An endorsement of same-sex marriage was long considered risky for President Obama because of the expected backlash from the African-American community. Few seemed to consider the alternative, which polling suggests is playing out instead: Rather than changing their minds about the president, some black voters are reconsidering gay marriage.
A pair of polls released in the last week suggest Obama’s highly publicized announcement may have helped trigger a shift in attitudes among African-Americans, a historically socially conservative voting bloc, in states where same-sex marriage has been at the forefront of public debate. On Thursday, Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) released the results of a survey showing that the state law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland is a strong favorite to be upheld by voters in November, with 57 percent of likely voters saying they will vote for the referendum and only 37 percent intending to vote against.
The poll, commissioned by Marylanders for Marriage Equality, also revealed marked movement among Maryland’s black voters, 55 percent of whom now say they will support the new law. That marks a dramatic flip since PPP’s previous survey in March, when 56 percent of African-American Maryland voters said they would vote against the measure, which was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) earlier this year.
The Maryland poll comes on the heels of a PPP survey of North Carolina released last week, which also found a pronounced shift among black voters in the wake of Obama’s announcement. In that survey, 27 percent of black voters in North Carolina now support the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, while 59 percent are opposed. That still amounts to robust opposition, but it also represents an 11-point shift since PPP’s final survey before North Carolina’s statewide vote on Amendment One, a measure that establishes marriage between one man and one woman as the only legally recognized union. Amendment One passed overwhelmingly just one day before Obama’s announcement.
Wow. While I was always aware that politicians had much more power to persuade the electorate than we give them credit for, this is rather interesting.
I'm equally amazed. Maybe the irony of asking for rights while denying another minority's finally hit them.
On May 25 2012 08:20 BroodKingEXE wrote: But a defaulting government, will help the free market? The government bailed out not only the banks, but a failing automotive industry. Auto companies in the US wont be able to compete, going on the track that they have been going, so how does government giving them money help this comapany correct itself? Pure regulation will prevent these companies from making mistakes, and bailouts will not.
People run companies, people run government. What makes you think that politicians with their regulations are any smarter than the people running a business? They aren't and they are prone to the same mistakes. Regulations are a good excuse for businesses; after all, now they don't have to take responsibility... it's the regulation's fault.
Business and government have different purposes and respond to different forces. Assuming that government is trying to "run" businesses with regulations is just an asinine interpretation of their relationship to society. It's like saying referees and rule makers of professional sports are attempting to plan the game for the pros.
"If your main argument for how to grow the economy is 'I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,' then you're missing what this job is about," Obama said during a news conference at an international summit in Chicago. "It doesn't mean you weren't good at private equity, but that's not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now."
He added: "This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about — is what is a strategy for us to move this country forward in a way where everybody can succeed?"
I know the gist has been posted before.
So in SCtoo terms, Toss managed a pretty vicious timing push taking advantage of Zerg's really greedy 3base without roaches. It took out the third, and cost a lot of larvae, basically nullifying the economic advantage Zerg was trying to get. Now Zerg needs to respond.
I find it really funny that this story is being reported this way given that the real story is the democrats shitting themselves after that Newark mayor said that these attacks against "private equity" were "nauseating."
He then backed off his statements because they were politically damning. He was the one shitting himself, not the "democrats"
Of course the mayor backed off on what he said. He shat so hard on Obama's political strategy that I'm sure that he received phone calls from DNC/Obama campaign heads saying, "WTF are you doing, moron? You better retract what you said or your political career is effectively over" within about 30 seconds of walking off of the set of that Sunday talk show. Hell, if you watch the video clip closely, you can actually see other people around the table squirming as he made the comments.
actually if you watch the show... which i did.... you see that what he said was he didnt like the negative attacks on both sides. I do like how you are pointing out only the side that benefit Romney but lets go back to his statement. He said he found the negative attacks on Romney nauseating because of the fact that they were negative ads, the man is sick of them in general. It could of been about any other part of Romney platform and he still would of been sick of it. Also if you watch the Rachel maddow show (i figure you don't, i feel her show to the right is what hannity is to the left) you would of seen his interview stating how he was going to keep his mouth shut until the right took his remarks out of context. Now you can argue that he was given a call from the whitehouse saying to shut up and it is probably true, but just like the hillary rosen thing all of his words were twisted to fit what the republicans wanted them to say.
not to say that democrats do not take sound bites out of context but lets all act like adults here and realize that the man did not mean what is being played on fox news.
