Who Can Tackle the Big Beast (Deficit)? Romney or Obama?

[Avatar4321]

Well, Romney has decades of experience doing exactly what we need to do the deficit.

Obama has just spent four years increasing it exponentially.

This is kind of a no brainer.

Please provide links to Romneys decades of experience.

I really don't think that's necessary. Are you really unaware that Romney made his fortune by cutting waste, corruption, and needless spending from failing business to make them profitable again? Are you unfamiliar with him cutting waste, corruption, and needless spending from the Olympics? You unfamiliar with him cutting spending in Mass?

 

[uscitizen]

The 2 political partys are very successfully deflecting the blame for our troubles away from congress and on the presidents and candidates. Have been for a couple of decades.
And the sheeple are buying it.

 

[Plasmaball]

The 2 political partys are very successfully deflecting the blame for our troubles away from congress and on the presidents and candidates. Have been for a couple of decades.
And the sheeple are buying it.

all they care about is getting elected, not fixing shit. That being said they really dont have a plan anyways beyond that.

 

[hortysir]

As long as the R congress refuses to work FOR America, nothing much can happen. Its easy to assume they'll suddenly change their ways if there the prez is R but all signs point to the opposite. If Mittens is elected, he has said he will go with the Ryan "plan" to bankrupt the country.

The Bush fiasco showed us how well that works. Higher taxes for the working class, much lower taxes for the 1% and a real depression. That's what Mittens/R have planned for us.

Add to that the FACT that Mittens has no real experience with much of anything. No, I don't count the tax bail out of the Olympics, the trash and burn of Bain or his failed and corrupt governorship.

Third reason why he would be a total failure is that he has taken enormous money from the worst players. He is now owned by them.

I thought Romney was evil for making so much money.

His numbers do not show a deficit.

Obama's do

 

[Vidi]

Well, Romney has decades of experience doing exactly what we need to do the deficit.

Obama has just spent four years increasing it exponentially.

This is kind of a no brainer.

Please provide links to Romneys decades of experience.

I really don't think that's necessary. Are you really unaware that Romney made his fortune by cutting waste, corruption, and needless spending from failing business to make them profitable again? Are you unfamiliar with him cutting waste, corruption, and needless spending from the Olympics? You unfamiliar with him cutting spending in Mass?

I think there is some disagreement as to how he was able to turn a profit at some of those business and if that sort of thing could translate to success with the economy overall from a governmental seat.

So if youre going to make statements like that I would ask that you back them up with some sort of evidence so we all dont just have to take your word for it.

I can dispute your last two statements easily. Romney RAISED fees in Mass. Cut spending by cutting funds to local communities which in turn RAISED TAXES in order to compensate for the loss.

Romney, in concert with the legislature, created new fees, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses, and increased fees for many state licenses and services. In all 33 new fees were created, and 57 fees were increased, some that had not been adjusted in over a decade. Some of these fees included were service fees, such as charging businesses more to put up signs. Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them

Romney increased a state gasoline special fee, dedicated towards cleanup of contamination around underground fuel storage tanks, by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue


The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[20] In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools. This had the effect of causing property taxes to rise by five percent, their highest level in 25 years in Massachusetts.[21] In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners

Governorship of Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes he cut spending but he did so in ways that effecively raised taxes.


In other words, he put the burden on the TAXPAYER.

As far as the Olympics go...

Before Romney came on, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks

that doesnt mean overspending. That means it wasnt getting the money it needed to be successful.

So Romney "saved" the Olympics how?

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The federal government provided between approximately $400 million[139][140][141] and $600 million[142][143] of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies

He went to the TAXPAYERS.


So in every instance in which Romney has needed to deal with budget issues, either deficit spending or budget shortfalls, he has turned to the American taxpayer to pay more out of their pocket.



There. Ive provided links backing up my assertions. Please do the same.

