While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal....President Obama’s lack of leadership... President Obama’s leadership failure... that's the meme.
As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table... President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute.
१ ऑगस्ट, २०११
Mitt Romney opposes the debt-ceiling deal.
He said:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२० टिप्पण्या:
Romney.
Yuch.
"that's the meme."
Yea, that's all it is.
I really don't care what Mitt opposes... BUT I oppose it to.
Been to just one Tea Party rally but I'm about to go to a heck of alot more.
Hope for some Change in 2012!
As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table
Given everything that's transpired over the past couple of weeks, this seems like a dumb thing for him to do. Cut, Cap, and Balance would have been dead in the senate with him in office or not. Notice he didn't qualify it by saying, "if I had a majority GOP senate."
I'm not entirely sure anything labeled "defense" should be sacred and uncut-able at this point. I'm still in favor of the first step, across the board 5% cut, which would include defense.
Mitt who?
Romney saw an opening and went right for the varicose vein.
I'm with Scott. Cut, Cap, and Balance would have been great, but you could never pass it, so what's with the posturing?
And please, let us not encourage increased Obama leadership. His style of leadership is to ram through disasters like Obamacare.
Mitt - who has been completely silent until the deal is done, then carps about the President's lack of leadership. Gov. Pot, meet President Kettle.
Mitt Romney is very principled and stands by his convictions.
Love him to death.
He's great.
Mitt it is a bit late to change into one of the Pauls. But I am not a fan of the deal either. I think it is purely for the benefit of Obama.
Mitt Romney kind of reminds me of Jr. Rockefeller.
As for a blanced budget amendment, I am against it. It will only lead to even more dishonesty in Washington. Most of these guys have previously served in state governments, where they waited to the last week to introduce their bills, and so what did they do? They voted to "stop the clock" is what they did, so that they would get another week or two to actually debate and vote on their bills. A balanced budget amendment would not even slow them down; they would just claim a perpetual crisis, so that they would not have to comply with it.
I have to admit, I think T-man has Romney pegged.
I agree with Romney that Obama's leadership has been terrible, and usually nonexistent.
Obama himself set the conditions for leadership failure when he refused to raise the debt ceiling so many times for Bush, too. He's by his own measure a failure. Same with Libya. By Obama's own measure, he's breaking his oath of office.
Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, complaining about a GOP record prior to 2006 when Obama and pals voted for huge deficits. He has not succeeded, and hasn't even tried.
What's sick is that if we simply spent the same amount every year, that would amount to a several trillion dollar cut. That's how screwed up the baseline is today. Just changing nothing would be almost a 9 times bigger reform than the reform is.
Jeez Mitt - why don't you wait til you have heard everyone else's opinion then jump in with your own!
I think it is purely for the benefit of Obama.
Not entirely, not at all. The process itself cost him significantly and irrevocably. While people can dither and argue back and forth about the mostly inside-baseball aspects of the deal, POTUS' public appearances and Carney's bullshit are out there plainly for everyone to see. He's already got severe problems and this didn't help one bit.
From my point of view, Mr. Romney loses some respect for this. I've already written off Bachmann, and Pawlenty disappointed me as well. How can I support anyone for high office who didn't have the sense to understand that - yucky as it is - the debt ceiling had to be raised because the alternative was disastrous? Every serious candidate should have included with his complaints the statement, "Of course there was no question that one way or another the ceiling had to be raised."
I'm a Tea Partier by nature, and it's exciting that this grassroots movement has gained so much traction, but some sense would help as well.
Brave Sir Mitt, charging on to the battlefield, sword held high, after the fight's over.
Go. The. Hell. AWAY. Mitt!
And it would not be good for the country to be governed under a continuous "crisis resolution;" that is how bad people get into power.
I hope the next vote includes significant limits on the number of speeches Obama gives.
They have become increasingly painful to watch.
Please.
Come out against the deal, you're Tea Party.
Rush can get away with that - not Mitt.
Makes good radio, not politics.
Like Newt, he just needs to go away.
Mitt would not tell anyone what he would recommend until the Deal was fixed.
Now he valiantly takes the Palin position after it does not matter anymore.
If we wanted a man leading from the rear,then we already have one of those.
