Jump to content

Romney Campaign


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll bet off the record Clinton would rip Obama to no end about how terrible of a President he has been. I think he would honestly say that GWB was better.

 

I trully believe that also.

 

a snip from Ed Kliens book.

 

An anecdote is described where Bill and Hillary Clinton are having an argument that took place over several days (a screaming match actually, with a dozen people present); that, because Obama had basically destroyed the economy, caused the downgrade of the U.S.’s credit rating for the first time in history, etc., etc.; that Obama was, according to Bill Clinton, an “Amateur” (this is the source of the title of the book); that Hillary needed to challenge Obama in 2012 in order to save the country from sliding off the cliff.

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/edward-kleins-the-amateur-book-review/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL thanks for that Magox.

 

Put as simply as it possibly can be....Cut or invest. 2 options we can choose for 2012 depending on what we think will be more effective to keep us from moving backwards and help us increase the rate of recovery.

 

And it's disappointing b/c everyone knows we can't cut, tax, or spend our way out of this. But a reasonable discussion on a balanced approach is something we cannot actually have in this election...thank you far right (far left too but let's be real the far left is actually on a leash).

Taxing and spending is a sure-fire way to ruin. Cuts need to happen. And tha far left is actually on a noose, not a leash.

 

Bill Clinton knows exactly what he is saying. Without a doubt, the Obama team must be pulling their hair out.

I'm surprised any of them have hair, after Booker, Patrick, and now Clinton. With enemies (of Romney) like that, who needs friends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxing and spending is a sure-fire way to ruin. Cuts need to happen. And tha far left is actually on a noose, not a leash.

 

We're going to need all 3. And just to clarify what I mean there btw we need to at the very least eliminate a large portion of tax expenditures (we don't have to raise income tax necessarily), we need to spend on wise investments in the short term and we have to cut waste and what we can now (military for starters) and certainly reform the SS and Medicare long term.

Edited by TheNewBills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going to need all 3. And just to clarify what I mean there btw we need to at the very least eliminate a large portion of tax expenditures, we need to spend on wise investments in the short term and we have to cut waste and what we can now and certainly reform the SS and Medicare long term.

You can lower top marginal rates on both personal income and corporate taxes, broaden the base and that could provide more certainty to the business community while generating more tax revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going to need all 3. And just to clarify what I mean there btw we need to at the very least eliminate a large portion of tax expenditures, we need to spend on wise investments in the short term and we have to cut waste and what we can now (military for starters) and certainly reform the SS and Medicare long term.

 

Never going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to have to lol...IDK how but it has to...

 

No one votes based on reality. Societies eventually collapse based on their own collective stupidity.

 

It'll happen on its own of no one does anything. "Collapse" is a form of reform.

 

Beat me to it.

Edited by meazza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one votes based on reality. Societies eventually collapse based on their own collective stupidity.

 

 

 

Beat me to it.

 

 

Well...I hear everyone saying the projection (for what it's worth) have the trust fund GONE 2024 for Medicare and Social Security like approx. 10 years after that. We all know we can't float that w/ tax revenue alone so ... "reality" is basically now I mean I agree democracies have trouble dealing with long term problems but 2024...IDK that isn't long term to me.

Edited by TheNewBills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...I hear everyone saying the projection (for what it's worth) have the trust fund GONE 2024 for Medicare and Social Security like approx. 10 years after that. We all know we can't float that w/ tax revenue alone so ... "reality" is basically now I mean I agree democracies have trouble dealing with long term problems but 2024...IDK that isn't long term to me.

 

For some people long term is the next quarter.

 

That being said, one simply has to shift their attention across the Atlantic to see the mess of collective stupidity. And how do they fix it? By more of the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/24/more-bad-news-for-social-security-and-medicare/

 

Actually for SSDI even insane people can't classify it as long term. It's defunct as of right now. And all previous predictions were off the mark.

 

The government released the latest versions of the annual Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports on Monday, and the results were troubling:

The combined trust fund that holds funding reserves for the overall Social Security program is now expected to run out of money in 2033 -- three years earlier than trustees expected last year.

The news for Medicare is even more dire. Its trust fund will run out of money in 2024 under current projections. That's the same as it was last year, but fully five years earlier than estimates from two years ago.

Breaking down Social Security into its component parts, the retirement part of the program will use up its trust fund in 2035. But for its disability program, the news is worse still -- its trust fund will go dry in 2016, two years earlier than last year's prediction.

Edited by TheNewBills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...I hear everyone saying the projection (for what it's worth) have the trust fund GONE 2024 for Medicare and Social Security like approx. 10 years after that. We all know we can't float that w/ tax revenue alone so ... "reality" is basically now I mean I agree democracies have trouble dealing with long term problems but 2024...IDK that isn't long term to me.

In the grand scheme of things 2024 is right around the corner. In the world of politics, that's 3 full Presidential election cycles away, which is nearly an eternity away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will take either a strong leader to reform the entitlements or the bond markets.

 

The bond markets would have taken care of it a lot sooner had they seriously had a good alternative to invest in that could be classified as risk free.

Edited by meazza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the grand scheme of things 2024 is right around the corner. In the world of politics, that's 3 full Presidential election cycles away, which is nearly an eternity away.

Therein lies the problem.

Neither Bud nor Bud Lite can focus beyond the next election. The only time they look out 10 years is how they can make the jump to Senate, Governor, President, or some cushy no show appointment

Edited by /dev/null
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going to need all 3. And just to clarify what I mean there btw we need to at the very least eliminate a large portion of tax expenditures (we don't have to raise income tax necessarily), we need to spend on wise investments in the short term and we have to cut waste and what we can now (military for starters) and certainly reform the SS and Medicare long term.

 

If that is what you believe, as that's what most people say the path is... there is every indication that Obama will simply kick the can down the road.

 

Why?

 

Because that's what he did last year when the House Repubs had begrudgingly agreed to DEEP DoD cuts (and Cantor had to work it to get that support, but they got it lined up) to accompany DEEP entitlement cuts/reform AND a marginal tax increase that Republicans were prepared to take the political hit for) that was earmarked to pay off debt.

 

I believe it was WSJ that broke the news a few months ago that it was Obama who had walked away from the deal, that had met the initial goals, at the 11th hour. It was naked politics and Obama needing to preserve the class warfare narrative for the election. If he didn't move on it when Republicans were making huge concessions, what makes you think we'll be able to get a debt deal done in a hypothetical second term? He quite evidently doesn't want to put this country on a track of fiscal sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Romney would "kick the can down the road" (to quote John Boehner) according to those house crazies .... in fact the only reason I still have a slim chance of watching the debates with an open mind is him thumbing his nose at the house tea party in a recent interview regarding cutting spending drastically now and how it's retarded. That one little interview gave me actual hope than America might be ok no matter who wins even if we aren't great with either guy.

 

As for defending Obama on that particular issue...I don't know the particular details although I do remember Boehner was livid since he exerted a lot of political capital to get his crazies to compromise in slightest. The idea that he thought that deal would be good for the country and walked away to preserve a class warfare narrative is not something I believe and I think people who ACTUALLY believe that are asinine. You can believe what you want though. I do remember the story though and there is no doubt

Edited by TheNewBills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...