 

[Vidi]

As long as the R congress refuses to work FOR America, nothing much can happen. Its easy to assume they'll suddenly change their ways if there the prez is R but all signs point to the opposite. If Mittens is elected, he has said he will go with the Ryan "plan" to bankrupt the country.

The Bush fiasco showed us how well that works. Higher taxes for the working class, much lower taxes for the 1% and a real depression. That's what Mittens/R have planned for us.

Add to that the FACT that Mittens has no real experience with much of anything. No, I don't count the tax bail out of the Olympics, the trash and burn of Bain or his failed and corrupt governorship.

Third reason why he would be a total failure is that he has taken enormous money from the worst players. He is now owned by them.

I thought Romney was evil for making so much money.

His numbers do not show a deficit.

Obama's do

No Romneys numbers show that in every instance of his involvement with government, he increases the burden of the taxpayer.

Obama has cut taxes.

http://ctj.org/pdf/truthaboutobamataxcuts.pdf

 

[uscitizen]

The 2 political partys are very successfully deflecting the blame for our troubles away from congress and on the presidents and candidates. Have been for a couple of decades.
And the sheeple are buying it.

all they care about is getting elected, not fixing shit. That being said they really dont have a plan anyways beyond that.

There is more money to be had by their supporters/cronies by not fixing the defecit than by fixing it.

 

[California Girl]

The deficit cannot be dealt wuith through cuts alone. That is a pipedream. In order to get back into surplus so we can begin paying on the DEBT, we must cut spending AND raise taxes.

Anyone that tells you increasing taxes ALONE will get us out of this is wrong/
Anyone who tells you cutting spending ALONE is wrong.

They must BOTH be done.


That is simply the reality of it.


So to the original question: ROmney or Obama who is better suited to tackle the issue?

Which of the two is willing to do both cut spending AND raise taxes?

Well, we've had four years of Obama. Seen any sign of him cutting spending? Seen his 'to do' for four more? Any sign of cutting spending?

No, yes and no.

 

[California Girl]

The 2 political partys are very successfully deflecting the blame for our troubles away from congress and on the presidents and candidates. Have been for a couple of decades.
And the sheeple are buying it.

all they care about is getting elected, not fixing shit. That being said they really dont have a plan anyways beyond that.

There is more money to be had by their supporters/cronies by not fixing the defecit than by fixing it.

Neither of your posts addresses the actual topic.

I am neither shocked nor surprised. It's a tad hard - and way too close to the truth for many on either side. Whoever gets the next four is in for an extremely hard term... frankly, I'll take Romney over 'Hey Big Spender' Obama any day.

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

Neither of them has the stones to do what's needed (which is a debate within itself).

Reducing the deficit is not solely the responsibility of the executive branch however. Congress has a part to play as well and they simply haven't stepped up to the plate because their too busy flinging mud at each other.

I think the story with Obama on the deficit was told when he had a super majority in both houses, yet managed to incredibly do nothing with it, Stimulus aside. He let the GOP heckling from the sidelines fluff his message when he should've been pushing for more of the same like the Stimulus, instead he made the fatal mistake of trying to parlay with a faction who wants nothing more than to see him fail. If there was ever a chance for the economy to improve with both Congress and the President on par, that was the time and it passed him by wistfully.

I personally do not like Romney, but if he wins and gets the same type of majority, I certainly hope he can do a better job. Not holding my breath though.

 

[onecut39]

To do anything meaningful with the deficit will require new and/or higher taxes.

That lets Romney and the GOP out. The GOP, even should they not have the majority, will stop any tax measures with a filibuster..

Game over.

 

[Politico]

How is this even a question?

 

[California Girl]

The 2 political partys are very successfully deflecting the blame for our troubles away from congress and on the presidents and candidates. Have been for a couple of decades.
And the sheeple are buying it.

all they care about is getting elected, not fixing shit. That being said they really dont have a plan anyways beyond that.

And yet you defend one and disparage the other. What does that say about you?

