It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Romney Argues Big Spending Cuts Would Cause 'Depression,' Contrary To Tea Party Activists

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The only thing Willard will do is to ensure that the status quo which is (Big Government) (Big Military) (Big Wall Street) and all for their New World Order Plans keeps on going off my tax dollars. Same as Obama
edit on 27-5-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


And that's the whole thread in a nutshell.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 
You may consider my opinion idiotic, but the idiotic spending and idiotic policies and idiotic excuses provided by the administration and their followers is telling in of itself.



Spending under Obama increased the least of all the past 4-5 presidents


Spending vs. income he is so much higher it is not even in the same ballpark.

Let's say you make a good living and your income increases 5% every year and you increase spending by 6%.

Your neighbor makes the same, but suddenly loses his job and his new job only makes 70% of his old job, but he still increases spending by 3%.

Who is more reckless?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by proximo
Back to the topic, Romney and anyone else that is arguing we have to spend our way out of this recession is either an idiot or a liar.
edit on 27-5-2012 by proximo because: (no reason given)

Great now show me where Romney said that.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Not at all what Democrats want,


You're right, Dems wanted $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. "Gradual spending cuts" was not at all what Dems wanted, but it's EXACTLY what a BS politician will tell you is appropriate when they're being funded by the very corporations that GET those tax dollars the Dems wanted to cut.

Here we go with the Romney defenders; it doesn't matter how ludicrous or antithetical to conservative values it is, if the guy who isn't Obama says it, defend it at all costs, right? You will be the same ones to say "I never supported Romney" in 2 years just like you do with Bush.


I grew up in Massachusetts, I am not a Republican, your reply failed in every way possible.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


That is an illusion, look at two posts ago to see why.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Obama is the Last of the bigtime spenders (hopefully)


Year ----- Revenue ------ Spending ----- (Deficit) ----- Revenue/Spending Ratio

2006 ......2,406,869 .......2,655,050 ...(248,181)…………110.83%

2007 ......2,567,985 .......2,728,686 ...(160,701)…………106.23%

2008 ......2,523,991 .......2,982,544 ...(458,553)……..….118.25%


[color=cyan]The wild drunken binge spending started here:

2009 ......2,104,989 .......3,517,677 ...(1,412,688)………167.62%

2010 ......2,162,724 .......3,456,213 ...(1,293,489)………160.19%

2011 ......2,173,700 .......3,818,819 ...(1,645,119)………176.04%

2012 ......2,627,449 .......3,728,686 ...(1,101,237)………141.83%


[color=cyan]Highest Spending in History !!

2009: money spent=$3.52 Trillion

2010: money spent=$3.46 Trillion

2011: money spent=$3.82 Trillion (est)

2012: money spent=$3.73 Trillion (est)



figures from The White House !!!!!!

(see pages 23 & 24 in the pdf)
[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf]-->from the White House



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Not at all what Democrats want,


You're right, Dems wanted $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. "Gradual spending cuts" was not at all what Dems wanted, but it's EXACTLY what a BS politician will tell you is appropriate when they're being funded by the very corporations that GET those tax dollars the Dems wanted to cut.

Here we go with the Romney defenders; it doesn't matter how ludicrous or antithetical to conservative values it is, if the guy who isn't Obama says it, defend it at all costs, right? You will be the same ones to say "I never supported Romney" in 2 years just like you do with Bush.


I grew up in Massachusetts, I am not a Republican, your reply failed in every way possible.


Except to completely stump you and leave you with no intelligent reply. Gotcha.

1)You don't need to be a Republican for my statement to be true.
2)You don't need to be from outside Massachusetts for my statement to be true.

Next excuse?
edit on 28-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Not at all what Democrats want,


You're right, Dems wanted $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. "Gradual spending cuts" was not at all what Dems wanted, but it's EXACTLY what a BS politician will tell you is appropriate when they're being funded by the very corporations that GET those tax dollars the Dems wanted to cut.

Here we go with the Romney defenders; it doesn't matter how ludicrous or antithetical to conservative values it is, if the guy who isn't Obama says it, defend it at all costs, right? You will be the same ones to say "I never supported Romney" in 2 years just like you do with Bush.


I grew up in Massachusetts, I am not a Republican, your reply failed in every way possible.


Except to completely stump you and leave you with no intelligent reply. Gotcha.

1)You don't need to be a Republican for my statement to be true.
2)You don't need to be from outside Massachusetts for my statement to be true.

Next excuse?
edit on 28-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)


Your post.

it doesn't matter how ludicrous or antithetical to conservative values it is, if the guy who isn't Obama says it, defend it at all costs, right? You will be the same ones to say "I never supported Romney" in 2 years just like you do with Bush.


What do conservative values have to do with anything if I am not republican? I'm not stumped, you simply said something of zero substance that does not apply to me.

Here's a small answer for you though. It is debateable whether tax increases are 100% needed. It is not debateable whether spending cuts are needed. Logic would dictate you do what is 100% needed while debating what is possibly needed.