On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote: Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama.
When you promote bad ideas by bailing out (friend or not) you only encourage more bad ideas. When you implement a "too big to fail" mentality you encourage bigger, non calculated, risk taking and ignore facts because no matter what you do, you will just be bailed out!
Free markets work because there is a profit motive. That's what gives incentive to make rational decisions based on the facts. The alternative being making poor decisions and losing it all. Removing the risk only promotes bad decisions because you have nothing to lose.
Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney understand this. What's worse is that the money used to bailout the crappy companies comes from the successful companies who could better to allocate those resources to something productive.
It has been pointed out countless times already in this thread and in the republican nominations thread that your idea of a free market fixing itself and not being prone to crises has no basis in reality. The answer isn't simply to bail financial institutions out and cross fingers, it's to bail them out (the alternative being the loss of far too many jobs) AND adopt tighter regulations that will help prevent further crises. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations.
But a defaulting government, will help the free market? The government bailed out not only the banks, but a failing automotive industry. Auto companies in the US wont be able to compete, going on the track that they have been going, so how does government giving them money help this comapany correct itself? Pure regulation will prevent these companies from making mistakes, and bailouts will not.
I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success.
On May 25 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote: And this is why the US is a representative democracy. We want to elect representatives who can be our better selves and lead the country in a direction which, although the majority may not want, is ultimately better and fairer for all citizens.
The US was properly founded as a Constitutional Republic... Unfortunately people are failing to understand this and we are turning into a democracy which is inconsistent with Individual Rights. No majority can vote rights, properly defined, away under a constitutional republic. They can and have in democracies. One example is that Republicans want to vote by majority rule to ban abortion... and birth control... raw milk... the list goes on.
Take it from an expert:
"The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights." - Leonard Peikoff
Sorry, but you're wrong. Leonard Peikoff is referring to an old meaning of the word democracy, when it was equal to what we call today direct democracy. The United States is a representative democracy, and is characterized as such by political scientists. edit: and it's also a republic, because the two terms are not antithetical at all.
An endorsement of same-sex marriage was long considered risky for President Obama because of the expected backlash from the African-American community. Few seemed to consider the alternative, which polling suggests is playing out instead: Rather than changing their minds about the president, some black voters are reconsidering gay marriage.
A pair of polls released in the last week suggest Obama’s highly publicized announcement may have helped trigger a shift in attitudes among African-Americans, a historically socially conservative voting bloc, in states where same-sex marriage has been at the forefront of public debate. On Thursday, Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) released the results of a survey showing that the state law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland is a strong favorite to be upheld by voters in November, with 57 percent of likely voters saying they will vote for the referendum and only 37 percent intending to vote against.
The poll, commissioned by Marylanders for Marriage Equality, also revealed marked movement among Maryland’s black voters, 55 percent of whom now say they will support the new law. That marks a dramatic flip since PPP’s previous survey in March, when 56 percent of African-American Maryland voters said they would vote against the measure, which was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) earlier this year.
The Maryland poll comes on the heels of a PPP survey of North Carolina released last week, which also found a pronounced shift among black voters in the wake of Obama’s announcement. In that survey, 27 percent of black voters in North Carolina now support the right of gay and lesbian couples to get married, while 59 percent are opposed. That still amounts to robust opposition, but it also represents an 11-point shift since PPP’s final survey before North Carolina’s statewide vote on Amendment One, a measure that establishes marriage between one man and one woman as the only legally recognized union. Amendment One passed overwhelmingly just one day before Obama’s announcement.
Wow. While I was always aware that politicians had much more power to persuade the electorate than we give them credit for, this is rather interesting.
I'm equally amazed. Maybe the irony of asking for rights while denying another minority's finally hit them.
