Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Vote for Romney

Forbes is a pretty smart publication, right. Yeah, uh, they think Romney/Ryan would drive the final nail in:

Romney and Ryan's Disastrous Economic Plan - Forbes

Romney and Ryan's Disastrous Economic Plan

I have been writing for some time that Obama’s misunderstanding of the nature of the federal budget is keeping us locked in a state of semi-slump (see for example The Real Reason Unemployment Isn’t Falling). His belief that Washington’s spending is constrained in the same manner as a household’s has the administration talking about budget cuts when our over twelve million unemployed Americans need just the opposite. Only the government–not households, firms, banks, or foreign countries–is in a position to immediately and dramatically increase the demand for goods and services and thereby put these people back to work. Unfortunately, the President and his advisors are concerned with a mythical day of reckoning when China asks for all its money back and our impoverished grandchildren become their economic slaves. It is utter foolishness.

That said, however, at least Obama, et al., have the general idea of what needs to be done (even if they are afraid to pursue it to the degree necessary). Obama mostly, if not completely, gets the fact that any real solution must involve the government and the recovery of the middle class and that our current woes are not a function of overregulation and oppressive taxation. Not so, Mitt Romney and new vice-presidential running mate, Paul Ryan. I have already argued that the latter’s proposed budget is an absolute nightmare (The Ryan Budget: A Mistake of Historic Proportions). It is premised on the existence of a fantasy world within which entrepreneurs, despite the decline in sales that would follow budget cuts, suddenly increase hiring and investment because they have been able to throw off the shackles of government interference. I don’t know any other way to say it–this is idiotic. A reduction in spending by any sector in the macroeconomy will reduce revenue in the private sector and thus make our predicament even worse. Say, for example, that for some reason we no longer had any need for a military presence anywhere in the world and therefore fired every American soldier, marine, airman, and sailor. Precisely how, Mr. Ryan, is this supposed to be good news for the entrepreneurs who sold groceries, gasoline, housing, clothing, etc., to these individuals? You don’t need a PhD in economics to answer that one–it’s not.

Romney may not be as extreme as Ryan, but he is cut from the same cloth. As he states on his web page, “The only recipe for fiscal health and a thriving private economy is a government that spends within its means.” This is patently false. The only fiscally healthy or responsible policy is one that generates sufficient demand to hire all those willing to work. This does not include cuts to “non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent,” the shifting of federal government programs the private sector or state governments (entities that DO face a hard budget constraint), or, God forbid, a balanced budget amendment. Furthermore and as argued in an earlier post (The Real Job Creators: Consumers), the economy’s job creators are not, as Romney says, entrepreneurs and the wealthy, but the middle class. How can today’s unemployment be a function of overregulation and overtaxation when we are at or near historic lows in each? Rather, the problem, pure and simple, is demand. No amount of cost cutting will induce firms to expand employment in the absence of an increase in sales. Because this fact is lost on the Romney-Ryan ticket, their economic policies would be a disaster.

A popular means of increasing your credibility among Republicans is to compare yourself with Ronald Reagan. That’s a great idea. No president since WWII borrowed and spent more than he did. In fact, no one else (including Barack Obama) is even close. And those who argue that he was forced to do this against his will by a Democratic Congress simply don’t remember their history very well. Not only were the budgets passed never markedly different from those requested, but Reagan even famously quipped: “I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.” Quite right.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan–you are no Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...
 
are you black again? well so is obama...vote obama
 
Besides, no one who openly opposes Roe v. Wade and says they would reverse it if they got the chance has no business knowing the codes on the football. You don't think a woman can decide what to do with her reproductive organs you haven't evolved enough to be in control of nuclear weapons.
 
musclemom said:
Besides, no one who openly opposes Roe v. Wade and says they would reverse it if they got the chance has no business knowing the codes on the football. .
Click to expand...
What the shit?
 
musclemom said:
Besides, no one who openly opposes Roe v. Wade and says they would reverse it if they got the chance has no business knowing the codes on the football. You don't think a woman can decide what to do with her reproductive organs you haven't evolved enough to be in control of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Those weapons are old and don't work anyways. It was just a big scare tactic by that damn republican president that the dems said the same thing about that they are saying about Romney.
What was his name? Oh yeah Reagan.



