A question for Republicans

Paleface

After seeing the failures of the Bush era policies and their effect on America both domestically and in foreign circles, do you see Mitt Romney as offering something different? If so what exactly?

As has been mentioned in the RNC thread there was a complete lack of acknowledgement of Bush's 8 year term apart from a 5 min love in video of him and Bush snr reminiscing on how great it is to be the president but neither really spoke of their actual achievements.

My own personal opinion is that Romney offers nothing new and will not be good for America's recovery if elected. The idea that he is going to reduce the mountain of debt the US has incurred predominantly because of Bush's policies is laughable. He says he wants to extend the tax cuts that make up the large portion of it as is indicated by the following graph from The Huffington Post.



Its also possible that he will start another conflict judging by his comments on Iran during his RNC speech. Who is going to pay for that?

So with all that in mind can the Republicans who post here let me know why they think Romney is the man for the top job in the world?

Amerika

Ah yes, GW Bush, the convenient scapegoat responsible for every single problem facing the nation and the world today… out of control spending, high unemployment, the debt crisis, hurricane Katrina, rising crime, decaying roads, wars in the middle East, Iran getting the bomb, the breakup of the Eurozone, and the fall of western civilization. How disingenuous!

Sorry but the GOP of today is not the GOP of Mr. Bush. Romney will not be a Bush - the great society Republican who championed domestic big-government conservatism; nation building and exporting democracy abroad… Romney knows we just can’t afford it anymore.

Romney is going to tackle our ticking debt bomb, which has made us the most indebted nation in history, and one that will collapse from the crushing weight of entitlements, out of control spending and record deficits unless we act now.

Romney knows the times now call for a president who can slash spending, balance our budgets, jump start economic vitality and “unchain” the private sector.

Yes Romney will inflict pain on a nation destined to become Greece under the current administration... and isn't it about time?

(Rebublican... guilty as charged)

Paleface

I'm not blaming Bush for the world's problems. All I did was highlight the fact that if you analyse where America's debt mountain came from the vast majority leads back to his policies i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of the financial system and engaging in two bouts of "exporting democracy abroad".

With that in mind you didn't really answer my question as to why Romney is the man to get America back on track. You just stated that he will which is convenient. I assume you would say the exact same if it were a different candidate other than Romney.

Look at it this way. If you were to cut spending in America now and implement austerity to reign in the debt would that not kill growth as it has done in Europe?

If you borrow to stimulate growth does that not add to the debt?

I really can't see the magic solution of no more borrowing coupled with mass job creation that Romney claims he will deliver as a realistic goal.

Can you explain this to me?

Amerika

I'll copy this from another post of mine in another topic. I hope it helps. Will it work? Don't rightly know, but I have a better feeling than the current administration's plans. Obama’s solution is to spend even more money which will put our debt on track to reaching $20 Trillion by 2016 after he's added $5 Trillion already. Obama plans on raising taxes on the wealthy, pass another huge stimulus, institute even more business regulations, take over other sectors of the economy, continue with high levels of deficit spending, impose expensive cap-and-trade environmental policies and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Disastrous results lie ahead under another Obama administration. Unemployment will continue to rise, manufacturing will continue to leave, and we might collapse into insolvency.

As Clint Eastwood put it... "And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go."

I feel Mitt Romney’s economic plan is the best to create jobs, restore economic growth, and return us to our tradition of economic freedom. These include: Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards. End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy. Restructure regulation to end "too big to fail," improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests. Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement. Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy. Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

IMO... our only hope if Obama wins a second term is if the GOP can take over control of the Senate and continue to hold control of the House. Maybe then Obama will come to terms with reality and follow in the path of what made Clinton a farily decent president after the GOP took control of Congress.

Overheal

by end the exploding federal deficit does that mean end the Bush tax-cuts?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Be like Nutella

wish we had a good few US Pro Republican guys on here (instead of just Amerika fighting his corner:) to try and answer your questions properly and include the whole Grover Norquist thing... coz that just dumbfounds me completely... as it did Fareed Zakaria yesterday on GPS when he had him as guest ... I think Grover Norquist may actually be from another world... but anyway..

