Seriously... why would anyone vote for Romney?

[RandomGuy]

This dude has changed his tune more often than a DJ on speed.

I am shocked how much he will say literally anything to get elected, no matter how untrue, or how much it goes against his previous statements.

This guy would tell you the sky was yellow, and water was dry, if he thought it would help him get the presidency. The thought of someone like this who is so itchy to be president that he turns his back on any principle at the drop of a hat, makes me seriously wonder about the guys character.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hardly unique to Romney, tbh. The dude was pretty centrist as a governor. Everybody comes from somewhere. Eventually, it shows.

[ChumpDumper]

The Italians are moving Jeep to China!

[tlongII]

A better question is "Why would anyone vote for Obama?"

[Bigzax]

With these two choices why would anyone vote.

[Mitt Romney]

With these two choices why would anyone vote.

Well, I won't cover your pre-existing condition so good luck.

[silverblk mystix]

...because he only has a "touch" of grey in his hair...so real, so authentic that there is only a slight touch of grey near his temples...so distinguished!

[tlongII]

...because he only has a "touch" of grey in his hair...so real, so authentic that there is only a slight touch of grey near his temples...so distinguished!

So you're voting for Obama because you like the way he looks. Got it.

[Latarian Milton]

romney ain't the first politician who tells false stuffs to bolster his approval rate, nor is he gonna be the last either. obama just lied as much as anyone did imho, making quixotic promises he could never live up to, and don't get me wrong im not at all a romney supporter. i know it sucks if a mormon gets elected president but i don't think the country will go much worse w/ someone else in place of obama tbh

[SA210]

Because people are fooled into thinking he's different than Obama

[DMC]

People would vote for Romney if they are religious and have been semi-weekly fed bullshit about that old debul who's runnin' the country now and how God's chosen people (whomever is in the congregation that night) need to do God's work to right the ship and keep the reprobates and demons away from poor unborn babies.

[tlongII]

People will vote for Romney because he might try to reduce the massive debt our country has.

[vander]

hope and change

[z0sa]

With these two choices why would anyone vote.

Bingo

[silverblk mystix]

People will vote for Romney because he might try to reduce the massive debt our country has.


this guy tschlong is a funny guy- he might have a future as a comedian!

[Wild Cobra]

Bingo
That's right. I forget, been so long since I went to church.

Churches often have Bingo events!

[boutons_deux]

Hardly unique to Romney, tbh. The dude was pretty centrist as a governor. Everybody comes from somewhere. Eventually, it shows.

TB! :lol Gecko centrist! :lol

"Bipartisanship was in short supply;

Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives.

He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/). Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/politics/romney-claims-of-bipartisanship-as-governor-face-challenge.html?pagewanted=all

[Clipper Nation]

People will vote for Romney because he might try to reduce the massive debt our country has.

:lmao

Good joke, tbh...

[ClintSquint]

I will.

[Evil Angel]

Because he's not Obama...

[Bill_Brasky]

People will vote for Romney because he might try to reduce the massive debt our country has.

:lol thinking that either of these candidates has even the slightest interest in cutting the debt

[Trill Clinton]

i never heard the "both candidates suck so i won't vote" angle till obama came into the picture.

never heard it once when chimp brained Bush got 2 terms against lackluster opponents.

i wonder why that is.

[tlongII]

:lol at people ignoring the national debt issue. You people are not very smart.

[Edward]

:lol at people ignoring the national debt issue. You people are not very smart.

Yeah, a 5 trillion dollar tax cut and 2 trillion dollar increase in military spending sure sounds like caring about the national debt issue.

[howbouthemspurs]

We know what we got with Obama... But with Mitt Romney, when hes been proven a liar on multiple occasions and has changed his mind on almost every important issue hes come across the past two decades, is a very scary choice to me. It feels like the very far right is pulling his strings. He will say anything to get ahead.

[Heath Ledger]

We're fucked either way, Romney reminds me of a used car salesman. Will say anything to get the sale. Shrewd business man who has prospered by shipping jobs over seas ala Bain Capital. Offshore tax shelters... yeah seems legit...

[tlongII]

Yeah, a 5 trillion dollar tax cut and 2 trillion dollar increase in military spending sure sounds like caring about the national debt issue.

The national debt is over $16 Trillion and has has increased dramatically since Obama took office. His budget proposals to congress have done nothing but perpetuate these increases. We cannot survive the lavish government spending that Obama has been promoting imo. We have to get someone in office that is more fiscally responsible.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I've seen people present some coherent cases for why they'd vote AGAINST Obama, but far fewer that seemed to be actually voting FOR Romney. Which was what seemed to be happening an awful lot in the discussions I heard in 2004. Lots of people talking about voting against Bush rather than for Kerry. If all your candidate has going for him is that his base finds him less objectionable than the opposition party then that's not the sort of inspiring presence that can unseat an incumbent. It's like going after the champ in the WWF (or WWE if you're sickeningly young). Simply not losing isn't enough to win the title. You have to go out there and take that shit.

