

@MrConservativeTalk - You sound like a good spin man for Romney, but as he himself stated, "Facts are stubborn things..." MA is a mess, in large part due to Romney's one term as governor. After Romney, MA turned heavily democrat. He lost the legislature and the governor's office. Voter registration for dems spiked while drastically falling for Repubs. If I had the time, I would be happy to go deeper into the "facts" you cite, such as the 2.8% increase in spending (using what accounting method?)

[DavidDLPE]

The point is that he is exactly the kind of Republican that ushered the current administration into office. Romney kind of sounds like Reagan, and he knows how to gauge the conservative winds in his endorsements (Rubio). But his record is anything but Conservative. I just recently heard him say in an interview where he was defending the govt run healthcare he initiated in MA that half of it was funded by federal funds, as if this is a good thing? What if every state did that? Think about it.

[RPeterson521]

Fees are conservative. They prevent the taxpayer from having to subsidize a good or service provided to individuals, such as drivers licenses.

If you lose your license, you should pay for a new one out of your own pocket.

In MA, fees were not high enough to cover the costs. By updating fees, Romney ended the taxpayer subsidizing of those services.

If you don't think that money should come from fees, where do you think that money should come from?

[RPeterson521]

Furthermore, the fees were not 500 million dollars. They were about half that. The number you use are from a combination of "fees and taxes" which include a tax increase passed by the previous governor which took effect under Romney's term.

Romney did not sign that tax increase and had no power to revoke or veto it.

[DavidDLPE]

I appreciate your comment, and you do pose some good points. First, let me say that this video was produced in response to Romney's own attack strategies he employed against Mike Huckabee. Romney set the rules, and I made this video to show him what happens when his rules are applied to himself. Romney was trying to disparage Huckabee for $500 M in tax increases over 10 years as Governor of a democrat state, while Romney helped usher in over $750 M in tax increases in less than half the time...

[DavidDLPE]

And for the record, any monies collected by the government is a tax, regardless of the label, or whether its purpose is worthy...

Where you lose me in your remarks is that Fees in MA were not high enough to cover the costs. Two sides to that argument, my friend...

According to RomneyFacts d com, $432 M of Romney's tax increases were in Fee increases. In addition, these hikes were Romney initiatives, not proposed by the legislature. And the "catch-up" argument does not hold water...

[DavidDLPE]

For instance, he initiated a $10 Fee to issue a Certificate of Blindness... Because you're not blind unless the state says you are, right? That had a minor effect on the budget - let's look at the bigger ones... He initiated/created a fee on residents who wanted to appeal their SDIP (Safe Driver Insurance Plan) rating. Follow the money here, this brought in over $2.2 M into the state annual budget. Hard to argue he was "keeping up with costs" on Fees that never existed before him...

[DavidDLPE]

If you'll go to the afore-mentioned website, there is a complete excel spreadsheet listing all of his fee increases. Boat registration fees quadrupled - an unfair tax on the rich. Numerous corporate taxes imposed, claiming to "close loopholes, raising hundreds of millions in revenue. $175 M in Registry of Deeds fee increases - related to buying and selling homes. Again, some of them - many of them even, are justified. There are many others that are out of balance, and just plain silly.

[DavidDLPE]

@RPeterson521 - Finally, let me just say this - I had not watched this video in a while. I just did again, and I must say it is well-sourced. None of these facts and figures are mine. You can look up the claims for yourself. If your basic argument is that Fees are ok but taxes aren't, I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. I contend that whether the gov't collects our money as a tax or a fee, there are worthy and unworthy uses for each. At the end of the day, it's all taxes.

[ArmoredPanther]

Huckabee's latest ad shows him wanting to abolish the IRS, which is a great idea and that's why he and Ron Paul will be shut out. too bad as we all lose with either Hillary the neo-Marxist or kooky McCain, the later of whom is despised by Rush Limbaugh, Ann coulter and myself. It's time we embraced the horrifying reality that Hillary will be our next President and she'll hold a Constitutional Convention to get rid of the Second Amendment.

