Romney's Plan

H

Howey

Banned
Since I didn't watch the debate, and since Romney won, it's obvious he won everyone over with his detailed plans to fix America.

So what are they?
 
From DailyKos:

The results of Wednesday night's first presidential debate are in and it's official: Mitt Romney won round one. He was aggressive, he was decisive, he delivered. Of course he also lied through his teeth for most of the debate.

Romney lied:


When he claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.

When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.

When he denied proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. He did.

When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.

When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."

When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139793/-Mitt-Romney-Lying-to-victory?detail=email
 
Bijou said:
To win. Once he's in, he'll 'lead' in ways that benefit the plutocrats who paid for his campaign. Quid pro quo. Same old shit.
Click to expand...

But is that what he said?

I mean...to win a debate on policy you have to submit your plan regarding it. What steps you will take to correct the situation.

So he must have cited his plan to fix the economy, healthcare, et al. So what is it?
 
Howey said:
But is that what he said?

I mean...to win a debate on policy you have to submit your plan regarding it. What steps you will take to correct the situation.

So he must have cited his plan to fix the economy, healthcare, et al. So what is it?
Click to expand...

You overestimate the standards of the people who watch these little shows called 'debates'. He doesn't have to be more substantive and lay out specifics in order to 'win' the debate. All he has to do is be smooth, slick (which is easily achieved by sociopaths for whom lying poses no moral conflict) and 'confident'. From all reports, Romney 'won' the debate.
 
Without writing a detailed essay,
His plan is to negoiate with the Democrats and Congress to hammer out AGREEMENTS and COMMON GROUND to lower taxes, unburden the middle class and business to create jobs.
Review regulations that prevent growth and have out lived their usefullness, something Obama has either failed to do no not even attempt....

Go for smaller government through attrition and combining redunducy and wastefullness....etc....

I could go on, but if watched the debate you wouldn't need the schooling on what transpired....
and try a different news source than thehuffingtonpost or the Daily Show and dailykos.....theres a whole world of information your willfully ignorant of.
 
Bijou said:
You overestimate the standards of the people who watch these little shows called 'debates'. He doesn't have to be more substantive and lay out specifics in order to 'win' the debate. All he has to do is be smooth, slick (which is easily achieved by sociopaths for whom lying poses no moral conflict) and 'confident'. From all reports, Romney 'won' the debate.
Click to expand...

One need only look at the promises Obama made in 07 and 08 to see the lies and promises that weren't kept....for Obama, words and cheap and effective
for the pinheads that blindly follow him like lemmings.....
 
bravo said:
One need only look at the promises Obama made in 07 and 08 to see the lies and promises that weren't kept....for Obama, words and cheap and effective
for the pinheads that blindly follow him like lemmings.....
Click to expand...

Obama's campaign promises were like every other candidate's - he pandered to those who would catapult him to victory. That's why the progressives are pissed at him. His campaign platform championed progressive causes, then once elected, he went limp and caved to the corporatocracy.

Those followers who are partisan-blind for Obama are no different than the lemmings in your camp, and you know it.
 
Okay, so now, the 'argument' is going to be, Romney lacks a detailed plan? Let me ask you, when has any president in recorded history, issued his detailed plan on ANYTHING before winning the election and having an agreeable Congress who approves his detailed plan and passes the legislation for him to sign into actual law? When has that ever happened? We can assume that most people do understand how our government works and how programs or detailed plans are implemented, and this involves our Congressional representatives and senators, and hours of debate and ironing out details. It's simply not something that can be adequately articulated in a pre-election speech.

When Romney won the GOP nomination, his website quickly posted a very extensive plan in detail, of over 70 proposed steps he planned to take, specifically to address the many various problems he faced. The problem is, people don't have time to read and comprehend 70 different proposals and details of specific plans. There are too many little things that make a big difference and too much minute detail with each to try and compile into a "detailed" plan, and expect the voter to comprehend it, your message becomes arduous and uninteresting, and people say it's unclear because they can't absorb it all. So Romney has refined his message down to basic concepts and principles of government.

Do we want MORE government control and intervention into our lives, or LESS? Do we think revenue is best produced by tax increases or economic growth and prosperity? Is it better 'budgetary strategy' to cut federal waste and redundancy, or tax incentives given to businesses? Does Obamacare and other federal mandates for free stuff, create jobs or cost jobs ultimately? These are the issues of this campaign and the two candidates. Detailed plans come later, AFTER the election, AFTER the Congress is seated, and AFTER the ensuing battles on Capitol Hill. You pinheads apparently need a course in U.S. Government.
 