I find that the rhetoric has gotten so ridiculously dumb and so inanely extreme, on both sides, at this point that I'm losing any faith I had in the entire notion of America as a state that can ever do good again. It certainly has done huge good in the past but with opinions like we're hearing from what are supposed to be leaders of huge political parties over there it just seems like a whole lot of demented old bitter people (that's not a jab at Clint: the guys one of my fav actors ever but he's just old that's all.. they shouldn't have let him near the stage)

Even Paul 'I'm so smart' Ryan sounds like a complete duche at this point... just babbling incoherent rhetoric bullsh1t unfounded in any sort of facts etc.. but you get it from the other side too and the media (which I know we're sick of hearing it but they clearly are in 'most' cases pro-democratic there's no argument against that).. the media focuses more on Republican goofs.. probably because they have simply had more in recent times (God knows Clinton entertained us for a while)... see the Rep party is actually NOT full of weird old gun lovin mental bags like TV and well tbh like some of their leading members would lead you to believe (see Newt Gingrich for eg:)

There are some really good politicians in the republican party and not just Ron 'idealist revolutionary liberal' Paul (who I love) but more centered smart politicians who long for the party to step back away from complete self-destruction (even Michael Steel sounds centrist these days in comparison but that could be just down to pure hate:)

And there are extreme democrats like you wouldn't believe who try and push agendas that you don't hear about in the media too often but I don't want to get conspiratorial on this sh1t I'm just saying I would love to hear a group of intelligent knowledgeable republican folks do their utmost best to form some kind of coherent argument that attempts to convince me or others here (and there are quite a few) that Mitt Romney is the guy you want in the White House... now not the guy you want just to replace the guy you DON'T WANT.. that's different but if that's the truth then I'd love to hear them admit it. My view (which I might as well state) is that Mitt Romney is an Alien person with no capacity to understand the problems he's supposed to know how to fix, I don't think his career is impressive from a business standpoint and morally he has pretty much ticked every wrong box there is to tick in the nature of the business model he believes in and believed in for so many years doing what he did.

I just want to hear seemingly smart republican party people explain to me how Mitt Romney represents what they want in their countries future??? OR admit that he's just some duche who happened to win the race and can maybe get Obama out which is paramount... that I''ll accept.. it's logical... but actually liking the guy on principle, respecting his political career, his business career (with specific evidence!) and rooting for him personally to be your guy in Washington is so hard to fathom as a logical progression it just leaves me confused or disappointed in humanity or something I don't know. I think the main problem is I'm so used to so little actual intelligent debate about the guy from democrats who just babble rhetoric tripe as bad as the reps who back him blindly and without reason seem to. there ya go anyway.

any Reps wana have a go at it? treat it as a challenge... how do I try and argue for Mitt Romney as president of America as the right guy with the right skills and moral compass to do the job that is needed most?? that's your challenge... 1,2,3..go!

Reindeer

Amerika wrote: »

Ah yes, GW Bush, the convenient scapegoat responsible for every single problem facing the nation and the world today… out of control spending, high unemployment, the debt crisis, hurricane Katrina, rising crime, decaying roads, wars in the middle East, Iran getting the bomb, the breakup of the Eurozone, and the fall of western civilization. How disingenuous!

Sorry but the GOP of today is not the GOP of Mr. Bush. Romney will not be a Bush - the great society Republican who championed domestic big-government conservatism; nation building and exporting democracy abroad… Romney knows we just can’t afford it anymore.

Romney is going to tackle our ticking debt bomb, which has made us the most indebted nation in history, and one that will collapse from the crushing weight of entitlements, out of control spending and record deficits unless we act now.

Romney knows the times now call for a president who can slash spending, balance our budgets, jump start economic vitality and “unchain” the private sector.

Yes Romney will inflict pain on a nation destined to become Greece under the current administration... and isn't it about time?

(Rebublican... guilty as charged)

If you believe all that, I have real estate in Dublin I'd like to sell you.

Overheal

Poltifact summed up the divide nicely: Obama's biggest failed promise - even though the GOP shares plenty of that blame (The Party of No; The Debt Ceiling Crisis) - was that he didn't bridge the partisan divide. On the contrary the divide is now worse than any time in recent memory.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/01/scorecard-president-obamas-campaign-promises/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/522/bring-democrats-and-republicans-together-pass-agen/

Be like Nutella

and I suppose you'll post up Bush's broken campaign promises too yeah... ahem... oh that's right they didn't do one for him...

and so without a comparison to other 'promise-meters' how does one judge an individual when we all know reps and dems make all sorts of bullsh1t promises when they're on the trail... how many usually are upheld? on average.. as a percentage? nobody knows because the data isn't there... except in this case where the interest generated caused politifact to carry out an intensive live study on Obama's campaign trail promises as never before carried out for other candidates and so there you have it.. kinda like saying oh my god did you know 1000 people were murdered in Canada last year!! can you believe that?... of course in comparison to the US that makes Canada a monastery of peaceful paradise...