I am a bit ambivalent here. Romney has finally figured out that he needs to Tea Party votes to get the nomination, and so is starting to say some of the right things. It may ultimately work.
I do think that the meme about Obama's leadership failure is going to be a keeper. And part of why, I think, is that Obama really doesn't have the first idea about how to lead.
I would think that, despite it coming from Romney, I think that the other candidates are going to pick it up too, in some form or shape.
Fascinating, even Drudge can't keep up with the volume of interest in this otherwise mundane subject! Of course, it's only mundane if the continuance of the country is of small interest to readers and I do presume some might well be interesting in this country staying alive, so to speak.
Mitt needs to get all the facts on the table, talk with his peeps, do a survey, check the polls, sleep on it, have a family meeting, get back to most up to date polls and then make a declarative statement.
He's great.
He's also better for gays than Ted Kennedy! It's even on video. How can you not love that? And he despises East Coast Elites..or at least he did.
Well, it is a bad deal. The budget deficit this year is $1.5T. How much does this deal cut?
Hey, Mitt could have taken the position that he supported the deal, albeit with reservations. Instead he said he didn't support the deal.
Don't see why that should make him more suspect. You may say it shows a lack of principle to come out now, that the deal is done. But again, since the deal is done and many conservatives support the deal, he could if he really wanted to take an unprincipled position say that he supports the deal but has a lot of problems with it. Like a lot of other repubs.
Tea partiers, I don't think you realize that if you can't possibly pass the legislation you want because you only control one house, sticking to your guns 100% only guarantees that you don't get your legislation passed and you get pegged as the people who brought down the economy because you unrealistically stuck to your guns despite knowing that you had no chance in hell of getting what you want passed. again, think long term and not immediately. What you want is to get more people in office, and that only works if you are effective. In most respects, the tea partiers won. They didn't get taxes raised and we're dealing with spending cuts to offset a raising of the debt ceiling. So, then continue to hammer away at how lousy Obama is and how this agreement sucks, BUT that it's not better because we need more tea partiers on board. And that requires winning the next elections.
As for Romney sticking his neck out before the deal is struck. Why should he? Let them work out the deal so that he doesn't have to get pegged with supporting something that suggests he's out of touch or unrealistic or unwilling to compromise or too willing to compromise. Remember how Mccain got dinged during the last elections during the start of the financial crisis where he said he would stay until a deal was struck, and then was hammered by the media for being out of touch? Why should Mitt open himself up to that when he could instead let others come up with a finished product and then criticize that finished product?
I am a Tea Partier, and I do not subscribe to this magical thinking that Tea Partiers can get everything they want when Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency.
The deal is good.
Works for me.
Obama's essential leadership approach is to stay out of the game and avoid taking a position until the very end. Which is to say he has no leadership.
Does he really think that casually motivated independent voters, the folks who fell for him in 2008, have not noticed? The healthcare reform legislation, this mess, it all shows why you do not trust the office of the Presidency to someone who has never before demonstrated leadership skills and temperament.
I voted for Mitt in the 2008 primary here in FL, just as his campaign lost all steam. Not sure where my support will be this time, but Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama.
For most of my life the Demos have have had a hard intractible left while all the Repubs were 'reasonable'. The result was that all the compromises tracked left of center. Intentional or not, the Tea Party now anchors the Repub tug-o-war team and that changes the dynamic.
Mitt stands by the anchors and says "I'll give you what you want." The strong anchor on the Repub side is what's bothering the press and the elite.
Works for me.
Obama's essential leadership approach is to stay out of the game and avoid taking a position until the very end. Which is to say he has no leadership.
Does he really think that casually motivated independent voters, the folks who fell for him in 2008, have not noticed? The healthcare reform legislation, this mess, it all shows why you do not trust the office of the Presidency to someone who has never before demonstrated leadership skills and temperament.
I voted for Mitt in the 2008 primary here in FL, just as his campaign lost all steam. Not sure where my support will be this time, but Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama.
Jr -
Why should Mitt open himself up to that when he could instead let others come up with a finished product and then criticize that finished product?
If that is Mitt's strategy, so be it, but it doesn't reflect leadership, and it is exactly what Obama tried to do. Thus, his criticism of Obama simply reflects back on himself.
President Obama’s lack of leadership... President Obama’s leadership failure... that's the meme.