We are truly screwed.

[DavidDLPE]

Sorry, but Ron Paul will be shut out because of his foreign policy. And look for Texas to replace him as their Congressman now that they know what he is about.

I do hope you are wrong on Hillary. Huck is not out yet, and now with Romney gone, McCain might find that last 350 or so delegates hard to come by. I know it is a long shot, but we can certainly hope... Thanks for your comments!

[ArmoredPanther]

You missed my point entirely, but I noticed that you did that in the god Vs. atheist debate, too. I wasn't making a point about Ron Paul at all but about right and wrong or good Vs. evil if you will. It appears that I am wrong about Hillary and thank heaven I am. However, McCain is no alternative and I will not vote Democrat (ever) and just cannot hold my nose to vote for a kook like McCain.

Let's hope Huckabee really can do miracles.

[CherryBomberGirl]

Mitt Romney is just another lying slickster. I haven't voted for anyone but a GOP nominated candidate since I first voted for Reagan, but I will not vote for that religious nut job Huckabee (the guy has some seriously screwy ideas) or the mentally ill McCain even if it means voting for a third party candidate who doesn't have a chance. I am tired of duds like Bush was and won't repeat that mistake.

[DavidDLPE]

Huckabee is a religious nut job? Why don't you read the writings of the founding fathers, because when you hear about their ideas of governing America, you're really going to get upset. Most especially, read about the father of education, Benjamin Rush.

[CherryBomberGirl]

Permit me to say something about religion, the ouija board and ghosts here: people will always believe and be superstitious viz such superstitions. Huckabee's the kind who can't help it as he was raised to believe. Then there's the kind who figured it out on his or her own as I did when we got older just as there's no such thing as Santa Claus. There's no proof that Huckabee's "god" or "higher power" exists, because it doesn't. If Huckabee is (obviously) lacking in critical thinking areas...

[DavidDLPE]

You are wrong that there is no proof that God exists. If you were truly using the critical scientific thinking you claim you possess, you would realize that science has increasingly embraced the idea of intelligent design. Our universe increasingly reveals evidence of design. Don't believe me? Wait ten years, and we will still see that the Bible has yet to be refuted. The Bible is the only religious book that gets the account of creation correct in 14 different areas, against the odds.

[CherryBomberGirl]

No, you mean that superstitious scientists are embracing it, but not science itself as there's no evidence. Also, you appear to be otherwise intelligent, but fail to realize that "intelligent design" is a euphemism for "let's cram our religion down kids' throats and call it something else. I have already had to endure well meaning friends try to convince me there's scientific proof of a god, but all failed.

If you have evidence of this intelligent design (or god), present it. I'll wait.

[DavidDLPE]

Here is one of many resources. Go to reasons (dot) org. Click on the link that says "Evidence for design." Let's see how truly scientific you are. Evolutionists are more zealous about their religion than Christians are about theirs. It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a Designer. But evolutionists fall into two categories: either they say that it is true, or it needs more evidence. They do not dare consider the possibility of it being false. Why? God.

[CherryBomberGirl]

For someone who's into being scientific, you assume a lot as I used to be a Christian. I tried to say that before, but the 500-character limit. I did as you asked and I see speculation and conjecture, but no proof. The "global flood" thing caused me to laugh as that doesn't prove there's a god! You know it doesn't and I didn't see one use of the Scientific Method once. Gypsy moth parasites do not prove there's "an all-powerful, all-wise, and all-loving Creator!"

Try again :))

[DavidDLPE]

You have to take the evidence in its entirety. You are not looking with a truly scientific mind. A truly scientific mind appraoches things first to see how they could be true, then see how they could not be true. You are using only the second approach. Again, this is typical of atheists. They reject anything that MIGHT prove God on the things that they don't understand. The global flood is an answer to those who say it was impossible. It was not to be an exhaustive proof that God exists.

