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

[California Girl]

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.

You paraphrasing a sentence, without any background as to what the sentence was in response to, or the context of the sentence, is not 'right the **** in front of them'. It is just you whining about a sentence that you (regardless of context) disagree with.

I find that somewhat surprising. Normally you are not someone I dismiss as an idiot.

Why didn't you just look it up yourself, like you tell others to do?

I see no one bought you a brain for Christmas.

Because he started the ******* thread, you moronic half wit. Generally speaking, one starts a thread with some ******* evidence of what you are commenting on - particularly when it is a quote from someone you are taking issue with.

 

[Toro]

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.

If there were even one decent conservative candidate, Romney would be toast.

 

[Missourian]

Romney - Somewhat fiscally conservative, will balance the budget, favors balanced budget amendment, opposes abortion, favors strong 2nd amendment protection, favors cutting both waste and spending, favors border fence and removing incentives for illegal immigrants, opposes amnesty.

Of the candidates that I believe are still viable...Romney's platform is the best fit for me.

But you see, that's not what I see in Romney.

Balancing the budget is going to mean making some hard choices. I don't see Romney as making the hard choices. He didn't in MA, where he essentially rolled over for the Democratic legislature at every oppurtunity.

2nd Amendment- He supported Gun Laws in MA.

I'm not sure he opposes abortion, but frankly, since abortion will never be outlawed in this country, I don't care that much about that.

Amnesty- again, he's also said that we can't deport 11 million people.

The thing is, Mitt could debate himself pretty easily, he's been on every side of every issue.

Call me cynical, but IMO, as long as political offices are decided by democratic election, no politician is going to make the tough choices until the situation is so dire that there is no alternative...and by then it will be too late.

It's the catch-22 of freely elected representative government.

 

[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.

If there were even one decent conservative candidate, Romney would be toast.

True.

But, honestly, what decent human being (left or right) would put themselves and their family though what passes for 'vetting' by the American Media these days?

 

[Billy000]

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.

Why do you contintue to believe that the stimulus did nothing at all?

 

[Zoom]

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

But but but, trickle down works.

 

[Toro]

I see the aliens too.

To be fair, sort of, Obamacare is federal. Romneycare was a program he presumed was what would be best for his particular state. When looking at it as just a general states rights issue, it's fine. I don't live in Mass so who am I to say what their healthcare program should be?

But this said, I still don't trust Romney.

Finally! Some people get it. What Romney did at a state level is not the point. If that's what the will of the people in his state wanted, so be it. What we cannot have is the bullshit of ObamaCare at a federal level. It will not work, it will be a major catastrophe, and the country will be stuck with it forever.

Go find a pageant, somewhere, Bubblehead......

Obamacare Is Working!!!

. . . .

*

.

.

.

.

^^^^^^^^^
Irony.

 

[dblack]

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.

Why do you contintue to believe that the stimulus did nothing at all?

I, for one, don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

If there were even one decent conservative candidate, Romney would be toast.

Yes.

But the thing was, the ones who could have run - Daniels, Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, etc. didn't.

My own theory is that the WMR is being set up as a sacrificial lamb because the GOP doesn't want to win this time.

 

[JoeB131]

Call me cynical, but IMO, as long as political offices are decided by democratic election, no politician is going to make the tough choices until the situation is so dire that there is no alternative...and by then it will be too late.

It's the catch-22 of freely elected representative government.

You see, that's where I disagree.

Ronald Reagan was the kind of leader who actually lead.

I take when he addressed the Social Security problem. He had to make a lot of tough choices and did a lot of things that were unpopular, but it was necessary to save the system for another few decades. He faced folks on the right who think the government shouldn't be in the pension business and folks on the left that thought we shouldn't touch any entitlement, and somewhere got to a comprimise. People who shouldn't have been on it (like college students) were kicked off and taxes were increased to pay for it.

Could I see "reversable Mittens" doing the same? Nope. Or Obama? Nope.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Romney's correct and of course you're wrong. Romney was wrong when he opposed the bailout of GM and Chrysler and he continues to demagogue issues; to his credit he is being honest when he supported the idea and questioned its implementation.

