Romney last night: "The stimulus could have been better directed"

[California Girl]

Really?

Not "it shouldn't have even existed"?

So basically he supports the trillion dollar waste.

Why does this guy keep getting recycled each election?

This is the exact reason why the republican party is really just democrat lite.

How can anyone say - one way or the other - unless you provide the actual quote in context. I'm beyond bored with this ridiculous (and monumentally stupid) habit of taking one sentence and making it into a ******* issue.

Can we not have some actual intelligent debate on here - just for the craic of it?

 

[Paulie]

Really?

Not "it shouldn't have even existed"?

So basically he supports the trillion dollar waste.

Why does this guy keep getting recycled each election?

This is the exact reason why the republican party is really just democrat lite.

How can anyone say - one way or the other - unless you provide the actual quote in context. I'm beyond bored with this ridiculous (and monumentally stupid) habit of taking one sentence and making it into a ******* issue.

Can we not have some actual intelligent debate on here - just for the craic of it?

I'll admit that the exact words may differ SLIGHTLY, but what kind of context can there be on those words? The only right answer to a fiscal conservative is that there shouldn't be any stimulus spending at all. Providing context on stimulus redirection to different targets doesn't change the fact that the very idea is still completely out of step with fiscal conservatism.

 

[California Girl]

Really?

Not "it shouldn't have even existed"?

So basically he supports the trillion dollar waste.

Why does this guy keep getting recycled each election?

This is the exact reason why the republican party is really just democrat lite.

How can anyone say - one way or the other - unless you provide the actual quote in context. I'm beyond bored with this ridiculous (and monumentally stupid) habit of taking one sentence and making it into a ******* issue.

Can we not have some actual intelligent debate on here - just for the craic of it?

I'll admit that the exact words may differ SLIGHTLY, but what kind of context can there be on those words? The only right answer to a fiscal conservative is that there shouldn't be any stimulus spending at all. Providing context on stimulus redirection to different targets doesn't change the fact that the very idea is still completely out of step with fiscal conservatism.

Context is always vital to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. I had thought that was obvious. Goes to show, even I can be wrong.

If, for example, he was asked specifically about the stimulus, he may have responded "it could have been better spent", that would be absolutely true. I agree, it could have been better spent. Does that mean I support it? No. It is a statement of fact, the money could have been better spent. It does not equate to support for the stimulus though... unless you're a ******* moron with an agenda to 'prove' that Romney is not the right candidate.

I like context. That way, I know what I'm talking about. Pity that more people do not understand the value of context.

 

[Missourian]

You really think Romney is going to dismantle ObamaCare?

I do.

You should put that up as a poll question.

You can if you want to. I'm already depressed by how many "conservatives" are willing to delude themselves about Romney.

Honestly, I feel like that movie where Roddy Piper is the only one who can see the aliens.

To the point. Romney thinks that there should be universal health care. Everyone should be covered. Now, if given his druthers, Obama would have prefered a Canadian style single payer system (which would actually be more efficient than the 500 middleman system that RomneyCare and ObamaCare actually are.) Romney liked a system that gave huge payoffs to Big Insurance whether we wanted them or not.

The ugly little secret about Obama/RomneyCare - the Insurance companies are all for it. It increases their customer base, and they will probably find new ways to cheat customers out of payments.

The real problem is that health costs are spiralling out of control, and no one has a good plan for solving that problem. All ObamneyCare does is put a bandaid on the sucking chest wound.

I don't trust Romney, but it's looking more and more like he is going to be the nominee.

This crop of candidates are the "tweeners" (except for Rick Perry and Dr. Paul).

They are the old GOP, because none of the new GOP dynamic are strong enough or well known enough to mount a presidential campaign.

Perry (who is still my number one pick) was unprepared, he saw what we saw, and jumped in a race that he wasn't ready to run.

Dr. Paul's foreign policy, drug policy and anti-Israel platform is anathema to most social conservatives and defense hawks.

Newt might make a great vice president, but he's too much a product of the establishment to be embraced by the new wave of fiscal conservatism.

Santorum is too strongly associated with anti-gay policy.

Huntsman could run as a Democrat.

That leaves Romney.

He can win.

He can gut Obamacare.

And if Candidate Romney reverts to Governor Romney when he becomes President Romney...we will immediately begin planning for the 2016 Republican Primary.

 

[Paulie]

How can anyone say - one way or the other - unless you provide the actual quote in context. I'm beyond bored with this ridiculous (and monumentally stupid) habit of taking one sentence and making it into a ******* issue.

