The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

... like runaway spending on more military might that we do not need?

He contradicts himself in his first sentence saying that he'll match our military to our interests. But his whole plan is to make sure this all happens above a *FLOOR* (his italics, not mine) of 4% of GDP. If all you have are military dollars, everything looks like a military threat. He doesn't say how he will pay for it, what with reducing everyone's taxes, dramatically increasing our defense budget, typical Romney, say anything that will stampede the voters.

Does Obama say how he's going to pay for Obama care? Nooooo!
That's what lying politicians do - get over it.

Jesus, you are obdurate. Please provide a citation for this. (ps, I'm just gonna ask nicely this once, and if you don't give a cite, I'm going to chalk this up to more defamation by you.)

I don't have a cite for you. It's been played a few times on the conservative radio talk shows. The announcer/host said where and when, but I didn't write it down. It came up when Obama care was about to be voted on, so it was some time back.

I agree with you, the federal government can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home.

But no one is suggesting that. You are melodramatically exaggerating the role of FEMA.

Oh, am I? What were all those trailers about after Katrina, then?

You and I both know that the reason those buildings in New Orleans couldn't be rebuilt quickly, was because they either had no flood insurance, or if they were rebuilt, their new flood insurance rates would be higher (probably too high), or unavailable.

Think about it. The City of New Orleans is built on washed down dirt from the Mississippi River. As the dirt compacts, the city sinks about just a bit, every year. In addition, a large part of N.O. is in a bowl depression, close to sea level.

In other words, the city is doomed - it will sink into the Gulf, inexorably. Clearly, they need to build a New New Orleans, back on solid ground, asap. Did you notice that another part of N.O. did receive 12 ft. of flood waters, in their last Hurricane? (Not Sandy). The sea wall and etc., doesn't protect the whole city, even when it works.

We don't need FEMA to think, and we need to start using our own resources to mitigate these disasters ourselves. THEN FEMA and Red Cross and other groups, can assist. ASSIST, not be expected to rescue our butts.

My god, you sound like Romney, that you believe that people, some 47% of us, won't take responsibility for our lives, that we, some 47% of us, believe it is the federal government's responsibility to take care of us in every way, including our safety. Unbelievable.

Watch the interviews done with the Katrina survivors that were inside the Superbowl in New Orleans. Every one of them relied on the gov't for help - and most of them relied on the gov't for everything - even though they were told to bring their own supplies, explicitly and repeatedly.

You would blindly put our national safety in the hands of the same "nitwits", with an even bigger military budget. Gotcha. I doubt you can explain that one away, but you probably meant to say something else.

I am not sure that we need a bigger military budget. I just don't want the Navy ships budget cut any more. As far as the "nitwits" in charge of our national safety - no, the military doesn't allow the Crony Appointments that Presidents are so famous for (like BROWN at FEMA, or Janet Reno as Attorney General).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't have a cite for you. It's been played a few times on the conservative radio talk shows. The announcer/host said where and when, but I didn't write it down. It came up when Obama care was about to be voted on, so it was some time back.

And you automatically believed it because it validated your preconceived notions. That's very conservative of you.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

And you automatically believed it because it validated your preconceived notions. That's very conservative of you.

I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers.

I don't have a problem with a limit to the nationalized health service. I understand that you only should get back, what the system can afford to give. What bugs me about Obama care, is that he's lying about the cost, and underfunding it. That means the taxpayers are going to be left with the bill when it comes due - ie., more taxes, AND the quality of the care will have to be somewhat curtailed - which he's not really telling anyone now that Obama care has become so disliked.

I'm waiting for the first 68 year old man who can't get a heart by-pass, because he's too old, etc. Then we'll see how this Obama care REALLY works (or doesn't).


It's smart to keep your mouth shut about an unpopular topic, when you're in a tight reelection campaign. I understand why he's not talking about it, anymore. I wouldn't either, if I were him.