Bijou said:
Obama's campaign promises were like every other candidate's - he pandered to those who would catapult him to victory. That's why the progressives are pissed at him. His campaign platform championed progressive causes, then once elected, he went limp and caved to the corporatocracy.

Those followers who are partisan-blind for Obama are no different than the lemmings in your camp, and you know it.
Click to expand...


And even after you witness the failures.....or that he caved in your eyes....or pandered to progressives, then screwed them (lied), you'll still vote for him

Even after being lied to about Libya fiasco, his not sending security to the Ambassador after it was requested which directly contributed to the mans death, you'll still vote for him

Even after 4 years of unacceptable high unemployment and wasting 90 billion taxpayer dollars on bs schemes like Solyndra, you'll vote for him....

Thats the kind of blind loyalty that astonishes me....politics and party thrumps good of the nation
 
bravo said:
And even after you witness the failures.....or that he caved in your eyes....or pandered to progressives, then screwed them (lied), you'll still vote for him
Click to expand...

Unless a viable 3rd party candidate emerges, yes, Obama will get my vote. He's been a disappointment, but he is far less despicable than Romney.

Even after being lied to about Libya fiasco, his not sending security to the Ambassador after it was requested which directly contributed to the mans death, you'll still vote for him

Even after 4 years of unacceptable high unemployment and wasting 90 billion taxpayer dollars on bs schemes like Solyndra, you'll vote for him....

Thats the kind of blind loyalty that astonishes me....politics and party thrumps good of the nation
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Bijou said:
From DailyKos:

The results of Wednesday night's first presidential debate are in and it's official: Mitt Romney won round one. He was aggressive, he was decisive, he delivered. Of course he also lied through his teeth for most of the debate.

Romney lied:


When he claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.

When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.

When he denied proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. He did.

When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.

When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."

When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139793/-Mitt-Romney-Lying-to-victory?detail=email
Click to expand...


Romney is STILL spreading the lie about Obama cutting Medicare by 716 Billion to pay for Obamacare?

The ONLY way Romney could win was to lie...and he took that advice to heart last night.
 
bravo said:
Without writing a detailed essay,
His plan is to negoiate with the Democrats and Congress to hammer out AGREEMENTS and COMMON GROUND to lower taxes, unburden the middle class and business to create jobs.
Review regulations that prevent growth and have out lived their usefullness, something Obama has either failed to do no not even attempt....

Go for smaller government through attrition and combining redunducy and wastefullness....etc....

I could go on, but if watched the debate you wouldn't need the schooling on what transpired....
and try a different news source than thehuffingtonpost or the Daily Show and dailykos.....theres a whole world of information your willfully ignorant of.
Click to expand...

Is that what he said? He didn't give any details? I mean...he's a little over a month from the election and has nothing but generalities? When is he going to get off his privileged ass and come up with specifics? 2015?????


bravo said:
One need only look at the promises Obama made in 07 and 08 to see the lies and promises that weren't kept....for Obama, words and cheap and effective
for the pinheads that blindly follow him like lemmings.....
Click to expand...

Oh. Do you mean like this one, made in the 2008 debate with McCain?

MR. BROKAW: Senator McCain, thank you very much.

Next question for Senator Obama. It comes from the F Section, and it's from Katie Hamm. Katie?

Q Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al-Qaida terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies, like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Katie, it's a terrific question.

And we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn't finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al-Qaida.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They're stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that's why I think it's so important for us to reverse course because that's the central front on terrorism. They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the Defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region, and that's where it will end.

So part of the reason I think it's so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that's funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can't coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars, and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants. What I have said is we're going encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out.

We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.
Click to expand...

THAT is pretty specific!

Dixie said:
Okay, so now, the 'argument' is going to be, Romney lacks a detailed plan? Let me ask you, when has any president in recorded history, issued his detailed plan on ANYTHING before winning the election and having an agreeable Congress who approves his detailed plan and passes the legislation for him to sign into actual law? When has that ever happened? We can assume that most people do understand how our government works and how programs or detailed plans are implemented, and this involves our Congressional representatives and senators, and hours of debate and ironing out details. It's simply not something that can be adequately articulated in a pre-election speech.
Click to expand...

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out.

We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.
Click to expand...




So...let's just cut to the chase here...