Can we not have some actual intelligent debate on here - just for the craic of it?

I'll admit that the exact words may differ SLIGHTLY, but what kind of context can there be on those words? The only right answer to a fiscal conservative is that there shouldn't be any stimulus spending at all. Providing context on stimulus redirection to different targets doesn't change the fact that the very idea is still completely out of step with fiscal conservatism.

Context is always vital to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. I had thought that was obvious. Goes to show, even I can be wrong.

If, for example, he was asked specifically about the stimulus, he may have responded "it could have been better spent", that would be absolutely true. I agree, it could have been better spent. Does that mean I support it? No. It is a statement of fact, the money could have been better spent. It does not equate to support for the stimulus though... unless you're a ******* moron with an agenda to 'prove' that Romney is not the right candidate.

I like context. That way, I know what I'm talking about. Pity that more people do not understand the value of context.

Your opinions are not being lost on me, trust me.

That is exactly the context he used it in. But I don't agree that the money can be "better spent", because I don't believe the money does any good being spent at all. It requires that we be taxed more when we're taxed enough, and that more money is borrowed or printed, when we've borrowed and printed too much already.

As a fiscal conservative, advocating even a single dollar of money directed ANYWHERE in a "stimulus" package flies in the face of your very ideology.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Really?

Not "it shouldn't have even existed"?

So basically he supports the trillion dollar waste.

Why does this guy keep getting recycled each election?

This is the exact reason why the republican party is really just democrat lite.

Then how would they pay off their union cronies?

How dare you even think it didn't live up to it's billing?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

ok, it didn't, but that's not the spin.

Anyway, who the hell needs $2 Trillion dollars anyway?

hold on

wtf?

We spent $2 TRILLION dollars and this is the results?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I guess shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as shovel head thought.

 

[mudwhistle]

it worked and would have worked better with MORE stimulus as apposed to all the tax cuts the right insisted on

The only thing that's working is the economy....as in fear of total Democrat control being over has improved it.

Funny how when Obama held all of the cards everything was falling apart. Now that he doesn't things are improving.....but that doesn't stop him from claiming credit for it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

it worked and would have worked better with MORE stimulus as apposed to all the tax cuts the right insisted on

The only thing that's working is the economy....as in fear of total Democrat control being over has improved it.

Funny how when Obama held all of the cards everything was falling apart. Now that he doesn't things are improving.....but that doesn't stop him from claiming credit for it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mudwhistle again.


pfft, lame.

 

[rdean]

Really?

Not "it shouldn't have even existed"?

So basically he supports the trillion dollar waste.

Why does this guy keep getting recycled each election?

This is the exact reason why the republican party is really just democrat lite.

More than 100 Republican Senators and Congressmen who voted against the stimulus took that money and created thousands of jobs.

Scott Brown, Republican who voted against the stimulus, saw what happened in in a neighboring state when broad band was installed. "King Arthur Specialty Flour" is a perfect example. They increased their business and hired many more new people in everything from warehouse management to building websites to everything in between. So he took stimulus money to install broad band in the business community in his state to achieve the same kind of growth.

http://it.unh.edu/media/pmcs/LetterSupport_KingArthur_03_22_10.pdf

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzjcA2aWILo]King Arthur Flour: 220-Year-Old Startup - YouTube[/ame]

And this is why Republicans shouldn't be managing anything. They have no vision, they don't understand investment and they are simply too ******* stupid as this OP demonstrates.

 

[California Girl]

I'll admit that the exact words may differ SLIGHTLY, but what kind of context can there be on those words? The only right answer to a fiscal conservative is that there shouldn't be any stimulus spending at all. Providing context on stimulus redirection to different targets doesn't change the fact that the very idea is still completely out of step with fiscal conservatism.

Context is always vital to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. I had thought that was obvious. Goes to show, even I can be wrong.

If, for example, he was asked specifically about the stimulus, he may have responded "it could have been better spent", that would be absolutely true. I agree, it could have been better spent. Does that mean I support it? No. It is a statement of fact, the money could have been better spent. It does not equate to support for the stimulus though... unless you're a ******* moron with an agenda to 'prove' that Romney is not the right candidate.

I like context. That way, I know what I'm talking about. Pity that more people do not understand the value of context.

Your opinions are not being lost on me, trust me.

