Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Mad Mike]

MM the flexibility was in regards to the power plants example, reducing specific pollutants should be the goal, but they certainly could use some in other areas

As far as me being a polluter if allowed....nothing could be farther from the truth,in fact despite my complaints my shop was used as a model in the county and pre rules it was as strict or stricter on protecting the environment .(just w/o the horse****)
I live near it as do my friends and customers and take care and always have

You want my name and business address I'll PM it to ya ..my business and personal history and records are clean in every respect....as is my conscience

Larry.... the COURT ruled the EPA created them out of thin air

Tell you what. You seem to be speaking honestly here and I'll take you at your word. But don't try to pretend that abuses don't happen and regulations don't help prevent them.

And a little more flexibility from you wouldn't hurt either.

---------- Post added October-19th-2012 at 03:38 PM ----------

Granted, we're forced to try to read between the lines, and extrapolate, because he flat-out refuses to tell anybody exactly what he's proposing.

But my suspicion is that what he's really visualizing is

• Hand out a lot of tax cuts
• Get rid of a few deductions, but nowhere near enough to pay for the cuts.
  
• Assume that the economy will grow. (Rather safe bet. It almost always grows. And it's growing now.)
• When the sun rises in the East, take credit for it.
• Assume that, a couple of years down the road, revenues will rise back to the same nominal levels they were at, before his tax cut.
• Point at this, and claim that this is both "revenue neutral" and "growth".

But then, that's just an assumption. (Based, again, on decades of seeing this dance, before.)

In short, a good chunk of his claim of being "revenue neutral" will be based on "eventually, revenues will get back (in nominal dollars) to what they were before I reduced them".

Or, to make it shorter, it's yet another repetition of the "tax cuts don't have to be paid for" philosophy.

or not...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...onomic-growth/

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”

But the idea that tax reform will jump-start an economy suffering from the after-effects of a cyclical downturn is nonsense. This can be illustrated by looking at the impact of the 1986 tax reform.

Real gross domestic product growth was about the same after the 1986 act took effect in 1987 as it was before, and tax reform obviously did nothing to forestall the 1990-91 recession. Unemployment fell, but it had been trending downward before tax reform, and the 1986 act probably had nothing to do with it. Within a couple of years it was trending upward again.

By the mid-1990s, it was the consensus view of economists that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had little, if any, impact on growth.

[twa]

I don't mind good and effective regulation,but over doing it and idiotic makework are another thing....and you are right I'm inflexible and intolerant in many ways.

my objections are not so much for me(I simply downsized to lessen the BS,and make just as much), it is ya'll that that it costs in both money and jobs.

I have no problem at all selling out and earning a living in another manner or sitting and watching the circus....I worked long enough.

[Predicto]

Ok. The largest newspaper in Utah endorses.... Obama?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...ident.html.csp


I know it doesn't mean anything, but it's kind of funny nonetheless.

[Hersh]

Ok. The largest newspaper in Utah endorses.... Obama?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...ident.html.csp


I know it doesn't mean anything, but it's kind of funny nonetheless.

It's very well thought out and written but I'd be curious how conservatives react to the piece. Thinking about the piece makes me realize we haven't seen many flip-flop ads from the Obama team and getting to the heart of this editorial against Romney.

[deejaydana]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/1...for-president/


After a lifetime of voting for and supporting Democrats — and even declining appointment to the U.S. Senate from a Democratic governor — Lee Iacocca Thursday endorsed Republican Mitt Romney for president.

The blessings of the onetime Chrysler chairman are expected to help Romney in two highly competitive states: Pennsylvania, where the 88-year-old Iacocca was born and raised and is still widely respected, and in Michigan, where Iacocca rose to become a major figure in the auto industry and won international praise for cobbling together the government-backed loans that saved Chrysler in 1980.

[Hersh]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/1...for-president/


After a lifetime of voting for and supporting Democrats — and even declining appointment to the U.S. Senate from a Democratic governor — Lee Iacocca Thursday endorsed Republican Mitt Romney for president.

The blessings of the onetime Chrysler chairman are expected to help Romney in two highly competitive states: Pennsylvania, where the 88-year-old Iacocca was born and raised and is still widely respected, and in Michigan, where Iacocca rose to become a major figure in the auto industry and won international praise for cobbling together the government-backed loans that saved Chrysler in 1980.

The irony is not lost on anybody, but the facts aren't quite right. He's supported Republican POTUS candidates before.

[The Evil Genius]

The irony is not lost on anybody, but the facts aren't quite right. He's supported Republican POTUS candidates before.

Like Dubya in 2000...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Like Dubya in 2000...

Sounds like he is a hard core democrat then... ha.

Also, this is making the rounds again on twitter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB...ature=youtu.be

Ouch... via Ron Paul.

[bird_1972]

I'm really worried Mitt will win this thing.

[Predicto]

The irony is not lost on anybody, but the facts aren't quite right. He's supported Republican POTUS candidates before.

And that was BEFORE he turned senile.

[deejaydana]

I'm really worried Mitt will win this thing.

Recent trends seem to indicate him moving ahead of Obama and in a # of voting areas, though I take ALL polls with a measure of skepticism and even disbelief.

---------- Post added October-19th-2012 at 02:34 PM ----------

And that was BEFORE he turned senile.

Any excuse will do I guess.

---------- Post added October-19th-2012 at 02:35 PM ----------

And that was BEFORE he turned senile.

Any excuse will do I guess.

[Larry]

I'm really worried Mitt will win this thing.

I am, too.

I don't think I've ever feared for the future of my country based on an election, before. But this one does have me at least concerned.

Not because I'm all that terrified of Mitt. I think he just wants the cushy office. But I'm really, deeply, concerned for what the Republican Congress would do, after a GOP victory.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am, too.
I don't think I've ever feared for the future of my country based on an election, before. But this one does have me at least concerned.
Not because I'm all that terrified of Mitt. I think he just wants the cushy office. But I'm really, deeply, concerned for what the Republican Congress would do, after a GOP victory.

Bain Capital's DC Office
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[deejaydana]

despite my conservative views (which aren't nearly as hardline as some fellow ES'ers would imply) my fear is neither candidate is going to take the steps to get us on the right track (granted we've dug ourselved one helluva hole and both parties are accountable for that). I mean, Romney's not even a conservative in my book.

[Rdskns2000]

I am, too.

I don't think I've ever feared for the future of my country based on an election, before. But this one does have me at least concerned.

Not because I'm all that terrified of Mitt. I think he just wants the cushy office. But I'm really, deeply, concerned for what the Republican Congress would do, after a GOP victory.

What are they going to do? They will have to deal with a Democratic Senate.

All you will get is deadlock again- accept instead of left wing deadlock, you will get right wing deadlock.

By the slim chance it's all Republican government; they go to far the right and they will be thrown out in 2014. The country doesn't like extremes in either direction.