Romney finally admits I was right...

[clevergirl]

Okay, that's more than enough excuse, but the reality is, people aren't spending, so there's no point in investing in new products or plants... it's just that simple.

And to say that the "Certainty Fairy" is going to waive her wand when the Weird Mormon Robot get elected is just silly. Especialy since he pretty much admitted he isn't going to cut government spending all that much.

The only weird robot is you and your tired mantra. You could just post (blah blah burp) and trust we all know to what you are referring- you know, change it up a bit from your weird robotic diatribe.

What he stated was that he would not cut all at once- like DUH. Cutting programs and slowing their growth must occur over time...

As to market fears that are hampering investment- those are realities. Neither business or private investors are going to risk their capital, if they think it's gonna be taken or lost.

Romney offers a new direction then what the current president has on the table.

So, a private sector company that does a large chunk of business with the government might not be hiring now because of the uncertainty of whether or not they'll have that business if Romney and the Republicans take over,

and make big cuts in government spending...

Are you implying that large contractors doing business the government are the majority of private business owners and investors???

DOH~

 

[JoeB131]

[

The only weird robot is you and your tired mantra. You could just post (blah blah burp) and trust we all know to what you are referring- you know, change it up a bit from your weird robotic diatribe.

What he stated was that he would not cut all at once- like DUH. Cutting programs and slowing their growth must occur over time...

As to market fears that are hampering investment- those are realities. Neither business or private investors are going to risk their capital, if they think it's gonna be taken or lost.

Romney offers a new direction then what the current president has on the table.

What new direction?

Everything he did is exactly what Bush did for 8 years, and we all saw how well that turned out.

The Europeans tried what Romney is suggesting, and the Austerity shit don't work. Never did. We've never gotten out of a recession without a big burst in government spending to prime the pump.

 

[clevergirl]

[

The only weird robot is you and your tired mantra. You could just post (blah blah burp) and trust we all know to what you are referring- you know, change it up a bit from your weird robotic diatribe.

What he stated was that he would not cut all at once- like DUH. Cutting programs and slowing their growth must occur over time...

As to market fears that are hampering investment- those are realities. Neither business or private investors are going to risk their capital, if they think it's gonna be taken or lost.

Romney offers a new direction then what the current president has on the table.

What new direction?

Everything he did is exactly what Bush did for 8 years, and we all saw how well that turned out.

The Europeans tried what Romney is suggesting, and the Austerity shit don't work. Never did. We've never gotten out of a recession without a big burst in government spending to prime the pump.

There has already been more then a big pump priming burst in government spending- and it failed. What Europe did/is trying to do does not equate to us for a a couple obvious reasons: We are not tied to bankrupted nations and depending on everyone to get on board with bailing them out- though we do have states that could negatively impact our overall growth (CA). Likewise, there is no proof of failure, only of caving in (French election) Germany, seen as the most stable nation in the EU, continues to push forward. The fact that people become addicted to their freebies does not mean you keep them coming, especially when you know they are bad for you (government entitlements).

Romney, apart from a more conservative anti progressive world view then Obama's, is not Bush- but I did read that espousing that notion is the next "scare tactic" in the DNC's bag of scary spoofs i.e. granny over the cliff-talk about robotic and predictable.

You, who supposedly despises weird robots, sure does know how to play one on message boards...

 

[NYcarbineer]

telling how the OP answered every other challenge but the one that shows he took only 'sound bites' of Romney's comments and ran with them, like the libtards accuse conservatives of doing with Obama.

perhaps the idiot who started this thread should have read the transcript of the interview, instead of relying on a summary and partisan diatribe against Romney.

The Page by Mark Halperin | The Complete Romney Interview Transcript

Halperin: I want to get to a lot of those, and let’s go to spending, which is a big thing for you, one of the bases of comparison – you say you’d cut spending a lot more than the President has. And like most governors I know, you can get down in the detail. A lot of people don’t know that about you; you can really get your arms around a policy issue and go deep, so let’s talk about spending. You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget. So I’m not saying I’m going to come up with ideas five or ten years from now that get us to a balanced budget. Instead I’m going to take action immediately by eliminating programs like Obamacare, which become more and more expensive down the road – by eliminating them, we get to a balanced budget. And I’d do it in a way that does not have a huge reduction in the first year, but instead has an increasing reduction as time goes on, and given the growth of the economy, you don’t have a reduction in the overall scale of the GDP. I don’t want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget. I’d like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline.

makes perfect sense. unless you're a partisan nutweeb like the OP.

The estimated 2013 budget outlay is 3.8 trillion.

The Ryan budget 2013 outlay is 2.9 trillion.

That's close to a 1 trillion difference.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Will that throw us into depression??????

 

[JoeB131]

There has already been more then a big pump priming burst in government spending- and it failed. What Europe did/is trying to do does not equate to us for a a couple obvious reasons: We are not tied to bankrupted nations and depending on everyone to get on board with bailing them out- though we do have states that could negatively impact our overall growth (CA). Likewise, there is no proof of failure, only of caving in (French election) Germany, seen as the most stable nation in the EU, continues to push forward. The fact that people become addicted to their freebies does not mean you keep them coming, especially when you know they are bad for you (government entitlements).

