|
|
On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point.
Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument.
|
On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument.
Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?
You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically.
If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do?
My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Haha. That's pretty funny, although expected. 
|
On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice.
Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion.
What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done.
Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus.
|
On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus.
Wow. Okay.
...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head.
Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/12/imf-austerity-is-much-worse-for-the-economy-than-we-thought/
|
On October 19 2012 10:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus. Wow. Okay. ...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head. Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget...
Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut.
|
On October 19 2012 10:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus. Wow. Okay. ...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head. Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget... Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut.
Eh. Fair enough. Still that does show fiscal responsibility and finding places for savings.
|
On October 19 2012 10:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 10:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus. Wow. Okay. ...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head. Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget... Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut. Eh. Fair enough. Still that does show fiscal responsibility and finding places for savings.
Or you could say that robbing $716 billion from Medicare to say that Obamacare is "revenue neutral" over tens years is incredibly cynical politically.
|
On October 19 2012 10:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 10:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus. Wow. Okay. ...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head. Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget... Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut. Eh. Fair enough. Still that does show fiscal responsibility and finding places for savings.
Yeah..I think you are gonna have to come up with a little more than "he cut $500 billion from defense" as evidence of fiscal responsibility...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:56 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 10:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus. Wow. Okay. ...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head. Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget... Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut. Eh. Fair enough. Still that does show fiscal responsibility and finding places for savings. Or you could say that robbing $716 billion from Medicare to say that Obamacare is "revenue neutral" over tens years is incredibly cynical.
I hate the fact that we even have to rely on Obamacare.
single-payer healthcare where art thooouuuuuu.
|
On October 19 2012 11:00 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:56 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 10:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus. Wow. Okay. ...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head. Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget... Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut. Eh. Fair enough. Still that does show fiscal responsibility and finding places for savings. Yeah..I think you are gonna have to come up with a little more than "he cut $500 billion from defense" as evidence of fiscal responsibility...
And those are savings from Iraq and Afghanistan winding down.... Again, not real cuts.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done.
Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus.
Isn't that because he was an incredibly liberal Republican that supported liberal policies like Romneycare, like gun control, like pro-choice etc? Since he wanted to be President he isn't any of those things anymore?
|
On October 19 2012 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:56 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 10:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus. Wow. Okay. ...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head. Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget... Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut. Eh. Fair enough. Still that does show fiscal responsibility and finding places for savings. Or you could say that robbing $716 billion from Medicare to say that Obamacare is "revenue neutral" over tens years is incredibly cynical politically.
I have no idea how you can say that getting rid of overhead costs is robbing anything. You should be happy about it as a conservative. Are you actually criticizing that?
|
|
|
On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice.
It's hard to exaggerate how profligate the Obama administration has been. Here are the numbers:
(In millions of dollars, positive number = surplus, negative = deficit)
2001 128,236
2002 -157,758
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701
2008 -458,553
2009 -1,412,688
2010 -1,293,489
2011 -1,299,595
2012 estimate -1,326,948
Obama has claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit from Bush when he took office in 2009, but to me that rings hollow. He could have repudiated the unaffordable Bush plans and attempted to repeal unaffordable Bush legislation. Instead he doubled down on stimulus and spent even more money that the country didn't have.
Just look at those numbers! It is actually amazing when you think about it. So to me it's hard to imagine how anyone could be worse than Obama on the deficit.
|
On October 19 2012 11:09 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. It's hard to exaggerate how profligate the Obama administration has been. Here are the numbers: (In millions of dollars, positive number = surplus, negative = deficit) 2001 128,236 2002 -157,758 2003 -377,585 2004 -412,727 2005 -318,346 2006 -248,181 2007 -160,701 2008 -458,553 2009 -1,412,688 2010 -1,293,489 2011 -1,299,595 2012 estimate -1,326,948 Obama has claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit from Bush when he took office in 2009, but to me that rings hollow. He could have repudiated the unaffordable Bush plans and attempted to repeal unaffordable Bush legislation. Instead he doubled down on stimulus and spent even more money that the country didn't have. Just look at those numbers! It is actually amazing when you think about it. So to me it's hard to imagine how anyone could be worse than Obama on the deficit.
Err... we had a crash. You do know that right? And we also had to spend money on stimulus because of that crash...
And he did inherit a trillion dollar deficit. 2009 budget is passed under 2008 congress...
|
On October 19 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 10:29 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote:
Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point. Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument. Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically. If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do? My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice. Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion. What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done. Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus.
romney was a lame duck as governor, forced to either do nothing or agree with what the liberal legislature decided. you just got on your high horse pointing out the president doesnt control the budget, then you praise romneys work in MA even though he had no power due to the overwhelming liberal legislature. as governor he didnt do anything, he spent more time out of state than any other in power politician and just let the liberals do what they wanted so he could pad his resume as a moderate conservative ready to run for president.
then you blanketly throw in a line about the stimulus, maybe that would of flown 2 years ago but these days most economists agree it was both needed (infact probably didnt go far enough) and that its paid off. with public buyouts of companies like GM returning a profit on the investment, and 1/3rd of the tarp money put aside and counted towards the deficit hasnt been used due to fears of 'frivolous spending'.
On October 19 2012 11:09 ziggurat wrote:
Obama has claimed that he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit from Bush when he took office in 2009, but to me that rings hollow. He could have repudiated the unaffordable Bush plans and attempted to repeal unaffordable Bush legislation. Instead he doubled down on stimulus and spent even more money that the country didn't have.
Just look at those numbers! It is actually amazing when you think about it. So to me it's hard to imagine how anyone could be worse than Obama on the deficit.
both bush and obama (aka people who actually have advisors educated on economics) agreed that the bailout was needed, the only people still parroting the line that he should of changed bush's choice to increase the deficit are either talking heads or internet heroes, no one with any real power in the situation had advocated that idea in over 3 years. yes i get annoyed when he says he inherited the deficit, as it implies he would of done anything different, but he only says that in response to dumb questions about tarp et al, let alone things he couldnt change like the bush tax cuts on the rich.
he couldnt repeal unaffordable bush legislation as im pretty sure american budgets are set in stone for 10 years, he couldnt just remove the tax cuts and thats why he is still campaigning on removing them now, as it will only come up for debate during this coming term?
|
Quoted for importance. This is really fucking important to take note of especially since people still call for budget cuts like its a good idea.
Considering the economy, Obama's policies have been "fiscally responsible" unlike the reckless spending of Bush and the ridiculous tax plan proposed by Romney, which I assume is supported by the Republican party as a whole.
The problem is that we have hit a wall on stimulative monetary policy except for... creative moves like QE. So fiscal stimulus is a good idea.
|
Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
