Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Mitt's really bad day
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1032919" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Those figures of which you inquired come directly from Mitt Romney's website under the heading "Spending, Smaller, Simpler, Smarter Government" and in my original post where you see the words "Mitt's Plan" highlighted in red, that is a direct link right to Romney's own website and this page under the "Issues" section. In other words, the figures themselves were a direct quote from Romney himself. </p><p></p><p>As to the $160 billion figure you posted, I never saw that on the Romney website. In fact, quoting directly from Romney's site, this is what he sez in regards to ObamaCare savings under his plan:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now Romney clearly sez under his plan that he will save $95 billion so could you provide a Romney source for that $160 billion? I mean adding in the $160 b amount verses $95 b gets us at least closer to the magic $500 b Romney claims he needs to cut annually to balance the budget deficit by the end of his 2nd term. And on "balancing the budget by the end of the 2nd term" let's address that and to Techgrrl's point in post #363 that Obama is getting "his chops busted" for not having turned the country around in a single term. </p><p></p><p>Earlier this month on Sept. 9th, David Gregory of Meet the Press sat down with Romney on the campaign trail to discuss issues and the following exchange took place.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2012/meet-press-interview-romney-september-2012/p28961" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">sourcelink</span></a></p><p></p><p>Now if Romney takes 2 terms and even sez to do so in 1 term would cause harm (that's open to debate but that's another thread and time) then why are the same conditions not true of Obama? In a manner of speaking he has by appearances stopped the bleeding so to speak and appeals to majority aside, most everyone agrees the economy is sitting on the edge of breaking out so it begs the question, if this were the election for Romney's 2nd term and he's already stated to complete the job which will take 2 terms based on Romney's own model, would it be correct to let him finish the job or bring in the next guy? If you'd argue for actions with one, why would the same action not hold true for the other and that goes visa versa too?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1032919, member: 2189"] Those figures of which you inquired come directly from Mitt Romney's website under the heading "Spending, Smaller, Simpler, Smarter Government" and in my original post where you see the words "Mitt's Plan" highlighted in red, that is a direct link right to Romney's own website and this page under the "Issues" section. In other words, the figures themselves were a direct quote from Romney himself. As to the $160 billion figure you posted, I never saw that on the Romney website. In fact, quoting directly from Romney's site, this is what he sez in regards to ObamaCare savings under his plan: Now Romney clearly sez under his plan that he will save $95 billion so could you provide a Romney source for that $160 billion? I mean adding in the $160 b amount verses $95 b gets us at least closer to the magic $500 b Romney claims he needs to cut annually to balance the budget deficit by the end of his 2nd term. And on "balancing the budget by the end of the 2nd term" let's address that and to Techgrrl's point in post #363 that Obama is getting "his chops busted" for not having turned the country around in a single term. Earlier this month on Sept. 9th, David Gregory of Meet the Press sat down with Romney on the campaign trail to discuss issues and the following exchange took place. [URL='http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2012/meet-press-interview-romney-september-2012/p28961'][COLOR=#ff0000]sourcelink[/COLOR][/URL] Now if Romney takes 2 terms and even sez to do so in 1 term would cause harm (that's open to debate but that's another thread and time) then why are the same conditions not true of Obama? In a manner of speaking he has by appearances stopped the bleeding so to speak and appeals to majority aside, most everyone agrees the economy is sitting on the edge of breaking out so it begs the question, if this were the election for Romney's 2nd term and he's already stated to complete the job which will take 2 terms based on Romney's own model, would it be correct to let him finish the job or bring in the next guy? If you'd argue for actions with one, why would the same action not hold true for the other and that goes visa versa too? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Mitt's really bad day
Top