Ann Romney: 'Going to be cuts made to a lot of programs people aren't going to like'

[Sinjorri]

That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.

and your filled with hate, at least shes telling people america needs to cut back, you are still just full of hate.

 

[Listening]

That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.

and your filled with hate, at least shes telling people america needs to cut back, you are still just full of hate.

Yep,

That ought to get the Tea Party on board.

And a lot of fiscally conservatve democrats.

Working towards balancing the budget.

Of course, we are going to have to raise taxes...everybody knows it.

 

[Listening]

That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.

 

[barry1960]

That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.

She's ten times the person you'll ever be.

She is potentially going to be first lady.

You live in a trailer, lie about your neighbors, wait for your government checks and spend way to much time on meaningless message boards.

Your tombstone will be a blank.

More (w/graphs): CNN Host Dismantles Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax Argument: 'This Is A Wish, Not A Plan' | ThinkProgress

The only wish here is yours. You wish he'd won the debate. Fareed is nothing but a worm in a suit. CNN should fire his ass pretty soon so he can join the "intellectuals" over at MSNBC.

We need to cut every program except for the military by 1/3 and not spend any more money than what is taken in on taxes. For God sakes, stop borrowing money from China.

I suspect your avatar is smarter than you.

Another sterling comeback by the board ball-licker.

Nothing wrong with stopping borrowing.

Fareed Zakeria is a moderate and a pretty smart guy. One can learn a lot from his show. The segment with Norquist was interesting. Fareed would not fit in with the "intellectuals" at MSNBC or with that "brain trust" over at Fox news.

 

[Lakhota]

Ann Romney IS an uppity bitch!

 

[Lakhota]

Sounds like Ann spent most of her college years knocked up: "Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy"

 

[Murf76]

Guess what boys 'n girls... When Romney is president, EVERYBODY is gonna get a hair cut. There's not going to BE any sacred cows, and ya know why? ...It's because at 16 TRILLION dollars, we can no longer afford any.

We'll spend less on the welfare system, but the safety net will be there for those in true need. And we'll spend less on national security, but the dollars will buy us more. And the reason for all that is because we've been spending our money STUPIDLY. But that's going to stop under Romney. The guy knows how to squeeze a buck and get the most out of it.

 

[Lakhota]

Guess what boys 'n girls... When Romney is president, EVERYBODY is gonna get a hair cut. There's not going to BE any sacred cows, and ya know why? ...It's because at 16 TRILLION dollars, we can no longer afford any.

We'll spend less on the welfare system, but the safety net will be there for those in true need. And we'll spend less on national security, but the dollars will buy us more. And the reason for all that is because we've been spending our money STUPIDLY. But that's going to stop under Romney. The guy knows how to squeeze a buck and get the most out of it.

Yeah, right. Just like he did as governor...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rnor-so-why-would-he-be-a-good-president.html

 

[Murf76]

Guess what boys 'n girls... When Romney is president, EVERYBODY is gonna get a hair cut. There's not going to BE any sacred cows, and ya know why? ...It's because at 16 TRILLION dollars, we can no longer afford any.

We'll spend less on the welfare system, but the safety net will be there for those in true need. And we'll spend less on national security, but the dollars will buy us more. And the reason for all that is because we've been spending our money STUPIDLY. But that's going to stop under Romney. The guy knows how to squeeze a buck and get the most out of it.

Yeah, right. Just like he did as governor...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rnor-so-why-would-he-be-a-good-president.html

As governor, his state achieved FULL EMPLOYMENT. So, yeah... "just like he did as governor".

 

[Againsheila]

Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?

taxes on those making less than $75,000 a year. Then the money would go back into the economy, creating jobs.

 

[Lakhota]

Guess what boys 'n girls... When Romney is president, EVERYBODY is gonna get a hair cut. There's not going to BE any sacred cows, and ya know why? ...It's because at 16 TRILLION dollars, we can no longer afford any.