But shouldn't Romney be happy that Obama is so lacking as a leader (and that he's apparently an incompetent negotiator?) I don't mean in terms of the election; I mean in terms of policy.
Just what, a week ago? Weren't we told that Boehner and Obama had agreed to a debt-ceiling bill that mixed $800 billion in tax increases with a variety of spending cuts? And then Obama torpedoed that by hauling out a last minute demand for another $400 billion in tax increases? I mean, the President had a deal on the table that took $800 billion in increased taxes -- what he's been bleating about every day since then. He could have taken it. And he blew it up right there. So now we've got a deal that's all spending cuts, with a chance of maybe getting some tax increases from a commission sometime in the future. Which Congress can reject and get more spending cuts instead.
Shouldn't we be happy he's so incompetent? Shouldn't we be happy at his total failure of leadership? Because I, for one, don't particularly want us going in the direction he wants to lead.
Hey I agree with the Heritage Foundation which happens to agree with Mittens -- whom I will never agree with, directly at least.
Consider that Democrats could have just said, "Tax increases or forget it," and the press would have ensured that the Republicans got all the blame for any ensuing government shutdown. The Dems have the press, and they lost. That's huge.
t-man said...
Mitt - who has been completely silent until the deal is done, then carps about the President's lack of leadership. Gov. Pot, meet President Kettle.
We have a winner !
Meanwhile, can anyone link to a list of actual programs being cut, and the amounts. Let me know.
KABUKI
Freeman, I would not be patting ourselves on the back for a job well done. Not yet anyway. Obama is a big winner in kicking the debt ceiling down the road past his re-election efforts. I sense a trap. We need to be cautious here. Very cautious.
He loses me with "no defense cuts". You could slash defense without actually slashing a bit of genuine defense.
Want to see balls; Tom Coburn has 'em. He has specific proposals to cut $9 trillion, include $1 trillion from defense. You can start by closing 90% of our bases overseas. (I'd also get out of NATO, Afghanistan and Libya. All pointless wastes of money.)
meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...
There! All out of our system now??
Given how awful Obama's policies are, I thank Gaia he has no leadership skills.
not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table...
It's disgusting the way that Romney tries to give the impression that "defense cuts" will result in the deployed rank-and-file not getting their paychecks and stuff like that. Instead, what Republicans like him are really concerned about is that defense contractors get paid for their overpriced, unnecessary products, and that the government not question any expenditures that could possibly be related to "security" or "defense". The corporations getting this big-government cash are old-fashioned clients of his; they need to be paid off!
Titus said ...
...And he despises East Coast Elites ...
Not to whack away at you, but Romney IS "East Coast Elite." Governor of Massachusetts fer Gawd's sake.
He reminds me of former Michigan governor Bill Milliken (similar backgrounds, too)... the original definitive ultra RINO who installed two devastating taxes and still thinks that was a good idea. He helped Gov. Granholm (D) continue them unabated. There is a reason, beyond blight, for auto companies and their suppliers locating in the Carolinas, Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee, etc. To cap it all off ... he also formally endorsed Kerry in 2004.
I just can't shake the feeling that Romney is the political equivalent of a chameleon.
As for Romney sticking his neck out before the deal is struck. Why should he?
To demonstrate he has a brain and isn't yet another chicken shit, finger in the wind, asshole.
Freeman - Aren't cuts this year about $40B out of a $1.5T deficit? (I've seen the number elsewhere, but I've forgotten it.) Not getting slaughtered in the press is not the same as winning.
...but Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama.
A Satan sandwich is well within the range of acceptable alteratives to Obama.
Obama is a big winner in kicking the debt ceiling down the road past his re-election efforts.
That's only because the goalposts got moved so far that that's all he had left. I mean, sure it's something that the Republican freshmen in the House of Representatives didn't just steamroll him completely, but I don't think his supporters (or, in his less delusional moments, he himself) can count that as much of a victory. It's survival at the expense of his fervent commitment to taxing the crap out of people.
Hey, Mitt, I'll give you a meme!
"So long as the Tea Party remains focused on reducing government spending they cannot lose."
Government default? GOOD, the feds can’t spend money nobody will lend them.
Bond rating downgraded? GOOD. If it’s harder to get money, there will be less borrowed.
