The Real Mitt Romney

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

Got to take these one at a time...


You're welcome. What I had in mind was this link:



I offer this constructive criticism of this link. It is just a picture. It has a title, but there's little there to go on, not a link back to the article, no legends on the axes, nothing. I did follow up on this picture's title, "Publicly held federal debt 1790-2009", and read some material though.

You say it is an picture of the problem with Socialism. That's not what I found.

Here's a link that has much more actual information than just that picture. It's a CBO report titled The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook. Here's the money shot:

Attachment 41073

Let me break that down for you. First of all, the graph, the report, nothing at all has anything at all to do with Socialism, or its supposed problems. I *suspect* that scare word came from some partisan bloviator who saw a report and then took the six or seven words in it that suited his panicky mood at the time, and mashed up that graph and slapped the label Socialism somewhere in the title of the blog post. I think you cribbed it from something like that.

Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about what the CBO is actually saying. They consider two scenarios, they call them extended baselines because they look at their projections for the budget for the next twenty-five or so years.




******



*** the kind of reductions in payments to providers that comprise the hotly debated $176 billion dollars "stolen" from Medicare, according to Ryan/Romney.

So, you say that the problem with Socialism is ... something, but you point at the "extended alternative baseline scenario" as the scary bogeyman. It IS scary I agree. But if you read the CBO's own words, that scary prospect is what they project will happen if the tax cuts are permitted to stay in place.

...

Come on, Adak. This is Socialism? If you want to AVOID the "Socialist" outcome, fine--just keep extending the temporary Bush era tax cuts. This is what Comrade Romney has proposed, hasn't he? He won't increase anyone's taxes. "Absolutely." that was his *exact* statement on the issue, right? Socialist bastard. In fact, if you listen to him further, he says he will LOWER THE RATES. REALLY???? That scary graph was scary because the rates only stay the same, imagine how much faster and higher the Taxapolyse will hit if the rates are lowered? Oh, sure, Romney's gonna pay for them by eliminating funding for Big Bird and some other hand waving, but even taking him at his word, he's only aiming to make the changes "revenue neutral". He doesn't want to bring any more revenue to the Federal system. All cuts. No revenue increases.

You read the report. You look at the graphs. You listen to Romney's words. Then you come back and tell me which scenario his plan would take us to. And be prepared to substitute some numbers for his pitiful and unconvincing hand waving. You've shown your willingness and ability to support your statements to a degree far exceeding Romney's. Go on, convince me. I might vote for you.

All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.

Wow that's a high bar! You clearly have high standards for what you will consider valid information, and what you reject for lack of support. Your rigorous fact checking shows you only accept the truth on important issues and are never satisfied with mere assertion.

Yet....

You have never offered any support or "facts" for the smears spread by the Romney campaign that he will balance the budget by cutting taxes.

Nothing at all like the standard of proof you demand from others. This makes you a hypocrite as well as an ideologue. You can shed these twin millstones by producing some details about how Romney will manage his tax cuts and budget balancing. PLEASE NOTE I will only accept actual tax code sections, the dollar value of those sections and (since you such a precocious student of American Civics, the vote count in Congress for each of these changes to our tax laws).

I would challenge you to put up or shut up, but I realize that would be pointless, since you're incapable of either. Just so you know, until you produce some facts like you demand from others your voice, like any other well trained parrot, provides only entertainment, not information.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Wow that's a high bar! You clearly have high standards for what you will consider valid information, and what you reject for lack of support. Your rigorous fact checking shows you only accept the truth on important issues and are never satisfied with mere assertion.

Yet....

You have never offered any support or "facts" for the smears spread by the Romney campaign that he will balance the budget by cutting taxes.

Nothing at all like the standard of proof you demand from others. This makes you a hypocrite as well as an ideologue. You can shed these twin millstones by producing some details about how Romney will manage his tax cuts and budget balancing. PLEASE NOTE I will only accept actual tax code sections, the dollar value of those sections and (since you such a precocious student of American Civics, the vote count in Congress for each of these changes to our tax laws).

I would challenge you to put up or shut up, but I realize that would be pointless, since you're incapable of either. Just so you know, until you produce some facts like you demand from others your voice, like any other well trained parrot, provides only entertainment, not information.

That was covered a few pages back, by another poster, as well as on the website that he posted the link to.

