Romney finally admits I was right...

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

Indeed...WE din't get here overnight...(100 years almost after WILSON)...

So Mitt is correct.

He is wrong, and I have the study to prove it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/225510-small-government-promotes-growth.html

 

[TruthSeeker56]

The ONLY difference between Barack Obama, his economic advisors, and Bernie Madoff, is that Bernie is IN PRISON.

The "nice" thing is that Bernie Madoff has internet access in prison, so he and Obama and the entire Obama administration read the words of "NYcarbineer" every day in this message board.

 

[Conservative]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...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)

Seems like you are missing a few ingredients from the recipe. We get it, you are special needs. Let's consider the relation between what we spend, and on who, for starters, Sparky. Spending, for spending's sake is a fail. Spending, that is an investment, with a probable return is another matter.

Plenty of ad hominem attacks, no substantive rebuttals. Business as usual from the USMB cons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And why is Romney now agreeing with me?

My past statements:

1. Jan. 2011 "Oh, and there's an 800 lb. gorilla of a reason the Republicans don't want to focus on the economy - they have no plan to help the economy. Period.

In fact, their plan, budget cutting, is a job killer." Romney now agrees with me.

2. Mar 2011 - "Basic economics means that if you are running a deficit, you are creating jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist if you weren't borrowing that money and then putting it into the economy.

The problem with Republicans is, they have constantly dishonestly said that cutting spending and balancing the budget would help the economy, including the jobs situation.

That is false. Eliminating the deficit, all or in part, by cutting spending, is a job killer.

It may be a good thing to do, but don't pretend it's a job creator." Romney now agrees with me.

3. Apr. 2011 - "Funny how no one on the conservative side wants to admit that their economic plan is a job killer, not a job creator." Romney now agrees with me

4. Jun 2011 - " Deficit spending boosts economic activity, yes. Cutting spending enough to cover the cost of lower taxes and balance the budget simply takes money out of the economy and reduces economic activity.

It might be the right thing to do, but it's a job killer not a job creator." Romney now agrees with me

5. The Rabbi says: "The multiplier effect of gov'r spending is non existent. Gov't spending does not create wealth."

and I reply: "Really? The government borrows a few hundred billion dollars and puts into defense contracts out there in the defense industry, buys planes, tanks, etc.,

no multiplier effect of all the paychecks that result from that? None?" Romney now thinks the Rabbi is full of shit, because Romney agrees with me.


6. Jul 2011 - " I've been trying for months to explain this to you people. Smaller government, whatever else it is, is a job killer, not a job creator." Romney now agrees with me

7. Jul 2011 - " Republicans have managed to entrench themselves around an insanely incongruous set of positions,

a. we can't have any tax increase of any sort because it would be a job killer, and,

b. we have to have massive cuts in federal spending.

The insanity is, of course, that tens of thousands of Americans in both the public and private sector will have to LOSE THEIR JOBS if massive cuts are made." Romney now agrees with me.

8. Sep 2011 - "We've pointed this out time after time to the ineducable Right on this forum.

Reducing the size of government means reducing the number of people who work for the government, or, who work in the private sector that does business with or gets business from the government.

The result is job loss, period. It may or may not be a good thing to make millions of government/government connected jobs disappear,

but pretending that shrinking government is a job creator, or even just pretending that it's not a job killer,

is idiocy." Romney now agrees with me.

9. And, for now, last but not least, just a few weeks ago:

" Austerity is a job killer, and job killers are vote killers, and vote killers are politician killers,

and no sane politician wants to commit political suicide."

And for CERTAIN, on that one, Romney now agrees with me.

god you're slow.....seriously....you ride the short bus?

You have a talent for saying nothing of substance. Are you rooming with Dr. House now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The funniest part here is that if Obama had made the same sort of statement, every rightwing moron in this thread would have been all over it.

 

[Buford]

And why is Romney now agreeing with me?

My past statements:

1. Jan. 2011 "Oh, and there's an 800 lb. gorilla of a reason the Republicans don't want to focus on the economy - they have no plan to help the economy. Period.

In fact, their plan, budget cutting, is a job killer." Romney now agrees with me.

2. Mar 2011 - "Basic economics means that if you are running a deficit, you are creating jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist if you weren't borrowing that money and then putting it into the economy.

The problem with Republicans is, they have constantly dishonestly said that cutting spending and balancing the budget would help the economy, including the jobs situation.

That is false. Eliminating the deficit, all or in part, by cutting spending, is a job killer.

It may be a good thing to do, but don't pretend it's a job creator." Romney now agrees with me.