Government collapses? Good. If there is no government they can’t spend money. This is a win-win for most of Americans. Percenters (anybody that derives income from a percentage of another’s labor) will get screwed but they have been screwing everybody for ages it’s only fair that they get a turn over the barrel.
Sampson took down the Temple to kill the Philistines. The establishment needs to know that it’s over. They either stop with the deficit spending or the Temple comes down.
Since deficit spending will destroy everything eventually, Destroying it now allows the rebuilding to start sooner and puts the hurt on the Bastards that did this to us.
Actually, there's plenty of places to cut defense costs. But do we trust the zero and his Dems to do it?
Hmmmmmm.
No.
PS For a peace candidate that zero guy sure has a lot of wars, limited wars, actions, drones, drones, drones, going on. The drones are the best - no danger to us, just bomb a bunch brown people and kill targets, civilians, kids, whatever - it's collateral - building friendships around the globe. Kum Ba Ya M....F....R. Love Barack.
Actually, there's plenty of places to cut defense costs.
There's not a government entity in existence, including the military, that can't find 5% to cut. Period. In my experience that applies to private business and churches as well.
Leadership IS a person who is willing to state a clear goal and how to get there from here.
That simple action is all that it takes.
It releases the energies and creativity of millions of good men and women who are waiting around and stewing for lack of such a signal. They know in their hearts that such a leader will honor them for their sacrifices, and not claim he did it all.
Therefore the Romney style is worthless crap.
All Romney ever wants is what he can carefully measure to be good for Romney. That can also be called cowardice.
Why should anyone expect that will change the day Romney becomes President.
A. Shmendrik said...
Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama.
That's what scares me. Another least objectionable election. As I've said previously here, I trust Romney only marginally farther than I trust Obama ... which is to say not much.
But ... Hell, I'd vote for Bilbo Baggins, literally, over Obama.
Scott M said...
Actually, there's plenty of places to cut defense costs.
There's not a government entity in existence, including the military, that can't find 5% to cut. Period. In my experience that applies to private business and churches as well.
Well put.
I mention defense because conservatives talk about cuts, cuts, cuts, but if you mention the military, they turn blue and start crying.
Garbo talks!
I don't think you realize that if you can't possibly pass the legislation you want because you only control one house, sticking to your guns 100% only guarantees that you don't get your legislation passed and you get pegged as the people who brought down the economy because you unrealistically stuck to your guns despite knowing that you had no chance in hell of getting what you want passed. again, think long term and not immediately.
No. You don't realize that we DO realize that the legislation we want passed is doomed to be flushed down the toilet along with the rest of the country.
That doesn't mean that you still do not do the right thing and stand by your principles.
It isn't going to 'bring down the economy' if we stop over spending and sinking ever deeper into the quagmire of debt. In case you haven't noticed, the economy isn't doing so well right now with the same old same old spend and borrow and spend some more policies.
If the legislation that the Tea Party wants (stop the fucking spending!!!!) DOES bring the economy to its knees.....will anyone notice? It think we are about half way on our knees right now. Maybe it is time for a big fat 'reset button'.
If federal government closes down half of its offices or goes to half staff....will anyone notice? I won't.
but if you mention the military, they turn blue and start crying
Very few conservatives know CEO's of defense contracting companies so, if what you say is true, it's more likely due to the fact that conservatives view the military as a very serious, if not THE most serious, function of government.
If there is no sovereignty, all the other crap goes swirly. That being said, there is loads of fat to trim from procurement alone. As a president, however, I would never do so at a cost to what few edges we have left to us.
Edges are expensive to maintain, let alone sharpen.
Er....
...how would he cut, cap, and balance?
Does he intend to have sixty votes in the Senate.
Mr. Mitt doesn't let silly details (aka reality) get in the way of blather. Lucky for him his constituents share this POV.
Freeman - Aren't cuts this year about $40B out of a $1.5T deficit? (I've seen the number elsewhere, but I've forgotten it.) Not getting slaughtered in the press is not the same as winning.
No tax increases.
Reframed debate.
New public focus on spending.
Debt ceiling increases no longer routine.
That's a win. Especially when they were bluffing with nothing.
I mention defense because conservatives talk about cuts, cuts, cuts, but if you mention the military, they turn blue and start crying.
Bull crap. You obviously don't talk to many Conservatives.