We'll spend less on the welfare system, but the safety net will be there for those in true need. And we'll spend less on national security, but the dollars will buy us more. And the reason for all that is because we've been spending our money STUPIDLY. But that's going to stop under Romney. The guy knows how to squeeze a buck and get the most out of it.

Yeah, right. Just like he did as governor...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rnor-so-why-would-he-be-a-good-president.html

As governor, his state achieved FULL EMPLOYMENT. So, yeah... "just like he did as governor".

Full employment? He was 48th in job creation. Damn, that's funny...

 

[Murf76]

That uppity bitch is as snotty as her husband.

and your filled with hate, at least shes telling people america needs to cut back, you are still just full of hate.

Yep,

That ought to get the Tea Party on board.

And a lot of fiscally conservatve democrats.

Working towards balancing the budget.

Of course, we are going to have to raise taxes...everybody knows it.

Not one American should be asked to pay a dime more until federal spending is under control. And after that happens, yeah... if we need to raise taxes a little more the reasoning behind it will be clear. Really though, revenues have tripled since 1965, and that's in adjusted dollars. But spending has more than quintupled. We won't know what we're looking at until we get the spending down where it needs to be.

 

[Murf76]

Yeah, right. Just like he did as governor...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rnor-so-why-would-he-be-a-good-president.html

As governor, his state achieved FULL EMPLOYMENT. So, yeah... "just like he did as governor".

Full employment? He was 48th in job creation. Damn, that's funny...

Yes. Full employment. That means less than 5%. MA was at 4.6% when Romney left. So really, job creation wasn't a factor.

 

[Lakhota]

■The ad claims Romney “reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.” Yes — Massachusetts’ unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent under Romney. But — the state’s unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national rate when he took office, and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.

FactCheck.org : Romney’s Jobs Record Is Best (or Worst)

 

[IHBF]

Lakhota what would you cut to balance the budget?

I would cut the defense budget in HALF.

I would allow Bush tax cuts to expire.

People wouldn't like that.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Barb]

I do not doubt for a moment that should Romney attain the oval office, that millions of Americans will immediately regret it.

It will take the right wingers (who are not insiders) a while longer to realize that Romney'd plans aren't working, either.

But eventually even they'll get it.

They will, but up the arse, and they'll pretend to like it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why, because she is telling the truth? There ARE going to be cuts in programs that people will not like, PERIOD. It does not matter who wins. Our financial future cannot exist on this current path by the rosiest estimates. I guess that you don’t actually want to hear the truth though. You would rather listen to Obama tell you that everything will be just fine if we can simply get those evil rich people to pay for everything.


Sorry, some of us are not idiots and actually want to hear the TRUTH.

Oh, so you are interested in the truth?

Try this truth on for size:

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

The Fiscal Solutions Tour is the latest Peter G. Peterson Foundation effort to rouse the public against deficits and the national debt — and in particular (though they manage to avoid saying so) to win support for measures that would impose drastic cuts on Social Security and Medicare. It features Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, former Comptroller General David Walker and the veteran economist Alice Rivlin, whose recent distinctions include serving on the Bowles-Simpson commission. They came to Austin on February 9 and (partly because Rivlin is an old friend) I went.

Mr. Bixby began by describing the public debt as “the defining issue of our time.” It is, he said, a question of “how big a debt we can have and what can we afford?” He did not explain why this is so. He did not, for instance, attempt to compare the debt to the financial crisis, to joblessness or foreclosures, nor to energy or climate change. Oddly none of those issues were actually mentioned by anyone, all evening long.

A notable feature of Bixby’s presentation were his charts. One of them showed clearly how the public deficit soared at the precise moment that the financial crisis struck in late 2008. The chart also shows how the Clinton surpluses had started to disappear in the recession of 2000. But Mr. Bixby seemed not to have noticed either event. Flashing this chart, he merely commented that “Congress took care” of the budget surplus. Still, the charts did show the facts — and in this respect they were the intellectual highpoint of the occasion.

A David Walker speech is always worth listening to with care, for Mr. Walker is a reliable and thorough enumerator of popular deficit-scare themes. Three of these in particular caught my attention on Friday.

