Re: No bump for Romney following RNC "This image is so interesting that it was stolen from ObamaPacman.com" Your link no worky.
Re: No bump for Romney following RNC pretty much what he was doing his whole campaign though. If he was absent throughout, tough to call it vacationing.
Yes one sided participation. PR's budget takes from the middle class and poor to give even more to the rich with zero chance of a balanced budget in our lifetimes. Whoppee! Noted that this is the sort of idiocy that you're a fan of MR is running a very shut down campaign with minute access to the policies he hopes to install & barely taking any questions from the press. He doesn't want to talk about his failed record as Governor, be open about his business record, or of course do what his dad advocated and open his books for the people to see his taxes so they can gawk at his offshored $$$ and additional Dressage horse writeoffs. To me it's laughable/pathetic that after the faceplant of the RNC he's got to take some time off to go vaca some more while his Superpac money carpetbombs the States in play. STOMP
In order to get the budget closer to balance, I'll take a $4T (over 10 year) cut in spending as a start. The idiocy is 10 years of $1T+ deficits that Obama proposed. Are you a fan of that?
Have you taken a look at his proposals? Under his plan, the wealthy will as a whole pay more because the tax loopholes that they take advantage of will be closed. The tax rate for the middle class up goes down. And why shouldn't everyone at least pitch in a little? Do some reading and get back to us: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/def...America-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf Mitt Romney as a candidate has already presented a more detailed plan than the incumbent. As for running a "shut down" campaign, he's talked to the press more than the incumbent. And what failed record? He took over the Commonwealth when it was 50th in job creation; it ended up 28th in job creation by the end of his tenure. He started with a massive budget deficit at the beginning and by the end of his term had a rainy day fund, and did it without raising taxes. And do you have any idea at what a job creator Bain Capital has been? You don't make money in VC unless businesses succeed. BC had a 79% success rate under Romney; far above the VC average (you hope for 50%). His taxes are a side issue; he hasn't dodged any taxes. As for what his wife chooses to do with the money he makes, what business is it of ours? Did you bitch and moan about John Kerry buying a yacht or Al Gore buying a Montecito mansion and a private plane? As for taking a vacation, why shouldn't he? He's been running non-stop since the primaries and probably needs some R&R. It used to be that the opposing candidates laid low during the others' conventions. I'm glad the Obama campaign didn't run any negative ads during the RNC, though.
PR's budget doesn't cut the deficit silly Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit. http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/03/23/paul-ryans-budget-plan-more-big-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/ ...and I'm not the one on here daily shaking my pom-poms starting threads tooting anyone's horn STOMP
I'm rather shocked that you and Howard Gleckman (who wrote your article) believe that cutting tax revenues must mean bigger deficits. How about for every $1 in tax cuts, we cut $2 in govt. spending? Not in the first year, but over 10 would suffice. Though Gleckman is somewhat honest: And maybe the all caps, bold font text on the tables they produce means something important? "THE TABLE DOES NOT ESTIMATE THE REVENUE EFFECTS OF THE ENTIRE FY 2013 BUDGET RESOLUTION PROPOSED BY PAUL RYAN" And as maxiep correctly pointed out, Ryan proposes to eliminate loopholes, though he is not specific about which ones. He says he wants those tax shelters eliminated to be debated publicly by the House Ways and Means Committee, which seems reasonable to me. And his plan does call for $3.3T more in deficit reduction over the next 10 years compared to Obama's budget proposals. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...trip-loopholes-for-top-earners-rep-ryan-says/ Consider if all loopholes are eliminated. Warren Buffett, who paid 17.4% of his income in taxes would end up paying 25% of his income in taxes under Ryan's rule. His Secretary who makes $500K would also pay 25% of her salary ($500K is well into the top 5% of earners).
a link to Mitt's personal website of vague BS... such a surprise coming from an Independent party honk such as yourself. You claim to want less government in your life, but constantly back the party that historically grows government, balloons deficits, starts horrible unwinnable wars, and seeks to interject itself into the bedroom & lives of Americans. They also just happen to advocate giving the 1% a big tax break Though I despised Repub. dunderhead W, I didn't vote for Kerry or Gore. Your characterizations of where I stand are as wildly off base as the claims of MR's history in Massachusetts. Here's politifact on Mitt's record on job creation http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tt-romneys-massachusetts-rank-47th-job-creat/ STOMP
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-jobs-record-is-best-or-worst/ As the Obama campaign has repeatedly noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states over the entirety of Romney’s four years as governor in terms of job creation. As we wrote in an item this week when an Obama ad claimed Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney, in the 12 months before he took office, the state ranked 50th in job creation. That ranking remained 50th during Romney’s first year in office, but by his final year, it had improved to 28th.
What? You wanted to know his plan, so somehow linking you to his plan was somehow untruthful? Read it and judge it for yourself. When I wanted to know then-Senator Obama's plan, I went to his website. Pray tell, where else should I go? I believe in primary sources. I have two realistic choices: Someone who wants to step on the gas in terms of growing the Federal Government and one who at least wants to tap the brakes a bit. Neither is optimal; I have Libertarian tendencies, but IMO voting for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote. It's not lying to myself; it's being realistic. WTF does Politifact say? That Romney didn't have much to do with job creation? I agree. The public sector does best when it gets the hell out of the way.
Lol, the Republican's in here who blindly rag on Democrats every election are afraid to admit you're a Republican. Whats so embarrasing about being a Republican? Really, its okay. I can think of 3 posters on this board that have been doing it for years. You aren't clever, its pretty obvious.
this is everything that is wrong with america "dont vote for the guy you want, BE REALISTIC" vote for who you want to become president, anything other than THAT is a wasted vote
Some democrat want to tell me what victory looks like in Afghanistan? Obama escalated the war there and is going to pull the troops out in 2014, supposedly. Why is 2014 a victory? I'm really curious, because I never did see any kind of victory scenario for Afghanistan - just a means to get Bin Laden and that mission has been accomplished.
well, we put in a pipeline and are draining the country and surrounding areas of their natural resources...id say that is a victory now we can pull out and end the war, while leaving 20k soldiers there at bases to secure our financial return
An article on this board the other day showed that Obama has expanded government spending less than Bush, Bush, Reagan, etc. He half-inherited the stimulus. He is cutting the military and everything else. In my favorite department, NASA has cut several planned probes and he takes criticism from space fans. How is he expanding the government, especially in comparison to previous presidents?
Factcheck says bullshit. Bush's last budget was $3T. Obama's first budget and other three were $3.6T. $.6T x 4 = $2.4T in reckless additional spending, in spite of any "cuts" you claim. It's shady bookkeeping and intellectually dishonest to not count that $2.4T as if it didn't happen. And if you want to factor in the stimulus, that would be a 1 year spending of $800B, so his budgets should have looked like $3.8T + $3T + $3T + $3T. Get it? He fooled you. How is he expanding the government? He's collecting $1T in upfront taxes for ObamaCare. The IRS is hiring ~4,500 new employees to collect those taxes. That's just the tip of the iceberg. http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance. Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense. Regulation: While regulations have been proliferating since the Reagan administration, the pace of large-scale regulation has picked up under Obama. There were 75 major regulations adopted in Obama's first two years in office, compared to 120 during Bush's entire term, according to the Heritage Foundation, citing Government Accountability Office statistics. Fiscal 2010 saw a record 43 rules adopted. Major regulations are those that have cost or saved more than $100 million. They range from new rules concerning pipeline safety to air cargo screening to investment fee and expense disclosures.