Cutting military spending is easy and needs to be done. Close overseas bases that are not necessary or strategic.
Control the crony spending on parts and equipment. Just because it is the military, doesn't mean that there isn't waste, fraud and corruption.
What we don't want to cut are those things that keep the troops safe and secure. Of course, when the Dems try to demonize the conservatives this is the first thing they allege. That we are going to send the troops out armed with slingshots and in paper armor.
Bull.
for him his constituents share this POV.
Gaze upon the comments above, oh witless one, and behold your err.
(must finish Game Of Thrones V before it ruins me)
Stuck his finger in the air!
What politician doesn't?
What politician doesn't?
Clinton, sans air.
Scott,
Are you a Mitt man?
I thought better of you. It seems that I was wrong. Thanks for pointing out my error
No tax increases. - Don't count on it. Taxes are on the table for the second tranche.
Reframed debate. - Had happened no matter what the outcome of the debt deal.
New public focus on spending. - - Had happened no matter what the outcome of the debt deal.
Debt ceiling increases no longer routine - This is a good thing (BTW, how lame were those Dems who were whining, "we've never had to explain ourselves on previous debt ceiling raises."?)
I think the best we can say about this deal was that it wasn't a rout for the forces of fiscal discipline. I'd score it a draw. No serious cutting occurred.
DBQ
Not sure who you're saying bullcarp to, but when you start to talk about cutting the military conservatives suddenly get nervous.
@pbandbs
I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion based on my comment or those above. Those "silly details" escaped nobody and, thus, your original sally falls short of logic. All you're trying to do is score little points when the big ones have already been checked off, making your irrelevant.
I'm especially curious how you suddenly think I'm a "Mitt man". Please expand on why you suggest that's true.
Good for Romney.
I don't like the guy, but I like that he's willing to come out against this Satan sandwich.
I guess Mitt makes sure that the finger is thoroughly moistened before he sticks it into the wind.
You can't rush these things.
Reframed debate. - Had happened no matter what the outcome of the debt deal.
Not with the ferocity that it would have been without the debate as it went down.
BTW, how lame were those Dems who were whining, "we've never had to explain ourselves on previous debt ceiling raises."?
About as lame as not constantly juxtaposing 2011 POTUS with 2006 Senator Obama and his opinion on raising the debt ceiling. What was truly lame was Carney's press conference performances.
I'd score it a draw. No serious cutting occurred.
In terms of accounting, I'd say you're correct. However, in terms of PR and the balance of power, I'd have to disagree.
Nice pander, Mitt.
Mitt is a day late and about 4 trillion dollars short.
Not sure who you're saying bullcarp to, but when you start to talk about cutting the military conservatives suddenly get nervous.
I'm saying it to you.
Conservatives do not get nervous about cutting military spending.
They get practical. Prioritizing where the cuts can be taken without jeopardizing our military men and women and our own safety.
No one says that spending can not be cut in the military.
So when you make a statement about conservatives, with whom I doubt you have ever had a conversation with, I say bullcrap.
Scott,
I don't care if you can't figure out who I was describing, and what I was saying.
Good. As long as we're agreed that you don't care.
A. Schmendrik - "Not sure where my support will be this time, but Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama."
A good way to put it.
I liken it to a Venn diagram. You have candidates that may not awaken that good old Southern Religious Right fervor...but appear competent. Then you have the glam females of little proven competency and experience but look hot and rile up the yahoos at rallies something fierce...anlong with "candidates of purity" like Ron Paul.
Does the circle of people who are acceptable to Republicans and to the larger public overlap with the Venn diagram circle of who is electable against Obama? Absolutely with Perry and Romney.
Does the circle of who is beloved by the Religious Right base overlap with the circle of who is electable against Obama? Nope. Palin, Bachmann, Paul all have 20+ point behind Obama numbers.
The counterargument is to say that it is glorious to have a Sharron Angle run and lose on purity...because she sure "sent a message" to Harry Reid as he goes back for another 6 years as Senator. And if plucky, beloved Tea Partier message is ignored by Reid - well, not her fault!!
DBQ
You and I usually agree, but, respectfully, you're mistaken on this one.
When it comes to cutting any defense items, conservatives can be counted on to cry like little babies. Mention virtually any meaningful defense cuts and you're sure to get immediate whining, crying and wailing.