To my surprise, Walker began on a disarming note: he acknowledged that the level of our national debt is not actually high. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. And to give more credit, the number Walker used, 63 percent, refers to debt held by the public, which is the correct construct — not the 90+ percent figure for gross debt, commonly seen in press reports and in comparisons with other countries. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

 

[editec]

Ann's right.

Assuming that no compromise on the budget manifests, the folks in the military are positively going to HATE the fact that they are REDUCED IN FORCE as the militaary budget is cut deeply..

And since the economy is going to further go down thanks to that austerity move, the folks who go from sucking those FEDERAL TEATS are going to have one hell of a hard time finding work in the civilian capitalist world their masters have crafted..

Romany and his ilk don't really care what happens to the people of the US, though.

So one must applaude Ann's honesty for pointing out what a forking mess her man is planning for this nation.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ann's right.

Assuming that no compromise on the budget manifests, the folks in the military are positively going to HATE the fact that they are REDUCED IN FORCE as the militaary budget is cut deeply..

And since the economy is going to further go down thanks to that austerity move, the folks who go from sucking those FEDERAL TEATS are going to have one hell of a hard time finding work in the civilian capitalist world their masters have crafted..

Romany and his ilk don't really care what happens to the people of the US, though.

So one must applaude Ann's honesty for pointing out what a forking mess her man is planning for this nation.

.

What Bernanke Couldn't Quite Say

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke used his much-anticipated Friday speech at the Fed's annual end-of-summer conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo., to sound almost like the last Keynesian.

As he put it: "Monetary policy cannot achieve by itself what a broader and more balanced set of economic policies might achieve; in particular, it cannot neutralize the fiscal and financial risks that the country faces."

His point was that the rest of the government had to do some heavy lifting, too.

"It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. However, policymakers should take care to avoid a sharp near-term fiscal contraction that could endanger the recovery."

Translation: we will never get a strong recovery just by relying on cheap interest rates. We need a more sensible fiscal policy.

A Federal Reserve chairman is not supposed to address such topics, because taxing and spending are not part of his franchise. But to the extent that the failure to stimulate the economy has put unrealistic pressure on the Fed to work miracles, fiscal policy is necessarily the Fed's business.

What Bernanke hinted at, but couldn't quite say, was this:

While we need to bring deficits down over the long term, for the next few years we need more stimulus, not less. It isn't just a matter of avoiding "the fiscal cliff," as Bernanke warned. We need far more government spending.

The closest Bernanke could come to saying this was by expressing polite concern about fiscal "headwinds." As he put it: "Notwithstanding some recent improvement in tax revenues, state and local governments still face tight budget situations and continue to cut real spending and employment."

Translation: government should not be cutting back in a deep recession; it should be making up for the shortfall in private purchasing power.

In the 1930s, when the United States faced a far deeper depression, we built the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, the George Washington Bridge and the first modern highway systems; we constructed and renovated thousands of public schools, fire stations and post offices; planted a billion trees; laid 20,000 miles of water mains; electrified rural America and undertook countless other public works projects. And when the early projects were not sufficient to end the Great Depression, we doubled down.

This time around, President Obama in February 2009 persuaded Congress to enact a $787 billion stimulus program that his own advisers considered inadequate, but one that did a lot of good -- for two years. Then nearly all of the stimulus spending petered out. Of the total, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that $718 billion was spent by 2011. And by 2011, of course, Republicans controlled the House so no further stimulus was politically possible.

Today, there is so much public infrastructure in disarray, such a crying need to move the nation to a sustainable energy path, and so great a need for the jobs that could be created by large-scale public investments that more stimulus spending should be a no-brainer. But this alternative is not even being seriously debated. Rather Democratic paths to deficit reduction are jousting with Republican paths.

So here is Ben Bernanke -- a Republican, first appointed by George W. Bush, a huge admirer of Milton Friedman -- saying what no other Republican and too few Democrats are willing to say: The problem is not the deficit, but the risk that Congress will overreact to the deficit.