Mitt's really bad day

[roadrunner2012]

Sandra Fluke...hahahaha who the hell gets pissed off because someone wont pay for their birth control...she wants to get all the sex and fit us with the bill. And that sounds like we are the ones getting screwed!

Your understand of current events, history and finance is absolutely frightening.

 

[MenInBrown]

Would you kindly do us a favor and explain how the 12 million jobs are going to be created, or are you just keeping your fingers crossed that it will happen by some magic?

So far, even ROMNEY cant tell us how they are going to be created, so I imagine you have some insight that "HE" doesnt.

peace

TOS

No, Ive been crossing my fingers for almost 4 years now and it hasnt worked...he's going to do the same thing that history has proven creates jobs...allow the free market to create them. Thats not insight, thats common knowledge.

 

[MenInBrown]

Actually, yes, I want everybody's taxes to go up. I think they go up 3.5% and with some level of fiscal restraint, we cut the deficit in abou 8 to 10 years. Why is it necessary to raise their taxes? Because the tax cuts were always designed to be temporary and we failed to live within our means.

Living within our means? The sentence before that you said raise taxes...living within our means would be living within our tax code. You defeat the purpose if you raise taxes, because the nest time its well lets just raise taxes and live within our means. Another problem with not being able to live within our means is unemployment...less people paying in.

 

[MenInBrown]

Poor thing, looks and sounds like you have a case of RUSH-ITIS... Better get to the logic store and pick up a prescription of do your own thinking.

Peace

TOS

I think we have been diagnosed as having being fed a load of bull**** for the past 4 years.

 

[MenInBrown]

Actually, yes, I want everybody's taxes to go up. I think they go up 3.5% and with some level of fiscal restraint, we cut the deficit in abou 8 to 10 years. Why is it necessary to raise their taxes? Because the tax cuts were always designed to be temporary and we failed to live within our means.

Man talk about not caring for the middle class? Glad the majority doesnt think like that.

 

[MenInBrown]

Would you kindly do us a favor and explain how the 12 million jobs are going to be created, or are you just keeping your fingers crossed that it will happen by some magic?

So far, even ROMNEY cant tell us how they are going to be created, so I imagine you have some insight that "HE" doesnt.

peace

TOS

Please be so kind as to explain to us why Obama has not created any NEW jobs in almost 4 years? You still got your fingers crossed?

 

[bbsam]

Man talk about not caring for the middle class? Glad the majority doesnt think like that.

What have I said is not factual? Of course, after January 1st, Obama can propose his tax cut for 98% of the public. Let's see the republicans vote that down.

 

[wkmac]

Im not sure where you got your figures from, but I noticed the figures for Obamacare is 160 billion. Also big reforms to Medicare and Social Security which no specifics would be known because congress would have their hands on that too. Also you have to factor in the 12 million jobs he is going to create...more people paying in and a higher GDP. With a higher GDP that % gets pretty close to your num.

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:

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government ​

Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

1. The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can’t Afford, For Instance:
   • Repeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama’s costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.
   • Privatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.
   • Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.
   • Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
   • Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.
   If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitt’s approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Learn more about Mitt’s proposals for entitlement reform: Medicare and Social Security.
2. Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion
   • Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.
3. Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance:
   • Reduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.
   • Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.
   • Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.
   • Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.
   • Consolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation.

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.

GREGORY: Will you balance the budget in your first term? Is that a commitment you can make?
MR. ROMNEY: I'll balance the budget by the end of my second term. Doing it in the first term would cause, I believe, a-- a dramatic impact on the economy. Too-- too dramatic. And therefore the steps I've put in place and we've put together a plan that lays out how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years.

sourcelink

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?

 

[MenInBrown]

I just looked at what the CBO says Obamacare will cost over ten years which is 1.6 trillion...there must be things in Obamacare that Romney is keeping. I see what you are talking about.

 

[MenInBrown]

sourcelink

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?

Actually he has not stopped the bleeding...unemployment is going up, debt is going up, food stamps are going up, energy cost is going up, food prices are going up...etc. I think our definitions of stopping the bleeding are different. For Romney to get a second term from me he will have to live up to promises made...I vote for who I think is right, not a particular party. For Obamas economy to keep getting worst in his first term, you have to let the next man step in plain and simple.

 

[roadrunner2012]

caharrell5, You must live in some sort of alternate reality, or you have lost all memory of how bad things were in 2008.

BTW, The PPACA reduces the deficit. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

 

[bbsam]

Actually he has not stopped the bleeding...unemployment is going up, debt is going up, food stamps are going up, energy cost is going up, food prices are going up...etc. I think our definitions of stopping the bleeding are different. For Romney to get a second term from me he will have to live up to promises made...I vote for who I think is right, not a particular party. For Obamas economy to keep getting worst in his first term, you have to let the next man step in plain and simple.

So fix the damage that's been done in 40 years in 4? That's why Clinton's speech was so powerful. It makes such expectations seem absurd.

 

[over9five]

So fix the damage that's been done in 40 years in 4? That's why Clinton's speech was so powerful. It makes such expectations seem absurd.

But it's what Obama promised.
"If I don't have this done in 3 years, this will be a one term proposition" (loosely quoted)

He said that.

 

[Catatonic]

So fix the damage that's been done in 40 years in 4? That's why Clinton's speech was so powerful. It makes such expectations seem absurd.

If Mitt is elected, he will fix it in 1 year ... guaranteed!

 

[toonertoo]

No different than voting strictly for a Democrat or Republican no matter how big of an idiot they are, because that's your party. Lose the 2 party system so we can start voting in the right people.

I still like Herman Cain, but he was a ladys man, so no we cant have him as a candidate.

 

[MenInBrown]

caharrell5, You must live in some sort of alternate reality, or you have lost all memory of how bad things were in 2008.

BTW, The PPACA reduces the deficit. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

Obamas budget adds over a trillion dollars of deficit each year...what reality is that? The government does not sell anything to make a profit. From what I told you has gotten worst...please show me the numbers from 2008 compared to now.

 

[island1fox]

I still like Herman Cain, but he was a ladys man, so no we cant have him as a candidate.

Toon,

Only Presidents or Senators like Clinton, Kennnedy and Kennedy can get away with it.

 

[MrFedEx]

If Mitt is elected, he will fix it in 1 year ... guaranteed!

Yep, he'll start a nuclear war with our number one "enemy" (Russia), and we'll all be dead.

 

[MrFedEx]

I still like Herman Cain, but he was a ladys man, so no we cant have him as a candidate.

9-9-9 was a stupid "plan", if you can even call it that, and Cain is an idiot. Would you really want a complete maroon to be your President? Oh,you support Romney, so I guess you do.

 

[moreluck]

9-9-9 was a stupid "plan", if you can even call it that, and Cain is an idiot. Would you really want a complete maroon to be your President? Oh,you support Romney, so I guess you do.

We've already had a term with a complete idiot........!!!!!!!