When it comes to cutting any defense items, conservatives can be counted on to cry like little babies. Mention virtually any meaningful defense cuts and you're sure to get immediate whining, crying and wailing
Bullshit. Everyone I know personally and those locally I've met with are in the "shut down unnecessary bases overseas" camp. That alone would be HUGE cuts in current spending. I don't know which conservatives you're talking about but, even given the regulars around here, I'd say you're wrong on this point.
Now...try to cut a program like the Raptor claiming the 15C/D and E are just fine, I'm going to fight you tooth and nail.
It's a good meme.
Considering how many times Milton has shot himself in the head, it's nice to see he finally gets it.
Sort of.
It won't do him any good, but it's nice to see.
Julius said...
not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table...
It's disgusting the way that Romney tries to give the impression that "defense cuts" will result in the deployed rank-and-file not getting their paychecks and stuff like that.
You mean like Little Zero did?
PS Disagree with Freeman. It's a lousy deal, but, considering we could be stuck with Stimulus III and the mother of all tax increases, it's like Hooker said to Gondorff, "It's not enough, but it'll do".
Once again the Republican establishment has fallen all over itself pulling Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. Anything, anything not to be shunned as outlaws by the ruling class. What other conclusion is possible?
Have you heard that Mitt will not wear a tie anymore since Psosser tried to strangle him?
Seriously, The Mittster is re-imaging himself as fast as he can.
Romney and Gore both suffer from terminal woodeness in their personas.
An opponent who can connect with the voters has a big advantage over him. Therefore Mitt is Caution Man at all times. He cannot afford to be himself in public.
He needs to find a new hobby. Being the first Wooden President is not going to happen.
It turns out that "Base Realignment and Closure," or BRAC as the Pentagon calls it, is one of those areas where you've got to incur pretty big upfront costs in order to achieve long-term savings:
Compared to the BRAC Commission’s estimates, DOD’s cost estimates to implement BRAC recommendations increased from $21 billion to $31 billion (48 percent), and net annual recurring savings estimates decreased from $4.2 billion to $4 billion (5 percent).
Cutting government spending is expensive!
I think we're done in Afganistan. Why not come home tomorrow? Think of what that would save?
Why not indeed? As long as we don't unnecessarily risk our men or incur the unbelievably bad political fallout (globally) of a Saigon-type exodus. Why not indeed?
Apparently, tax revenue (i.e., increases) would be a way for the commission to find spending cuts.
I don't think this thing is getting past the House.
WV "statzi" The correct name for the Democrat Party.
"In terms of accounting, I'd say you're correct [that is was a draw]. However, in terms of PR and the balance of power, I'd have to disagree."
In terms of accounting, I'd call it an utter defeat. No cuts. Debt ceiling raised by what? $1T, 2$T? If you fold in the increased public awareness and, hopefully, positive momentum on this issue, I'd raise it to a draw.
Scott takes two minutes to prove my point.
NO DEFENSE CUTS EVER.
Yes, Scott wants to stay in that sh**hole until long after we're both dead.
Don't get me wrong. I think they should take the deal, and I give major kudos for the effort. But as a matter of actual deficit reduction, well, there isn't any.
Scott takes two minutes to prove my point.
How?
NO DEFENSE CUTS EVER.
Show me where I said despite multiple comments to the contrary.
Yes, Scott wants to stay in that sh**hole until long after we're both dead.
Based on what that I've said and besides your own shrill vaporings?
Dana Loesch had me at CC&B.
I think we're done in Afganistan. Why not come home tomorrow? Think of what that would save?
According to the Congressional Research Service, military operations in Afghanistan are costing about $114B this year. So if we just assume we'd stay there for 10 more years, we could reduce spending by over a trillion dollars! /govacctng
wv armar: Freedonia's war plans call for swift armar attacks with close support by the air farce.
cott takes two minutes to prove my point.
How?
NO DEFENSE CUTS EVER.
Scott Show me where I said despite multiple comments to the contrary.
And Tank takes less than two minutes to fart out the above. Thus proving that he/she/it was never arguing or debating in good faith.
Nothing like a closed mind and having zero reading comprehension.