[cantthinkofanything]

If someone is shoving a spiked bat up my ass for 4 years and you ask me if I want him for 4 more or take my chances with some other guy...I'm going with the other guy. My rationale:
I doubt he could make it worse. And if he does, they everything is fucked anyway. But maybe...just maybe, the new guy takes the spikes out of the bat.

[Edward]

The national debt is over $16 Trillion and has has increased dramatically since Obama took office. His budget proposals to congress have done nothing but perpetuate these increases. We cannot survive the lavish government spending that Obama has been promoting imo. We have to get someone in office that is more fiscally responsible.
Do you think a 5 trillion dollar tax cut and 2 trillion dollar increase in defense spending is fiscally responsible?

Here comes another post where you completely dodge the subject of a 5 trillion dollar tax cut or a 2 trillion dollar increase in spending.

[resistanze]

If someone is shoving a spiked bat up my ass for 4 years and you ask me if I want him for 4 more or take my chances with some other guy...I'm going with the other guy. My rationale:
I doubt he could make it worse. And if he does, they everything is fucked anyway. But maybe...just maybe, the new guy takes the spikes out of the bat.

Yeah, unless the other guy is openly telling you he has a spiked bat in his hand :lol

[silverblk mystix]

Yeah, unless the other guy is openly telling you he has a spiked bat in his hand :lol

or unless the new guy actually trained for a lifetime in shoving spiked bats up the ass lol

[tlongII]

Do you think a 5 trillion dollar tax cut and 2 trillion dollar increase in defense spending is fiscally responsible?

Here comes another post where you completely dodge the subject of a 5 trillion dollar tax cut or a 2 trillion dollar increase in spending.

It is absolutely more fiscally responsible that Obama's plan.

[Edward]

It is absolutely more fiscally responsible that Obama's plan.

Still dodging the question regarding whether or not it's fiscally responsible.

Shocking.

[RandomGuy]

It is absolutely more fiscally responsible that Obama's plan.

Really? Be specific.

I would like to hear how.

Romney's plan is the equivalent of "magic ponies will come in to give everybody magic tax cuts, while we increase defense spending, and not increase the deficit/debt". I am not a big fan of the magic ponies.

Waiting on your response.

Where is CD when you need him....?

[cantthinkofanything]

Yeah, unless the other guy is openly telling you he has a spiked bat in his hand :lol

At least I get the short reprieve when the first guy pulls his bat out.

[RandomGuy]

The national debt is over $16 Trillion and has has increased dramatically since Obama took office. His budget proposals to congress have done nothing but perpetuate these increases. We cannot survive the lavish government spending that Obama has been promoting imo. We have to get someone in office that is more fiscally responsible.

"lavish government spending that Obama has been promoting" imo

One problem. That isn't actualy the case.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202398


Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.

Obama is in favor of raising taxes. This is far more fiscally responsible than not doing so.

Deficits are getting too large to be attacked by spending cuts alone. Sorry. That is the reality we face. Or least the reality outside the Fox "news" bubble.

The only option to not raising taxes is gutting entitlements so much that no one would agree them. (edit-- cut out some unneeded stuff)

[tlongII]

"lavish government spending that Obama has been promoting" imo

One problem. That isn't actualy the case.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202398

Obama is in favor of raising taxes. This is far more fiscally responsible than not doing so.

Deficits are getting too large to be attacked by spending cuts alone. Sorry. That is the reality we face. Or least the reality outside the Fox "news" bubble.

The only option to not raising taxes is gutting entitlements so much that no one would agree them. (edit-- cut out some unneeded stuff)

It is absolutely the case. Here is just one excerpt from many you could reference. This is related to his 2012 budget proposal done in 2011.


Obama's budget increases 2012 deficit by a third. Yes, that's correct. President Obama submitted his proposed 2012 budget this past Monday. This budget produces a $1.1 trillion deficit for 2012. This deficit is 33 percent higher than his 2011 budget projection, which targeted the 2012 deficit at $828 billion. This higher 2012 deficit is equivalent to $3,217 per person in the United States (based on the U.S. Census Bureau's population clock).

This year's forecast of the 2011 deficit is $1.6 trillion, 30 percent higher than Obama's 2011-budgeted deficit of $1.3 trillion.




http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2011/02/17/obamas_budget_increases_2012_deficit_by_a_third

We must gut entitlement programs. There is no other choice.

[RandomGuy]

It is absolutely the case. Here is just one excerpt from many you could reference.