That is exactly the context he used it in. But I don't agree that the money can be "better spent", because I don't believe the money does any good being spent at all. It requires that we be taxed more when we're taxed enough, and that more money is borrowed or printed, when we've borrowed and printed too much already.

As a fiscal conservative, advocating even a single dollar of money directed ANYWHERE in a "stimulus" package flies in the face of your very ideology.

Unless I know in what context he responded that it could have been 'better spent', I cannot comment on the statement. You do get that, right? I've seen this time and again in this country, on this board... people take a sentence and turn it into something it is not. That is not honest debate. It is partisan hackery, and I am bored with partisan hackery. It no longer entertains me... quite the opposite.... it makes me wonder whether there are any intelligent Americans left.

I am a fiscal conservative. Having said that, I am also a realist, and have a decent understanding of economics - real economics - not this partisan bullshit that people pretend is 'economics'. I find it laughable that anyone uses the opinions of economists as facts.

So, in short, if you want people to comment with any intelligence on the words of a politician, I would suggest that you post appropriately.... with the context.... so that the few of us who actually have a brain can use it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Obama/Democratic stimulus cost 787 billion dollars.

In 2009, the Republicans proposed an alternative stimulus that would have cost 700 billion dollars.

So difference between the two parties was about 10%.

 

[Paulie]

Context is always vital to anyone with an IQ over room temperature. I had thought that was obvious. Goes to show, even I can be wrong.

If, for example, he was asked specifically about the stimulus, he may have responded "it could have been better spent", that would be absolutely true. I agree, it could have been better spent. Does that mean I support it? No. It is a statement of fact, the money could have been better spent. It does not equate to support for the stimulus though... unless you're a ******* moron with an agenda to 'prove' that Romney is not the right candidate.

I like context. That way, I know what I'm talking about. Pity that more people do not understand the value of context.

Your opinions are not being lost on me, trust me.

That is exactly the context he used it in. But I don't agree that the money can be "better spent", because I don't believe the money does any good being spent at all. It requires that we be taxed more when we're taxed enough, and that more money is borrowed or printed, when we've borrowed and printed too much already.

As a fiscal conservative, advocating even a single dollar of money directed ANYWHERE in a "stimulus" package flies in the face of your very ideology.

Unless I know in what context he responded that it could have been 'better spent', I cannot comment on the statement. You do get that, right? I've seen this time and again in this country, on this board... people take a sentence and turn it into something it is not. That is not honest debate. It is partisan hackery, and I am bored with partisan hackery. It no longer entertains me... quite the opposite.... it makes me wonder whether there are any intelligent Americans left.

I am a fiscal conservative. Having said that, I am also a realist, and have a decent understanding of economics - real economics - not this partisan bullshit that people pretend is 'economics'. I find it laughable that anyone uses the opinions of economists as facts.

So, in short, if you want people to comment with any intelligence on the words of a politician, I would suggest that you post appropriately.... with the context.... so that the few of us who actually have a brain can use it.

I just told you that the context was exactly what you had said in your last post.

And I still don't agree with the statement.

I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Wait, no I'm not.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't trust Romney, but it's looking more and more like he is going to be the nominee.

This crop of candidates are the "tweeners" (except for Rick Perry and Dr. Paul).

They are the old GOP, because none of the new GOP dynamic are strong enough or well known enough to mount a presidential campaign.

Perry (who is still my number one pick) was unprepared, he saw what we saw, and jumped in a race that he wasn't ready to run.

Dr. Paul's foreign policy, drug policy and anti-Israel platform is anathema to most social conservatives and defense hawks.

Newt might make a great vice president, but he's too much a product of the establishment to be embraced by the new wave of fiscal conservatism.

Santorum is too strongly associated with anti-gay policy.

Huntsman could run as a Democrat.

That leaves Romney.

He can win.

He can gut Obamacare.

And if Candidate Romney reverts to Governor Romney when he becomes President Romney...we will immediately begin planning for the 2016 Republican Primary.

Just because Romney sucks a little less than the rest of them isn't a good enough reason for me to vote for Romney.

I honestly don't think Romney can win. I don't think people in this country are ready to elect a Mormon.

I think Obama is waiting until the nomination fight is over, and he's going to hit Romney with everything he has.

 

[California Girl]

Your opinions are not being lost on me, trust me.

That is exactly the context he used it in. But I don't agree that the money can be "better spent", because I don't believe the money does any good being spent at all. It requires that we be taxed more when we're taxed enough, and that more money is borrowed or printed, when we've borrowed and printed too much already.