I take your link and I see he didn't keep an awful lot of what was promised on the campaign trail... but a) I'm not surprised... who the fukc knows what they can or can't do before they're in office.. promises are bullsh1t in every way.. although the GITMO one really p1ssed me off personally... apart from that the whole 'Yes We Can' crap was utter campaign tripe built for a crappy soundbite pop culture ignorant political imbecilic media circus which is the standard American 2 year election crescendo and b) if I was trying to show the facts I'd attempt to do so in a balanced and comparative method bringing credibility to my argument or opinion... in this case 'that Obama's campaign promises were broken at a MUCH HIGHER RATE than previous republican campaigns and without the evidence it's just a Politifact pop-piece whose metric deserves no respect when not compared to a similarly intensive campaign vs office scorecard.

Be like Nutella

Overheal: I read that politifact piece and yes deffo there's so much sh1t he didn't succeed or even try hard enough to get done and some of it can be explained and some can not and most of all in many cases he simply was never able to back it up so shouldn't have promised them in the first place.

now did you read the Rolling Stone piece killing Romney?? How the hell do ya square that one? the piece annihilates him entirely, atom for atom, destroyed , finished good bye thanks for coming there's your coat see ya later and it's clearly well researched.. it clearly shows that Romney did not engage in pure venture capitalism which is completely necessary in the world but instead adhered to a clearly predatory LBO based fukc everyone take your profit and run whether your 'target' company goes up or down or under or whatever.. and that is simply not acceptable... how can it be? unless you're Ayn Rand or David Rockefeller or some Napoleonic wartime banker... it showed a complete lack of social responsibility... two words which should just maybe be a little ya know necessary in the qualities of a man you desperately want as president of your most-powerful-in-the-world country. Somebody for the love of god argue in this mans favor in some coherent way so I don't lose all faith in logic and about half of the voting population of the USA OR... AT LEAST ACCEPT HE'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT REALLY BUT HE'LL DO INSTEAD OF THE OTHER GUY!! ADMIT THAT... it makes sense it's understandable

Paleface

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its a better solution than giving them further tax breaks with the promise of trickle down economics to spontaneously kick start the economy.

Seriously if that's the best plan Romney has then the US economy is screwed.

Be like Nutella

tell me yez watched Bernie Sanders (Rep) do his thing that time... total legend...great speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1zpHF0J04

The Bishop!

Great speech indeed.

And just as illuminating was Taibbis' comprehensive decontruction of the Romney myth in Rolling Stone that someone kindly posted the other day.

Here on Znet:
http://www.zcommunications.org/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-by-matt-taibbi

Be like Nutella

Comprehensive deconstruction is right :eek:

He uzi'd Romney then backed his car over him then dropped an H-Bomb on his remains and vaporized ANY SHRED of credibility the guy had....

I hope
a) his research was legit and holds up and

b) the 1 Million readers that day contained at least 20% Republicans who read it in full, understood it and have now decided to vote for 'Not-Mitt Romney' in November instead of 'Not-Obama' as they were going to.. assuming basic intellectual capacity for reading and comprehension as one should for the median Rolling Stone reader - approx 34 yrs old.

Be like Nutella

still waiting for some rep to admit here that Romney is clearly an amoral douchebag and that they'll be voting for him JUST to get the other guy out... which as I've said is completely fathomable. OR, please please tell me how you respect Mitt Romney and think he's an upstanding guy with all the skills and qualities to be a good president???????

I'm no Obama fan by the way I hate his Drone war I hate his not-closing Gitmo and I hate all the rhetoric he rode in on... but I think he's faaaaar more capable of leading America (and therefore better for the world) and I respect the guy a lot for his dealing with the Iran situation so far with so much war mongering noise around him in Washington etc.. just saying I'm no big fan of what he's actually done..but voting for Romney beggers belief on whole new level IMO so I just want somebody to open my eyes to the moral intellectual upstanding capable and kind leader that Mitt Romney could just be if we all just closed our eyes and wished real hard ...

Be like Nutella

The Bishop! wrote: »

Great speech indeed.