[Ibby]

If it works - nearly flawlessly - everywhere else in the "developed" world, without having to ration care through "death panels" (i wish I could say i thought you were above relying on that tired old trope, but honestly, i didn't) killing 68 year olds - why in god's name can't we do it?
I don't actually believe that America is the "best" country in the world, or anything, by a long shot. But I DO damn well think that when America wants to do something, Americans can make it happen. If everyone else can fix their healthcare systems, so can we. We just need to stop pandering to people like you, who would rather see insurance company profit than healthy americans.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers.

I don't have a problem with a limit to the nationalized health service. I understand that you only should get back, what the system can afford to give. What bugs me about Obama care, is that he's lying about the cost, and underfunding it. That means the taxpayers are going to be left with the bill when it comes due - ie., more taxes, AND the quality of the care will have to be somewhat curtailed - which he's not really telling anyone now that Obama care has become so disliked.

--snip

So Obama is a liar and a cheat because of his projections about Obamacare.

But when it comes to Romney's plans, you

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't want to quote arithmetic, because it's not a 1+1 kind of thing, when you work with the economy and the tax rates and loopholes.

--snip--

I know Paul Ryan's monetary budget plan was published, but I haven't read Romney's proposed tax plan yet. I read what he was going to do, in broad strokes, and I know it will help.

--snip--

When all the details are published, (in a bill), then we can look at the numbers, and see what does, and doesn't probably, add up. I expect Romney's numbers to be optimistic because:

1) Europe is still in an economic recession. Greece, Spain, Italy and others, are in very serious shape.

2) China's economy has been slowing down, lately.

If these two big external factors remain (and I believe #1 certainly will, and #2 will NOT stay), then I believe Romney's projections will be off. We do a lot of business with Europe, and have banking ties which directly support their banks. If they go down, we will be bailing them out, yet again.

Obama is a hammered by you for optimistic projections, but Romney is just saying it's morning in America.

Your indefensible double standard is showing.

Originally Posted by Adak

Projections are used all the time for budgeting purposes. It has nothing to do with Bruce's snarky attitude, above. Gotta hate them rich guys, eh Bruce? Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, with the former being much more common.

Nation-wide economic projections are seldom spot on, because the economy is so complex and variable in the controlling factors, at any given period.

--snip--

*From KNX 1070 News Radio, Los Angeles, a CBS affiliate.

Don't get angry with Obama about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable? Define "reasonable".

Originally Posted by Adak

@BigV:

Don't get angry with me about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever.--snip

Anyway, ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable?

Define "reasonable". Because they may prove to be too optimistic (typically), but sometimes they prove to be too pessimistic.

Originally Posted by Adak

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in these projections. --snip

Unless it's Obama's prediction. Then, different story.


more double standard follows.

Originally Posted by Adak

I haven't spent a lot of time with the details, because --snip--

Romney's projected savings are just that - a projection, and I wouldn't be surprised if that projection was - like all economic projections - not perfect. The bottom line is, Romney's plan will cut spending in the federal gov't, cut taxes somewhat, and close some tax loopholes. His goal is to make it "neutral", so the income lost in one cut, will be matched by growth in the economy, and by closing a loophole.

I do not expect it will be exactly neutral, of course. He's smart, but he's not a Prophet.

It's double standards like this that make you and your guy look bad. For thinking people, who like to see the math and are skeptical, "logic" like this is a big red flag. In my opinion, it is characteristic of intellectual laziness. You hear something you like or something from someone you like, and you accept it uncritically. Conversely, when the speaker is disliked, or the statement is at odds with your pre-existing conclusion, you're hostile to the message. Content matters Adak, for me and for you, even if you don't care about it. It is content that will affect our lives. You would do well to measure the content more closely and the label of the speaker less closely.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

I support it, of course. I try and re-write it so you can grasp it, but maybe one more time, and this IS the last time:

--snip

This saddens me. I gave you every chance to retract your smear of the President, and you refused. You don't seem stupid Adak, you don't seem mean. But I can not understand why you would support your libel.