"... So if we just assume we'd stay there for 10 more years, we could reduce spending by over a trillion dollars! /govacctng.."
and if we assume we'd stay for 20 years we could reduce spending by 2 trillion dollars..I shoulda' been a CBO accountant.
Fred4Pres--Dana Loesch is always worth watching but
CC&B is pointless. Enact the Ryan plan and you don't need a Balanced Budget Amendment. Fail to make structural reforms in entitlements, and a balanced budget amendment will result in massive tax hikes.
Apologies for the self-link, but it seems more efficient than replicating my entire argument here.
And here I thought you melanists got paid by the word. Do they compensate your dark fingers the same when you copy and paste or just when you bang out new bronze-centric prose?
Didn't you know? We live sumptuously off our checks from the international zinc oxide cartel that exploits the ginger underclass.
No one needed Mitt Romney to point out that Barack Obama can't lead.
By now it's dawned on observers from all over the political spectrum that Obama can't lead.
Romney's opportunistic behavior—holding way back, then getting his licks in just as the final deal's about to go down—demonstrates his lack of leadership.
We live sumptuously off our checks from the international zinc oxide cartel that exploits the ginger underclass.
Only until this Mander Minimum truly takes hold and confines your copper masses to 20 degrees on either side of the equator.
Very disappointed in Romney's timing and his lack of innovative thinking. Hell, given his background as a founding member of a capital investment firm, this was his time to shine. The big reason I would've voted for Romney is that he supposedly has a lot of financial expertise.
"I would've gone with the first Boehner bill." That's all you got, Mitt? Nothing more creative than that?
Good point. I'll start buying tropical real estate.
@Joe Schmoe: Yeah, not exactly Profiles in Courage from Mitt.
Damn, there's a whole lot of Mitt-hate here.
You folks know that he leads Obama by a few points head to head, right? And that no one else does, at least not yet?
I'd vote for one of Titus' morning turds if he can beat Obama.
Oh, no, this move of his wreaks of political cowardice. How awful. We need someone more reckless, who puts less thought into his positions and stakes them out before knowing where to position himself. Yeah, that's how you win. Jesus.
Obama's plan here is to feign total defeat in this debt ceiling deal, then blame everything bad that happens between now and November 2012 on this deal. How is it stupid for Romney to oppose this, even if it's just for political positioning?
Do any of you even care who wins the 2012 election?
It was stupid to reference "well I'D do cut, cap, and balance, when it had zero chance of passing. That's my only real point on the subject.
Do any of you even care who wins the 2012 election?
Of course. But people also care about what happens after the election. It's not just a matter of maximizing the probability that Republican lobbyists move ahead of Democrat lobbyists in the corridors of power.
It's not an easy call to make.
Romney is an opportunist idiot. If anyone really believes that Romney would take this stance as President you are nuts. If you cannot see Romney is an opportunist like Al Gore was you are nuts.
He is so calculating you can see the gears churning in his head.
I would expect this view from Palin or Bachmann because it makes sense and is in line with their beliefs. But not Romney.
ricpic said...
Once again the Republican establishment has fallen all over itself pulling Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. Anything, anything not to be shunned as outlaws by the ruling class. What other conclusion is possible?
====================
To keep their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republicans gave up 2 trillion in cuts. And the choice came down to default or not. Now, many tea party screwballs on the far Right DID want us to default to "send a message!!". But that message would have translated out to a destroyed economy and high inflation and high interest rates on everyone for many years to come, not just the Federal Government.
Romney was right to say "it isn't that good". But wrong to posture as if the country really wanted everyone but the rich to sacrifice.
To keep their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republicans gave up 2 trillion in cuts. And the choice came down to default or not. Now, many tea party screwballs on the far Right DID want us to default to "send a message!!". But that message would have translated out to a destroyed economy and high inflation and high interest rates on everyone for many years to come, not just the Federal Government.
Uh oh. Someone here thinks that the only way to keep from high inflation and interest rates is to raise taxes. Of course, this ignores why inflation and interest rates might be rising in the future, and assumes, I think, that somehow raising the tax rates on the "rich" (which really means you and me) will bring in all that much revenue. That, of course, is called "static analysis", and the only reason that the CBO uses it, is that they are required to by Congress, and that is because their results bias in favor of tax increases, and not spending cuts, as a result.
