• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: subspaceseven
I think it is interesting how the GOP, Romney/Ryan are setting the bar low for Willard, but when he was running for Gov., it was the debates that put him in the lead. They are playing it like he has never debated anyone, well he had several this year in the primary and he did very well when he ran for Gov, I believe they has 4-5 debates and clearly he won each one.
I don't believe Team Obama is dumb enough to think they will destroy him because of lack of experience, if anything it will be the details that bring Willard down, the details he and Ryan have refused to discuss

quote:

Now, Governor Romney believes that with that even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations on Wall Street all of us will prosper. In other words he'd double down on the same trickle down policies that led to the crisis in the first place. So what's my plan?

First, we create a million new manufacturing jobs and help businesses double their exports. Give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not that ship jobs overseas.

Second, we cut our oil imports in half and produce more American-made energy, oil, clean-coal, natural gas, and new resources like wind, solar and bio-fuels—all while doubling the fuel efficiencies of cars and trucks.

Third, we insure that we maintain the best workforce in the world by preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers. Training 2 million Americans with the job skills they need at our community colleges. Cutting the growth of tuition in half and expanding student aid so more Americans can afford it.

Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.

create a million new manufacturing jobs

give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not ship jobs overseas

cut our oil imports in half

double fuel economy

preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers

Do we really have a need for more teachers? I'm not saying that teachers aren't necessary. Nor am I saying that we don't need a large number of teachers. However, as I showed in another post...

Since Bush took office, we've increased State-level education employment by almost 363,000. That includes about 15,000 since Obama took office, and 2,000 since the Republicans took the House. As far as local educator employment goes, we've increased roughly 575K since Bush took office, but that includes nearly 230K lost since Obama took office (almost 90K lost since Republicans took the House). If we look simply at the Obama numbers, we can see that State-level educators increased 15K while local educators have dropped 230K, meaning we've idled 215K education workers since Obama took office (not placing blame; merely stating the facts). I don't know how many are math and science teachers, but I think it might be easy to say that we have plenty of teachers we could hire right now that are already prepared. But, how is the Federal Government going to do that anyhow?


Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we've already cut,


Without even attempting to challenge his $1T already cut, doesn't he leave out that little detail of it being cut from the 10-year estimate? he certainly hasn't cut it from a yearly standpoint.


I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more.


Have you ever heard Obama or the Democrats say the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy save them just "a little?" Yeah. Me neither. Ever notice how a politician will call something massive, huge, or some other descriptor that states "big" when it suits their purposes, and then describe that exact same thing with descriptors that evoke images of tiny, near frivolous amounts when it suits their purposes (notice no Party affiliation mentioned, because it isn't limited by party affiliation)?


And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.


So, we are going to take half of what we are spending on the war in Afghanistan and "pay down our debt" while taking the rest to build America. The President's budget for 2012 is estimated to include $1.1T in deficit spending (down $200B from initial budget estimates last year). What he is stating, then, is that we are spending more than $2.2T on the war in Afghanistan. Yearly. That's the only way to take half of it (over $1.1T) to actually pay down our debt.

Yeah, Romney is missing details. lmao




_____________________________

What I support:



• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to subspaceseven)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

I just bought a bottle of Rio De Plata and plan on playing the Obama drinking game. Every time Obama reflects on one of his broken promises I'll drink a shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OttersSwim

Just remember that they will materialize a 20% tax cut for you out of thin air! Magic underpants don't fail Mitt now!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: subspaceseven
I think it is interesting how the GOP, Romney/Ryan are setting the bar low for Willard, but when he was running for Gov., it was the debates that put him in the lead. They are playing it like he has never debated anyone, well he had several this year in the primary and he did very well when he ran for Gov, I believe they has 4-5 debates and clearly he won each one.
I don't believe Team Obama is dumb enough to think they will destroy him because of lack of experience, if anything it will be the details that bring Willard down, the details he and Ryan have refused to discuss

Have you heard Obama's ad (I've seen it several times while watching the NFL)?

quote:

Now, Governor Romney believes that with that even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations on Wall Street all of us will prosper. In other words he'd double down on the same trickle down policies that led to the crisis in the first place. So what's my plan?

First, we create a million new manufacturing jobs and help businesses double their exports. Give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not that ship jobs overseas.

Second, we cut our oil imports in half and produce more American-made energy, oil, clean-coal, natural gas, and new resources like wind, solar and bio-fuels—all while doubling the fuel efficiencies of cars and trucks.

Third, we insure that we maintain the best workforce in the world by preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers. Training 2 million Americans with the job skills they need at our community colleges. Cutting the growth of tuition in half and expanding student aid so more Americans can afford it.

Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.

So, you are going to get on Romney's case for not discussing details?

create a million new manufacturing jobs He's already created 500,000 new ones. Do you suppose a Million won't be doable?

How? Isn't that a bit of detail missing?

give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not ship jobs overseas(Why is this difficult - Mr. Apple instead of developing the next generation of Iphone/tablet in China why not build it in upstate Ny where there is a long history of technology and the University R&D to support it? What would it take for us to make it work. Or Mr. Sabic lets have a consortium of industry, education and manufacturing develop new polymer manufacture based on the shale gases being produced in NE Ohio since two of the premier universities for Polymers are right in the area. .

While technically not "overseas," would this include companies that ship jobs to Canada or Mexico? Would this include companies that aren't located within the US that invest in US manufacturing plants? Would this include non-Union investments (ie. Boeing in SC)?

cut our oil imports in half

What will that do to our gas prices? (Is that a trick question? Lower gas prices are a good thing, no?)

double fuel economy

What will that do to the price of vehicles? (No affect at all...why would it?)

preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers(So an effort to lower class sizes and boost the amount of teachers is a bad thing? Why do you want to accept the status quo and assume nothing can be done that is positive?)