Actually, a few posts further down, a very telling remark by you helps me understand some of the factors that influence what I hear you saying. When you talk about hearing it on conservative talk radio, I had an epiphany. I, too, listen to much of that same stream, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, ... I hear their programs, and also their programming. It is not a good source for knowledge, nor for quality information. There's plenty of scaremongering there, lots of slander, meanness, and especially emotionally charged opinion making. And, I have to say, lots and lots of commercials. They are, after all "obscene profit making" enterprises. They are in business to make money, and they do so by keeping you tuned in through the commercials.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's useful to know what their motivations are so that you can more clearly understand what they're saying by knowing why they're saying it. By making scandalous teasers, then breaking away for a commercial, you are likely to hang around to find out if The Donald is going to finally tear away the veil of secrecy from Obama's muslim/foreign/traitorous past.

They have an agenda, and they're implacable in the pursuit of that agenda. Promoting Romney is merely expedient for them, but they make full use of his celebrity for their own purposes. They pander even more than Romney does, but at least you can turn off the radio. With Romney, god forbid he is elected, we'll be stuck with him.

[Sheldonrs]

In everything he says, everything he does and perhaps more importantly, everything DOESN'T say or do, Romney has done all he can short of hitting everyone over the head with a "I Should Not Be President" stick.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers.

Those hi-fi speakers also give you a good earful of the hosts on those shows, which is why you're so misinformed.

[Adak]

If you would like to refute any point of Constitutional law with Mark Levin (former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General for Ronald Regan), and now a talk show host), PLEASE - by all means, you do that!

Here's a metaphor for the liberals. Say you are at a Thanksgiving Dinner and you want the ketchup.

A conservative grabs it, and pours the ketchup.

A middle of the road type, asks the Washington bureaucrat sitting nearby, to please pass him the ketchup - although it's easily in arm's reach.

A liberal wants the Washington bureaucrat at the table, to see that he needs the ketchup, and pass it to him. An email from Washington reminding him of this need, would be a nice touch.

An ultra liberal wants the Washington bureaucrat to use monitors to study his eating habits, and know automatically, when and if, he will want the ketchup passed to him - based on his previous dining habits. This will require a Ketchup department to be established in Washington, with a senior Secretary of Ketchup, a full staff, and regular updates to the President on the status of Ketchup with meals.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

This saddens me. I gave you every chance to retract your smear of the President, and you refused. You don't seem stupid Adak, you don't seem mean. But I can not understand why you would support your libel.

Because the President, and his appointed Secretaries, have all lied, big time, right to my face. (well, the TV).

I live fairly close to the Mexican border - I KNOW when the illegal crossing have resulted in Kidnappings, murders, and other serious crimes.

I don't appreciate Napolitano (Sec'ty of Homeland Security) coming down here and saying "the border is safe" - right after a murder by the drug cartel, of a US citizen, on a lake near the border, in broad daylight.

And I know Obama did NOTHING to save our Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, and others. For chrissakes, they had phone calls, email, real time video from a recon drone, and military assets just a short hop away at Aviano, Italy. The attack lasted OVER 5 hours (some say up to 7 hours), and still Obama did NOTHING!

He's a damn criminal for just sitting on his ass and not trying to help them -- they were OUR people, damn it! He had us fly thousands of missions to save the people of Benghazi from Ghaddafi, but he can't even fly ONE to save our Ambassador?

WTF??

A photo was released today showing the President in the Situation Room, studying the progress of Hurricane Sandy.

Well, WHAT was Obama studying when our consulate was being attacked and overrun and our Ambassador was being killed?

Actually, a few posts further down, a very telling remark by you helps me understand some of the factors that influence what I hear you saying. When you talk about hearing it on conservative talk radio, I had an epiphany. I, too, listen to much of that same stream, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, ... I hear their programs, and also their programming. It is not a good source for knowledge, nor for quality information. There's plenty of scaremongering there, lots of slander, meanness, and especially emotionally charged opinion making. And, I have to say, lots and lots of commercials. They are, after all "obscene profit making" enterprises. They are in business to make money, and they do so by keeping you tuned in through the commercials.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's useful to know what their motivations are so that you can more clearly understand what they're saying by knowing why they're saying it. By making scandalous teasers, then breaking away for a commercial, you are likely to hang around to find out if The Donald is going to finally tear away the veil of secrecy from Obama's muslim/foreign/traitorous past.