Romney's tax cut is not a "smear". It is a plan, and you may disagree with it, but it is, by definition, not a "smear".

If there is some specific part about it that you don't understand, ask away, and I'll try to help. On a forum, I can't go whole hog on big topics however. The forum has a size limit on posts, and I have bumped up against it, a few times.

The point of the "high bar", is that the data you'd need to prove or to disprove the smear against Romney while at Bain, is NOT available. Which is why it's such a great target for a smear by the Obama campaign. THAT is the point of the "high bar", to bring this point into focus.

IF the data was readily available, don't you think that Obama's campaign would be shouting the numbers in every ad, all across the country? That's why you can be sure that the data is not there.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Romney's tax cut is not a "smear". It is a plan, and you may disagree with it, but it is, by definition, not a "smear".

Still pushing lies you were told to post. What happened to the many examples from history and other facts? Oh. You ignored them. Tax cuts typically result in recessions. Tax cuts to increase productivity has always been a lie that enriches the rich. And then results in a recession. No reason to list the so many examples from history. That also included economic boom after a tax increase. You routinely ignore what contradicts the party's rhetoric.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

A hand up is any program that includes a central core protocol that stresses giving people a lift upward, in their ability to earn a living. Job retraining for disabled vets, is a good example.

A hand out is any program that lacks a central theme of lifting people upward in economic mobility, leading to regular dependency on the part of the recipient. Typically, they aren't even making an effort to get off the dole. Why should they?

Welfare recipients who could work but don't, living off welfare for decades, are a good example.

--snip

A program like this? TANF

[DanaC]

He saw the word nigger and missed the context entirely.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

He saw the word nigger and missed the context entirely.

Almost correct. I don't tolerate such offensive language. Like I said, been there (in the Deep South), saw that racist ideology, and it was sickening.

You want to have me reply to your post, you don't use words like that.

[infinite monkey]

Mitt 'did a fine job' in the debate. I keep hearing that and I wondered if I saw the same debate. Sure, he was aggressive, maybe 'presidential' but he still didn't actually say anything.

Obama asked him to explain how, if he's going to leave the rich taxes alone, how else can he fix a trillion in deficit without any impact to the middle class taxes. The most I heard was that he plans to cut from other programs. 'Other programs' is Rom-speak for ' programs that affect the poor and middle classes.' Careful, people, what you ask for. And, um, cutting funding to PBS? Yeah, there's a whopping .01 percent of the budget. Ha!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Mitt 'did a fine job' in the debate. I keep hearing that and I wondered if I saw the same debate. Sure, he was aggressive, maybe 'presidential' but he still didn't actually say anything.

Obama asked him to explain how, if he's going to leave the rich taxes alone, how else can he fix a trillion in deficit without any impact to the middle class taxes. The most I heard was that he plans to cut from other programs. 'Other programs' is Rom-speak for ' programs that affect the poor and middle classes.' Careful, people, what you ask for. And, um, cutting funding to PBS? Yeah, there's a whopping .01 percent of the budget. Ha!

Even if you took EVERY PENNY, from the top 10% of our income earners, in taxes, you wouldn't begin to break even on the spending we're doing, versus our income to the gov't.

You MUST start trimming down the size of the federal gov't, or we are headed for a meltdown, and it won't be all that far off, either.

Give me a guess. What do you believe is our national debt, per day, hour, minute or second? Not the amount we spend that's covered, by income, but the amount ABOVE what we have coming into the federal gov't.

You WILL be shocked!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Even if you took EVERY PENNY, from the top 10% of our income earners, in taxes, you wouldn't begin to break even on the spending we're doing, versus our income to the gov't.

When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. We should restore the same people who ran up the debts this massive? Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So those same people will do something different if we elect Romney?

Extremist conservatives create debt messes. They did it under Nixon and George Jr. Republicans who were more moderate and responsible (Reagan, George Sr) raised taxes so as to not create massive debts.

We now have the "deficit that did not matter".

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. We should restore the same people who ran up the debts this massive? Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So those same people will do something different if we elect Romney?

Extremist conservatives create debt messes. They did it under Nixon and George Jr. Republicans who were more moderate and responsible (Reagan, George Sr) raised taxes so as to not create massive debts.

We now have the "deficit that did not matter".