Do we really have a need for more teachers? I'm not saying that teachers aren't necessary. Nor am I saying that we don't need a large number of teachers. However, as I showed in another post...

Since Bush took office, we've increased State-level education employment by almost 363,000. That includes about 15,000 since Obama took office, and 2,000 since the Republicans took the House. As far as local educator employment goes, we've increased roughly 575K since Bush took office, but that includes nearly 230K lost since Obama took office (almost 90K lost since Republicans took the House). If we look simply at the Obama numbers, we can see that State-level educators increased 15K while local educators have dropped 230K, meaning we've idled 215K education workers since Obama took office (not placing blame; merely stating the facts). I don't know how many are math and science teachers, but I think it might be easy to say that we have plenty of teachers we could hire right now that are already prepared. But, how is the Federal Government going to do that anyhow?

Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we've already cut,


Without even attempting to challenge his $1T already cut, doesn't he leave out that little detail of it being cut from the 10-year estimate? he certainly hasn't cut it from a yearly standpoint.

I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more.


Have you ever heard Obama or the Democrats say the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy save them just "a little?" Yeah. Me neither. Ever notice how a politician will call something massive, huge, or some other descriptor that states "big" when it suits their purposes, and then describe that exact same thing with descriptors that evoke images of tiny, near frivolous amounts when it suits their purposes (notice no Party affiliation mentioned, because it isn't limited by party affiliation)?

And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.


So, we are going to take half of what we are spending on the war in Afghanistan and "pay down our debt" while taking the rest to build America. The President's budget for 2012 is estimated to include $1.1T in deficit spending (down $200B from initial budget estimates last year). What he is stating, then, is that we are spending more than $2.2T on the war in Afghanistan. Yearly. That's the only way to take half of it (over $1.1T) to actually pay down our debt. (And that is the argument Progressives have been trying to make. We aren't spending nearly enough to get us out of Depression. Our deficits take care of themselves when we do two things. Raise taxes and increase growth. Cutting spending and paying down the debt does neither. Conservatives are dooming us to decades of Stagnation Japan style. Lets go Forward not Backward.

Yeah, Romney is missing details. lmao

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

He's already created 500,000 new ones. Do you suppose a Million won't be doable?

quote:

Why is this difficult - Mr. Apple instead of developing the next generation of Iphone/tablet in China why not build it in upstate Ny where there is a long history of technology and the University R&D to support it? What would it take for us to make it work. Or Mr. Sabic lets have a consortium of industry, education and manufacturing develop new polymer manufacture based on the shale gases being produced in NE Ohio since two of the premier universities for Polymers are right in the area. .

quote:

quote:

What will that do to our gas prices?

Is that a trick question? Lower gas prices are a good thing, no?

quote:

quote:

quote:

double fuel economy

What will that do to the price of vehicles?

(No affect at all...why would it?)

quote:

quote:

preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers

So an effort to lower class sizes and boost the amount of teachers is a bad thing? Why do you want to accept the status quo and assume nothing can be done that is positive?)

quote:

quote:

Do we really have a need for more teachers? I'm not saying that teachers aren't necessary. Nor am I saying that we don't need a large number of teachers. However, as I showed in another post...
Since Bush took office, we've increased State-level education employment by almost 363,000. That includes about 15,000 since Obama took office, and 2,000 since the Republicans took the House. As far as local educator employment goes, we've increased roughly 575K since Bush took office, but that includes nearly 230K lost since Obama took office (almost 90K lost since Republicans took the House). If we look simply at the Obama numbers, we can see that State-level educators increased 15K while local educators have dropped 230K, meaning we've idled 215K education workers since Obama took office (not placing blame; merely stating the facts). I don't know how many are math and science teachers, but I think it might be easy to say that we have plenty of teachers we could hire right now that are already prepared. But, how is the Federal Government going to do that anyhow?

quote:

quote:

Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we've already cut,

Without even attempting to challenge his $1T already cut, doesn't he leave out that little detail of it being cut from the 10-year estimate? he certainly hasn't cut it from a yearly standpoint.

I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more.

Have you ever heard Obama or the Democrats say the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy save them just "a little?" Yeah. Me neither. Ever notice how a politician will call something massive, huge, or some other descriptor that states "big" when it suits their purposes, and then describe that exact same thing with descriptors that evoke images of tiny, near frivolous amounts when it suits their purposes (notice no Party affiliation mentioned, because it isn't limited by party affiliation)?

And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.

So, we are going to take half of what we are spending on the war in Afghanistan and "pay down our debt" while taking the rest to build America. The President's budget for 2012 is estimated to include $1.1T in deficit spending (down $200B from initial budget estimates last year). What he is stating, then, is that we are spending more than $2.2T on the war in Afghanistan. Yearly. That's the only way to take half of it (over $1.1T) to actually pay down our debt.

And that is the argument Progressives have been trying to make. We aren't spending nearly enough to get us out of Depression. Our deficits take care of themselves when we do two things. Raise taxes and increase growth. Cutting spending and paying down the debt does neither. Conservatives are dooming us to decades of Stagnation Japan style. Lets go Forward not Backward.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


I'm with you that I'd rather see stuff being done here, rather than somewhere else. But, if you have to pay someone to actually invest here, what happens when you stop paying them for that investment?

Going forward would mean letting businesses rebuild and not adding more and more regulations, taxes and fees.