Mitt Romney against the debt deal

[Avatar4321]

Shocking, the financial wizard in the race disagrees with crappy deal on the table. Is anyone here actually surprised that a man who made his living correctly bad financial and business plans is opposed to this?

Could it simply be that this is a really bad deal?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it is a bad deal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shocking, the financial wizard in the race disagrees with crappy deal on the table. Is anyone here actually surprised that a man who made his living correctly bad financial and business plans is opposed to this?

Could it simply be that this is a really bad deal?

Raising the debt ceiling was not a bad idea. And Romney knows it. He's merely positioning himself in the not-Obama stance on this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fake Jake strikes again. Jake, your avatar should be wearing an Obama 2012 t-shirt...with the caption reading "C'mon guy's...I'm a conservative...I swear..."

Missourian, I don't care if a wing nut like you believes me or not. What you believe is immaterial to me. But your attitude is exactly that of a socialist: you can't think.

Romney, maybe Perry, has a chance in 2012. Palin, Bachmann, and that string of inanities are jokes will be beaten like a drum. If you want Obamacare forever, go for the far, far right.

You are a stupid fuck, you mention Romeny as if you support him and make as if you don't want obamacare. Maybe you don't maybe you want romenycare.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I still don't get it. How is making more debt going to get you out of debt?

Except raising the debt ceiling isn't making more debt.

U.S. GAO - Debt Limit: Delays Create Debt Management Challenges and Increase Uncertainty in the Treasury Market

The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.

What an absolute crock of shit. If you have to borrow money to pay the interest on your debt, then you will also incur debt for the money you borrowed. Reality check please.

I am glad to see I am not the only one that see's it that way

 

[Sallow]

Mitt Romney against the debt deal - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

Mitt Romney issues his most explicit statement today on any form of debt-ceiling deal:

“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.”

Mitt Romney made a poor choice by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. What I find even more amazing is he talks about a budget that is balanced but at the same time doesn't want to put defense cuts on the table. His position puts him on par with Bachmann on this issue.

This is not going to win him over many Conservative voters who don't trust him at all to begin with. What this will do however is draw more support to Huntsman who did support the deal from the moderates who support Romney.

It's a safe position right now..and probably necessary. He's still going to have a rough fight in the primary especially if Perry gets into it.

 

[chikenwing]

Thats exactly what it is. Why do you need to get more credit unless you intend to barrow more money?

Why do you need good credit at all is essentially what you are asking. Defaulting on our financial obligations would bring about a second economic recession. Higher interest rates for everyone on just about everything is only one of many things that would be the result of not raising the debt ceiling.

Don't bother acting like you seem to understand this issue when you clearly don't.

They just voted themselves the ability to spend more of our money,and we don't understand???

Your ether real young or have been living in a cave if you think raising the debt ceiling will not raise our debt,there are more on the establishment side,you know the ones that have brought us to this point,then ones that want real change not lip service. If we keep their feet to the fire sorta like last fall,ya just might see some change,not holding my breath.

 

[Sallow]

Thats exactly what it is. Why do you need to get more credit unless you intend to barrow more money?

Why do you need good credit at all is essentially what you are asking. Defaulting on our financial obligations would bring about a second economic recession. Higher interest rates for everyone on just about everything is only one of many things that would be the result of not raising the debt ceiling.

Don't bother acting like you seem to understand this issue when you clearly don't.

They just voted themselves the ability to spend more of our money,and we don't understand???

Your ether real young or have been living in a cave if you think raising the debt ceiling will not raise our debt,there are more on the establishment side,you know the ones that have brought us to this point,then ones that want real change not lip service. If we keep their feet to the fire sorta like last fall,ya just might see some change,not holding my breath.

Yeah..you don't.

Debt Ceiling has nothing to do with future spending.

The money is already spent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do you need good credit at all is essentially what you are asking. Defaulting on our financial obligations would bring about a second economic recession. Higher interest rates for everyone on just about everything is only one of many things that would be the result of not raising the debt ceiling.

Don't bother acting like you seem to understand this issue when you clearly don't.

They just voted themselves the ability to spend more of our money,and we don't understand???

Your ether real young or have been living in a cave if you think raising the debt ceiling will not raise our debt,there are more on the establishment side,you know the ones that have brought us to this point,then ones that want real change not lip service. If we keep their feet to the fire sorta like last fall,ya just might see some change,not holding my breath.

Yeah..you don't.

Debt Ceiling has nothing to do with future spending.

The money is already spent.

Why raise it?