And just as illuminating was Taibbis' comprehensive decontruction of the Romney myth in Rolling Stone that someone kindly posted the other day.

Here on Znet:
http://www.zcommunications.org/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-by-matt-taibbi

question is: how many Dems read 'American Rifleman'... probably the same as the number of Reps who read Rolling Stone ; )... pity

*Rifleman normally outsells RS by 200k

Einhard

Now this might be asking a bit much, but could any of those supporting Romney please provide me with details on how he will close the deficit. As far as I can see, he's provided nothing but vague soundbites on the matter. I'm genuinely interested here, as the American deficit and debt is obviously not merely an American concern. For something that is so important however, and especially for something for which so many Republicans (including on this forum) give him credit, I can't find any coherent policy on the issue. Even Ryan's plans, which Romney has downplayed, depended on saving hundreds of billions through the closure of unspecified tax loopholes.

If Romney has such a plan, can Amerika or another of his supporters provide. If he doesn't how on earth can he be lauded for having such a plan?

Thanks!

Overheal

Paul Ryan did actually try to introduce a budget into a law, so that's something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity

I know what you're saying though. Like that episode of the Office (in the first 5 minutes) when Will Arnet was interviewing for Michael Scott's position and was like "I have a plan to double this company's profits... but you have to hire me first." - hilarity ensues.

Min

It is upto Obama to show why Mitt Romney is not the man for the job, however it seems at times that Obama is still fighting the 2008 election blaming Bush rather than standing on his own record.

Brian?

Einhard wrote: »

Now this might be asking a bit much, but could any of those supporting Romney please provide me with details on how he will close the deficit. As far as I can see, he's provided nothing but vague soundbites on the matter. I'm genuinely interested here, as the American deficit and debt is obviously not merely an American concern. For something that is so important however, and especially for something for which so many Republicans (including on this forum) give him credit, I can't find any coherent policy on the issue. Even Ryan's plans, which Romney has downplayed, depended on saving hundreds of billions through the closure of unspecified tax loopholes.

If Romney has such a plan, can Amerika or another of his supporters provide. If he doesn't how on earth can he be lauded for having such a plan?

Thanks!

It would be extremely difficult for any Romney supporter to extoll the virtues of his economic plans seeing as he has yet to produce a single one.

Amerika

Here are some of Mitt Romney’s plans to Cut The Deficit, which include:
• Immediately reduce non-security discretionary spending by five percent
• Cap federal spending below twenty percent of the economy
• Give states responsibility for programs that they can implement more effectively
• Consolidate agencies and align compensation of federal workers with their private-sector counterparts

If you want to see his spending plans, you can go here:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

Sounds a lot better to me than what we heard and received from our current president. Anyone remember: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.” – Barack Obama, President of the United States of America. The national debt has now hit $16 trillion. Four years ago, that number was just over $10 trillion. And did President Obama not promise us he'd not seek reelection if the budget deficit was not halved in his first term? Or does history start today?

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Here are some of Mitt Romney’s plans to Cut The Deficit, which include:
• Immediately reduce non-security discretionary spending by five percent
• Cap federal spending below twenty percent of the economy
• Give states responsibility for programs that they can implement more effectively
• Consolidate agencies and align compensation of federal workers with their private-sector counterparts

If you want to see his spending plans, you can go here:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

Sounds a lot better to me than what we heard and received from our current president. Anyone remember: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.” – Barack Obama, President of the United States of America. The national debt has now hit $16 trillion. Four years ago, that number was just over $10 trillion. And did President Obama not promise us he'd not seek reelection if the budget deficit was not halved in his first term? Or does history start today?

These are slogans, not plans.

For example.

He's going to cap federal spending to 20% of the economy? How exactly is he going to do that? Has he outlined WHICH areas of federal spending and which programs specifically that he is going to cut and how much money they are actually going to save?

And what does 20% of the economy mean? 20% of GDP?

Don't confuse slogans for plans please. Mitt Romney doesn't have an economic plan for America. The only concrete plan he seems to have is to cut taxes further for his rich buddies and himself.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

These are slogans, not plans.

For example.

He's going to cap federal spending to 20% of the economy? How exactly is he going to do that? Has he outlined WHICH areas of federal spending and which programs specifically that he is going to cut and how much money they are actually going to save?

And what does 20% of the economy mean? 20% of GDP?

Don't confuse slogans for plans please. Mitt Romney doesn't have an economic plan for America. The only concrete plan he seems to have is to cut taxes further for his rich buddies and himself.

