dayman

FYI I have been reading most posts so just b/c I don't respond doesn't mean I didn't read or listen to the various points for Romney. Reminds me of this promo haha (zach galifianakis platform). "Washington DC is a mess. Things are a mess, IT'S A MESS" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSIX9q_rqB8

This is the book I should read? (just to be clear I've been on a book kick lately so I damn well might read it). And just to sum up quickly I would get what out of it? Is it unfair to say that Unnamed President left the next guy with the opportunity (not that he took it) to really capitalize on successful groundwork. Reagan left the next guy with a mini-bomb that went off in his face producing a 1-term reign.

I just chuckle when Reaganites talk about the evils of deficit spending. Historically since 1980 when Reagan won on the antitax, antiregulation, antigovernment platform that the Republicans have adopted the greatest accomplishment was not to reduce the size of government but simply to stop paying for it. But for some reason it will be different w/ Mitt Romney today...IDK why but I guess it will... If the Tea Party really wanted a hero would it be Reagan? I really don't see why. What if I suggested there was a theorhetical President that had 4 surplus budgets, actually began to pay DOWN the debt, eliminated 16 thousand pages of federal regulations, cut taxes on the middle class, reduced welfare rolls by lamost 60 percent, reduced the size of the fedeeral work force to the lowest level since 1960, pulled 7.7 million people out of poverty (compared to the 77,000 Reagan pulled out of poverty), and all while seeing the economy produce tons of jobs (92 percent increase in the private sector, largest increase in 50 years)? Does that sound like someone that the Tea Party could get behind? So long as I keep his name out of that paragraph it kind of does. Also so long as I don't mention that we did actually spend (gasp) quite a bit in that time on things that returned value. Anyway it is a tangent all I'm saying is that when I see people who in some topics love Reagan so much discussin things in here I can't help but chuckle. I don't hate Reagan btw, but I do prefer the unamed President I described above. I'm sure you all know who I'm talking about though and my God what a terrible man he was.

But seriously in a non-combative way I'm just asking (since this seems to be an issue for you) it's a simple question and I may well be wrong on it. But the basic equation is that we have things we need to do within the next 20ish years anyway everybody agrees on this, and we can do it cheaper than ever if we do it now, and it requires us to pay people to do it now when unemployment is an issue conservatives and liberals alike agree on...so why is this a political or ideological debate? What is the deal? How can a rational decision maker not come to this conclusion is what I'm asking? Raging about the debt is popular...but is it rational?

And just to go ahead and reveal where I'm tempted to go with this....I know this is a democractic talking point but we do have infrastructure and things we can do even if we don't have to do it now we will need to do it in the next 20ish years and probably can never do it as cheaply (at a profit?) as we can now. Plus it puts people to work and would help spur the economy. So my basic question is spending money you don't have is bad I get that. But ... would any business man not look at this and see gold? Do the facts support this "Obama spending like a maniac" pitch as a bad thing? Should we not be borrowig by issuing treasury bonds like drunken sailors right now to spur us in the short term and build for the long term at rates that look amazing? As a "business guy" would Mitt Romney not get this? Rape Europe while they are down b/c they may pick themselves up soon or later? Strike while the iron is hot?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/textview.aspx?data=realyield I know I know...don't spend money...but are people paying us money for the privelege of holding their money right now b/c the rest of the world is so !@#$ed? Will we ever be able to invest in ourselves the way we can right now? I'm not finance or economy guy, so I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm just asking is this normal? All those negative signs...seem...good to me...am I an idiot?

Haha, fair enough appreciate the honesty. I'm just saying I understand the "I hate Obama" argument somewhat. It's the other part I want to hear about. The "Romney for President" part is important to me if I can even consider voting for him.

You don't have to respond man lol. It's ok. I'm just saying...he's on the ballot now and it's getting close...time to give some serious thought to the choice (which I will and always do despite not liking the GOP the last few years) what should I think about? Why vote for Mitt Romney? I'm not even saying this as a political attack or some snarky comment. I'm just saying...there are quite a few posters here supporting him. What's up? Why vote FOR Mitt Romney? That's all I'm asking.

so sell me on Mitt Romney

Just trying to put my finger on it. What is it if not that, that makes you love Romney? And if so, what the hell is it Romney is going to cut or rework so much to slash enough what with this anti-tax trend he's hostage to? And if this is not it at all...what is it? Basically...sell me on Romney. And just stay on point...sell me on Romney. Don't talk about anything else.

Just saw this today. I denfinitly could climb out of that IMO.

Ok not "cool" just...anythign remotely worthy or praise I should say. I don't mean I thought he was cool, I mean I thought there were redeeming qualities of any type. That is to say I was cool w/ him ... to be clear.

Guys I'm going to admit for a while I thought Axle Rose was cool. I was wrong.

This is a bad interview. Not really either mans fault this is just boring. Ok Mitt's wife talking about dating other people while he was in France spreading Mormonism was pretty great.

Look when he goes to Israel he's not going to talk foreign policy? When he meets with British intellegence (assuming that's what the articles said IDK I didn't click them) he's talking about horses? It's fine to not critize Obama "on foreign soil" if that means anything this day in age (which I don't think it does). But you can still talk. And if we don't want to undermine the president too badly it's not being physically on foreign soil that matters it's saying ridiculous things in the globally accessed media. In any event Mitt just dropped a Rubio comment. Hints? Maybe..

Not a big fan of the gun discussion put forth by Mitt but he said nothing I wouldn't expect him to and most people on the board would take his side so rather uneventful first session.

Foriegn soil doesn't matter there's a little thing called the internet. He's speaking to Pierce Morgan. And he doesn't comment on foreign policy period b/c Americans don't care about that.

So if we don't give tax breaks to companies that set up shop here and stop giving them to those going over seas we have $25 lettuce. I get it now.

It will be on Morgan tonight. As to where it took place...don't be a fool.

I guess he wouldn't even talk about foreign policy at all in the interview he did w/ Pierce Morgan that will air tonight.

Milk? Just drinking milk? What is this?

Why do you disprove specifically? Romney is running a campaign to be POTUS and he basically hasn't articulated a response to that I consider legitimate. That's concerns me. What would you have him say to win your vote?

Go. I don't know how it hasn't been clear. I don't understand what you are talking about or how it relates to what I'm am talking about. Explain. To be clear I am asking you to explain yourself so we can debate what is at issue...the outsourcing/insourcing tax policy.

I'm going to be honest you are proving to be everything I suspected you were trying to be initially. Retarded. I'm not trying to be offensive...but I type what I think. You can type in response whatever you want and convince me otherwise. You are a free poser. And just to be clear why I say that from my point of view I say: "trade the outsourcing bill and maybe a compromised disclose act for the tax issue" and you say "how do we export inflation and we are a Keynesian nation now" and then don't elaborate. So that's what I see. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm here to discuss. But discussion requires some sense of linear discussion.

Tie this to tax breaks to companies that bring jobs in, and not taxes on exporting companies but just the elimination of tax breaks to those companies. Then maybe I can take a guess. Or you could just cut to the chase and tell me how this ties in, in your opinion. B/c...I'm not really talking about Keynesian economics. If I should be and am not....tell me why. B/c I don't know.