 

[JoeB131]

No, Joe, you are a far right extremist reactionary. You are not a man of principle. You do not admit your agenda. We have shown you where you are wrong all the time, so your integrity is in question, too, just like The Rabbi. He is a big statist guy who wants to outlaw abortion and universal marriage and all sorts of things, but he pretend to be small government.

The ironic thing is that you think you can lie away a lie.

Fake Jake, please point out posts where I have said I am against abortion rights... or Gay marriage, for that matter. You'll find that I've stated that while I personally dislike abortion, I think it should be legal because outlawing is a practical impossibility, and that I have no problem with Gay Marriage because, generally I kind of don't care. (I just don't think it should not be handed out by judges, but by a mandate from the people.)

My point is that - and I know that this is hard for you to understand - is that I care more about a person's LEADERSHIP abilities than where he sits on the political spectrum. Heck, I could vote for me, and have a guy who I agree with on everything, but I don't know if I'd make a good president. I have a hard time selling my co-workers on where to go for lunch.

Perry has proven himself an effective leader. Mitt hasn't. Mitt let himself get rolled by the MA Legislature, Ted Kennedy and anyone else who came along.

I would rather have a guy whom I agree with on 70% of things who will get results than a guy I agree with 100% of the time and gets nothing accomplished.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SnowJoe, I was talking about The Rabbi and stated you acted much as he does. Don't like it, then don't do it. Or read more carefully.

I understand your position on universl marriage and abortion, and it is good you made it clear.

I prefer Romney over Perry, but will vote for Perry if the convention chooses him.

 

[JoeB131]

NYC- I want to give you a shout out because unlike Fake Jake, you are honest about who you are and attempt to counter an argument. Well done!

Who , to the right of Dole, could have beaten Clinton in 96?

I think Phil Gramhn could have made a showing, as could have Steve Forbes. I think that the problem was that because the shennanigans in New Hampshire, where Democrats voted for Patzenfuhrer Buchanan, and the GOP establishment panicked and got behind Dole, forgetting he was a three time loser.

Who, to the right of McCain, could have beaten Obama in '08?

I think Mike Huckabee could have made a very good showing. Clearly more charismatic than McCain, could make more of a connection to the common man. I think he put the Christian before the Conservative, and that scared a lot of the GOP establishment, who probably don't believe in talking snakes any more than I do, and I'm an atheist.

why did you leave Goldwater out of your examples

1) That was almost 50 years ago. I was TWO when Goldwater ran, and I'm freakin' old.

2) Let's look at the advantages LBJ had running against Goldwater. First, the economy was really good (5.1% unemployment, lower than 1960), he was running on the mantle of a martyred president, and Goldwater himself was an awful candidate. And while the Liberal Mainstream Media was completely in the tank for LBJ (as opposed then they turned on the guy four years later), most Americans didn't realize how biased they were.

Not to mention to the 2 wins by the relatively moderate Nixon?

NIxon? Moderate? Really? Is this what you are claiming now?

Again, a lot of the same problems. It falls well outside the scope of my argument.

But take a look at his 1968 win, Nixon only won by less than a million votes, with George Wallace taking 10 million usually Democratic votes out of the picture, finishing the rupture between conservative southern Democrats and their liberal nothern brethren. So really, I can eliminate 1968 and 1964, because it was before the great realignment caused by the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, etc.

In 1972, Nixon ran as a conservative, without a doubt. He railed against the hippies and the draft dodgers and described a "Great Silent Majority" who would rise up against the party of "Amnesty, Acid and Abortion".

 

[JakeStarkey]

See, Joe, I knew you could do it!

 

[JoeB131]

SnowJoe, I was talking about The Rabbi and stated you acted much as he does. Don't like it, then don't do it. Or read more carefully.

I understand your position on universl marriage and abortion, and it is good you made it clear.

I prefer Romney over Perry, but will vote for Perry if the convention chooses him.

Guy, like I said, I think you are one of two things.

1) A Mormon, because they are the only people who are sincere in their support of the Android from Kolob.

2) A liberal pretending to be a conservative, supporting the weakest candidate there is.

I'm very straight forward about who I am and what I think.

And you have yet to INTELLECTUALLY argue against my premise- that real conservatives win, moderate RINOs Lose. Every time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not any type of Latter Day Saint at all. I am a lifetime Republican who thinks the move far right since 1980 is a threat to the country and the Constitution. And I will argue INTELLECTUALLY when your premise WITH evidence suggests that I should. But you are making an effort, and I applaud that.