Of course Obama went to economic war with the 'army he had (to paraphrase Rummie) and didn't have time to pull together the Governors and local officials to vet what was and what was not "shovel ready". Calling it a trillion dollar failure is an abject lie.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Why do you contintue to believe that the stimulus did nothing at all?

I, for one, don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

Many economists - including the conservative brand - agree that the stimulus significantly softened the recession.

 

[dblack]

Why do you contintue to believe that the stimulus did nothing at all?

I, for one, don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

Many economists - including the conservative brand - agree that the stimulus significantly softened the recession.

I don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

 

[Billy000]

I, for one, don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

Many economists - including the conservative brand - agree that the stimulus significantly softened the recession.

I don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

Haha, I bet you think you're clever, don't you?

 

[dblack]

Many economists - including the conservative brand - agree that the stimulus significantly softened the recession.

I don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

Haha, I bet you think you're clever, don't you?

Heh.. no. Just ignored.

 

[California Girl]

Finally! Some people get it. What Romney did at a state level is not the point. If that's what the will of the people in his state wanted, so be it. What we cannot have is the bullshit of ObamaCare at a federal level. It will not work, it will be a major catastrophe, and the country will be stuck with it forever.

Go find a pageant, somewhere, Bubblehead......

Obamacare Is Working!!!

. . . .

*

.

.

.

.

^^^^^^^^^
Irony.

The real irony is that he still attempts to engage me. I put the moron on ignore months ago. But I'm thinking I'll take him off long enough to neg his fat ass for his misogynistic comment.

 

[Billy000]

I don't think it matters whether the stimulus 'did anything' or not. I suspect it did quite a bot, not the least of which was putting us deeper in debt. My objection to the stimulus is simply that manipulating the economy isn't a proper function of government. And further, that granting government the powers necessary to manipulate the economy is the single biggest cause of our headlong plunge into corporatism.

Haha, I bet you think you're clever, don't you?

Heh.. no. Just ignored.

There is just a lot of misinformation about the stimulus, but I do get what you are saying here. As long as you can recognize its positive outcome, I respect your opinion.

 

[Missourian]

Call me cynical, but IMO, as long as political offices are decided by democratic election, no politician is going to make the tough choices until the situation is so dire that there is no alternative...and by then it will be too late.

It's the catch-22 of freely elected representative government.

You see, that's where I disagree.

Ronald Reagan was the kind of leader who actually lead.

I take when he addressed the Social Security problem. He had to make a lot of tough choices and did a lot of things that were unpopular, but it was necessary to save the system for another few decades. He faced folks on the right who think the government shouldn't be in the pension business and folks on the left that thought we shouldn't touch any entitlement, and somewhere got to a comprimise. People who shouldn't have been on it (like college students) were kicked off and taxes were increased to pay for it.

Could I see "reversable Mittens" doing the same? Nope. Or Obama? Nope.

If Reagan had made the tough choices, he would have fixed social security once and for all...and yet, three decades later, we are still kicking the can and robbing the

"lockbox"

.

 

[dblack]

Haha, I bet you think you're clever, don't you?

Heh.. no. Just ignored.

There is just a lot of misinformation about the stimulus, but I do get what you are saying here. As long as you can recognize its positive outcome, I respect your opinion.

Sure, there are positive and negative outcomes of pretty much everything government does. But, even discounting the damage it does to the structure of our government, I suspect stimulus spending tends to have overall bad effects in the long term - but that's just a hunch. Economics is hardly a deterministic science.

When you do factor in the dangerous expansion of power that stimulus spending (and other economic intervention) grants to government, it makes it a particularly dangerous practice in my view.

 

[Billy000]

Heh.. no. Just ignored.

There is just a lot of misinformation about the stimulus, but I do get what you are saying here. As long as you can recognize its positive outcome, I respect your opinion.

Sure, there are positive and negative outcomes of pretty much everything government does. But, even discounting the damage it does to the structure of our government, I suspect stimulus spending tends to have overall bad effects in the long term - but that's just a hunch. Economics is hardly a deterministic science.

When you do factor in the dangerous expansion of power that stimulus spending (and other economic intervention) grants to government, it makes it a particularly dangerous practice in my view.

But the government had to do something, right? Lowering taxes on the wealthy and easing regulations has proven not to be very effective.