 

[Wiseacre]

To do anything meaningful with the deficit will require new and/or higher taxes.

That lets Romney and the GOP out. The GOP, even should they not have the majority, will stop any tax measures with a filibuster..

Game over.

I am always amazed when somebody says this. So let me ask: do you really think that raising taxes will get you a meaningful reduction in the deficit? Allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% making above 250k gets you maybe 70 billion/year against a 1.2 trillion deficit this year. Is that your idea of meaningful? Do you really think you can raise taxes that much without a meaningful impact on economic growth?

 

[California Girl]

To do anything meaningful with the deficit will require new and/or higher taxes.

That lets Romney and the GOP out. The GOP, even should they not have the majority, will stop any tax measures with a filibuster..

Game over.

I am always amazed when somebody says this. So let me ask: do you really think that raising taxes will get you a meaningful reduction in the deficit? Allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% making above 250k gets you maybe 70 billion/year against a 1.2 trillion deficit this year. Is that your idea of meaningful? Do you really think you can raise taxes that much without a meaningful impact on economic growth?

It is if you have absolutely no understanding of basic economics... or even the ability to quite straightforward math.

 

[hortysir]

As long as the R congress refuses to work FOR America, nothing much can happen. Its easy to assume they'll suddenly change their ways if there the prez is R but all signs point to the opposite. If Mittens is elected, he has said he will go with the Ryan "plan" to bankrupt the country.

The Bush fiasco showed us how well that works. Higher taxes for the working class, much lower taxes for the 1% and a real depression. That's what Mittens/R have planned for us.

Add to that the FACT that Mittens has no real experience with much of anything. No, I don't count the tax bail out of the Olympics, the trash and burn of Bain or his failed and corrupt governorship.

Third reason why he would be a total failure is that he has taken enormous money from the worst players. He is now owned by them.

I thought Romney was evil for making so much money.

His numbers do not show a deficit.

Obama's do

No Romneys numbers show that in every instance of his involvement with government, he increases the burden of the taxpayer.

Obama has cut taxes.

http://ctj.org/pdf/truthaboutobamataxcuts.pdf

AND increased the debt and deficit.......

 

[Buford]

Obama said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. That is a failure. That means we give someone else a shot.

 

[Vidi]

Obama said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. That is a failure. That means we give someone else a shot.

Romneys plan is to increase the deficit by 3 trillion dollars.

Romney's Tax Plan Would Add $3T To Deficit Over A Decade - Forbes

Hes not the one who should get the shot.

 

[Vidi]

I thought Romney was evil for making so much money.

His numbers do not show a deficit.

Obama's do

No Romneys numbers show that in every instance of his involvement with government, he increases the burden of the taxpayer.

Obama has cut taxes.

http://ctj.org/pdf/truthaboutobamataxcuts.pdf

AND increased the debt and deficit.......

Two wars and a economic collapse and he still created 4.4 million private sector jobs. With 30 straight months of growth, after the losses we took under the previous plan, now is not the time to jump out of the life boat and start swimming back to the sinking ship.

 

[onecut39]

To do anything meaningful with the deficit will require new and/or higher taxes.

That lets Romney and the GOP out. The GOP, even should they not have the majority, will stop any tax measures with a filibuster..

Game over.

I am always amazed when somebody says this. So let me ask: do you really think that raising taxes will get you a meaningful reduction in the deficit? Allowing the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% making above 250k gets you maybe 70 billion/year against a 1.2 trillion deficit this year. Is that your idea of meaningful? Do you really think you can raise taxes that much without a meaningful impact on economic growth?

You think 70 billion a year is insignificant . Since Bush we have had two tax cuts and a prebate under Bush. The stimulus was 40% tax cuts. Then we have the reduction in payroll taxes.

You couple 70 billion in tax increases with a 400 billion reduction in defense, add on 150 billion in reduced corporate welfare and you suddenly begin to talk real money.

If all those tax cuts were supposed to create jobs I have just one question: Where are they?