Did Mitt say

[hortysir]

Two words, Biker,


Joe Biden

Really? Even with Ryan's budget being protested by his own church (Catholics)?

at least he had a budget unlike you idiot democrats, you haven't had a budget in three years.

Tides foundation didn't write one for them so they don;t know where to begin

 

[McDowell's]

Apparently that respect ends at womb door and the moral obligation that We, The People are under educate our collective spawn.

Shortsighted Education Cuts in New Ryan Budget a Giant Step Backward

There's a moral obligation to fund education at the federal level? You have a warped definition of morality.

There's a moral obligation for We, The People to manage educating our Future on some level. Under current circumstances, cutting funding without a plan to transition the responsibility back to the states is short-sighted and stupid.

How many people could we get off welfare and out of prison if We, The Peeps used education as a tool to find something for every one of Mom's Little Red, White & Blue Bastards to do that's productive?

Apparently macro-managing 'education' from the top down isn't working, but the answer isn't to cut the funding and ass-u-me that education, as an industry, will land on its feet and serve the next generation effectively and efficiently.

Step one is not slashing funding, step one is fair and simple federal taxes. Only then will the states know what kind of a tax burden they can impose on their local economies to fund 'education' in the various regions.

Fair and simple federal taxes will also strip a LOT of corruptible power from congress in the form of favoritism through complexity and paperwork.

The federal corporate tax should be $0.

The states should be free to use tax incentives and disincentives to attract and repel human industrial activity. The People who live in the shadow are ultimately responsible for the messes that corporations leave behind.

Again, there is no moral obligation on the federal government to fund education. Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

 

[JoeB131]

"Welcome the next 'President' of the United States..."?

Freudian Slip...

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself....

 

[L.K.Eder]

My point is; if Obama can get elected with a dead weight like Biden, Romney is a shoo-in


BTW.....it's budget PROPOSAL.
If the dem-bulbs don't like it either amend it or......here's a trick......
Submit One of Their OWN!!!!!

good idea, try that with health care overhaul, instead of promising to repeal it.

replace it, duh, if you don't like it, or amend it.

I'm cool with that.

Didn't Republicans want in on the structuring of the ACA but were locked out, though?

But I do think that time could be better spent by going section-by-section through it and modifying it rather than scrapping the whole thing.
I like the pre-existing clause, for example.

i have no idea if they were locked out. i know that in the past the ideas were supported by or originated from conservative think tanks.

so, from a conservative point of view, it can't be all bad.

and if romney ran on "i will amend health care and make it better and more efficient" instead of throwing red meat around, i could actually take the guy seriously. he needs to find another hobby.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Maybe the reason Mittens called Ryan the next president is because he's going to retroactively retire about 2 years into the job.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe the reason Mittens called Ryan the next president is because he's going to retroactively retire about 2 years into the job.

That way none of the bad stuff will really be his fault. Maybe he can claim he was working on the Olympics down in Rio.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Maybe the reason Mittens called Ryan the next president is because he's going to retroactively retire about 2 years into the job.

the palin-romney combo! very popular

 

[Politico]

Seems to be some kind of common brain fart.

 

[AVG-JOE]

whenever someone says "We, the People"

i start checking for my wallet

Good advice!

 

[AVG-JOE]

There's a moral obligation to fund education at the federal level? You have a warped definition of morality.

There's a moral obligation for We, The People to manage educating our Future on some level. Under current circumstances, cutting funding without a plan to transition the responsibility back to the states is short-sighted and stupid.

How many people could we get off welfare and out of prison if We, The Peeps used education as a tool to find something for every one of Mom's Little Red, White & Blue Bastards to do that's productive?

Apparently macro-managing 'education' from the top down isn't working, but the answer isn't to cut the funding and ass-u-me that education, as an industry, will land on its feet and serve the next generation effectively and efficiently.

Step one is not slashing funding, step one is fair and simple federal taxes. Only then will the states know what kind of a tax burden they can impose on their local economies to fund 'education' in the various regions.

Fair and simple federal taxes will also strip a LOT of corruptible power from congress in the form of favoritism through complexity and paperwork.

The federal corporate tax should be $0.

The states should be free to use tax incentives and disincentives to attract and repel human industrial activity. The People who live in the shadow are ultimately responsible for the messes that corporations leave behind.

Again, there is no moral obligation on the federal government to fund education. Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

Truth is subjective. We're discussing our opinions here.

My opinion is that some level of government should be obligated to see to it that the 'education industry' serves the educational needs of the country in an efficient and effective manner. Just like I think that there is a place for government in making certain that the 'defense industry' is effectively securing us.

Beer?

 

[McDowell's]

There's a moral obligation for We, The People to manage educating our Future on some level. Under current circumstances, cutting funding without a plan to transition the responsibility back to the states is short-sighted and stupid.

How many people could we get off welfare and out of prison if We, The Peeps used education as a tool to find something for every one of Mom's Little Red, White & Blue Bastards to do that's productive?

Apparently macro-managing 'education' from the top down isn't working, but the answer isn't to cut the funding and ass-u-me that education, as an industry, will land on its feet and serve the next generation effectively and efficiently.

Step one is not slashing funding, step one is fair and simple federal taxes. Only then will the states know what kind of a tax burden they can impose on their local economies to fund 'education' in the various regions.

Fair and simple federal taxes will also strip a LOT of corruptible power from congress in the form of favoritism through complexity and paperwork.

The federal corporate tax should be $0.

The states should be free to use tax incentives and disincentives to attract and repel human industrial activity. The People who live in the shadow are ultimately responsible for the messes that corporations leave behind.

Again, there is no moral obligation on the federal government to fund education. Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

Truth is subjective. We're discussing our opinions here.

My opinion is that some level of government should be obligated to see to it that the 'education industry' serves the educational needs of the country in an efficient and effective manner. Just like I think that there is a place for government in making certain that the 'defense industry' is effectively securing us.

Beer?

Should be and is are two different things. One is debatable and we can agree to disagree as long as you have some Dos Equis Amber lying about.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah, he did, and corrected himself. He made the same mistake obama did when he introduced Joe Biden.

I did not know that. Funny ******* coincidence!

Thye are saying that Romney is no better than Obama.