They have an agenda, and they're implacable in the pursuit of that agenda. Promoting Romney is merely expedient for them, but they make full use of his celebrity for their own purposes. They pander even more than Romney does, but at least you can turn off the radio. With Romney, god forbid he is elected, we'll be stuck with him.

As I've stated previously, i won't listen to Limbaugh anymore, because his ad hominem attacks are WAY over the top.

A little trash talk is understandable, but not NEARLY as much as Limbaugh does. Last I listened to him, it was 80% trash talk. I won't put up with that.

I do listen to Mark Levin, and Michael Medved. They are sharp thinkers. Also, Roger Hedgecock, when he is discussing politics and not personalities, is good. As the former Mayor of San Diego, he resonates well. Nobody else knows more about politics in America, and how it works, on the radio.

Far from an ideologue, I'm a pragmatic guy - if it works, I like it! If Obama care worked - had a hope of working - I'd support it. Same with all the other crazy CA and liberal policies and laws, we have.

If they only worked - but they don't, or they don't work efficiently. Efficiency is very important, because we can't just throw money at our problems - we don't have enough of it, and shouldn't be wasting it.

To be kind, they're very wasteful, and big time liars. I neither need nor want, our fed gov't to control every damn thing in my life.

Anybody remember what liberty and freedom were about?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

If they only worked - but they don't, or they don't work efficiently. Efficiency is very important, because we can't just throw money at our problems - we don't have enough of it, and shouldn't be wasting it.

To be kind, they're very wasteful, and big time liars. I neither need nor want, our fed gov't to control every damn thing in my life.

Anybody remember what liberty and freedom were about?

Well, since you asked... I don't expect for a moment to change your mind, but I haven't participated in this thread so far, and your comments are as a good as an excuse as any for me to jump in with my deep insights and scintillating comments (HAH!)

I remember the days when many of my and everyone else's liberties and freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Along came 9/11 and the Republican administration then in power pushed through the so-called Patriot Acts and the creation of Homeland "Security." Not content with these atrocities, the Rebublican Gang of Four then got us into a war under false pretenses and without giving the slightest thought as to how the US was going to pay for this atrocity. Rather than following the route of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes and implementing other substancial money saving programs to pay for our adventures in Iraq, the Republicans LOWERED taxes and added insult to injury by awarding lucrative contracts to defense contracters who were in bed with the upper echelons of Republican politicians and the Department of Defense, Pentagon, Chief's of Staff, etc. Can anyone say Halliburten or Dick Chaney or Karl Rove or or or?

Ancient history,, perhaps, but it's brought us to where we are today. Oh, and let's not forget the big financial bailout of all those crooked CEOs and bankers specializing in sub prime lending instruments, etc., etc. These corporate criminals tanked the US economy and you and I had the "freedom" of paying for their get out of jail free cards. Was so much as one criminal financier called to account for his actions? Did a single one go to trial or spend time in prison for the crimes that were committed against the American people? Don't everybody all answer at once.

Why didn't a single Federal prosecutor bring charges against these charlatans who practically drove our country to its knees? I blame both parties for this. No high ranking politician was going to risk PAC money or other campaign contributions or the incredible goodies handed out by the lobbiests for the country's financial low lifes.

And how about the outsourcong of American jobs? Remember Apple? Remember when it was the quintensential American success story? Until it discovered China that is. Goodbye Apple and goodbye every single other American manufacturer of microchips and almost all other components used in the electronics industry.

Wanna hear what Chinese workers get paid to work for Apple? One dollar/hour. And they work 12 hour days with only one day a week off. If production falls behind, they get to work extra shifts for free until the new quotas are met. Apple workers in China are housed in dormitories of 10 stories or more. This makes it easy for them to jump from an upper floor and commit suicide when they break down under the constant criticism they are subjected to and the incredible stress of their work load.