[CherryBomberGirl]

No, it takes much more faith to believe in a supreme being that used to kill first born sons when he didn't like their rulers, but then did a complete 180 turnabout after the New Testament was written, than it does to believe in evolution. After all, if god is perfect, why would he revise anything let alone the killing of first born sons? Perfection doesn't require revision.

Again: if you have evidence of a god, present it.

I'll continue to wait, but dare YOU to consider you're wrong.

[DavidDLPE]

Ok, so you are going to stand in judgment of God because you say He killed first born sons? He allowed His first born son to be killed for our sins, so actually, He is being absolutely consistent. The Pharoah called down this curse on himself, as he was testing God. But God allowed his INNOCENT first born son to be killed so we can have a relationship with Him. Yet you choose to sit in judgment. Your choice. You don't believe in god as a punishment for not agreeing with Him. Typical.

[ArmoredPanther]

I am watching from the sidelines here, but you're not answering her questions at all. Also, she's merely asking for proof and every time she points out that you've provided none (you haven't), you simply go on the attack and make fact free assertions instead.

Why not provide this proof she keeps asking for? Having taken a science course once in college, I can tell you with certainty that you provided none.

Are you open minded enough to consider that you're wrong as you asked her?

[DavidDLPE]

I pointed her to a resource. I am not going to get into a scientific pissing contest and try to prove God 400 characters at a time.

There is proof, but if someone does not want to see it, they won't. A truly scientific mind will go out and seek the evidence for themselves, and closely examine the case for God and creation, etc. I cannot get God to stand here, and say, "Here I am." That does not mean there is no other evidence. Each person has to be willing to find it.

[ArmoredPanther]

I checked that Web you referred her to and there's no proof there. Just because you're seeing something that's not there doesn't mean it's there and I would hardly call that a "pissing contest."

What you mean is you've seen enough for your own, personal satisfaction, but that's far from being scientific.  That's the primary reason why believers have faith and not fact.

I am still curious, are you open minded enough to consider the possiblity you're wrong?

[DavidDLPE]

When you have seen for yourself that 2+2=4, are you going to remain open-minded to think you are wrong, or are you going to choose to operate on what you know? It is more than seeing something that is not there. It is looking at what is there, and considering the possible explanations for how it got there. Many have settled on evolution as that explanation, although we have zero evidence for species evolving into another species. The fine balance of the universe and life testifies to design.

[DavidDLPE]

What distinguishes Christianity and the Bible most, other than Jesus Christ, is that it is the only religion that does not ask you to ignore what you can observe. In fact, it is actually the basis for the scientific method - test and proove. Every factual claim made in the Bible falls into two categories: that which we know to be true, and mystery. No assertion made by the Bible has been proven true. As time goes on, we will see more assertions proven, and less mystery. That is the pattern.

[ArmoredPanther]

You don't have any proof that what's in the bible is true and applying the scientific method only debunks a book rife with beliefs in witches and other supernatural beings such as a god. I reasoned it out a few months ago what a cruel sham religion truly is and wish only that others can see the world without the yoke of such ancient superstitions guiding them through life.

While it would be nice to be an immortal someday (something you believe), I know there's no such thing as Santa Claus.

[DavidDLPE]

As I said before, I will not debate it here. This is not the forum. In the end, we all choose, but Christianity is the only religion that asks you to make your mind up based on evidence. Live your life the best you can. Just remember that if Jesus was not a lunatic, liar or a fraud, then your consequences are far worse than mine. If I am wrong, we are all just food for the worms.

This is just more proof that God does not send anyone to hell. They go of their own choosing.

[ArmoredPanther]

There's a huge problem with your flawed analogy and that's that no one has ever been able to prove that religion is based in fact as mathematics viz. your 2+2=4 example. When you can demonstrate that your superstitious (or religious, if you prefer) beliefs are as founded in fact as mathematics are, then you can say you have a legitimate reason for being closed minded. I would love for us to be immortal beings someday, which would be nice, but instead of fact you have wishful thinking or faith.