Romney may have "won" the debate but without a substantive, concrete and detailed vision for what needs to be done? America loses.
 
Howey said:
Is that what he said? He didn't give any details? I mean...he's a little over a month from the election and has nothing but generalities? When is he going to get off his privileged ass and come up with specifics? 2015?????

Oh. Do you mean like this one, made in the 2008 debate with McCain?

So...let's just cut to the chase here...

Romney may have "won" the debate but without a substantive, concrete and detailed vision for what needs to be done? America loses.
Click to expand...


Yep. Thats exactly what he said, though I gave you the short version....

And please, it ain't 2008.....that election is long over....McCain isn't running again..,,,

What I told you is substantive and more detailed than anything Obama put forward.....

It ain't the old "you'll have to pass it to find out whats in it" bullshit that the Obama admin. pulled ......
and you can bet your fat ass Romney won that debate, hands down, without even breaking into a sweat....get over it.
 
Bijou said:
Obama's campaign promises were like every other candidate's - he pandered to those who would catapult him to victory. That's why the progressives are pissed at him. His campaign platform championed progressive causes, then once elected, he went limp and caved to the corporatocracy.

Those followers who are partisan-blind for Obama are no different than the lemmings in your camp, and you know it.
Click to expand...

yet you will vote for obama again
 
callinectes said:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/102687937?access_key=key-tvcla8fht0g06taehfj
It's 8 pages, Howey. A bit more convoluted than "Hope and Change" or "Eat the Rich". I believe there are actually 59 points to the whole plan. I haven't seen them, and I don't care. Got to be better than what's going on now. And he did give the condensed 5-point version in the debate. You can't put the entire plan out there in a 2 minute debate format anyway.
Click to expand...

Within that 8 pages of criticism of Obama is half a page of the following talking points and no specifics.

•

Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

o

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.
o

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.
•

Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.

o

Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.
o

Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.
•

Reform Entitlement Programs To Ensure Their Viability.

o

Gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluentseniors. Give more choice in Medicare to improve value in health care spending.
o

Block grant the Medicaid program to states, enabling experimentation to better fit localsituations.
•

Make Growth And Cost-Benefit Analysis Important Features Of Regulation.

o

Remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs toconsumers and limit job creation.
o

Repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform.
Click to expand...

That's it. Written, btw, by five paid advisors to Romney.

Now...those talking points have been out for a while and have been thoroughly debunked by the Tax Policy Center who find that Romney's plan will decrease taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle class:


“t remains true — as we showed in our paper — that a reform proposal that meets the five goals stated above would have to raise burdens on middle-class households,” they wrote.

That finding remained true, as they reiterated from their initial study, even when they assumed higher-than-expected growth based on formulas written by the Romney campaign’s own economic advisers.

Despite criticizing the report as biased and inaccurate, Romney has not released any details as to how he would pay for his tax plan instead. Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, recently said that the campaign would not fill in the blanks until after the election. The study’s authors noted that there was nothing preventing Romney from scaling back his goals for tax reform in a way that would not require a middle-class tax hike.
Click to expand...


So...still no concrete specifics. Sorry. And before you scream the Tax Policy Institute is a liberal this or that (it's not, it's politically neutral), here's PolitiFact's take:

Romney said that five studies show that his tax plan can cut rates and still bring in the same amount of money as today without raising taxes on the middle class.

Romney is using the word "studies" generously. Two items on his list are newspaper editorials that can be analytical but are rarely treated as independent research. One article comes from a campaign adviser, a connection that generally suggests a less than independent assessment. That leaves just two reports out Romney’s five.

There is a fair argument to be made that the Tax Policy Center used an arbitrary dividing line of $200,000 to separate high-income households from all others. The same problem lies in setting the breakpoint at $100,000, a choice preferred by at least one of the defenders of Romney’s proposal.

The studies from Feldstein and Rosen use 2009 data. That was an abnormal year and one that made it easier to make the math work for the Romney plan. The analysts could have chosen other years but decided not to.

We see no more than two independent studies out of the five claimed. We rate the statement Mostly False.
Click to expand...

And here's Fact Check:

Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” was referring to an Aug. 1 report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that concluded it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan without providing “large tax cuts” to high-income households and raising taxes on those earning $200,000 or less. The report, which we wrote about on Aug. 3, was co-authored by William G. Gale, a former staff economist for President George H.W. Bush, and Adam Looney, a former senior economist in the Obama White House.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top