Republicans have the incredible nerve to call this global "free enterprise." Bull shit! China is a COMMUNIST country for those of you who have forgotten. The Chinese government subsidizes Chinese industries with low or zero rate loans, free land to build their plants on, and a system of tarriffs which prevent most foreign produced goods from being competitive in the Chinese market place.

BTW, the above info on Apple comes from the book, The Betrayal of the American Dream by Barlett and Steele, pp. 85-97.

The US joins in the party by actually giving tax breaks to US corporations who export US jobs overseas. There is no system of tariffs that has any teeth which protects American manufacturing the way Chinese products are protected. BTW, is there any American manufacturing left? I guess we still make a few car parts and your pal, Romney objects to even that.


Wake up and look at what is going on both in the US and globally. The wealthiest individuals and corporations in the US have bouht themselves a national legislature of their very own in no small part due to Citizens United. Would you like to explain to me how you or I have the "liberty" or "freedom" to run a candidate who represents the actual American people - not Goldman Sachs. Good fucking luck, sucker. Until - IF -we get campaign financing reform, our country will continue to run at a deposit as jobs continue to vanish overseas, CEO's are paid obscene salaries to dismantle American enterprise, and the war du jour will rake in billions if not trillions for the cronies of the administration who yet again, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war," against whatever hapless nation is discovered to have something we want.

Why in the name of the FSM are Conservatives so deliberately blind. You strain at gnats and miss the mountain one foot from your face. The defit is all the fault of the disabled and the homeless children and seniors living on $700/month. Certainly not any of those other factors I mentioned. Oh, yeah. And FEMA, too. Romney et al want to save us from the evil Fema program. Have fun all you folks who were in Sandy's path. Hope you know how to repair your own power grids single handed. And how about "safety net" programs? Romney wants to end the food stamp program. Wanna tell me what the low income children in the US are going to eat? Maybe Romney will start a canned goods program to help them out. What will happen to the low income disabled and seniors when Romeny gives us "liberty" and "freedom" from housing assistance and medical care through Medicaid (the medical program for the very poor)?

You, oh grasshopper, want efficiency in your government programs? According to the non partisen Center on Budet and Tax Priorities the social safety net programs account for - get this - 13 percent of the entire United States budget. The most expensive programs are social security and defense - both coming in at 20 percent. Now you want to tell me that there's no waste in defense spending? Pardon me while I go find a place to die laughing - maybe I'll just join all those old people and disabled folks that were turned out to starve or die of exposure or die due to lack of medical treatment, so you and your mad hatter hosted tea party could save a a lousey 13% by killing (yes, killing) the most vulnerable members of our population. Meanwhile, Halliburten et al will be shoveling krugerands into their secret off shore accounts and people like members of the Bin Laden family will be secretly spirited away to continue their lives of wealth and priviledge, not to mention well placed campaign contributions.

I have nothing but contempt for the current crop of Republicans who can't be bothered to study even recent history, are to lazy to use common logic, and are all too eager to literally destroy thousands of their fellow citizens because they want to buy a cheap i-pad under whatever outrageous terms Apple may demand and FSM forbid that some rich bitch in a gated community have her taxes go up by even 2 cents

PS. And you think the Republicans tromping around in your bedroom is LESS intrusive government?

[DanaC]

Well said Sam.

Adak, that ketchup analogy is deeply flawed.

[Adak]

The ketchup metaphor was meant to just give you a little "flavor" for the different philosophies. Doesn't suit your tastes, eh?

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

PS. And you think the Republicans tromping around in your bedroom is LESS intrusive government?

Sam wins. Game over.

(that wah wah wah pacman game over sound.)

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

The ketchup metaphor was meant to just give you a little "flavor" for the different philosophies. Doesn't suit your tastes, eh?

Just doesn't work very well as a metaphor.