Page 13 of 16
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:00 pm
by nicolas10
Pudfark wrote:Mitt Romney’s Plan for a Stronger Middle Class
A Plan For More Jobs And More Take-Home Pay
Energy Independence
• Increase access to domestic energy resources
• Streamline permitting for exploration and
development
• Eliminate regulations destroying the coal industry
• Approve the Keystone XL pipeline
The Skills To Succeed
• Give every family access to a great school and
quality teachers
• Provide access to affordable and effective higher
education options
• Focus job training programs on building valuable
skills that align with opportunities
• Attract and retain the best and the brightest from
around the world
Trade That Works For America
• Curtail the unfair trade practices of countries
like China
• Open new markets for American goods and services
• Build stronger economic ties in Latin America
• Create a Reagan Economic Zone to strengthen free
enterprise around the world
Cut The Deficit
• Immediately reduce non-security discretionary
spending by five percent
• Cap federal spending below twenty percent of
the economy
• Give states responsibility for programs that they can
implement more effectively
• Consolidate agencies and align compensation
of federal workers with their private-sector
counterparts
Champion Small Business
• Reduce taxes on job creation through individual and
corporate tax reform
• Stop the increases in regulation that are tangling job
creators in red tape
• Protect workers and businesses from strong-arm
labor union tactics
• Replace Obamacare with real health care reform
that controls cost and improves care
Might as well post the above...This is the "Romney Thread"
Been looking all over the forum for the "Obama Thread"?
Perhaps I should start one?
Bullshit program. That's just hot air.
Nic
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:23 pm
by Reservoir_Dog
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:15 pm
by callmeslick
Nic is spot-on above. Some of Romney's plan is stuff we already do, and have for years(best example, attract the best and brightest students to our higher education system). Most of it is nebulous BS, with promises and no actual legislative proposals. The ugliest is the deficit reduction part:
• Immediately reduce non-security discretionary
spending by five percent
there goes the old 'support to education, access to affordable education" and other blather about helping the little guy.
• Cap federal spending below twenty percent of
the economy
so, under Romney-nomics, when the economy tanks, you can count on Government being prevented, by law, from any action to help
it recover. Nice plan. Rigid inflexability always is a wise route to use when planning for the unforseen. Example? Let's say the nation
goes into a routine, cyclical recession, in the midst of which we have a large-scale disaster, or worse, a potential threat that requires ramping up military preparedness. Under Romney? Oh, well, sucks to be us.
• Give states responsibility for programs that they can
implement more effectively
translation--lower Federal expenses by palming the burden off onto the states, who can either pass the bills along to the local
taxpayers, or, better still, eliminate the programs altogether. Another swell deal for the average citizen. Republicans have been doing this for years, and most of you can see the result in the State taxes you pay.
• Consolidate agencies and align compensation
of federal workers with their private-sector
counterparts
Obama has been doing the first part, slowly, as it should be lest we screw something up. The second part should be fun, as most Federal workers are compensated far less than comparable private sector workers, at least private sector workers employed by reputable firms.
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:31 pm
by nicolas10
Slick. When the economy collapses, some (many) companies will go down. That's the law of the free market. Or are you a communist?
BTW I agree with that other thing you said. I was indeed spot on
Nic
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:34 pm
by callmeslick
nicolas10 wrote:Slick. When the economy collapses, some (many) companies will go down. That's the law of the free market. Or are you a communist?
umm, no to the last part, and the first part is stupid-obvious. In fact, I'd say if the economy collapses, virtually all companies will go down, which would sort of be what defines a true collapse. What's your point?
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:40 pm
by Barfly
I agree 5 percent is ugly Slick; it should be 20%. please give an example where Obama is decreasing federal wages, and an example of consolidation.
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:41 pm
by Buzz
Not having a point never stops him.
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:48 pm
by callmeslick
Barfly wrote:I agree 5 percent is ugly Slick; it should be 20%. please give an example where Obama is decreasing federal wages, and an example of consolidation.
At no time did I suggest that Obama WAS lowering the already paltry fed wages(I wouldn't take a job with them). As for consolidation, I believe you can find several examples in the Dept of Energy, and also in Commerce, but I can't find you the linkage until I finish packing and/or return from the Shore home in about 10 days.
as for the 20% part....a few questions for you:
Do you intend to need Medicare, or does anyone in your family?
Do you or yours ever use or plan to use the Student Loan program?
Ever been unemployed?
Ever been in an area that has been subject to a natural disaster?
Ever use or think of visiting a National Park, Wildlife area, Forest or Seashore?
I can go on, but you are talking about gutting, across the board, things that are the birthright of every citizen, and other things that folks need, as well as hamstringing the government from ever being able to rebuild infrastructure to prepare for the future economic health of the nation. Some folks tend to forget that without the space program, you and I wouldn't have an Internet to jabber on, or technology to do so. Without an Interstate highway system our present level of commerce wouldn't be half of what you enjoy. You think, wrongly, that Government doesn't serve a purpose for the common good. That is, to be blunt, bullshit.
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:22 pm
by Barfly
callmeslick wrote:Barfly wrote:
as for the 20% part....a few questions for you:
Do you intend to need Medicare, or does anyone in your family?
Do you or yours ever use or plan to use the Student Loan program?
Ever been unemployed?
Ever been in an area that has been subject to a natural disaster?
Ever use or think of visiting a National Park, Wildlife area, Forest or Seashore?
I can go on, but you are talking about gutting, across the board, things that are the birthright of every citizen, and other things that folks need, as well as hamstringing the government from ever being able to rebuild infrastructure to prepare for the future economic health of the nation. Some folks tend to forget that without the space program, you and I wouldn't have an Internet to jabber on, or technology to do so. Without an Interstate highway system our present level of commerce wouldn't be half of what you enjoy. You think, wrongly, that Government doesn't serve a purpose for the common good. That is, to be blunt, bullshit.
1. My sister is covered by various forms of medicare and social security disability because its available, and she doesnt want to work for medical care. No one else in my family or extended family.
2. No
3. Yes briefly, and I did not need unemplyment benefits, I was prepared for that eventuality as all used to be and should be
4. Ive been in an area of human disaster
5. Yes, but State and localnownership of parks, wildlife, seashore suffice. I don't believe the federal government should own any land.
No one has a birthright to anything material in this country, you have a right to opportunity. The opportunity to succeed in your endeavors with an appropriate degree of legal protections to prevent you from being screwed in your associations with others.
I know you can't stomach talk of reducing government spending when it's your goal to dramatically increase it's scope. I like federal government for internal and external security (law enforcement and military) and some regulation. I don't believe it is the place for social manipulation.
"you think, wrongly...common good"
Correct- I don't agree with the Nancy Pelosi definition of common good - that should be obvious to you now.
Re: Romney
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:27 pm
by nicolas10
The point is, whenever you manipulate the market, it ain't a free market anymore. If you prevent a bank from going down, you are a communist. Period.
Nic