LOL… if you would have read the link I provided on spending, you would have seen that most of your questions would have been answered. Was it an oversight on your part or just blinded by deep dark blue-eyed rage?

Overheal

In fairness to the point Amerika was making, the counterpoint is Obama pledged to cut the National Debt in half during his first term in office. Sounds like just as much "a slogan", as is now being argued about Romney's plans/slogans/cookingrecipes/etc - semantics, whatever.

Here was the quote. Oh, he was a month in Office when he said it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR_8

These are the same kind of pledges and promises that got GHWB into trouble. Do I need to play that clip ehhh yeah I want to. For fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

George Bush Sr. was also, coincidentally, a 1-term President.

At the time he said it Obama proposed no specifics on how it would happen nor do I recall if he did during the election cycle.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

LOL… if you would have read the link I provided on spending, you would have seen that most of your questions would have been answered. Was it an oversight on your part or just blinded by deep dark blue-eyed rage?

That link answers nothing. It's your red tinted glasses that are the problem.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

In fairness to the point Amerika was making, the counterpoint is Obama pledged to cut the National Debt in half during his first term in office. Sounds like just as much "a slogan", as is now being argued about Romney's plans/slogans/cookingrecipes/etc - semantics, whatever.

Here was the quote. Oh, he was a month in Office when he said it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR_8

These are the same kind of pledges and promises that got GHWB into trouble. Do I need to play that clip ehhh yeah I want to. For fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

George Bush Sr. was also, coincidentally, a 1-term President.

At the time he said it Obama proposed no specifics on how it would happen nor do I recall if he did during the election cycle.

IMO Obama was a fool for making such a sweeping statement. I wouldn't be surprised if it bites him in the ass.

Duck Soup

Since Mitt's plan seems painfully light on detail, many political and economic commentators have run the numbers for him. One common phrase is that his plans are "mathematically impossible", but let's take a look at one organization that at least thought them feasible.

From those inveterate communists at Bloomberg:

Mitt Romney’s promise to balance the budget without higher taxes while protecting retirees and spending more on defense means the rest of government - such as meat inspections, food stamps, national parks and affordable-housing aid - would need to be cut by more than a quarter.

Though Romney doesn’t spell out how he would achieve his fiscal goals, the arithmetic is clear, and it implies substantial pain for middle-class and low-income Americans.

By putting Social Security off limits to cuts, promising to boost defense spending by as much as much as $150 billion a year, and holding the line on taxes, all other spending would have to take a hit of about 29 percent by 2016, by one estimate.

If that were spread across-the-board, it would translate to 8,000 fewer employees to staff and maintain the national parks, about $35 less a week in food stamps for a family of four, 35 fewer offices to forecast the weather and track storms, and $8.9 billion less for research to battle cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases. Cuts in the Medicaid insurance system for the poor and similar programs would save about $100 billion a year, according to the campaign.

Some programs would be cut “down to the bone,” said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington. “It would require some deep cuts beyond what he specified and beyond what I think most people would imagine.”

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Romney-s-Plan-to-End-Deficit-Hits-Poor-as-Well-3838501.php

Overheal

And since politically, he can't ever deliver on such deep cuts, he will never be able to introduce such a budget.

That in itself is a problem. It means we will never get our spending under control. Not in the next 4 years, anyway.

Non-Partisan terms: if nobody, republican or democrat, is able to come up with a balanced budget that makes sense, we're all fcuked.

Paleface

If they cut their military budget they could do it but that seems to be off limits for Republicans.

Edit: Actually that is another question for Republicans. Why is the military budget untouchable? It dwarfs all other countries so I think you could cut back on it and still remain secure.

Overheal

More importantly: Why the flying **** does it need MORE money!?!? Why do we even need to RAISE what we spend on it?

Be like Nutella

A little word on the US Defense Budget... which could easily be called the attack budget in recent years but whatever... the facts

Just in case you never saw this little table/list... it's so mind staggeringly mental I remember seeing it first about 15 years ago and it still hasn't properly sunk in yet.

The most mental stat in my view is the percentage of the entire combined worlds defense spending which is the US Defense Budget.

41%....of all the money spent on all the Armies/Navies/Air forces etc in the entire world last year was spent by the USA. So much of what we talk about stems from the gross magnitude of and the real world affect of that incredible fact.

