All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Romney: Worst Major Party Prez Candidate Ever?
11/1/2012 10:25 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/31/2012 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Does that mean that you...

Support raising taxes to fix the debt even though most experts agree that we need to reduce spending?

Think that it is immoral for someone to make a no tax pledge?

Think that money for emergencies should not be made up for with cuts to other programs? You think that we should just put every emergency on our Childrens credit cards?

Think that every agency and Department in the Government is cast in stone and should never be reorganized or eliminated?
1. Combo of tax increases and reduction in spending, including the Pentagon.

2. Yes. An oath is sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, not swear an oath to Grover Norquist. Who knows what calamity might occur and require a tax increase? In Mass as Gov. Romney was notorious for "fee" increases.

3. Seriously? It's an emergency. Govt's can engage in deficit spending. To suggest that a government should operate like a family is crazy talk. And you don't have any children, so spare me the "our children's CC" meme. If you are so  concerned about our children's world than why do you want to rip apart the EPA? Ignore Global Climate Change? Cuts to programs that benefit children. You don't give a rat's *** about what the future holds for children.   Swamp = Concern Troll

4. Of course not. Agencies should be reviewed and re-organized as needed. And what has Obama said about Sandy relief...."Cut red tape" You should surely support this...unless of course you are opposed to relief, I guess.

11/2/2012 12:20 AM
1 So after 60 years of tax increasing and expansion of government you cannot even envision a reduction in the size and scope of government..

2 They didnt swear loyalty to Norquist. They agreed not to raise taxes. Lets see if we can have some emergency budget cuts.

3 Again you cannot even imagine cuts. You believe that everything the government does is essential?

4 Obama claiming to get rid of red tape? Between his stimulus, Obamacare and his enviromental regualtions the makers of red Tape are the only companies hiring.
11/2/2012 7:00 AM
swamp, c'mon.  You bring discredit to your position when you argugue coherently about some things, but cannot give credit where credit is due.  I disagree with just about everything the current president holds as important (not based on his rhetoric, but his action, or lack thereof).   That aside, one of the very few items that I have no problem with, and no one in their right mind should, is the fact that the President doesn't want "red tape" to be an obstacle with respect to helping the storm victims.  He deserves credit for that.  Are there motives for why he says it?  Maybe, but we really ought to accept those words at face value.

And seamar, deficit spending in perpetuity is a collosal waste and immoral to saddle other people with.  It's real money and its real debt.  And it is being passed on to generations.  When the notes become due, they have to be paid.  Just because we have survived with it so far doesn't mean we can continue forever with it.  Finances simply don't work that way.
11/2/2012 2:06 PM
You are right.

Obama did try to reduce the red tape during this crisis. He deserves credit for that.
11/2/2012 6:47 PM
cut every program by 10% right now, meaning every single program...military, social services, foreign aid, infrastructure, etc

come back in 2 years and look at cutting another 5-10%-evenly distributed across every program that receives Federal $$$

right now, raise taxes on everyone making at least $100,000, by at least 5%, going up as income gets higher, with no sunset clause
11/2/2012 8:31 PM
Posted by silentpadna on 11/2/2012 7:00:00 AM (view original):
swamp, c'mon.  You bring discredit to your position when you argugue coherently about some things, but cannot give credit where credit is due.  I disagree with just about everything the current president holds as important (not based on his rhetoric, but his action, or lack thereof).   That aside, one of the very few items that I have no problem with, and no one in their right mind should, is the fact that the President doesn't want "red tape" to be an obstacle with respect to helping the storm victims.  He deserves credit for that.  Are there motives for why he says it?  Maybe, but we really ought to accept those words at face value.

And seamar, deficit spending in perpetuity is a collosal waste and immoral to saddle other people with.  It's real money and its real debt.  And it is being passed on to generations.  When the notes become due, they have to be paid.  Just because we have survived with it so far doesn't mean we can continue forever with it.  Finances simply don't work that way.
padna,

I do not disagree with you regarding perpetual deficit spending. My first comment regarding a combo of tax increases and spending reduction was related to deficit reduction, and I apologize for not making that clear.

My comment to Swamp re: "the Children" was to just to point out his "concern trolling." One could find a long list of things that affect our children's future that he could care less about.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
11/3/2012 3:43 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 11/2/2012 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 11/2/2012 7:00:00 AM (view original):
swamp, c'mon.  You bring discredit to your position when you argugue coherently about some things, but cannot give credit where credit is due.  I disagree with just about everything the current president holds as important (not based on his rhetoric, but his action, or lack thereof).   That aside, one of the very few items that I have no problem with, and no one in their right mind should, is the fact that the President doesn't want "red tape" to be an obstacle with respect to helping the storm victims.  He deserves credit for that.  Are there motives for why he says it?  Maybe, but we really ought to accept those words at face value.

And seamar, deficit spending in perpetuity is a collosal waste and immoral to saddle other people with.  It's real money and its real debt.  And it is being passed on to generations.  When the notes become due, they have to be paid.  Just because we have survived with it so far doesn't mean we can continue forever with it.  Finances simply don't work that way.
padna,

I do not disagree with you regarding perpetual deficit spending. My first comment regarding a combo of tax increases and spending reduction was related to deficit reduction, and I apologize for not making that clear.