Clinton did one thing, very well. He freed up business from the bureaucratic nightmare that other administrations revel in. During his terms in office, our position in the scale of freedom to do business, increased significantly. We were in the #5 then. Those days are long gone now, of course. We rank about #20, now.

You're taking one sentence from Cheney, out of context, and pretending it's a Conservative Commandment. That's your argument, really?

Cheney saw, like everyone else, how Reagan used the increase in our spending, to counter the Soviets military build up, and thus compel them into bankruptcy by their need to feel ultra secure, which they are famous for.

Due to their history of invasions from the West (Germany, France, etc.), and their own propaganda, they thought we were going to invade or "conquer" them. Like we "conquered" the Philippines, Japan, West Germany, France, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Australia, The Solomon Islands, South Korea, and all the other countries we've had our troops land in.

That's not the same thing as saying that deficits don't matter - only that you have to be careful with it. Look at WWII - our national debt climbed to record high levels, but you would have to agree that it was a worthwhile reason to allow it to do so.

To have a Trillion dollar increase in our debt, year after year, is simply an irresponsible act that WILL crash our entire monetary system. Surely you know THAT much.

Let's base our decisions on facts, and not on out of context quotes from out of office politicians.

And you are lying about Reagan increasing taxes, as a whole. You've made that assertion, and have been shown incorrect with regard to individual income tax rates.

Do you want to investigate Corporate tax rates during Reagan's terms in office? Yeah, I thought not!

When you're wrong, you should at least have the decency to admit it.

Reagan was our last conservative President. If you wanted to look at just the fiscal policy, you'd see that Clinton was the most conservative President, on economic policy, since Reagan.

Bush II was socially conservative, but not fiscally conservative, at all.
Bush I made an agreement with Congressional Leaders from the Democrats, to raise taxes now, and they would agree to support cutting spending, in the next session of Congress.

So he did raise taxes - which immediately branded him a liar to the public because of his famous pledge: "read my lips, no new taxes". Of course, the Democrats would not support cutting spending, as they had promised they would. They increased spending, instead! And George H. Bush was toast.

We've seen that over and over. We call it the "I'll be glad to pay you next Tuesday, for a hamburger today" promise, after the cartoon character who said it so often.

I get it that you like Obama. If his fiscal policies worked, I'd support him for another term, gladly.

But they don't work, and I don't want to see another 4 years of economic slow-down. A lot of people are suffering right now.

[infinite monkey]

Mitt is so very sorry about his 47% comment, he was completely wrong. How sweet. Two days ago he staunchly supported his statement.

How in the hell are people buying this nonsense? Are we, as a nation, really that dumbed down?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Mitt is so very sorry about his 47% comment, he was completely wrong. How sweet. Two days ago he staunchly supported his statement.

How in the hell are people buying this nonsense? Are we, as a nation, really that dumbed down?

Mitt Romney is an asshole conservative

*shakes etch-a-sketch*

Mitt Romney is a rational moderate

[glatt]

Props are probably against the rules, but it would have been great if Obama brought an etch-a-sketch to the debate.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Mitt is so very sorry about his 47% comment, he was completely wrong. How sweet. Two days ago he staunchly supported his statement.

How in the hell are people buying this nonsense? Are we, as a nation, really that dumbed down?

You've been "buying" Obama's sweet nothings, for years, what's the problem?

His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis. As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah, it's something that should have remained in the room.

Everybody takes short cuts in their speaking which, if taken out of context, sound bad. We just don't have as many little ass-bites running around with hidden recorders, as the Democrats have.

And even if we did, the White House and Air Force One, is tough territory to eavesdrop on the President!

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis. As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah, it's something that should have remained in the room.

No it wasn't. The 47% comment was wrong for so many reasons. It is a typical Republican (note that I do not mean conservative) argument that incites emotion and can be defended only because of how it was framed. Frame it any differently and it is completely wrong. The same goes for foreign policy and the stimulus.

If you actually break down the 47% who do not pay income taxes, it looks a hell a lot different than purely government parasites. If Mitt Romney wants to know why 47% of American will never vote for him, rewatch the Republican primary debates. Republicans (not necessarily conservatives) have gone completely off the deep end. Romney's campaign finally realized that and it explains his very quick switch in positions at the debate.