Democrats would rather keep spending at current levels than to cut spending without tax increases. Talk about ludicrous. Both parties suck, Democrats just happen to be further along in their craziness.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
How does anyone with even a quarter of a brain, think massive overspending can balance an already huge deficit budget? Don't they they math and economics in schools anymore? Unreal.....


edit on Tue, 29 May 2012 23:07:49 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


That's funny how you chose to reply to the part of my post which was rhetoric (easily debatable because it's not facts) and ignore the part of my post that made a point (hard to argue against, because it's based in facts). The FACT is, no matter what you say about Dems, they offered $10 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, and the Reps rejected it. That's a FACT. You can argue about things being 100% needed or not, but wouldn't you say it's pretty retarded to NOT do what is 100% needed just because you might also be doing something where it's not been decided yet whether it's absolutely positively necessary, but is still a really good idea?

Look, I'm not defending the Dems or the Reps or anyone else on the Hill. But to act like the Reps have the plan and the Dems are trying to ruin the party is just ludicrous. They're both screwing you, and the quicker we figure that out the better. The Reps are not gunning for you any more than anyone else. They run the deficit up with as much, if not more, pork as Dems do. They're all guilty.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



Obama has cut government spending and slowed government growth more than any of the recent Republican presidents for the last 40 years.


Bullcrap

Take a read:

www.politicalmathblog.com...

Hope someone can read they might be illiterate.


And the Washington Post gave Obama - 3 Pinocchios - for manipulating the

numbers.

Now everybody knows that Obama spends over $9 Billion everyday.

Bush only spent $6.8 Billion everyday.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


That's funny how you chose to reply to the part of my post which was rhetoric (easily debatable because it's not facts) and ignore the part of my post that made a point (hard to argue against, because it's based in facts). The FACT is, no matter what you say about Dems, they offered $10 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, and the Reps rejected it. That's a FACT. You can argue about things being 100% needed or not, but wouldn't you say it's pretty retarded to NOT do what is 100% needed just because you might also be doing something where it's not been decided yet whether it's absolutely positively necessary, but is still a really good idea?


I did answer you, is your reading comprehension that poor?

It is debateable whether tax increases are 100% needed. It is not debateable whether spending cuts are needed. Logic would dictate you do what is 100% needed while debating what is possibly needed.
If raising taxes is not needed why would they vote for it?


Why would anyone vote to increase taxes if it's not needed, Dems could offer 100:1 and I would still reject it if that's the case. Democrats have a history of asking for temporary tax increases which then they make permanent. Republicans in that case would be in the right. It is not arguable whether cuts need to be made, Dems block ALL spending cuts that are not linked to tax increases. That is a position that is indefensible.

In short. Republicans MAY be wrong and tax increases MAY be needed. Dems are 100% wrong and they are willing to drive the country further into the ground.

Here's an analogy you can understand. A person is gushing blood at a rate that will quickly lead to death. One Dr. (R) says we need to stitch him up or he will die, but his body will recover without giving him more blood as long as we cut the blood loss now. The other Dr. (D) says no we need to stitch him now because he is dying, and he will need to be given blood too. The 2nd doctor says until you agree to give him more blood I won't allow you to stitch him up.
FRIGGIN INSANE. Save the dudes life by stitching him up, and then you can see who is right after. Dems would rather KILL the country than not get their way, they AGREE the country needs to cut spending but WONT do it.
edit on 31-5-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Dems could offer 100:1 and I would still reject it if that's the case.


And there's your entire post in one sentence. Exactly. All the spending cuts in the world won't fix our problems, just like all the taxes in the world won't fix them. But throw a "dem" or "rep" in there and you know which side you're on.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


The only one who is stumped is you, since you refuse to respond to the meat of my argument. When you can't answer, ignore, and you're doing a lot of ignoring. Now how about you actually answer my last reply.

Oh and you're also great at taking quotes out of context, let me put it back in for you.

Why would anyone vote to increase taxes if it's not needed, Dems could offer 100:1 and I would still reject it if that's the case.

edit on 1-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


The only one who is stumped is you, since you refuse to respond to the meat of my argument. When you can't answer, ignore, and you're doing a lot of ignoring. Now how about you actually answer my last reply.

Oh and you're also great at taking quotes out of context, let me put it back in for you.

Why would anyone vote to increase taxes if it's not needed, Dems could offer 100:1 and I would still reject it if that's the case.

edit on 1-6-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


Sorry, I thought you were just being disingenuous with that statement for the sake of being contrary, but since you assert that you actually believe it:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We need zero tax increases to balance our budget? Do that math for me, professor, I'd love to see what you would SPECIFICALLY cut from the budget that would balance it at current tax levels. Don't give me that tired old "cut military spending by 50%" tell me WHAT in the military spending (for example) you would cut----everything across the board, including soldier pay, soldier health benefits, bases? Give me real numbers attached to real programs from all of those agencies that you would cut.

If you give me the "eliminate XY and Z agencies altogether" tell me specifically how you plan on making the states take on the burden of those regulations like, for example, education, environmental standards, advancing energy development and innovation on any large scale, etc. How do already-overburdened states pay for those new burdens? It's all a shuffle of numbers. Tell me for each agency how their role is useless.

Give me your data on how we can possibly cut our way out of this mess with no tax increases whatsoever (and if you take the Romney "fee" route I'll tar and feather you).



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join