Romney has no plan to fix the economy. He says if he wins it will boost itself. But he says he may b

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 


No actually he said he will allow change to occur. There are no guarantees since there are human elements involved. However you can take out the roadblocks preventing change from occuring, that's what he will do. When you remove the car wreck from the road more than likely traffic will end as a result. Throw a car wreck on the road and you probably won't get many cars moving.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


Here is a list of me discussing Romney on this thread. So no, that is not the case.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are mor that is enough though. I have sources cited as well.


You are special I will give you that.

RIF! Damnit!!!!!!!

Yes that is the case. The case being me telling you the following post was pointless and off topic.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


Well if you believe anything the Obama campaign says you are fooled. So I suppose you simply don't believe anything they say? If so, I am with you.

Yep, off topic. I am tempted to ask what Obama has to do with this discussion but I know he has nothing to do with it. You just wanted to bring him up. Good thing no one mentioned Santorum again though, right?



Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


What does Santorum have to do with Romney? Nothing? Ok thought so.





What a complete load of crap you turned out to be.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Are you 12? Why are you talking about being sad? This is a discussion nothing more. You contradicted yourself in 3 consecutive posts. I don't have any desire to engage in a debate with someone who constantly changes their story. As I said. Be consistent, supply facts not opinions, cite sources, and we can talk. Until then ... don't be sad and butthurt I suppose?


I haven't changed my position, I have had it for YEARS.

Do you think I just formulated my perspective in the last 30 minutes?

You mistakenly conflated two important things

Keynesian economics

and

Supply Side policy

Those are not the same and you know it.

I come here to discuss my opinions with other people who have their own opinions.

If you don't have your own opinion and you need external source to make your argument,
why are you here?

You should just be a reader



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


No actually he said he will allow change to occur.


That means he will do nothing.

Is English not working out for you?


There are no guarantees since there are human elements involved. However you can take out the roadblocks preventing change from occuring, that's what he will do. When you remove the car wreck from the road more than likely traffic will end as a result. Throw a car wreck on the road and you probably won't get many cars moving.


So we agree. Romney has no plan. He plans on doing nothing and hoping for change.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


No actually he said he will allow change to occur.


That means he will do nothing.

Is English not working out for you?


There are no guarantees since there are human elements involved. However you can take out the roadblocks preventing change from occuring, that's what he will do. When you remove the car wreck from the road more than likely traffic will end as a result. Throw a car wreck on the road and you probably won't get many cars moving.


So we agree. Romney has no plan. He plans on doing nothing and hoping for change.


Sigh, not willing to engage in a childish argument with you. I cited sources in a previous post, please let me know when you can refute my sources. He does not plan on doing nothing, he plans on ensuring there are no impediments. That is not the same as nothing. Like saying when all the cars slow down because of the cop car parked looking for speeders that the cop is doing nothing.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


No actually he said he will allow change to occur.


That means he will do nothing.

Is English not working out for you?


There are no guarantees since there are human elements involved. However you can take out the roadblocks preventing change from occuring, that's what he will do. When you remove the car wreck from the road more than likely traffic will end as a result. Throw a car wreck on the road and you probably won't get many cars moving.


So we agree. Romney has no plan. He plans on doing nothing and hoping for change.


Sigh, not willing to engage in a childish argument with you. I cited sources in a previous post, please let me know when you can refute my sources. He does not plan on doing nothing, he plans on ensuring there are no impediments. That is not the same as nothing. Like saying when all the cars slow down because of the cop car parked looking for speeders that the cop is doing nothing.


No Impediments like???

No Minimum wage

Or

No Impediments Like?

Banks no longer have to hold reserve capital?

Or

Insurance companies can rescind policies anytime they'd like?

Or what exactly?

Is Romney going to finally shift our economy away from the Keynesian model?

Do you have a link to that, since you like links???



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


Still waiting for you to form coherent arguments and cite sources. Please don't post anything directed at me without doing so, as I will not respond to gibberish.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Still waiting for you to form coherent arguments and cite sources. Please don't post anything directed at me without doing so, as I will not respond to gibberish.



I cited reality and that has struck a nerve

You went from being

sad

to

mad

that is

bad



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Still waiting for you to form coherent arguments and cite sources. Please don't post anything directed at me without doing so, as I will not respond to gibberish.


Since you are not waiting for me then...

No Impediments like???

No Minimum wage

Or

No Impediments Like?

Banks no longer have to hold reserve capital?

Or

Insurance companies can rescind policies anytime they'd like?

Or what exactly?

Is Romney going to finally shift our economy away from the Keynesian model?

Do you have a link to that, since you like links???
edit on 23-9-2012 by wascurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 


If you want to mimmick someone elses incoherent post you will get the same response. Form a coherent post, cite sources, use facts. I will not respond to gibberish.

Since facts and sources is a requirement I do not expect to hear much from either of you.
edit on 23-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


If you want to mimmick someone elses incoherent post you will get the same response. Form a coherent post, cite sources, use facts. I will not respond to gibberish.

Since facts and sources is a requirement I do not expect to hear much from either of you.
edit on 23-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


I want the same clarification on what you said as the other poster wants. There is no gibberish. You spewed some empty BS and forgot to add FACTS, LINKS, or even DETAILS. So I am asking you for those.
What sources do you want me to cite on the fact that what you said was absolutely nothing?

Even you know it because you copped out so badly. It is too bad Romney has no plan. It is even more bad that you are pretending he does and yet you have no idea what it is.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Sigh, not willing to engage in a childish argument with you.