My comment to Swamp re: "the Children" was to just to point out his "concern trolling." One could find a long list of things that affect our children's future that he could care less about.
Lets give a list of things that impact Children I dont care about as much as you do.

Several of my friends have Children who all call me Uncle Ed and I want a strong America for them.
11/3/2012 8:05 AM
Do you want them to have health care even if mom or dad changes jobs and they have a pre-existing health condition?

Do you want them to be able to marry whomever they want?

Do you want them to live in a country with clean air and clean water even if it costs businesses a little more to make sure that the air and water they use in their business "comes out as clean as it went in"?

Do you want them to be able to afford to go to college even if mom or dad cannot afford to send them?

Do you want them to be able to have productive jobs, that pay decent wages without fear that they can always be replaced by someone who will work longer, in worse conditions, for less money?

Do you want your friend's daughters to be prostitutes if they choose to?

Do you want your friend's daughters to be paid the same for doing the same job that their brothers are paid?

Do you want your friend's children to  grow up in a country where they can make family planning decisions without government or their employer telling them what to do?

There is a list for you.



11/3/2012 12:54 PM
1 We do need to fix health care. Obamacare doesnt do that. It has a few good parts, and you mentioned them. It is the vast expansion of government control that we have a problem with.

2 I do want them to marry whoever they want. I support the right of the people to choose this issue.

3 I do want that. I dont want crippling regulations that dont really help anyone and cripple manufacturing jobs.

4 I support the ability to borrow for a college education like we all did.

5 I want them to have decent jobs. I want another Reagan Revolution.

6. I want everyone everywhere to be able to choose to be prostitutes.

7 I am worried about the government forcing people to pay for abortion even if they find it a sin. I dont think 1st trimester abortions should be banned. I do support parental consent laws.
11/4/2012 12:28 AM
1. What actually is the "government control", other than requiring people to have insurance or pay a fine to avoid the free-rider problem? States mandate auto insurance. Philosophically do you have a problem with that? Vaccinations for students before enrolling in school?

2. You are weasling here. Do you support the right of the individual to choose as opposed to the people of the state being able to choose on a state by state basis?

3. Examples of crippling regulations please. Whose word do we take...the manufactuers? Do you put the fox in charge of the hen house?

4. So you are opposed to the reduction in things like Pell grants? Do you favor the government working to keep student loan interest rates low?

5. Please explain what the Reagan Revolution was and how that relates to my question.

<<Do you want them to be able to have productive jobs, that pay decent wages without fear that they can always be replaced by someone who will work longer, in worse conditions, for less money?>>

6. Wonderful...quite the humanitarian...do you share that with your nieces and nephews?

7. How is the government forcing anyone to pay for abortions? Unless you are claiming that "corporations are people too..." Government by its nature can and must be able to compel all sorts of things.

Or do you believe that employers should have the final say on an employees health care? So what if Comcast says they think it is immoral to pay for by-passes, or high blood pressure meds? That is reasonable to you? What if I have a moral objection to providing subsidies for tobacco growers? Should I be able to not pay my taxes?

You missed this one  
<<Do you want your friend's daughters to be paid the same for doing the same job that their brothers are paid?>>

11/4/2012 1:16 AM
One I missed. Of course I support Men and Women being paid the same wage for the same job. I oppose different jobs being labeled the same.

1 Just like SS and Medicare started small and expanded to huge. Obamacare is the framwork for single payer without congress.

2 I personally support it. Like many laws I oppose the people sometimes disagree with me. The people should choose this issue.

3 Dont dump mercury in the river=good Illegal to sell raw milk=bad

4 Pell grants may not be the most effective way to help low income students. As long as it doesnt increase debt the loan subsideis are fine.

5 The Reagan Revolution got the American economy going again and people did well.

6 I usually dont share issues like that with minors. I just like individual freedom. I realize you want the government to control as much as possible.

7 Obamacare is forcing people to pay for abortions for their employees. We all know that.
11/4/2012 1:16 AM
<<6 I usually dont share issues like that with minors. I just like individual freedom. I realize you want the government to control as much as possible.

7 Obamacare is forcing people to pay for abortions for their employees. We all know that.>>

6. But sometimes you do???!!!

7. Obamacare is not forcing people to pay for abortions for their employees. Don't be dense. Under your line of reasoning as an employer I should be able to tell my employees that they cannot spend any portion of their paycheck on porn, or alcohol, or cigs, or anything that I might find morally objectionable. Not even you would argue that point, would you? So single out some aspect of a person's healthcare, that the insurance company provides? That particular argument is so lame. Surely you see that.
11/4/2012 3:06 AM
Total dodge on number 5.
11/5/2012 1:33 AM
Number 5 is me not responding to what Seamar wants me to but since he wants a gotcha moment lets talk the truth.

In order for business to run people need to be paid in relationship to what they create. If you have special skills you will be paid more, if you are attacking a bolt to a car bumper you may be paid less.

This is all based on market forces.

For a short period of time a few American unions forced the amount workers cost over what they should have been paid. This lead to articial inflation.

There are always other workers, but a company would not want to fire good people and retrain new people without reason.

Some jobs at the bottom of the chain are by their nature low paying and have high turnover.
of 26
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Romney: Worst Major Party Prez Candidate Ever?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.