As a fiscal conservative, advocating even a single dollar of money directed ANYWHERE in a "stimulus" package flies in the face of your very ideology.

Unless I know in what context he responded that it could have been 'better spent', I cannot comment on the statement. You do get that, right? I've seen this time and again in this country, on this board... people take a sentence and turn it into something it is not. That is not honest debate. It is partisan hackery, and I am bored with partisan hackery. It no longer entertains me... quite the opposite.... it makes me wonder whether there are any intelligent Americans left.

I am a fiscal conservative. Having said that, I am also a realist, and have a decent understanding of economics - real economics - not this partisan bullshit that people pretend is 'economics'. I find it laughable that anyone uses the opinions of economists as facts.

So, in short, if you want people to comment with any intelligence on the words of a politician, I would suggest that you post appropriately.... with the context.... so that the few of us who actually have a brain can use it.

I just told you that the context was exactly what you had said in your last post.

And I still don't agree with the statement.

I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Wait, no I'm not.

Upsets me? Not during this lifetime, I can assure you. Please don't confuse my anal retentive desire for context with any kind of emotion. I dislike it when other people project their own emotions onto me. It shows a lack of intellect.

 

[manifold]

Really?

Not "it shouldn't have even existed"?

So basically he supports the trillion dollar waste.

Why does this guy keep getting recycled each election?

This is the exact reason why the republican party is really just democrat lite.

I agree with everything except the "lite" part.

 

[Paulie]

Unless I know in what context he responded that it could have been 'better spent', I cannot comment on the statement. You do get that, right? I've seen this time and again in this country, on this board... people take a sentence and turn it into something it is not. That is not honest debate. It is partisan hackery, and I am bored with partisan hackery. It no longer entertains me... quite the opposite.... it makes me wonder whether there are any intelligent Americans left.

I am a fiscal conservative. Having said that, I am also a realist, and have a decent understanding of economics - real economics - not this partisan bullshit that people pretend is 'economics'. I find it laughable that anyone uses the opinions of economists as facts.

So, in short, if you want people to comment with any intelligence on the words of a politician, I would suggest that you post appropriately.... with the context.... so that the few of us who actually have a brain can use it.

I just told you that the context was exactly what you had said in your last post.

And I still don't agree with the statement.

I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Wait, no I'm not.

Upsets me? Not during this lifetime, I can assure you. Please don't confuse my anal retentive desire for context with any kind of emotion. I dislike it when other people project their own emotions onto me. It shows a lack of intellect.

Yeah and I dislike when people are too stupid to realize the answer they're looking for is right the **** in front of them, but you don't see me going off about it post after post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The stimulus should have been a check made out to the tax paying individuals of this country. That money would have eliminated public debt and would have stengthened our economy in all sorts of ways. Entrepenuership would have exploded, as these people would have had the money to start up their own business. Investment would have increased. Homes would have been payed off deflating the bubble. Each tax paying person in this country getting a check for 100k instead of bailing out banks and businesses, would have benefitted us much better than what actually happened.

Good plan. According to my quick calculation, your plan would have cost 20 trillion dollars.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Dismantling Obamacare has to be our number one priority this election cycle.

I'm not particularly enthralled with the Republican field, or anyone currently waiting in the wings.

But if we allow Obamacare to be enacted, we'll be stuck with it forever.

Try to.....

....catch-UP....

.....Skippy.

*

Stupid Teabaggers....​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

maybe if it had been "redirected" properly it would not have been such a waste. all it ever really was under obummer was political payback to his supporters at the expense of the 50% of us who pay Federal Income Tax.

I agree. We should have just given the wealthy more tax breaks. We know how well THAT has worked in the past.

You'll never convince me that it is a bad thing to allow people to keep more of their own money.

Rest assured.....no one's ever accused "conservatives" o' being logical.

Small Business Taxes
By BU$HCO

 

[Two Thumbs]

The stimulus should have been a check made out to the tax paying individuals of this country. That money would have eliminated public debt and would have stengthened our economy in all sorts of ways. Entrepenuership would have exploded, as these people would have had the money to start up their own business. Investment would have increased. Homes would have been payed off deflating the bubble. Each tax paying person in this country getting a check for 100k instead of bailing out banks and businesses, would have benefitted us much better than what actually happened.

Good plan. According to my quick calculation, your plan would have cost 20 trillion dollars.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

112 million tax payers x $100,000 = 11,200,000,000,000

not counting the cost of actually doing it.

so yeah, 20 trillion is a great guess.