[DavidDLPE]

I can give you mathematic evidence, but you will not accept it. Fact: The Bible is the only religious book to get all 14 of it's key creation claims correct, in sequence. Based on the knowledge available at that time, for the author to accomplish this without divine intervention is less likely than all of the frozen molecules of the air you are now breathing to gather into the space you now occupy and freeze you as you sit (or stand). In other words, it is beyond scientifically impossible.

[CherryBomberGirl]

I am not judging god because there's no god to judge. You still couldn't grasp the fact that this god did a complete reversal after the Old Testament, but why would a perfect being need to revise his policies towards humans?

Also, there's no evidence that Jesus was the son of a god. Gilgamesh declared himself 2/3 of a god (which wasn't that unusual for ancient leaders), but I don't believe that either.

You still cannot prove the supernatural exists and can't explain your god's reversal.

[DavidDLPE]

The fact you are asking me to "prove" my God to you is an attempt by you to judge Him. If He does not exist, why are you asking me to prove Him?

There is no reversal, or revision of policies. If there was, you show me where this happened. What did happen was the fulfillment of the Law through Jesus Christ. I guarantee you that you have misunderstood key elements of history and Scripture.

There is evidence that Jesus was the Son of God. You show me the evidence that He was not.

[CherryBomberGirl]

Asking for proof is not synonymous with judging something that I know doesn't exist, but I support your right to sound kooky. I ask for proof as you believe in something that's not there, but I used to, too, until I began to question why I would believe in something that cannot be seen or proven.

You can't back up your guarantee with proof so it's an empty guarantee.

Now you're asking me to prove a negative. Since you're the one with the affirmative belief the burden of proof is on you.

[DavidDLPE]

You are correct when you say that asking for proof is not synonymous with judgment. However, you said, "...why would a perfect being need to revise his policies towards humans?" This was offered as your primary basis for your belief that God does not exist. That is not science you are using, that is your own reasoning. So it is accurate to say that you are judging God, not asking for proof.

[DavidDLPE]

As far as who is proving a positive or negative, we are both making statements in the affirmative. You are saying there is no God to judge. You state that as what you believe to be fact. You are making the positive assertion that God does not exist. Show me your evidence. Your claim that there is no evidence of God is false, but even if it were true, you cannot scientifically cite "no evidence" as proof of your assertion. If we used that basis, then evolution is most definitely proven false.

[MrJGFAN]

Keep putting the truth out there David.

I LIKE MIKE!

[DavidDLPE]

Thanks JGFan. It is a shame that the Club for Growth, Ann Coulter and others have all taken part in this Romney snow job. I just found out today that Romney and Huckabee had the exact same spending increase - $5.2 Billion. The difference. Romney did it in just 4 years - it took Huckabee more than 10. Yet Huckabee is the "tax and spender"? Romney own the "tax and spend" label.

[smerny85]

Romney tries winning the peoples votes by playing word games, by dishing out millions and millions of dollars, by dishonestly attacking other candidates.... His record is far from great... If he wins the nomination, democrats will win the election.

[DavidDLPE]

Well said. This election is down to Huckabee, McCain or Romney, and Huckabee is the only Conservative choice. When Fred gets out, his voters will see how they have been duped when he endorses McCain.

[vonflowers]

It wouldn't surprise me if he stayed in through Florida just to ensure that McCain wins. As long as he's stays in the race Huckabee's conservative base will be divided and McCain will have the advantage.

[DavidDLPE]

I agree. Ususally, when two candidates battle for the same voters with similar platforms, they usually have a modicum of respect for one another. Thompson has made it obvious that he strongly dislikes Huckabee, and I can see him hanging in just to do more damage.

[vonflowers]

Great video! Keep it up.

[DavidDLPE]

Thank you!