Mitt Romney's policies as President - Page 2

BigV · 07-26-2012, 12:37 AM

yes, it's based on "4% for Freedom". It's based on a bumper sticker.

**I** believe it should be based on our security needs instead. For that matter, how do you think the Def Dept (or the congressional ~~vultures~~ hawks) would respond to FALLING budgets during recessionary times?

It's dumb, also because we don't need MORE money put into defense.

Furthermore, it's based on what the economy produces, GDP. Not related in any way to the government's revenues. Not based on, you know, taxes. But hey, our net worth is x dollars, therefore, 0.04x must be spent on defense. Completely asinine.

classicman · 07-26-2012, 12:55 AM

Pretty much. Whats the number based upon now, PFA?

Lamplighter · 07-26-2012, 09:22 AM

How about: need vs want ?

Stormieweather · 07-26-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV

I heard a report that Mr Romney that he intends to increase defense budget by an additional two trillion dollars over a decade.

What the hell?????

Because why? Because we're... unsafe? Because we're going to be invaded? How much education could two trillion dollars produce? How much economic value would be returned for an investment of two trillion dollars in the young people (and less young) of our nation?

Here's your cite.

Why? Because he has buddies in the defense industry. What smokescreen he'll try to use on the American public to sell this process, I have no idea.

Spexxvet · 07-27-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Why? Because he has buddies in the defense industry. What smokescreen he'll try to use on the American public to sell this process, I have no idea.

"I've never been in the army, but I have a friend who owns an army"

ZenGum · 07-27-2012, 08:03 AM

Ahh, that line has stuck, hasn't it.

Griff · 07-27-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

"I've never been in the army, but I have a friend who owns an army"

He may have one in January then Mitt and Bibi can invade Iran... woot.

Lamplighter · 07-27-2012, 11:57 AM

There was a time when another Republican was running for the Presidency.
He too had a personality that did not connect well with the average voter.
He too campaigned on a "I have a plan".
The slogan was in most of his campaign speeches.
But when asked about specifics, he was silent or very vague.

He was elected to the Presidency, and then re-elected four years later.
His inauguration was on Jan 20th..
Six years later, his secret plan finally came to fruition on April 29th.

tw · 07-27-2012, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Six years later, his secret plan finally came to fruition on April 29th.

The Nixon tapes, still slowly being transcribed at U of Maryland, revealed his secret plan. In conversations with Kissinger just after taking office, Nixon admitted the war was not winnable. But that a loss must not occur on Nixon's watch. His legacy - not America - was always most important.

He had plenty of secret plans he just could not share with Americans. So many that the US Supreme Court took precautions when they ruled unanimously against Nixon and the subpoena for his tapes. Too many secret plans (and expletives) might be revealed.

Another secret solution was a message to N Vietnam to not accept Johnson's peace proposals because Nixon would offer them a better deal. Sound like treason? Yep. Best kept secret.

Well, his campaign now claims, repeatedly, the US Navy is smaller than it was before WWI. And its all Obama's fault. He has a secret plan to massively increase the military while cutting spending.

ZenGum · 07-27-2012, 08:09 PM

Recycled from the graphs and charts thread

Attachment 37942

Uhh, the bit in the middle suggests you're already spending 4.91% of GDP on defense. Uh?

And seriously, no nation comes even close to the US defense budget. And of the also-rans, about half of them are allies (Britain, France, for what that's worth

) or cooperative states (Germany, Japan, kinda Saudi, although I wouldn't trust them) or mostly neutral (India, Brazil). Only China and Russia could be considered even potentially belligerent. IMHO, you're defended enough already.

Watch those damn Canadians, though. Anyone that friendly must be up to something.

Lamplighter · 07-27-2012, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum

<snip>
Watch those damn Canadians, though. Anyone that friendly must be up to something.

They have water, and are just defending themselves from becoming the 51-60th stars in the US flag.

ZenGum · 07-27-2012, 09:19 PM

Water of Mineral Dissolution?

07-26-2012, 12:37 AM	#16
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	yes, it's based on "4% for Freedom". It's based on a bumper sticker. I believe it should be based on our security needs instead. For that matter, how do you think the Def Dept (or the congressional ~~vultures~~ hawks) would respond to FALLING budgets during recessionary times? It's dumb, also because we don't need MORE money put into defense. Furthermore, it's based on what the economy produces, GDP. Not related in any way to the government's revenues. Not based on, you know, taxes. But hey, our net worth is x dollars, therefore, 0.04x must be spent on defense. Completely asinine. __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

07-26-2012, 12:55 AM	#17
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Pretty much. Whats the number based upon now, PFA? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

07-27-2012, 08:03 AM	#21
ZenGum Doctor Wtf Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Badelaide, Baustralia Posts: 12,861	Ahh, that line has stuck, hasn't it. __________________ Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.

07-27-2012, 11:57 AM	#23
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	There was a time when another Republican was running for the Presidency. He too had a personality that did not connect well with the average voter. He too campaigned on a "I have a plan". The slogan was in most of his campaign speeches. But when asked about specifics, he was silent or very vague. He was elected to the Presidency, and then re-elected four years later. His inauguration was on Jan 20th.. Six years later, his secret plan finally came to fruition on April 29th. Attached Images

07-27-2012, 08:09 PM	#25
ZenGum Doctor Wtf Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Badelaide, Baustralia Posts: 12,861	Recycled from the graphs and charts thread Attachment 37942 Uhh, the bit in the middle suggests you're already spending 4.91% of GDP on defense. Uh? And seriously, no nation comes even close to the US defense budget. And of the also-rans, about half of them are allies (Britain, France, for what that's worth ) or cooperative states (Germany, Japan, kinda Saudi, although I wouldn't trust them) or mostly neutral (India, Brazil). Only China and Russia could be considered even potentially belligerent. IMHO, you're defended enough already. Watch those damn Canadians, though. Anyone that friendly must be up to something. __________________ Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.

07-26-2012, 09:22 AM	#18
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	How about: need vs want ?

07-27-2012, 09:19 PM	#27
ZenGum Doctor Wtf Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Badelaide, Baustralia Posts: 12,861	Water of Mineral Dissolution? __________________ Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)