More likely, this is a special case where Obama's quasi-heroic status to many African-Americans encourages them to agree with his views.
Otherwise, we'd be hearing about a shift among all voters, not just black voters.
On May 25 2012 08:20 BroodKingEXE wrote: But a defaulting government, will help the free market? The government bailed out not only the banks, but a failing automotive industry. Auto companies in the US wont be able to compete, going on the track that they have been going, so how does government giving them money help this comapany correct itself? Pure regulation will prevent these companies from making mistakes, and bailouts will not.
People run companies, people run government. What makes you think that politicians with their regulations are any smarter than the people running a business? They aren't and they are prone to the same mistakes. Regulations are a good excuse for businesses; after all, now they don't have to take responsibility... it's the regulation's fault.
Business and government have different purposes and respond to different forces. Assuming that government is trying to "run" businesses with regulations is just an asinine interpretation of their relationship to society. It's like saying referees and rule makers of professional sports are attempting to plan the game for the pros.
The very reason there are regulation changes in sports is because they want to see certain/different outcomes. There was a time that too many goals were being scored in hockey, so they changed the allowed goal pad size. Added a crease. Changed the nature of overtime. So they are planning it as much as they can, they don't plan specific strategies but they influence which ones will be viable. Just like in Starcraft, changing a spawning pool from 150hp to 200hp to give one example.
The motive will always stay the same for the players in sports, to score more goals than the other team. But for regulators to make the game more entertaining for the audience. The market, to make more money. But sports are just games and unimportant. In the market, in life, which actually has life and death consequences, for a regulator to come in and tie your hands behind your back is deathly. Just read the motives of regulators... "to spur economic activity" - this is the role of business and not government, it's only investors that can spur the economy. "to raise the minimum wage and create jobs" - only an employer is fit to decide how many employees he can afford and what he can afford to pay his employees in order to keep business efficient and profitable. If you raise minimum wage and your company already can barely compete, you're going to push that. company out of business and lose short term jobs. How much do you think Wozniak and Jobs were being paid when they started their company? Zilch... and they were happy to do it, they didn't know if they would be successful but they took a risk.
Read some bio's of the many create businessmen who started out working for free, or for pennies, worked their way up through hard work and became owners. But this is impossible when you have regulations forcing these geniuses out of the work force.
You know what, better yet go see the movie "Other People's Money" it's about a wall st. guy who wants to close down a plant and is doing everything in his power to do it, using his know how and money to see it close.
But best of all, read Atlas Shrugged. It gives clear cut examples of the cause/effect of regulations.
On May 25 2012 19:27 kwizach wrote: Sorry, but you're wrong. Leonard Peikoff is referring to an old meaning of the word democracy, when it was equal to what we call today direct democracy. The United States is a representative democracy, and is characterized as such by political scientists. edit: and it's also a republic, because the two terms are not antithetical at all.
They are not compatible- but call the concepts what ever you want. Let's call em A and B.
A = Unlimited majority rule, where a majority of the population can vote to take the rest's rights away
B = protection of individual rights where no one can vote the rights of another away even if its a 99% vote.
Socrates was voted to death because people did not like his religious views despite never doing any harm to anyone else.
Unfortunately Obama and Romney stand for A. Republicans want to vote away rights by implementing religion, creationism, abortion, heterosexuality...etc. Democrats want to vote away rights by controlling your money, re-distributing wealth, telling you how you can behave in a market.
Recently Obama has taken arms against Apple for negotiating prices for the sale of their eBooks with publishers. But this is absurd as there is no reason why Apple and publishers cannot enter into a mutually consenting agreement.
On May 25 2012 19:27 kwizach wrote: Sorry, but you're wrong. Leonard Peikoff is referring to an old meaning of the word democracy, when it was equal to what we call today direct democracy. The United States is a representative democracy, and is characterized as such by political scientists. edit: and it's also a republic, because the two terms are not antithetical at all.
They are not compatible- but call the concepts what ever you want. Let's call em A and B.
A = Unlimited majority rule, where a majority of the population can vote to take the rest's rights away
B = protection of individual rights where no one can vote the rights of another away even if its a 99% vote.