 

[JoeB131]

I am not any type of Latter Day Saint at all. I am a lifetime Republican who thinks the move far right since 1980 is a threat to the country and the Constitution. And I will argue INTELLECTUALLY when your premise WITH evidence suggests that I should. But you are making an effort, and I applaud that.

Whenever I hear a so-called Republican claim the party has "moved too far to the right", I know I'm talking to a liberal. It's a tell. Somehow, I doubt you voted for Ford, Nixon or Goldwater any more than you voted for Reagan or the Bushes.


Actually, I might have had more respect for you if you were a Mormon. At least those clowns can blame cult brainwashing.

Also- I SLAM DUNKED my premise- pointed out that RINO's lose, Conservatives win. Every time it's tried.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The tell is that you won't admit that you have moved beyond conservatisim to a position of reactionary silliness. I know I am talking to a loon. I voted for Ford, Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Younger once.

I could care less if you have respect for me, because that would be me wanting the respect of the unworthy.

Step off, reactionary.

But will you vote for Romney if he gets the nomination?

 

[JoeB131]

But will you vote for Romney if he gets the nomination?

No. I will not vote for a Mormon. Ever.

I will not vote for a member of a racist cult started by a two-bit con man whose goal in life was to have sex with 14 year old girls. It's the same as voting for a Branch Davidian.

(The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? Original and Extra Crispy!)

If Romney believes in that crazy nonsense, I'm certainly not going to trust him with nuclear weapons. His religion disqualifies him completely, IMO.

There's a whole lot of other disqualifiers, too. The fact he rails against illegals when the pollsters tell him to, but hires them to do the gardening. The fact he got rich destroying working folks jobs.



Duly noted, you STILL haven't made an intellectual challenge to my premise. SO I can see why you go for the personal attacks.

Because you can't and you aren't man enough to admit it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But will you vote for Romney if he gets the nomination?

No. I will not vote for a Mormon. Ever. I will not vote for a member of a racist cult started by a two-bit con man whose goal in life was to have sex with 14 year old girls. It's the same as voting for a Branch Davidian. (The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? Original and Extra Crispy!) If Romney believes in that crazy nonsense, I'm certainly not going to trust him with nuclear weapons. His religion disqualifies him completely, IMO. There's a whole lot of other disqualifiers, too. The fact he rails against illegals when the pollsters tell him to, but hires them to do the gardening. The fact he got rich destroying working folks jobs. Duly noted, you STILL haven't made an intellectual challenge to my premise. SO I can see why you go for the personal attacks.
Because you can't and you aren't man enough to admit it.

You haven't made a supported premise, Joe. And your comments about Mormons border on the insane. You truly do not know our constitutional, social, or religious history in America.

You are merely a reactionary. Goldwater lost because he only had the right. Bachmann and Palin will only have the right. Perry might have a chance. Romney will have a chance.

But your way is the path to defeat, and this party won't follow it.

 

[JoeB131]

[You haven't made a supported premise, Joe.

Yes, I have. And even if I hadn't, you'd have no problem refuting it. You can't. And you're not man enough to admit you can't. Which is sad.

And your comments about Mormons border on the insane. You truly do not know our constitutional, social, or religious history in America.

No, it's a value judgement. If a candidate said he believed in Dread C'Thulhu and would sacrifice virgins until the Great Old Ones made the economy better, we wouldn't be saying, "Well, he has a constitutional right to believe crazy horsecrap, we should respect that!" We'd throw a net over that guy.

If you believe GOd lives on Kolob, and you need to father as many kids as you can so you can rule as a God in your own world in the afterlife (this is what Mormons ACTUALLY BELIEVE), then I have to consider that you are quite possibly a bit nuts and maybe I don't want you anywhere near nuclear weapons.

He has a right to believe crazy stuff. I have a right to consider that a disqualifying factor when considering a president.

"You are merely a reactionary. Goldwater lost because he only had the right. ."

Goldwater lost at a time when it wasn't as clearly defined as it is not. JFK opposed abortion, cut taxes, built up the military, he'd be considered conservative by today's standards. You are applying modern differences to 50 years ago, and it's laughable.

Bachmann and Palin will only have the right. Perry might have a chance. Romney will have a chance

Romney will have no chance because 20% of Republicans won't vote for a Mormon cultist.
And frankly, the guy sucked in 2008, what makes you think he's going to get any better now? He lost to Huckabee and McCain, for crying out loud.

But your way is the path to defeat, and this party won't follow it.

Judging by what I've seen, more Republicans agree with me than you..