Romney, apart from a more conservative anti progressive world view then Obama's, is not Bush- but I did read that espousing that notion is the next "scare tactic" in the DNC's bag of scary spoofs i.e. granny over the cliff-talk about robotic and predictable.

You, who supposedly despises weird robots, sure does know how to play one on message boards...

Okay, personal insults aside (usually proof you are losing the argument), you start out your argument with a statement that Stimulus was really big enough or that it failed.

It clearly didn't fail in that unemployment was arrested and started going down.

Nor was it that big compared to the war spending Bush did to get us out of the 2001 recession or that Reagan did to get us out of the 1982 recession. 300 Billion a year in a 15 trillion dollar economy is a drop in the bucket.

Second, and here's the more important point. Because of our federal system, while Federal spending increased, state spending decreased. The reduction of state payrolls, especially in states where Tea Party types too over, balanced out gains in the private sector that followed when the pump was primed.

Both sides deserve their share of the blame, especially over the largely unnecessary budget showdown last year that downgraded our national credit score.

 

[jgarden]

Is the OP really so stupid he doesn't see the difference between cutting spending over time, and cutting it all at once?

(that was a rhetorical question. I already know how stupid the OP is).

"Conservative" is also making one huge assumption - that the US economy WOULD gradually improve under a Romney Administration.

That's an assumption that the Republicans currently refuse to conceed to an Obama Administration, BUT apparently expect the Democratics to extend it to them were the situation reversed!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...when I said, many times in the past, that cutting spending was a job killer, not a job creator:

In his inteview with Mark Halperin, the following exchange occcurred:

Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%.

That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

Romney

As Limbaugh likes to say...

...See? I told you so.

Romney believes that cutting all that spending that you people have so much fun BLAMING Obama for,

WOULD THROW US INTO A DEPRESSION!!

(and this YOUR guy, not me, talking now, let's not forget)

He said you can't cut 1 trillion in year 1

So you favor Obama historic deficit as stimulative?

He said cutting 1 trillion in one year would lower GDP by 5%.

Romney is saying the deficit is stimulative. I've said deficit spending is stimulative a zillion times,

including half a dozen times in my own quotes that I posted below. Go read them.

And, as I have said another zillion times:

I favor making people pay for the government they get, when they get it.

No he is not. He is saying that, by definition, cutting spending by by $1 trillion will decrease the GDP by 5% and that that is the textbook definition of a recession. The problem here is in how GDP is figured and the definition of a recession, coupled with the fact that Romney is an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it would.
You have to get jobs back first.
Gov. Spending restraints require lay offs of government workers, they then need to find private sector jobs.

Except the private sector isn't hiring, that's the point.

Private investors are sitting on two trillion dollars. They aren't investing it because there's no consumer demand.

Funny, Obama keeps claiming that the private sector is hiring.

 

[clevergirl]

There has already been more then a big pump priming burst in government spending- and it failed. What Europe did/is trying to do does not equate to us for a a couple obvious reasons: We are not tied to bankrupted nations and depending on everyone to get on board with bailing them out- though we do have states that could negatively impact our overall growth (CA). Likewise, there is no proof of failure, only of caving in (French election) Germany, seen as the most stable nation in the EU, continues to push forward. The fact that people become addicted to their freebies does not mean you keep them coming, especially when you know they are bad for you (government entitlements).

Romney, apart from a more conservative anti progressive world view then Obama's, is not Bush- but I did read that espousing that notion is the next "scare tactic" in the DNC's bag of scary spoofs i.e. granny over the cliff-talk about robotic and predictable.

You, who supposedly despises weird robots, sure does know how to play one on message boards...

Okay, personal insults aside (usually proof you are losing the argument), you start out your argument with a statement that Stimulus was really big enough or that it failed.

It clearly didn't fail in that unemployment was arrested and started going down.

Nor was it that big compared to the war spending Bush did to get us out of the 2001 recession or that Reagan did to get us out of the 1982 recession. 300 Billion a year in a 15 trillion dollar economy is a drop in the bucket.

Second, and here's the more important point. Because of our federal system, while Federal spending increased, state spending decreased. The reduction of state payrolls, especially in states where Tea Party types too over, balanced out gains in the private sector that followed when the pump was primed.

Both sides deserve their share of the blame, especially over the largely unnecessary budget showdown last year that downgraded our national credit score.

The "personal insult" stuff was a tongue in-cheek reprimand over your ridiculous "weird robot" insults at Romney- proof you have lost the argument? uh-huh

First of all, claiming unemployment has gone down in any real or significant way is BS- not when you have over six million persons who have completely dropped out of the stats you cannot claim victory- This is the very kind of "robotic" nonsense that persons from the left repeat- It just ain't that rosy dude!