Sent from my iPhone using EliteFitness app
 
musclemom said:
Besides, no one who openly opposes Roe v. Wade and says they would reverse it if they got the chance has no business knowing the codes on the football. You don't think a woman can decide what to do with her reproductive organs you haven't evolved enough to be in control of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

please explain how a president could reverse roe v wade.
does he just make the call and it happens?
 
binö said:
please explain how a president could reverse roe v wade.
does he just make the call and it happens?
Click to expand...

nope...he can't and he won't...even if he could, he wouldn't...he's not interested in a bunch of other unwanted people running around gobbling up resources that could be used to generate shareholder wealth instead...he's just posturing...that said, i'll be pulling the romney handle tomorrow, just like i pulled the mccain handle 4 years ago...honestly? i don't think the outcome will be much different for my guy this time either...not that i have any great love for romney...i simply despise him less than obama.
 
digimon7068 said:
nope...he can't and he won't...even if he could, he wouldn't...he's not interested in a bunch of other unwanted people running around gobbling up resources that could be used to generate shareholder wealth instead...he's just posturing...that said, i'll be pulling the romney handle tomorrow, just like i pulled the mccain handle 4 years ago...honestly? i don't think the outcome will be much different for my guy this time either...not that i have any great love for romney...i simply despise him less than obama.
Click to expand...

what do you mean posturing? he wouldn't have the authority to change any law
 
binö said:
please explain how a president could reverse roe v wade.
does he just make the call and it happens?
Click to expand...

The next president will choose possibly two Supreme Court justices. If Romney chooses two more Scalias you can color Roe v. Wade gone. End of story.

Y'all can't be that blind?
 
binö said:
what do you mean posturing? he wouldn't have the authority to change any law
Click to expand...

talkin' shit..."i'll reverse roe v wade if i get the chance"...two years later..."i wanted to reverse roe v wade but no one would go along with me...sorry...i tried"...you know...typical politician bullshit...people accuse them of not keeping their promises but, if you listen real close??? they never really make any promises...ssshhhh...don't tell anyone.
 
Dial_tone said:
The next president will choose possibly two Supreme Court justices. If Romney chooses two more Scalias you can color Roe v. Wade gone. End of story.

Y'all can't be that blind?
Click to expand...

i don't believe that's true...i'm a catholic, conservative (but sensible), republican and i don't have any interest in reversing that ruling...other than the fact that i think the male gene donor should have some say in the process...but, you and i both know that there is no real way to administer such a rule, so i say forget about...if you're truly pro-life?? lead by example.

and, if you're a dude that wants kids?? don't knock up some broad that doesn't want to have kids.
 
binö said:
please explain how a president could reverse roe v wade.
does he just make the call and it happens?
Click to expand...
The President has the say on the appointment of the justices. There are nine justices. The ages of the current justices, in descending order, are: 79, two are 76, 74, 64, 62, 58, 57 and 52. That's SIX who are over age 60 currently, three who will be in their 80s within the next four years. That is scary. The last thing you want is an extremist of any sort making the choice, but particularly scary would be one who is willing to allow his religion to -- in any way -- guide the choice of who will take those potential seats. Romney has flip-flopped on the abortion issue repeatedly in his political career purely based on strategic advantage. Based on his choice of a running mate I suspect his true belief is that abortion should be absolutely outlawed (his current stance is that it should be a state based decision, which is about as wishy washy as you can safely stand politically, which would mean overturning Roe v. Wade).
 
Dial_tone said:
The next president will choose possibly two Supreme Court justices. If Romney chooses two more Scalias you can color Roe v. Wade gone. End of story.

