Mitt Romney - Dumb or uninformed? - New England Patriots Forums

Holy Diver · 10-07-2011, 05:36 PM

"As President, on Day One, I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy. I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts."

2006 $522B
2007 $551B
2008 $616B
2009 $661B
2010 $694B
2011 $768B (estimated)

Last time I checked, when something gets increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, thats not considered a cut.

I'll just say he's uninformed.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 10-07-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

I'll just say he's uninformed.

You're very polite, HD.

I hate when they say, "On Day One...."

On "Day One," no president does anything but get sworn in and party. And he can't just change a budget without House and Senate approval - not unless he wants to start out with absolutely everyone, including his own party, hating him for the next four years.

***Patters*** · 10-07-2011, 05:51 PM

Lies work. The Republicans have mastered that with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh at the helm. Hell, Bush got away with needlessly killing 4500 American troops by making up crap about Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons program. The Republicans don't care.

Holy Diver · 10-07-2011, 05:55 PM

On a similar note...

10 years...

Bin Laden is dead

President OBummer,

Can we bring our boys home already?

XXXOOO,

Holy Diver

***Wolfpack*** · 10-07-2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

"As President, on Day One, I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy. I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts."

2006 $522B
2007 $551B
2008 $616B
2009 $661B
2010 $694B
2011 $768B (estimated)

Last time I checked, when something gets increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, thats not considered a cut.

I'll just say he's uninformed.

Actually the only one uninformed here is you. When talking about government spending, it is perfectly acceptable (and in fact commonplace) to use the term "cut" when you are really referring to a reduction in the level in increase.

***Wolfpack*** · 10-07-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Lies work. The Republicans have mastered that with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh at the helm. Hell, Bush got away with needlessly killing 4500 American troops by making up crap about Iraq's WMD and nuclear weapons program. The Republicans don't care.

Republicans drink your tears Patters.

sdaniels7114 · 10-07-2011, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Republicans drink your tears Patters.

Its good to see you own up to your party's vicious nature.

Real World · 10-07-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

"As President, on Day One, I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy. I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts."

2006 $522B
2007 $551B
2008 $616B
2009 $661B
2010 $694B
2011 $768B (estimated)

Last time I checked, when something gets increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, thats not considered a cut.

I'll just say he's uninformed.

First and foremost I think half a trillion dollars should be enough to defend this country. Give or take anyway. Second to that, and to the question posed in the title, I thinks it's a bit of both, and plays to what Wolf said. In DC, or in political speak, a lot of times they talk about a lesser increase as a "cut" when it suits them.

The Brandon Five · 10-07-2011, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

"As President, on Day One, I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy. I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts."

2006 $522B
2007 $551B
2008 $616B
2009 $661B
2010 $694B
2011 $768B (estimated)

Last time I checked, when something gets increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, thats not considered a cut.

I'll just say he's uninformed.

How does that reasoning compare with this?

Transcript of Obama’s Speech on Debt Deal - Washington Wire - WSJ

Quote:

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years — cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President — but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Here is the CBO score for the "debt deal":

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc...rolActAug1.pdf

Quote:

Overall Budgetary Impact of the Legislation
In total, if appropriations in the next 10 years are equal to the caps on discretionary spending and the maximum amount of funding is provided for the program integrity initiatives, CBO estimates that the legislation—apart from the provisions related to the joint select committee—would reduce budget deficits by $917 billion between 2012 and 2021. In addition, legislation originating with the joint select committee, or the automatic
reductions in spending that would occur in the absence of such legislation, would reduce deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over the 10-year period. Therefore, the deficit reduction stemming from this legislation would total at least $2.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 3). Those amounts are relative to CBO’s March 2011 baseline adjusted for subsequent appropriation action.

Weird...

It must be a Harvard Law thing.

The Brandon Five · 10-07-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

You're very polite, HD.

I hate when they say, "On Day One...."

I get a kick out of people who are not fully informed on an issue accusing others of being uninformed.

I don't agree with him that we need an even bigger increase in spending, but he is not being dishonest or clueless when he discusses cuts in the rate of growth as spending cuts...he's just talking like he's already acclimated himself
to Washington-speak.