But, other than that, Cederford's post was a triumph of liberal talking points over economic reality.
Speaking of sh*t sandwiches---that's Milt Romneyoid's mama's maiden name.
And what was the latest DoD "appropriations" budget? $700 bil or so. Per annum (and increased over BushCo). Nothin' but Jeebusss. Or His brother Moroni
I'm not on Mitts support wagon at the moment, but I will say that the meme is largely true considering this empty suited buffoon of a president had 2 years to 'solve' this problem. And Romney has effectively been caving himself after the mess he made in Iowa, I believe.
If Perry gets in, then Romney will be a tough sell.
Romney always has the proper poll-tested phrasing at the ready.
The question that remains is, do the party faithful believe the brotha's got soul?
He's reminiscent of the kid that always did just a little too well in school: the answers always "just so", projects and assignments done so perfectly... We all knew his parents were giving him big assists, yet he was smart enough that he could talk his way around those sorts of accusations.
In the end, no one trusted him.
That's the somewhat unfortunate vibe methinks Romney's halo'd in.
Afghanistan is useless and costs brave men's lives and limbs by the day.
The terrain makes it impossible to defeat the locals. It always has been. Not that there is anything to win there.
So Obama never waivered. He early on chose the Afghan theater to triple our deployment levels to make the US Military suffer more as human targets.
Romney: like the Donny Osmond of the GOP.
(Herr Cedarford---shall we add this poofter Haydenski's name to...The List?? Jawohl. His fave writer--one Izshtak Assimov)
Chip S., I am a big supporter of Ryan's plan. CC&B is a lesser version. The current "compromise" is lesser yet. I could have lived (and been disappointed) with CC&B. The current situation is far weaker for the GOP and I hope Dems defeat it (although I doubt they will).
The terrain makes it impossible to defeat the locals.
The problem with Afghanistan isn't the terrain, but the people of Afghanistan themselves.
God help the next Republican fund raiser that calls our home and gets my husband on the line!!
If Perry gets in, then Romney will be a tough sell.
Bingo.
And Perry looks like he is going to jump in.
Oh, no, this move of his wreaks of political cowardice. How awful. We need someone more reckless, who puts less thought into his positions and stakes them out before knowing where to position himself. Yeah, that's how you win. Jesus.
Jesus? Is it reckless to expect a supposed financial expert to comment on, oh, I don't know, financial stuff? Is that reckless? Should Tiger Woods not comment on golf so as not to appear 'reckless'?
Shouldn't Romney have staked out a position already on the economy? This has been the most anticipated, slowest-moving 'crisis' in decades. Give me a break.
Is today's politician so fearful of bad publicity or political spin that they can't even comment on their areas of expertise? Sorry; that's gutless. Just say what you think; that's being genuine and that's what people respond to, even if the media trashes you. And being genuine has always been a sore spot for Mitt.
In 2008 the majority of Americans went for the 'Anybody But Bush' strategy. Look how that worked out. So yes, I want to be a little discriminating and discerning in our choice of candidates.
Can you send me the web site address for the Eleanor Clift School of Debate and Reason? I too want to learn how to make glib, phantasmagorical leaps in logic.
1) If Romney were President right now, he'd do Exactly the same thing, because he's old style GOP, and this is how they roll. 2) Hey, TEAPERS, I work in Case Management, and we were already running on FUMES. Now, we are probably going to go outta business, which means more children will sleep cold and starve. This is a FACT, and 3) Hypocrite pass health care in his state - 'Nuff Said!!
Obama is not a leader. He has no leadership skills. He is only concerned about three things. His reelection, golf, and vacations.
He is taking a victory lap for something he had nothing to do with. Now he wants to go to Disney World.
In 2008 the majority of Americans went for the 'Anybody But Bush' strategy. Look how that worked out
It worked out great for most of the people who hated Bush.
When looking at a company would Mitt only look at its debt and ignore its assets? What are the Federal assets we are leaving our children? I suspect they are 10 times the debt. If I leave my kids $1 million in debt and $10 million in land, buildings, and other assets they will be happy.
When looking at a company would Mitt only look at its debt and ignore its assets? What are the Federal assets we are leaving our children? I suspect they are 10 times the debt. If I leave my kids $1 million in debt and $10 million in land, buildings, and other assets they will be happy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा