RNC

[julius]

The survey notes that Romney joins 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry as the only recent presidential nominees who did not benefit from a post-convention bump.

(and Kerry was running against W).

Kerry was also running against Kerry. That guy was such a bland candidate, that he could've been on fire and he'd still make it boring.

 

[STOMP]

The survey notes that Romney joins 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry as the only recent presidential nominees who did not benefit from a post-convention bump.

(and Kerry was running against W).

my bad, I just couldn't recall such a lack of enthusiasm, but Kerry truly didn't fire up his base or the country either. Fine company that Mitt is running in eh?

Good luck in your party's All-American voting suppression efforts

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

my bad, I just couldn't recall such a lack of enthusiasm, but Kerry truly didn't fire up his base or the country either. Fine company that Mitt is running in eh?

Good luck in your party's All-American voting suppression efforts

STOMP

Republican is not my party.

Democrat is not my party.

I'm not a fan of authoritarian government and central planning.

 

[MARIS61]

Republicans now say, "Where is your hope and change for reversing the destruction we wrought upon the U.S.? Obama failed to do so. Therefore, it logically follows that you should put us back into office."

That's the choice in a nutshell.

Do I vote for the thief (Republicans) who robbed my home, or do I vote for the policeman (Democrats) who has (so far) failed to catch the thief but has recovered some of my money.

Not that hard a choice.

 

[STOMP]

Republican is not my party.

Democrat is not my party.

I'm not a fan of authoritarian government and central planning.

I doubt but a few of us are completely on board with one side or the other. The daily Republican talking points you pass along in new threads and general participation seem to have you squarely in one corner despite their style of governing being exactly what you claim to be against. If you're no fan of authoritarian government, it would follow that you'd be appalled at the coordinated efforts of Republicans to suppress the vote of the people among other things.

your one sided participation makes you seem like a Republican

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

I doubt but a few of us are completely on board with one side or the other. The daily Republican talking points you pass along in new threads and general participation seem to have you squarely in one corner despite their style of governing being exactly what you claim to be against. If you're no fan of authoritarian government, it would follow that you'd be appalled at the coordinated efforts of Republicans to suppress the vote of the people among other things.

your one sided participation makes you seem like a Republican

STOMP

my one sided participation? I'm no fan of Romney. Ryan at least talks about doing what I want - cut govt. (but by way more!). And being against the authoritarian big really govt. party doesn't make me a fan of the slightly smaller govt. party.

And I think all voting should happen on the same day, like the constitution says it should. If they need to make the day a national holiday, so be it.

 

[MARIS61]

my one sided participation? I'm no fan of Romney. Ryan at least talks about doing what I want - cut govt. (but by way more!). And being against the authoritarian big really govt. party doesn't make me a fan of the slightly smaller govt. party.

And I think all voting should happen on the same day, like the constitution says it should. If they need to make the day a national holiday, so be it.

Firstly, the Republican party is the big governmment party, with Reagan and Baby Bush enlarging governmment more than any other Presidents in history.

Secondly, why don't you move to Somalia since they are the most Libertarian country in the world? I hear it's a real Garden of Eden.

 

[Denny Crane]

Firstly, the Republican party is the big governmment party, with Reagan and Baby Bush enlarging governmment more than any other Presidents in history.

Secondly, why don't you move to Somalia since they are the most Libertarian country in the world? I hear it's a real Garden of Eden.

Again with the attacks.

The economy for Clinton took off when he signed a tax CUT bill in 1997, which included a 28% down to 20% cut in capital gains tax rate, a $500 per child tax credit, increased the estate tax exemption from $600K to $1M, cut the AMT, etc. His tax hike to start his presidency stifled economic growth.

Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%.
Under Nixon revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 21%.
Under Ford revenue grew by 11%, but spending grew by 22%.
Under Carter revenue grew by 20%, but spending grew by 13%.
Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.
Under Bush Sr. revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 18%.
Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.
Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%.

Under Clinton and Bush Jr., we had republican house and senate, and congress is where spending is authorized.

 

[maxiep]

Re: No bump for Romney following RNC

pretty much unprecedented

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...lup-no-bounce-for-romney-post-gop-convention/

btw... Mitt is hanging out at one of his vacation homes at Lake Winnipesaukee New Hampshire taking some more time off from the campaign

STOMP

Did you find it equally terrible when John Kerry went to Nantucket to vacation at one of the homes his wife bought during the Republican Convention? Here's what he was doing while the Republicans were at their convention:

Seriously, who on earth cares that Mitt Romney is rich or that he's enjoying some downtime from the campaign? At least he made his own money.

 

[Denny Crane]

^^^ broken image.

 

[maxiep]

^^^ broken image.

It shows up fine for me.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Re: No bump for Romney following RNC

Did you find it equally terrible when John Kerry went to Nantucket to vacation at one of the homes his wife bought during the Republican Convention? Here's what he was doing while the Republicans were at their convention:

Seriously, who on earth cares that Mitt Romney is rich or that he's enjoying some downtime from the campaign? At least he made his own money.

"This image is so interesting that it was stolen from ObamaPacman.com"

Your link no worky.

 

[maxiep]

Re: No bump for Romney following RNC

"This image is so interesting that it was stolen from ObamaPacman.com"

Your link no worky.

 

[RR7]

Re: No bump for Romney following RNC

pretty much what he was doing his whole campaign though. If he was absent throughout, tough to call it vacationing.

 

[STOMP]

my one sided participation? I'm no fan of Romney. Ryan at least talks about doing what I want - cut govt. (but by way more!). And being against the authoritarian big really govt. party doesn't make me a fan of the slightly smaller govt. party.

Yes one sided participation.

PR's budget takes from the middle class and poor to give even more to the rich with zero chance of a balanced budget in our lifetimes. Whoppee! Noted that this is the sort of idiocy that you're a fan of

Seriously, who on earth cares that Mitt Romney is rich or that he's enjoying some downtime from the campaign?

MR is running a very shut down campaign with minute access to the policies he hopes to install & barely taking any questions from the press. He doesn't want to talk about his failed record as Governor, be open about his business record, or of course do what his dad advocated and open his books for the people to see his taxes so they can gawk at his offshored $$$ and additional Dressage horse writeoffs. To me it's laughable/pathetic that after the faceplant of the RNC he's got to take some time off to go vaca some more while his Superpac money carpetbombs the States in play.

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes one sided participation.

PR's budget takes from the middle class and poor to give even more to the rich with zero chance of a balanced budget in our lifetimes. Whoppee! Noted that this is the sort of idiocy that you're a fan of

STOMP

In order to get the budget closer to balance, I'll take a $4T (over 10 year) cut in spending as a start.

The idiocy is 10 years of $1T+ deficits that Obama proposed. Are you a fan of that?

 

[maxiep]

Yes one sided participation.

PR's budget takes from the middle class and poor to give even more to the rich with zero chance of a balanced budget in our lifetimes. Whoppee! Noted that this is the sort of idiocy that you're a fan of

Have you taken a look at his proposals? Under his plan, the wealthy will as a whole pay more because the tax loopholes that they take advantage of will be closed. The tax rate for the middle class up goes down. And why shouldn't everyone at least pitch in a little?

Do some reading and get back to us: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/def...America-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

MR is running a very shut down campaign with minute access to the policies he hopes to install & barely taking any questions from the press. Of course doesn't want to talk about his failed record as Governor either, his business record, or of course do what his dad advocated and open his books for the people to see his taxes so they can gawk at his offshored $$$ and additional dressage horse writeoffs. To me it's laughable/pathetic after the faceplant of the RNC that he's got to take some time off to go vaca some more while his Superpac money carpetbombs the States in play.

STOMP

Mitt Romney as a candidate has already presented a more detailed plan than the incumbent. As for running a "shut down" campaign, he's talked to the press more than the incumbent. And what failed record? He took over the Commonwealth when it was 50th in job creation; it ended up 28th in job creation by the end of his tenure. He started with a massive budget deficit at the beginning and by the end of his term had a rainy day fund, and did it without raising taxes.

And do you have any idea at what a job creator Bain Capital has been? You don't make money in VC unless businesses succeed. BC had a 79% success rate under Romney; far above the VC average (you hope for 50%). His taxes are a side issue; he hasn't dodged any taxes. As for what his wife chooses to do with the money he makes, what business is it of ours? Did you bitch and moan about John Kerry buying a yacht or Al Gore buying a Montecito mansion and a private plane?

As for taking a vacation, why shouldn't he? He's been running non-stop since the primaries and probably needs some R&R. It used to be that the opposing candidates laid low during the others' conventions. I'm glad the Obama campaign didn't run any negative ads during the RNC, though.

 

[STOMP]

In order to get the budget closer to balance, I'll take a $4T (over 10 year) cut in spending as a start.

The idiocy is 10 years of $1T+ deficits that Obama proposed. Are you a fan of that?

PR's budget doesn't cut the deficit silly

Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/03/23/paul-ryans-budget-plan-more-big-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/

...and I'm not the one on here daily shaking my pom-poms starting threads tooting anyone's horn

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

PR's budget doesn't cut the deficit silly

Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/03/23/paul-ryans-budget-plan-more-big-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/

...and I'm not the one on here daily shaking my pom-poms starting threads tooting anyone's horn

STOMP

I'm rather shocked that you and Howard Gleckman (who wrote your article) believe that cutting tax revenues must mean bigger deficits. How about for every $1 in tax cuts, we cut $2 in govt. spending? Not in the first year, but over 10 would suffice.

Though Gleckman is somewhat honest:

Ryan argues that eliminating or scaling back deductions, credits, and exclusions ought to be part of the GOP fiscal plan. But he won’t say how.

Cuts in those tax preferences could make a big difference in determining who wins and who loses from the tax portion of his budget. But until House Republicans describe which they’d cut, there is no way to estimate what those base-broadeners would mean.

And maybe the all caps, bold font text on the tables they produce means something important?

"THE TABLE DOES NOT ESTIMATE THE REVENUE EFFECTS OF THE ENTIRE FY 2013 BUDGET RESOLUTION PROPOSED BY PAUL RYAN"

And as maxiep correctly pointed out, Ryan proposes to eliminate loopholes, though he is not specific about which ones. He says he wants those tax shelters eliminated to be debated publicly by the House Ways and Means Committee, which seems reasonable to me. And his plan does call for $3.3T more in deficit reduction over the next 10 years compared to Obama's budget proposals. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...trip-loopholes-for-top-earners-rep-ryan-says/

Consider if all loopholes are eliminated. Warren Buffett, who paid 17.4% of his income in taxes would end up paying 25% of his income in taxes under Ryan's rule. His Secretary who makes $500K would also pay 25% of her salary ($500K is well into the top 5% of earners).

 

[STOMP]

Have you taken a look at his proposals? Under his plan, the wealthy will as a whole pay more because the tax loopholes that they take advantage of will be closed. The tax rate for the middle class up goes down. And why shouldn't everyone at least pitch in a little?

Do some reading and get back to us: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/def...America-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

Mitt Romney as a candidate has already presented a more detailed plan than the incumbent. As for running a "shut down" campaign, he's talked to the press more than the incumbent. And what failed record? He took over the Commonwealth when it was 50th in job creation; it ended up 28th in job creation by the end of his tenure. He started with a massive budget deficit at the beginning and by the end of his term had a rainy day fund, and did it without raising taxes.

And do you have any idea at what a job creator Bain Capital has been? You don't make money in VC unless businesses succeed. BC had a 79% success rate under Romney; far above the VC average (you hope for 50%). His taxes are a side issue; he hasn't dodged any taxes. As for what his wife chooses to do with the money he makes, what business is it of ours? Did you bitch and moan about John Kerry buying a yacht or Al Gore buying a Montecito mansion and a private plane?

As for taking a vacation, why shouldn't he? He's been running non-stop since the primaries and probably needs some R&R. It used to be that the opposing candidates laid low during the others' conventions. I'm glad the Obama campaign didn't run any negative ads during the RNC, though.

a link to Mitt's personal website of vague BS... such a surprise coming from an Independent party honk such as yourself. You claim to want less government in your life, but constantly back the party that historically grows government, balloons deficits, starts horrible unwinnable wars, and seeks to interject itself into the bedroom & lives of Americans. They also just happen to advocate giving the 1% a big tax break

Though I despised Repub. dunderhead W, I didn't vote for Kerry or Gore. Your characterizations of where I stand are as wildly off base as the claims of MR's history in Massachusetts. Here's politifact on Mitt's record on job creation

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tt-romneys-massachusetts-rank-47th-job-creat/

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-jobs-record-is-best-or-worst/

As the Obama campaign has repeatedly noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states over the entirety of Romney’s four years as governor in terms of job creation.

As we wrote in an item this week when an Obama ad claimed Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney, in the 12 months before he took office, the state ranked 50th in job creation. That ranking remained 50th during Romney’s first year in office, but by his final year, it had improved to 28th.

 

[maxiep]

a link to Mitt's personal website of vague BS... such a surprise coming from an Independent party honk such as yourself.

What? You wanted to know his plan, so somehow linking you to his plan was somehow untruthful? Read it and judge it for yourself. When I wanted to know then-Senator Obama's plan, I went to his website. Pray tell, where else should I go? I believe in primary sources.

You claim to want less government in your life, but constantly back the party that historically grows government, balloons deficits, starts horrible unwinnable wars, and seeks to interject itself into the bedroom & lives of Americans. They also just happen to advocate giving the 1% a big tax break

I have two realistic choices: Someone who wants to step on the gas in terms of growing the Federal Government and one who at least wants to tap the brakes a bit. Neither is optimal; I have Libertarian tendencies, but IMO voting for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote. It's not lying to myself; it's being realistic.

Though I despised Repub. dunderhead W, I didn't vote for Kerry or Gore. Your characterizations of where I stand are as wildly off base as the claims of MR's history in Massachusetts. Here's politifact on Mitt's record on job creation

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tt-romneys-massachusetts-rank-47th-job-creat/

STOMP

WTF does Politifact say? That Romney didn't have much to do with job creation? I agree. The public sector does best when it gets the hell out of the way.

 

[MickZagger]

Lol, the Republican's in here who blindly rag on Democrats every election are afraid to admit you're a Republican.

Whats so embarrasing about being a Republican? Really, its okay.

I can think of 3 posters on this board that have been doing it for years. You aren't clever, its pretty obvious.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I have Libertarian tendencies, but IMO voting for Gary Johnson is a wasted vote.

this is everything that is wrong with america

"dont vote for the guy you want, BE REALISTIC"

vote for who you want to become president, anything other than THAT is a wasted vote

 

[Denny Crane]

I couldn't agree more. I will be voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ron Paul.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I couldn't agree more. I will be voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ron Paul.

the libertarians dont click on everything for me, but much moreso than the republicrats

 

[Denny Crane]

Some democrat want to tell me what victory looks like in Afghanistan? Obama escalated the war there and is going to pull the troops out in 2014, supposedly. Why is 2014 a victory?

I'm really curious, because I never did see any kind of victory scenario for Afghanistan - just a means to get Bin Laden and that mission has been accomplished.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

well, we put in a pipeline and are draining the country and surrounding areas of their natural resources...id say that is a victory

now we can pull out and end the war, while leaving 20k soldiers there at bases to secure our financial return

 

[jlprk]

I have two realistic choices: Someone who wants to step on the gas in terms of growing the Federal Government and one who at least wants to tap the brakes a bit.

An article on this board the other day showed that Obama has expanded government spending less than Bush, Bush, Reagan, etc.

He half-inherited the stimulus. He is cutting the military and everything else. In my favorite department, NASA has cut several planned probes and he takes criticism from space fans. How is he expanding the government, especially in comparison to previous presidents?

 

[Denny Crane]

An article on this board the other day showed that Obama has expanded government spending less than Bush, Bush, Reagan, etc.

Factcheck says bullshit.

Bush's last budget was $3T. Obama's first budget and other three were $3.6T. $.6T x 4 = $2.4T in reckless additional spending, in spite of any "cuts" you claim. It's shady bookkeeping and intellectually dishonest to not count that $2.4T as if it didn't happen.

And if you want to factor in the stimulus, that would be a 1 year spending of $800B, so his budgets should have looked like $3.8T + $3T + $3T + $3T.

Get it? He fooled you.

How is he expanding the government? He's collecting $1T in upfront taxes for ObamaCare. The IRS is hiring ~4,500 new employees to collect those taxes.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm

By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance.

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.

Regulation: While regulations have been proliferating since the Reagan administration, the pace of large-scale regulation has picked up under Obama.
There were 75 major regulations adopted in Obama's first two years in office, compared to 120 during Bush's entire term, according to the Heritage Foundation, citing Government Accountability Office statistics. Fiscal 2010 saw a record 43 rules adopted.

Major regulations are those that have cost or saved more than $100 million. They range from new rules concerning pipeline safety to air cargo screening to investment fee and expense disclosures.