3. Apr. 2011 - "Funny how no one on the conservative side wants to admit that their economic plan is a job killer, not a job creator." Romney now agrees with me

4. Jun 2011 - " Deficit spending boosts economic activity, yes. Cutting spending enough to cover the cost of lower taxes and balance the budget simply takes money out of the economy and reduces economic activity.

It might be the right thing to do, but it's a job killer not a job creator." Romney now agrees with me

5. The Rabbi says: "The multiplier effect of gov'r spending is non existent. Gov't spending does not create wealth."

and I reply: "Really? The government borrows a few hundred billion dollars and puts into defense contracts out there in the defense industry, buys planes, tanks, etc.,

no multiplier effect of all the paychecks that result from that? None?" Romney now thinks the Rabbi is full of shit, because Romney agrees with me.


6. Jul 2011 - " I've been trying for months to explain this to you people. Smaller government, whatever else it is, is a job killer, not a job creator." Romney now agrees with me

7. Jul 2011 - " Republicans have managed to entrench themselves around an insanely incongruous set of positions,

a. we can't have any tax increase of any sort because it would be a job killer, and,

b. we have to have massive cuts in federal spending.

The insanity is, of course, that tens of thousands of Americans in both the public and private sector will have to LOSE THEIR JOBS if massive cuts are made." Romney now agrees with me.

8. Sep 2011 - "We've pointed this out time after time to the ineducable Right on this forum.

Reducing the size of government means reducing the number of people who work for the government, or, who work in the private sector that does business with or gets business from the government.

The result is job loss, period. It may or may not be a good thing to make millions of government/government connected jobs disappear,

but pretending that shrinking government is a job creator, or even just pretending that it's not a job killer,

is idiocy." Romney now agrees with me.

9. And, for now, last but not least, just a few weeks ago:

" Austerity is a job killer, and job killers are vote killers, and vote killers are politician killers,

and no sane politician wants to commit political suicide."

And for CERTAIN, on that one, Romney now agrees with me.

god you're slow.....seriously....you ride the short bus?

You have a talent for saying nothing of substance. Are you rooming with Dr. House now?

Why is Obama accepting contributions from equity firms and then attacking what they do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...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)

Gotta love it.

Romney must have heard the 'we're all Keynesians now' voices in his head.

 

[hortysir]

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).

You mean, like, "with a scalpel instead of an axe"??

Where have I heard that before???????

 

[NYcarbineer]

So Romney says taking a trillion off the budget, which btw would bring the deficit down to about where it was when Bush left office,

would send us into DEPRESSION.

So, in effect, Romney is saying that the trillion of deficit spending that Obama gets routinely savaged for,

in fact, somewhere, every minute, some conservative is attacking Obama for that deficit,

ROMNEY IS SAYING that that trillion of deficit spending is all that's standing between us and DEPRESSION.

Isn't there one conservative here who wants to say he's insane???

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's not what conservatives say. Conservatives say the government can't create jobs. Conservatives say that government spending is crowding out the private sector, which would flourish if we just made huge cuts in that spending.

Well at least they used to say that, i guess until they got on the Romney bandwagon.

 

[The T]

god you're slow.....seriously....you ride the short bus?

You have a talent for saying nothing of substance. Are you rooming with Dr. House now?

Why is Obama accepting contributions from equity firms and then attacking what they do?

Because he is privately telling them that he cannot look like an idiot...and wait until the election is over so he can attack them MORE...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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).

Romney wants to put back the defense spending scheduled to be cut in the debt ceiling deal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

god you're slow.....seriously....you ride the short bus?

You have a talent for saying nothing of substance. Are you rooming with Dr. House now?

Why is Obama accepting contributions from equity firms and then attacking what they do?

Why are you in my thread?

 

[Conservative]

You have a talent for saying nothing of substance. Are you rooming with Dr. House now?

Why is Obama accepting contributions from equity firms and then attacking what they do?

Why are you in my thread?

Who died and made YOU thread God?

 

[Buford]

You have a talent for saying nothing of substance. Are you rooming with Dr. House now?

Why is Obama accepting contributions from equity firms and then attacking what they do?

Why are you in my thread?

Because I can.

Why can't you answer my question?

 

[Buford]

Why is Obama accepting contributions from equity firms and then attacking what they do?

Why are you in my thread?

Who died and made YOU thread God?

He's scared of me.

 

[Conservative]

...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)

Gotta love it.

Romney must have heard the 'we're all Keynesians now' voices in his head.

didn't someone already explain how you don't understand that phrase? Oh yes... ME.

 

[The T]

You have a talent for saying nothing of substance. Are you rooming with Dr. House now?

Why is Obama accepting contributions from equity firms and then attacking what they do?

Why are you in my thread?

WHY are YOU even here?

 

[Conservative]

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.