Socrates was voted to death because people did not like his religious views despite never doing any harm to anyone else.
Unfortunately Obama and Romney stand for A. Republicans want to vote away rights by implementing religion, creationism, abortion, heterosexuality...etc. Democrats want to vote away rights by controlling your money, re-distributing wealth, telling you how you can behave in a market.
Recently Obama has taken arms against Apple for negotiating prices for the sale of their eBooks with publishers. But this is absurd as there is no reason why Apple and publishers cannot enter into a mutually consenting agreement.
No, they ARE compatible. Your definition of democracy (A) is NOT the definition of democracy used by political scientists (and pretty much everyone else) today to qualify the type of regime found in the US and elsewhere. You are referring to a traditional/old use of the term democracy which is studied in political theory and which more or less refers to what political scientists call today "direct democracy".
The U.S. is both a (representative) democracy and a republic. A country can be a democracy without being a republic (i.e. the UK and Belgium), but the US is both.
On May 25 2012 19:27 kwizach wrote: Sorry, but you're wrong. Leonard Peikoff is referring to an old meaning of the word democracy, when it was equal to what we call today direct democracy. The United States is a representative democracy, and is characterized as such by political scientists. edit: and it's also a republic, because the two terms are not antithetical at all.
They are not compatible- but call the concepts what ever you want. Let's call em A and B.
A = Unlimited majority rule, where a majority of the population can vote to take the rest's rights away
B = protection of individual rights where no one can vote the rights of another away even if its a 99% vote.
Socrates was voted to death because people did not like his religious views despite never doing any harm to anyone else.
Unfortunately Obama and Romney stand for A. Republicans want to vote away rights by implementing religion, creationism, abortion, heterosexuality...etc. Democrats want to vote away rights by controlling your money, re-distributing wealth, telling you how you can behave in a market.
Recently Obama has taken arms against Apple for negotiating prices for the sale of their eBooks with publishers. But this is absurd as there is no reason why Apple and publishers cannot enter into a mutually consenting agreement.
No, they ARE compatible. Your definition of democracy (A) is NOT the definition of democracy used by political scientists (and pretty much everyone else) today to qualify the type of regime found in the US and elsewhere. You are referring to a traditional/old use of the term democracy which is studied in political theory and which more or less refers to what political scientists call today "direct democracy".
The U.S. is both a (representative) democracy and a republic. A country can be a democracy without being a republic (i.e. the UK and Belgium), but the US is both.
That was refreshingly clear, to the point, and polite as compared to some others that have disagreed with me! If there were a "like" button I would press it for your post.
This has helped me to understand the difference in our positions. I agree, today's use of democracy is not the same as the classical; there have been new shades added to it from the classical.
I only disagree that we should ever have changed the definition or the kind of government we have in the US. But that's a different topic all together and does not belong here.
On May 25 2012 19:27 kwizach wrote: Sorry, but you're wrong. Leonard Peikoff is referring to an old meaning of the word democracy, when it was equal to what we call today direct democracy. The United States is a representative democracy, and is characterized as such by political scientists. edit: and it's also a republic, because the two terms are not antithetical at all.
They are not compatible- but call the concepts what ever you want. Let's call em A and B.
A = Unlimited majority rule, where a majority of the population can vote to take the rest's rights away
B = protection of individual rights where no one can vote the rights of another away even if its a 99% vote.
Socrates was voted to death because people did not like his religious views despite never doing any harm to anyone else.
Unfortunately Obama and Romney stand for A. Republicans want to vote away rights by implementing religion, creationism, abortion, heterosexuality...etc. Democrats want to vote away rights by controlling your money, re-distributing wealth, telling you how you can behave in a market.
Recently Obama has taken arms against Apple for negotiating prices for the sale of their eBooks with publishers. But this is absurd as there is no reason why Apple and publishers cannot enter into a mutually consenting agreement.
No, they ARE compatible. Your definition of democracy (A) is NOT the definition of democracy used by political scientists (and pretty much everyone else) today to qualify the type of regime found in the US and elsewhere. You are referring to a traditional/old use of the term democracy which is studied in political theory and which more or less refers to what political scientists call today "direct democracy".