States had no other choice but to reduce spending- In the states where conservatives have had their way-those economies are actually improving.

 

[JoeB131]

The "personal insult" stuff was a tongue in-cheek reprimand over your ridiculous "weird robot" insults at Romney- proof you have lost the argument? uh-huh

First of all, claiming unemployment has gone down in any real or significant way is BS- not when you have over six million persons who have completely dropped out of the stats you cannot claim victory- This is the very kind of "robotic" nonsense that persons from the left repeat- It just ain't that rosy dude!

States had no other choice but to reduce spending- In the states where conservatives have had their way-those economies are actually improving.

Since ROmney isn't here arguing, calling him a bad name (or Obama for that matter) isn't a personal insult. So Argument Fail #1.

Second, Weird Mormon Robot is hilarious. I guess they are waiting for the next batch of programming from Planet Kolob, but he might even appear human by November.

THird- Congrats on you "Learn to Lie with Statistics" starter kit, but the fact is, unemployment is not as bad as it was when he took office in 2009, and if you can't even be honest about that, I'm not sure that there's a point talking to you. I'm honest enough to admit, the stat isn't where it should be andh is leadership on the subject has been lacking.

Fourth- I vacation in Wisconsin. Nope, things are not better there at all. Sorry. There's a reason half the state wants to throw Walker out on his can.

 

[clevergirl]

The "personal insult" stuff was a tongue in-cheek reprimand over your ridiculous "weird robot" insults at Romney- proof you have lost the argument? uh-huh

First of all, claiming unemployment has gone down in any real or significant way is BS- not when you have over six million persons who have completely dropped out of the stats you cannot claim victory- This is the very kind of "robotic" nonsense that persons from the left repeat- It just ain't that rosy dude!

States had no other choice but to reduce spending- In the states where conservatives have had their way-those economies are actually improving.

Since ROmney isn't here arguing, calling him a bad name (or Obama for that matter) isn't a personal insult. So Argument Fail #1.

Second, Weird Mormon Robot is hilarious. I guess they are waiting for the next batch of programming from Planet Kolob, but he might even appear human by November.

THird- Congrats on you "Learn to Lie with Statistics" starter kit, but the fact is, unemployment is not as bad as it was when he took office in 2009, and if you can't even be honest about that, I'm not sure that there's a point talking to you. I'm honest enough to admit, the stat isn't where it should be and is leadership on the subject has been lacking.

Fourth- I vacation in Wisconsin. Nope, things are not better there at all. Sorry. There's a reason half the state wants to throw Walker out on his can.

Oh it's the "he's not here" excuse to take personal insult shots? Man talk about a desperate need to justify your actions. If you are unable to debate Romney's policies without attacking him personally, then I say you have to swallow your own pill i.e. losing the argument when you make it about name calling and personal attacks.... My intention was to use your stupid robot shit against you- Your overly defensive response is telling-


"Not as bad" is a real good argument to make the claim that Obama s massive record spending bills have worked <sarcasm> I posted a sourced link to stats that state more then six million persons have stopped looking for work and you call it a lie? Weak and lame Joe weak and lame....

Your vacationing in WS has exactly what to do with the actual facts- Oh yeah, democrats don't like Walker- gee wiz who'd a thunk it??? <more sarcasm>

 

[clevergirl]

Oh look Joe- WS labor stats and other economic indicators

Looks like things are trending up---- your intuitive vacation stats aside and all that~

 

[clevergirl]

Because it would.
You have to get jobs back first.
Gov. Spending restraints require lay offs of government workers, they then need to find private sector jobs.

Except the private sector isn't hiring, that's the point.

Private investors are sitting on two trillion dollars. They aren't investing it because there's no consumer demand.

Funny, Obama keeps claiming that the private sector is hiring.

Joe can't pick a spot and land on it- his robotic quips have confused him

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "personal insult" stuff was a tongue in-cheek reprimand over your ridiculous "weird robot" insults at Romney- proof you have lost the argument? uh-huh

First of all, claiming unemployment has gone down in any real or significant way is BS- not when you have over six million persons who have completely dropped out of the stats you cannot claim victory- This is the very kind of "robotic" nonsense that persons from the left repeat- It just ain't that rosy dude!

States had no other choice but to reduce spending- In the states where conservatives have had their way-those economies are actually improving.

Since ROmney isn't here arguing, calling him a bad name (or Obama for that matter) isn't a personal insult. So Argument Fail #1.

Second, Weird Mormon Robot is hilarious. I guess they are waiting for the next batch of programming from Planet Kolob, but he might even appear human by November.

THird- Congrats on you "Learn to Lie with Statistics" starter kit, but the fact is, unemployment is not as bad as it was when he took office in 2009, and if you can't even be honest about that, I'm not sure that there's a point talking to you. I'm honest enough to admit, the stat isn't where it should be andh is leadership on the subject has been lacking.

Fourth- I vacation in Wisconsin. Nope, things are not better there at all. Sorry. There's a reason half the state wants to throw Walker out on his can.

Is the reason that they actually don't?