Rank Spending ($ Bn.) World share (%)

World total 1,735 100

1  United States 711 41
2  China 143 8.2
3  Russia 71.9 4.1
4  United Kingdom 62.7 3.6
5  France 62.5 3.6
6  Japan 59.3 3.4
7  Saudi Arabia 48.2 2.8
8  India 46.8 2.7
9 Germany 46.7 2.7
10  Brazil 35.4 2
11  Italy 34.5 2
12  South Korea 30.8 1.8
13  Australia 26.7 1.5
14  Canada 24.7 1.4
15  Turkey 17.9 1

So

without reading something like Dr Carroll Quigley's 'Tragedy and Hope' or really getting your head right around what is so bandied about, so nonchalantly by CT's as the 'Military Industrial Complex' it is nye impossible to comprehend how difficult it is for any administration to really cut back on military spending... and even though it tends to get milked in other forums some of you may not have listened to Dwight do his thing here... and as it's one of my favorite speeches I have no qualms in milking again right here...

take it away Dwight...

Jan 17 1961

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

and while we're at it... Go on the Ron Paul!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2TZTmMdGos

and here's one of the greatest works of the 20th century

http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/carrollquigley-tragedyandhope.pdf

Conas

The top comment to Ron Paul's video is the following

"If you talk to someone who thinks the USA should go to war preemptively against Iran based on the fact Iran may one day pose a threat against the USA, then ask them if they think it would be justified for Iran to launch an attack against at USA because the USA may pose a threat against Iran. By their logic an attack on US forces by Iran would be justified".

Romney's attitude to Foreign Policy looks like there isn't a hope in hell of a decrease in the debt, only an increase in it. But you won't hear the Republican's mention that, because everyone knows they want wars. Too much investment in the military, and too much profit for the big shots with these wars happening.

Amerika

Reindeer wrote: »

If you believe all that, I have real estate in Dublin I'd like to sell you.

Wonderful! Can I pay for it in Hope and Change?

Einhard

Amerika wrote: »

Here are some of Mitt Romney’s plans to Cut The Deficit, which include:
• Immediately reduce non-security discretionary spending by five percent
• Cap federal spending below twenty percent of the economy
• Give states responsibility for programs that they can implement more effectively
• Consolidate agencies and align compensation of federal workers with their private-sector counterparts

If you want to see his spending plans, you can go here:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

Sounds a lot better to me than what we heard and received from our current president. Anyone remember: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.” – Barack Obama, President of the United States of America. The national debt has now hit $16 trillion. Four years ago, that number was just over $10 trillion. And did President Obama not promise us he'd not seek reelection if the budget deficit was not halved in his first term? Or does history start today?

Thanks for the link Amerika. I'll have a look at it in detail when I have some time.

I'd note though, that I'm not exactly sure what Obama's perceived failings have to do with what I queried. I mean, I ask for Romney's plans, and you spend more time attacking Obama than anything else. Romney's policies should really stand or fall on their own feet, and not simply relative to what Obama is going- and vice versa of course. I think it's a very sad day when policies are embraced simply because they're not the other guy's. Not saying that's what you're doing, but that's what seems to be happening at times.

Anyway, I'll have a look at Romney's plans tomorrow. Given how enthusiastic you are about them, I'm sure they'll be comprehensive, edifying, and encouragng.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

LOL… if you would have read the link I provided on spending, you would have seen that most of your questions would have been answered. Was it an oversight on your part or just blinded by deep dark blue-eyed rage?

I did indeed miss the link so that's fair enough. It does LOOK like a kind of plan. I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to scrutanise it properly.

joseph brand

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Comprehensive deconstruction is right :eek:

He uzi'd Romney then backed his car over him then dropped an H-Bomb on his remains and vaporized ANY SHRED of credibility the guy had....

I hope
a) his research was legit and holds up and

b) the 1 Million readers that day contained at least 20% Republicans who read it in full, understood it and have now decided to vote for 'Not-Mitt Romney' in November instead of 'Not-Obama' as they were going to.. assuming basic intellectual capacity for reading and comprehension as one should for the median Rolling Stone reader - approx 34 yrs old.

There are Republicans who support Obama. Republicans for Obama.

TAMPA — Democratic operatives Friday unveiled "Tampa Bay Republicans for Obama," which they called "a mass of Tampa Bay area Republicans who are throwing their support behind the president."

They have a website and a FB page. It's not a large movement by any standards, but it's there.