You seem to be missing a rather important point noted by the CBO.

Is it possible to cut spending, keep tax rates the same, and still have a larger deficit?

[RandomGuy]

We must gut entitlement programs. There is no other choice.

Sure there is. But hey, if that is what you want, go for it.

I don't think you know what the true costs of that option would be, but I am willing to go along, if only to put the lie once and for all to some of the failed ideas of libertarianism.

[RandomGuy]

It is absolutely the case. Here is just one excerpt from many you could reference.

I could reference it, were I to accept at face value an analysis of the Federal Budget by Newt Gingrich's daughter, without fact checking it first.


(to be fair, she seems fairly qualified, IMO)

[Edward]

http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2011/02/17/obamas_budget_increases_2012_deficit_by_a_third

:lmao "Jackie Gingrich Cushman"

cool source

[Vici]

or unless the new guy actually trained for a lifetime in shoving spiked bats up the ass lol

Would love to hear the rationale of this. When, in Romney's life, has he had to face adversity which has given him a lifetime of training? Motherfucker was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth and his only job was to not fuck it up.

[clambake]

Would love to hear the rationale of this. When, in Romney's life, has he had to face adversity which has given him a lifetime of training? Motherfucker was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth and his only job was to not fuck it up.

didn't you hear? one time, it got so bad that he had to sell stock.

[silverblk mystix]

Would love to hear the rationale of this. When, in Romney's life, has he had to face adversity which has given him a lifetime of training? Motherfucker was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth and his only job was to not fuck it up.

Reading comprehension issues much?

I'll spell it out slowly for you...


Romney is trained in fucking people $$$ up the ass and getting away with it...for example being a billionaire and paying 13% taxes...

[howbouthemspurs]

Do you think a 5 trillion dollar tax cut and 2 trillion dollar increase in defense spending is fiscally responsible?

Here comes another post where you completely dodge the subject of a 5 trillion dollar tax cut or a 2 trillion dollar increase in spending.

Yup I agree...And everyone is calling him out on his lies but in the last 3 weeks Mitt is not doing any interviews or taking any questions. Just more fake photo ops like pretending to take part in a food drive for hurricane Sandy or campaign speeches were he is saying that Obama is letting Italians take jeep to china which was also proven to be a lie. He is so afraid to answer questions right now that he wont even be interviewed on Fox news. It is sad to think that people will still vote for this proven liar just to get the black man out of office.

[Wild Cobra]

We're fucked either way, Romney reminds me of a used car salesman. Will say anything to get the sale. Shrewd business man who has prospered by shipping jobs over seas ala Bain Capital. Offshore tax shelters... yeah seems legit...
Does that make Obama a new car salesman?

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZENtH3psXl4

[ErnestLynch]

When you have no job you usually vote for other guy.

[Proxy]

if...
I'm white
I'm Christian
I'm rich
I'm uneducated

then Romney seems appealing

[tlongII]

Yup I agree...And everyone is calling him out on his lies but in the last 3 weeks Mitt is not doing any interviews or taking any questions. Just more fake photo ops like pretending to take part in a food drive for hurricane Sandy or campaign speeches were he is saying that Obama is letting Italians take jeep to china which was also proven to be a lie. He is so afraid to answer questions right now that he wont even be interviewed on Fox news. It is sad to think that people will still vote for this proven liar just to get the black man out of office.

Why isn't everyone calling out Obama regarding his lies about what happened in Libya?

[mavs>spurs]

Where is CD when you need him....?

you probably find yourself asking that same question off-site as well you shameless homosexual sycophant.

[lakerhaterade]

you probably find yourself asking that same question off-site as well you shameless homosexual sycophant.
:lmao

[howbouthemspurs]

Why isn't everyone calling out Obama regarding his lies about what happened in Libya?

What lies are you speaking about ? Please elaborate.

[Wild Cobra]

Politicians always lie. I already called them out for helping the wrong side in the civil,war.

[CubanMustGo]

Why isn't everyone calling out Obama regarding his lies about what happened in Libya?

So you can only come up with one thing Obama is supposedly lying about, instead of the multitide of lies of flipflops coming out of the mouth of Richie Rich on a daily basis?

There's your answer.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I like how Tlong moved the goal posts to Libya after being bloaded regarding how Willard is supposedly fiscally responsible.

[kamikazi_player]

cPgfzknYd20

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

cPgfzknYd20

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Trainwreck2100]

to answer op's question, some vote for romney cause obama is a negro

[silverblk mystix]

to answer op's question, most vote for romney cause obama is a negro



fify

[Viva Las Espuelas]

So you can only come up with one thing Obama is supposedly lying about, instead of the multitide of lies of flipflops coming out of the mouth of Richie Rich on a daily basis?
cuz it just one thing. :lol
wow

[Warlord23]

Why would anyone vote for Romney? Because Romney agrees with everyone, no matter what their stance is. It doesn't matter if you're Wild Cobra or boutons, Romney at some point of time has been in total agreement with your views. This hilarious site captures it perfectly:
http://www.roboromney.com/

[RandomGuy]

Why isn't everyone calling out Obama regarding his lies about what happened in Libya?

I asked a fairly simple question about how the federal budget works.

Is it possible to cut spending, keep tax rates the same, and still have a larger deficit? If yes, how?

[RandomGuy]

cPgfzknYd20

Man, did Mitt Romney kick Mitt Romney's ass!!

[Drachen]

Romney trying to get that Colbert Superpac money. Just heard him say "we need to make a better tomorrow, tomorrow"

[tlongII]

I asked a fairly simple question about how the federal budget works.

Is it possible to cut spending, keep tax rates the same, and still have a larger deficit? If yes, how?

Of course it is. I'm not sure why you're asking this question? If you're not servicing the debt adequately the deficit will grow. Why don't you tell me how Obama is effectively dealing with the budget deficit?

[Warlord23]

Of course it is. I'm not sure why you're asking this question? If you're not servicing the debt adequately the deficit will grow. Why don't you tell me how Obama is effectively dealing with the budget deficit?

You're right. What we need is a "plan" in which an across-the-board tax cut plus an increase in military spending will somehow magically reduce the deficit.

[RandomGuy]

Of course it is. I'm not sure why you're asking this question? If you're not servicing the debt adequately the deficit will grow. Why don't you tell me how Obama is effectively dealing with the budget deficit?

Assume you are adequately servicing your debt.

What other circumstances would allow for the deficit to get larger, but both spending to go down and tax rates remain the same?

(you are getting closer, but still need an important piece)

[tlongII]

Assume you are adequately servicing your debt.

What other circumstances would allow for the deficit to get larger, but both spending to go down and tax rates remain the same?

(you are getting closer, but still need an important piece)

Why don't you tell me how Obama is effectively dealing with the budget deficit?

[silverblk mystix]

Why don't you tell me how Obama is effectively dealing with the budget deficit?

By running against Bush II/Romney to keep republicunts out of the white house. This in itself will save us wars, trillions to line the pockets of the very, very rich and other trillions that would have gone to Romneys benefactors.

[tlongII]

By running against Bush II/Romney to keep republicunts out of the white house. This in itself will save us wars, trillions to line the pockets of the very, very rich and other trillions that would have gone to Romneys benefactors.

Oh right. This has worked real well during Obama's first 4 years, hasn't it? :rolleyes

[Vito Corleone]

Still dodging the question regarding whether or not it's fiscally responsible.

Shocking.

Your question is stupid and pointless because there is no promise of a tax cut or a military build up with the numbers you are suggesting. Thus you are trying to build a straw man to make your point more valid and it is just making you look like an idiot.

[silverblk mystix]

Oh right. This has worked real well during Obama's first 4 years, hasn't it? :rolleyes


#1) If a republicunt had been in office the last four years- things would be a lot worse-- A LOT WORSE.

#2) You and your ilk would be saying how great the country was doing, the stock mkt is great, this would be great, that would be great, and you would be touting osama is dead, blah-blah

#3) The fact that white people like you have had to live under a black prez and you whiteys got your panties all twisted by this fact was worth the last 4 years- all by itself. :lmao:lmao:lmao

[DPG21920]

Tlong isn't white - he's mexican.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Tlong isn't white - he's mexican.
Nah, WC shot all the Oregonian Mexicans

[DPG21920]

Well then Tlong is the last of the Mexicans

[tlongII]

#1) If a republicunt had been in office the last four years- things would be a lot worse-- A LOT WORSE.

#2) You and your ilk would be saying how great the country was doing, the stock mkt is great, this would be great, that would be great, and you would be touting osama is dead, blah-blah

#3) The fact that white people like you have had to live under a black prez and you whiteys got your panties all twisted by this fact was worth the last 4 years- all by itself. :lmao:lmao:lmao

Bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Why don't you tell me how Obama is effectively dealing with the budget deficit?

So, the answer to my question, since you either can't or won't answer it, is that during economic downturns, the deficit will rise for no other reason than tax revenue falls off, leading to higher deficits.

This is not really a "spending spree" on the part of anyone.

Realistically, you can place the stimulus at the feet of the president, but the entire deficit? That isn't quite fair or honest.

Since I am honest, and actually interested in the truth, I will answer your question:

I don't think he has been overly effective in dealing with the deficit. He has extended the Bush tax cuts, making them far, far, worse than they would have been otherwise.

That said, he is running against a person and a party that seems to think that tax cuts will magically make everything better. They won't.

Romney is about as irresponsible as they come in that department. "Magic tax cut ponies for everyone!"

Cutting taxes on the "job creators" is another hollow, failed idea.

Sorry, I got tired of failed ideas years ago.

(edit:
An entire thread sponsored by our local economist about what other economists say, i.e. "supply side" is stupid: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201986

edit to the edit:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/8941/large/TMW2012-10-31colorPNG.png?1351181691

[tlongII]

So, the answer to my question, since you either can't or won't answer it, is that during economic downturns, the deficit will rise for no other reason than tax revenue falls off, leading to higher deficits.

This is not really a "spending spree" on the part of anyone.

Realistically, you can place the stimulus at the feet of the president, but the entire deficit? That isn't quite fair or honest.

Since I am honest, and actually interested in the truth, I will answer your question:

I don't think he has been overly effective in dealing with the deficit. He has extended the Bush tax cuts, making them far, far, worse than they would have been otherwise.

That said, he is running against a person and a party that seems to think that tax cuts will magically make everything better. They won't.

Romney is about as irresponsible as they come in that department. "Magic tax cut ponies for everyone!"

Cutting taxes on the "job creators" is another hollow, failed idea.

Sorry, I got tired of failed ideas years ago.

(edit:
An entire thread sponsored by our local economist about what other economists say, i.e. "supply side" is stupid: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201986

edit to the edit:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/8941/large/TMW2012-10-31colorPNG.png?1351181691

At least Romney has proposed capping federal spending at 20% of GDP. That is showing more fiscal responsibility than Obama has ever shown. It doesn't matter now that Obama looks like he will win the election. I think we are in BIG trouble!

[tlongII]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/602648_10151130405996121_2021138096_n.png

[tlongII]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/outlays-GDP.png

[silverblk mystix]

At least Romney has proposed capping federal spending at 20% of GDP. That is showing more fiscal responsibility than Obama has ever shown. It doesn't matter now that Obama looks like he will win the election. I think we are in BIG trouble!


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao



Sucks to be white, a bigot and have to live with the fact that your prez is a black man. (ok half black)


I love watching you suffer!!!!! :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[koriwhat]

you all are fools... politics will no way, shape, or form better you or society as a whole. politics are for chumps. yall don't have a stake in what's going on and that's fact.

[tlongII]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao



Sucks to be white, a bigot and have to live with the fact that your prez is a black man. (ok half black)


I love watching you suffer!!!!! :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

If only you had a clue.

[TDMVPDPOY]

so what happens to the funds romney raise? all going to offschore accounts? or in a fund to be later use 4 years later for another campaign?


i wonder if his going to write a book like palin? lol fail

[Wild Cobra]

Nah, WC shot all the Oregonian Mexicans
How wrong you are. I only shoot illegal Mexicans.

[RandomGuy]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/602648_10151130405996121_2021138096_n.png

(facepalm)

When the economy shrinks, that % automatically goes up, as has pretty much been pointed out to you already.

When the economy shrinks, demand for subsidized health care, food stamps, and unemployment insurance all go up pushing up spending.

Do you want these things to suddenly get cut, right when people need them most?


That is what would be required for such a plan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png/800px-Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png

(if you can't, or won't answer that question, I can only conclude you bought Romney's plan, and didn't think about what would be required, ala, "magic ponies" would make this nice sounding thing happen)

[JoeChalupa]

He is speech early this morning was how it should be done.

[mrsmaalox]

He is speech early this morning was how it should be done.

You mean the concession speech? Although he looked on the verge of coming unhinged, that was the most human I have ever seen him. He was almost relatable.

[JoeChalupa]

You mean the concession speech? Although he looked on the verge of coming unhinged, that was the most human I have ever seen him. He was almost relatable.

Yeah, and I'm sure many on the far right thought he was too nice.

[tlongII]

(facepalm)

When the economy shrinks, that % automatically goes up, as has pretty much been pointed out to you already.

When the economy shrinks, demand for subsidized health care, food stamps, and unemployment insurance all go up pushing up spending.

Do you want these things to suddenly get cut, right when people need them most?


That is what would be required for such a plan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png/800px-Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png

(if you can't, or won't answer that question, I can only conclude you bought Romney's plan, and didn't think about what would be required, ala, "magic ponies" would make this nice sounding thing happen)

You just don't get it. We simply cannot keep increasing the debt in the manner Obama has and will continue to do. At least Romney recognizes this simple fact. Obama is completely blind to it. You have to recognize the problem first.

[koriwhat]

tlong, the problem is your team sucks and they keep sucking by drafting busted fucks. btw, politics are stupid and no one but the behind the scenes fools should speak of politics as if they know anything about anything.

[ChumpDumper]

You just don't get it. We simply cannot keep increasing the debt in the manner Obama has and will continue to do. At least Romney recognizes this simple fact. Obama is completely blind to it. You have to recognize the problem first.You mistook lip service for actual recognition.

[RandomGuy]

You just don't get it. We simply cannot keep increasing the debt in the manner Obama has and will continue to do. At least Romney recognizes this simple fact. Obama is completely blind to it. You have to recognize the problem first.

You do realize that during the last debt ceiling debate, Obama put forth a willingness to cut entitlement growth, i.e. curbing spending, if the GOP would agree to some tax increases, right?

You are factually mistaken if you say "Obama is blind to it", on that basis.

AND

You completely ignored my question, not that I am surprised. Saddened a bit, but not surprised.

Do you think that we can cut spending as the only way out of the current mess, with no tax increases?

A simple yes or no will do.

[Heath Ledger]

You just don't get it. We simply cannot keep increasing the debt in the manner Obama has and will continue to do. At least Romney recognizes this simple fact. Obama is completely blind to it. You have to recognize the problem first.


I assure you Obama is not blind to it. He is kicking the can down the road for now to make sure we aren't all standing in bread lines. He doesn't have much to work with especially as far as help from the republicans who put party before country to try to kick him out of office and cock block everything he and the democrats have proposed.

Also it is very telling that Romney's own state hates him so much that the majority of them voted for Obama even with our economy in the crapper and our shitty appearance to the rest of the world. If he can't pass the smell test in the state he was governor I think that says all we need to know about Romney. His snide remarks also did not help his cause. He was about as unlikeable as they come.

Before you attack me let me add a disclaimer I voted republican the last 3 elections. But fuck those assholes, party before country ain't gonna fly with me.

[Heath Ledger]

And don't get me started on Romneys "Plan" Cut spending, cut taxes create jobs!! 12 million of them!!! Ya good luck with that buddy. Cutting spending and taxes lolz....

[tlongII]

You do realize that during the last debt ceiling debate, Obama put forth a willingness to cut entitlement growth, i.e. curbing spending, if the GOP would agree to some tax increases, right?

You are factually mistaken if you say "Obama is blind to it", on that basis.

AND

You completely ignored my question, not that I am surprised. Saddened a bit, but not surprised.

Do you think that we can cut spending as the only way out of the current mess, with no tax increases?

A simple yes or no will do.

No, I don't think we can get out of this mess by cutting spending without a tax increase.

The problem is that Obama is not going to reduce the national debt. I'll bet you $100 right now that the national debt is greater than it is now when his 4 years are up. That is a fundamental problem.

[Heath Ledger]

I don't disagree with you there. I am sure we are screwed no matter who is in office right now. People love to blame the president, but where we are now is the result of many many years of poor policy and no budgetary discipline. It is not Obama's fault. He was handed a shit sandwich and handcuffed by 2 or 3 years of nothing but filibusters. Romney lost because he is out of touch with most of America. Blacks, Latinos, Gays, Women and the middle and lower class. It's kind of hard to win a presidency when this is the case.

[tlongII]

I don't disagree with you there. I am sure we are screwed no matter who is in office right now. People love to blame the president, but where we are now is the result of many many years of poor policy and no budgetary discipline. It is not Obama's fault. He was handed a shit sandwich and handcuffed by 2 or 3 years of nothing but filibusters. Romney lost because he is out of touch with most of America. Blacks, Latinos, Gays, Women and the middle and lower class. It's kind of hard to win a presidency when this is the case.

How are you letting Obama off the hook here??? When he went into office the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House. And yet he has never got a budget to pass! I agree with most of the reasons you listed why Romney lost. That is a shame too since the issues that dominated those demographics should be subordinate to the issue of the national debt.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I don't think we can get out of this mess by cutting spending without a tax increase.

The problem is that Obama is not going to reduce the national debt. I'll bet you $100 right now that the national debt is greater than it is now when his 4 years are up. That is a fundamental problem.Would've been the same with Romney.

There's a reason neither he nor Ryan would show their math.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't think we can get out of this mess by cutting spending without a tax increase.

The problem is that Obama is not going to reduce the national debt. I'll bet you $100 right now that the national debt is greater than it is now when his 4 years are up. That is a fundamental problem.

I would not take that bet.

I am 100% that our federal debt will be larger in four years than it is now. Even had Romney gotten elected, that would still be the case.

Erasing our current deficit completely within a year or two, is simply NOT possible, nor would doing that be a good thing for a host of reasons.

Our government and economy are not things that can turn on a dime. We could slam things down, raise taxes and gut spending all in one year, but the shock to our economy would be large enough to spark another recession. THAT we do not need.

What we can, and should do, is attack it from both ends, gut up the sacrifices and work to cut the deficits as much as possible, with a 5-10 year horizon or so to work into real surpluses.

Large things like our country have momentums all their own, and the best you can do is apply steady pressure to get it where you want it to go.

I think Obama understands this. Regardless of what you might think of him, you should be hoping I am right about that.

I think we have an opportunity to get this thing done that we both want, and we should be pushing our congressional reps, Dems and GOPers to do that.

[RandomGuy]

Would've been the same with Romney.

There's a reason neither he nor Ryan would show their math.

Exactly. They were hoping people wouldn't notice. Most on the right obviously didn't. Sad, but a political reality.

[RandomGuy]

How are you letting Obama off the hook here??? When he went into office the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House. And yet he has never got a budget to pass! I agree with most of the reasons you listed why Romney lost. That is a shame too since the issues that dominated those demographics should be subordinate to the issue of the national debt.

Meh. Most of the US government debt is held by banks, insurance companies, and retirement funds. We owe it to ourselves, and all of those entities absolutely need that debt as part of their balance sheets, so that they have stable, very low risk assets.

The US government can crowd out other people wanting to borrow money, but all in all, US government debt at all levels is not inherently a bad thing.

Again, I think we should cut our governments debt back a bit to keep it manageable, but eliminating it entirely is neither feasible, nor desireable, IMO.

We have a lot of other pressing concerns.

[Heath Ledger]

Its hard to pass a budget when the republicans from day one were out solely to make him a one term president. Ring a bell?

[RandomGuy]

Its hard to pass a budget when the republicans from day one were out solely to make him a one term president. Ring a bell?

Yes, it does.

The record number of Senate filibusters speaks volumes to that.

Republicans in congress rather obviously chose on several occasions to simply block legislation they might have otherwise supported, and that confused me as to why they blocked it. The only explanation that I could come up with was that the GOP in congress hated Obama so badly, they were willing to vote down things for the sole reason that Obama would have been able to take credit for it. Party over country. Not that you could get any of them to admit to it.

Most people don't pay so much attention to shit like that, but it was rather palpable for the last 4 years if you were.

[tlongII]

While "party over politics" I'm sure played a role the fact of the matter is that none of Obama's budget proposals addressed the growing debt issue. Apparently you don't think it's a big deal. I think it's the biggest problem we have right now BY FAR. When you are broke you are broke. I don't care who you owe the money to.

[ChumpDumper]

While "party over politics" I'm sure played a role the fact of the matter is that none of Obama's budget proposals addressed the growing debt issue. Apparently you don't think it's a big deal. I think it's the biggest problem we have right now BY FAR. When you are broke you are broke. I don't care who you owe the money to.None of Romney's did either.

[RandomGuy]

While "party over politics" I'm sure played a role the fact of the matter is that none of Obama's budget proposals addressed the growing debt issue. Apparently you don't think it's a big deal. I think it's the biggest problem we have right now BY FAR. When you are broke you are broke. I don't care who you owe the money to.

1) Obama's proposals did address budget issues. Provable, and easily so. Raising taxes directly addresses deficits by reducing them. These proposals were fought and defeated in the House by the tea party caucus.

2) I do think it is a big deal. I have said so already. Again provably wrong, and downright dishonest on your part.

3) It isn't the biggest problem we have at the moment. There is even a fair argument to be made that it isn't even a problem, but that is a section of economics I have not read enough about to evaluate, so it is not something I am going to claim. I will say it is an important problem, but I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face to fix it.

[RandomGuy]

None of Romney's did either.

I call it the "magic pony" solution. Cut taxes and the magic ponies will make everything better and deficits magically disappear. If they had gotten specific about the cuts and tax code gimmies they would have had to do to get the budget where they wanted, no one would have bought it. If tlong was informed or honest enough, he would know that already.

[ChumpDumper]

I call it the "magic pony" solution. Cut taxes and the magic ponies will make everything better and deficits magically disappear. If they had gotten specific about the cuts and tax code gimmies they would have had to do to get the budget where they wanted, no one would have bought it. If tlong was informed or honest enough, he would know that already.They didn't have time to explain! they're busy, busy men!

[RandomGuy]

They didn't have time to explain! they're busy, busy men!

MATH!!

LOOK WE DISCOVERED MATH!!!

[tlongII]

1) Obama's proposals did address budget issues. Provable, and easily so. Raising taxes directly addresses deficits by reducing them. These proposals were fought and defeated in the House by the tea party caucus.

2) I do think it is a big deal. I have said so already. Again provably wrong, and downright dishonest on your part.

3) It isn't the biggest problem we have at the moment. There is even a fair argument to be made that it isn't even a problem, but that is a section of economics I have not read enough about to evaluate, so it is not something I am going to claim. I will say it is an important problem, but I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face to fix it.

That's a bunch of horseshit. The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending. Why would you take more money away so it isn't invested to stimulate the economy? I would rather not follow the model of Greece, Spain, France, etc.

[RandomGuy]

That's a bunch of horseshit. The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending. Why would you take more money away so it isn't invested to stimulate the economy? I would rather not follow the model of Greece, Spain, France, etc.

I understand that. You said Obama didn't propose anything that might help the deficit. That is factually incorrect, and I pointed out why. I didn't say cuts weren't needed.

[tlongII]

I understand that. You said Obama didn't propose anything that might help the deficit. That is factually incorrect, and I pointed out why. I didn't say cuts weren't needed.

Wrong. Merely increasing taxes does nothing to address the debt issue.

[Rick Santorum]

The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending.
Romney's idea of spending cuts = increasing the defense budget by 2 trillion dollars

[Rick Santorum]

But he was gonna cut PBS though!

[RandomGuy]

Wrong. Merely increasing taxes does nothing to address the debt issue.

He proposed both tax increases and spending cuts. The overall proposal was roundly rejected by the house for the first part.

Increasing taxes would address the debt issue. If your net income is negative, and you increase your gross income faster than your expenses increase, your net income will not be as negative.

This is basic math.

If you can't understand basic math, I guess we can stop.

[tlongII]

He proposed both tax increases and spending cuts. The overall proposal was roundly rejected by the house for the first part.

Increasing taxes would address the debt issue. If your net income is negative, and you increase your gross income faster than your expenses increase, your net income will not be as negative.

This is basic math.

If you can't understand basic math, I guess we can stop.

If your incoming financial stream is less than your outgoing financial stream you are doing nothing to address your debt. That is basic math. If you don't understand that, then you're right. We can stop.

[RandomGuy]

If your incoming financial stream is less than your outgoing financial stream you are doing nothing to address your debt. That is basic math. If you don't understand that, then you're right. We can stop.

I am an accountant. I understand such things intimately.

Your statement was "Obamas proposals did *nothing* to address the debt". I pointed out that his proposals would have decreased the long term amount of debt, over doing nothing. You were factually incorrect.

"nothing" and "something" do not mean the same thing. Perhaps we shouldn't be having a math discussion, but a discussion about grammar?

Better:

"Obama's proposals didn't do as much as I[tlong] wanted to do about the debt".

How can we talk about such things meaningfully, if you aren't being fair or accurate? Don't such important things deserve both?

[tlongII]

I am an accountant. I understand such things intimately.

Your statement was "Obamas proposals did *nothing* to address the debt". I pointed out that his proposals would have decreased the long term amount of debt, over doing nothing. You were factually incorrect.

"nothing" and "something" do not mean the same thing. Perhaps we shouldn't be having a math discussion, but a discussion about grammar?

Better:

"Obama's proposals didn't do as much as I[tlong] wanted to do about the debt".

How can we talk about such things meaningfully, if you aren't being fair or accurate? Don't such important things deserve both?

Bullshit. And guess what? I understand such things intimately as well.

[tlongII]

I am an accountant. I understand such things intimately.

Your statement was "Obamas proposals did *nothing* to address the debt". I pointed out that his proposals would have decreased the long term amount of debt, over doing nothing. You were factually incorrect.

"nothing" and "something" do not mean the same thing. Perhaps we shouldn't be having a math discussion, but a discussion about grammar?

Better:

"Obama's proposals didn't do as much as I[tlong] wanted to do about the debt".

How can we talk about such things meaningfully, if you aren't being fair or accurate? Don't such important things deserve both?

Bullshit. And guess what? I understand such things intimately as well.

[ChumpDumper]

tlong believes important things deserve neither fairness nor accuracy.

[Heath Ledger]

Yes, it does.

The record number of Senate filibusters speaks volumes to that.

Republicans in congress rather obviously chose on several occasions to simply block legislation they might have otherwise supported, and that confused me as to why they blocked it. The only explanation that I could come up with was that the GOP in congress hated Obama so badly, they were willing to vote down things for the sole reason that Obama would have been able to take credit for it. Party over country. Not that you could get any of them to admit to it.

Most people don't pay so much attention to shit like that, but it was rather palpable for the last 4 years if you were.

As i said before i voted Republican the last 3 elections but this party before country bullshit needs to stop and like immediately. We are doomed until it does.

[Heath Ledger]

That's a bunch of horseshit. The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending. Why would you take more money away so it isn't invested to stimulate the economy? I would rather not follow the model of Greece, Spain, France, etc.

Oh you mean so the rich can "invest" and hide their assets in instruments and shelters over seas like Romney? How American!