You have no argument to make, adult or child.


I cited sources in a previous post, please let me know when you can refute my sources.


As soon as you provide some that actually have to do with Romney's plan with some facts I will.


He does not plan on doing nothing, he plans on ensuring there are no impediments.


How do you not understand what you are writing?
WHAT IMPEDIMENTS????????????


That is not the same as nothing.


It is exactly the same as doing nothing. Allowing things to happen means you are taking no action in those things at all. That is what it means to allow things to happen. Get a dictionary for christ's sake.


Like saying when all the cars slow down because of the cop car parked looking for speeders that the cop is doing nothing.


The cop is doing nothing. Do you think he controls brake pedals with his mind?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I'm sorry but you keep going back to presidents making a pleasant environment for companies. Can I find that fact in the constitution, or in any logic? I thought governments were there for people's pleasant environment or did I misspell that...PEASANT environment.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emeraldous
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I'm sorry but you keep going back to presidents making a pleasant environment for companies. Can I find that fact in the constitution, or in any logic? I thought governments were there for people's pleasant environment or did I misspell that...PEASANT environment.


So you believe the President should make the environment unpleasant for companies? You obviously do not understand the purpose of the constitution, that's another thread entirely. And there is your problem, the government is not there to make things pleasant for you. Please show me where the Constitution says the government is there to provide a pleasant environment for people.

Now let's play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Do people have a more pleasant environment when the economy is doing well, or bad? If your answer is well, then Romney will create a more pleasant environment for you.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Emeraldous
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I'm sorry but you keep going back to presidents making a pleasant environment for companies. Can I find that fact in the constitution, or in any logic? I thought governments were there for people's pleasant environment or did I misspell that...PEASANT environment.


So you believe the President should make the environment unpleasant for companies? You obviously do not understand the purpose of the constitution, that's another thread entirely. And there is your problem, the government is not there to make things pleasant for you. Please show me where the Constitution says the government is there to provide a pleasant environment for people.

Now let's play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Do people have a more pleasant environment when the economy is doing well, or bad? If your answer is well, then Romney will create a more pleasant environment for you.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I think the first paragraph is the best one, you know to help you along. Oh and by the way making the environment pleasant for both companies and people is not mutually exclusive, you just need to prioritize which one comes first. I choose people, but that's just me.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emeraldous
Oh and by the way making the environment pleasant for both companies and people is not mutually exclusive, you just need to prioritize which one comes first. I choose people, but that's just me.


That in no way says the responsibility of government is to provide a pleasant life for you. The goal should be policies that advance the general welfare, which is not the same thing at all.

I agree, they are not mutually exclusive, in fact I believe they are inextricably tied. If you listen to what Romney says you will see he believes the same thing. When the economy recoveres your quality of life will be better. It is not about putting one before the other, it is seeing how the two are tied. Unfortunately our economy requires wealthy, middle class, and poor citizens. I have some ideas of how the US can get off of its' dependence of poor citizens, but I could be ahead of my time in that area.

I already posted on here a detailed explanation with sources about the President really can't "fix" the economy. The best thing they can do is remove obstacles to recovery and allow the economy to heal itself. Companies have records amount of cash stored up. The economy will not recovery until they start spending, the current President is not making them feel comfortable enough to spend the money.
edit on 23-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Emeraldous
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I'm sorry but you keep going back to presidents making a pleasant environment for companies. Can I find that fact in the constitution, or in any logic? I thought governments were there for people's pleasant environment or did I misspell that...PEASANT environment.


So you believe the President should make the environment unpleasant for companies? You obviously do not understand the purpose of the constitution, that's another thread entirely. And there is your problem, the government is not there to make things pleasant for you. Please show me where the Constitution says the government is there to provide a pleasant environment for people.

Now let's play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Do people have a more pleasant environment when the economy is doing well, or bad? If your answer is well, then Romney will create a more pleasant environment for you.


Here it is...

Romney is going to pander to corporate America, but I do not think corporate America has
the American people in their best interests. I think what is good for the majority of Americans
and what is good for corporations are two different things entirely.

Corporations have been the outsourcing jobs and stagnating real wages, while the upper echelons
of corporate America have been doing very well. Romney will only exacerbate this relation which
will further erode the middle class and families across America.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


The map is stupid. Doesn't take away that Romney's plan is the one that works while Obama's puts us in debt with doing nothing. I have supplied quite a few sources in my posts that support that position. Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.


Except you're wrong. Obama's infrastructure work puts american's back to work, fixing our infrastructure - which is in dire need, unless you're one of those people who enjoy the stories of bridges collapsing on the nightly news.

Either way, the government does employ individuals, so government expanding, creates jobs. With this information, how can you even fathom to argue against it?

Also - Keynesian economics does work on a small time-line. Look, for all the bad things Hitler did with the Nazi party, his Keynesian economic policies worked to pull Germany out of the great depression, and they were the first country to do so.

You're just repeating blah blah, talking points, blah blah.

The real key to the current issues with the economy is what Romney said. Those with money are refusing to spend their money. For years we've heard about how bad the economy is, yet companies are posting record profits, wall street is back to it's pre-crash numbers, and it is those individuals who are keeping the middle class from becoming stronger. The problem is that if we deregulate industries more, there is no guarantee that those with money will do anything to actually help fix the economic issues the middle class is facing, beyond their "promise to help". How can you take that promise at any kind of value when they've been holding the economy hostage to get their way?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


Sources and facts thanks.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Sources and facts thanks.


OK

Well don't be angry if Mitt socks it to you





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join