The U.S. is both a (representative) democracy and a republic. A country can be a democracy without being a republic (i.e. the UK and Belgium), but the US is both.
That was refreshingly clear, to the point, and polite as compared to some others that have disagreed with me! If there were a "like" button I would press it for your post.
This has helped me to understand the difference in our positions. I agree, today's use of democracy is not the same as the classical; there have been new shades added to it from the classical.
I only disagree that we should ever have changed the definition or the kind of government we have in the US. But that's a different topic all together and does not belong here.
In relationship to previous discussions of "the middle class" and "in-equality"
Yaron Brook briefly discusses(5mins):
Key Points: - Wealth is a result of your productivity. Not everyone is equally productive. - In-equality is a natural phenomenon and cannot be avoided no matter what system you implement. - Michael Jordan - Unequaled in skill. - The system allows for some businessmen to receive favoritism from their friends in government. The Solution is...
Key Points: - Wealth is a result of your productivity. Not everyone is equally productive. - In-equality is a natural phenomenon and cannot be avoided no matter what system you implement. - Michael Jordan - Unequaled in skill. - The system allows for some businessmen to receive favoritism from their friends in government. The Solution is...
He seems to be woefully ignorant and chanting the free market mantra while closing his ears to reality. The worst part is the bit were he talks about inequality and the government. He has no basis to stand on, provides no compelling arguments for separating the government from the market while at the same time contradicting himself.
The government must protect the individual yet when it comes to protecting the jobs and well being of the populace who are by themselves individual the government should apparently not interfere.
However if by individuals he means corporations((who are apparently if i get my american lore right recognized as individual)) then maybe he just gets paid to spout a bunch of rhetorical darwinist (lol at the Jordan stab)metaphysical nonsense.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved.
On May 26 2012 09:14 Madkipz wrote: He seems to be woefully ignorant and chanting the free market mantra while closing his ears to reality. The worst part is the bit were he talks about inequality and the government. He has no basis to stand on, provides no compelling arguments for separating the government from the market while at the same time contradicting himself.
The government must protect the individual yet when it comes to protecting the jobs and well being of the populace who are by themselves individual the government should apparently not interfere.
However if by individuals he means corporations((who are apparently if i get my american lore right recognized as individual)) then maybe he just gets paid to spout a bunch of rhetorical darwinist (lol at the Jordan stab)metaphysical nonsense.
Maybe you can point out his argument and then the contradiction?
He advocates that gov't protect individual rights, meaning life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. This does not mean that the gov't will get you a job. That's up to you. It also does not mean gov't to provide health care (in response to your "well being of the pop") it's up to you to secure health care.
But you haven't mentioned what he has to say about equality which was the reason I brought up the video. I guess you agree with that.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved.
+1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall.
If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved.
+1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall.
If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote.
Personally, I want the economy back on track before we even mess with the debt/deficit. Kinda pissed Obama has been swept into thinking the debt is a more pressing matter.
Key Points: - Wealth is a result of your productivity. Not everyone is equally productive. - In-equality is a natural phenomenon and cannot be avoided no matter what system you implement. - Michael Jordan - Unequaled in skill. - The system allows for some businessmen to receive favoritism from their friends in government. The Solution is...
He seems to be woefully ignorant and chanting the free market mantra while closing his ears to reality. The worst part is the bit were he talks about inequality and the government. He has no basis to stand on, provides no compelling arguments for separating the government from the market while at the same time contradicting himself.
The government must protect the individual yet when it comes to protecting the jobs and well being of the populace who are by themselves individual the government should apparently not interfere.
However if by individuals he means corporations((who are apparently if i get my american lore right recognized as individual)) then maybe he just gets paid to spout a bunch of rhetorical darwinist (lol at the Jordan stab)metaphysical nonsense.
You could have just said "I disagree" instead of piling a half-dozen insults and assertions on top of each other in a choking dose of heavy-handed moralizing with nothing to back it up.
EPT