Y'all can't be that blind?
Click to expand...

so two supreme court justices and boom the case is reversed?
it is that easy eh?
no brutal climb thru numerous state and appelate courts, no waiting for the perfect case that can slide thru all the way to the SC, no doubt it will be easy to get a majority in favor of overturning with with two romney justices (the SC is just so predicatble, nobody was suprized with roberts decision on obamacare).
roe v wade will stand for years to come, as it should
 
Didnt know Romney was an extremist, his own party begrudgingly accepted him kicking and screaming through the primaries.
If thats the case how to explain Bush? He seems more conservative than Romney and he appointed two justices and here we still are with RVW still doing fine.
 
musclemom said:
The President has the say on the appointment of the justices. There are nine justices. The ages of the current justices, in descending order, are: 79, two are 76, 74, 64, 62, 58, 57 and 52. That's SIX who are over age 60 currently, three who will be in their 80s within the next four years. That is scary. The last thing you want is an extremist of any sort making the choice, but particularly scary would be one who is willing to allow his religion to -- in any way -- guide the choice of who will take those potential seats. Romney has flip-flopped on the abortion issue repeatedly in his political career purely based on strategic advantage. Based on his choice of a running mate I suspect his true belief is that abortion should be absolutely outlawed (his current stance is that it should be a state based decision, which is about as wishy washy as you can safely stand politically, which would mean overturning Roe v. Wade).
Click to expand...

i prefer "evovled"
what scares me is that abortion is becoming an accepted form of birth control...and it's not that easy to overturn a supreme court decision i can only come across ten cases in the last century (but maybe their is more i don't know of)
would have a better chance of amending the consititution.
 
-SD- said:
Didnt know Romney was an extremist, his own party begrudgingly accepted him kicking and screaming through the primaries.
If thats the case how to explain Bush? He seems more conservative than Romney and he appointed two justices and here we still are with RVW still doing fine.
Click to expand...

obamacare got a huge assist by one of those racist conservative appointees
 
-SD- said:
lol Who the fuck does he think he is?
Click to expand...

yea no shit, he must of forgot he is forever beholden to his racist masters of everything that is evil and wrong.
grover norquist and the koch brothers no doubt kicked him back in line
 
-SD- said:
Didnt know Romney was an extremist, his own party begrudgingly accepted him kicking and screaming through the primaries.
If thats the case how to explain Bush? He seems more conservative than Romney and he appointed two justices and here we still are with RVW still doing fine.
Click to expand...

He is not right extremist at all. While running for Senate against Kennedy, he was pro-choice. He is just parroting the GOP platform right now.
 
binö said:
so two supreme court justices and boom the case is reversed?
it is that easy eh?
no brutal climb thru numerous state and appelate courts, no waiting for the perfect case that can slide thru all the way to the SC, no doubt it will be easy to get a majority in favor of overturning with with two romney justices (the SC is just so predicatble, nobody was suprized with roberts decision on obamacare).
roe v wade will stand for years to come, as it should
Click to expand...

Roberts was a known moderate and most Republicans felt betrayed by his decision. They won't make that mistake again. I'd rather have nine like him.
 
binö said:
i prefer "evovled"
what scares me is that abortion is becoming an accepted form of birth control...and it's not that easy to overturn a supreme court decision i can only come across ten cases in the last century (but maybe their is more i don't know of)
would have a better chance of amending the consititution.
Click to expand...

You must have some sort of insight into the matter that I do not. Don't get me wrong, I tend to lean right, but I don't see this happening at all.
 
Lmao our country is so fucked.

Sorry founding fathers, I know you're turning over in your fucking graves right now... I tried.

Sincerely,
- a woman who is as pro-Romney as it gets.
 
psizzle_8 said:
Lmao our country is so fucked.

Sorry founding fathers, I know you're turning over in your fucking graves right now... I tried.

Sincerely,
- a woman who is as pro-Romney as it gets.
Click to expand...

Party at my house if we win!

Well maybe just drinks at Dylans, my house is actually clean...
 
-SD- said:
about 4 hours for me rob
Click to expand...

You could leave work and be here before the results are announced.

Gotta warn you though, if obumbles wins, we'll have to restrain psizzle from killing everyone in the bar, and she's strong
 
bigbassturd said:
You could leave work and be here before the results are announced.

Gotta warn you though, if obumbles wins, we'll have to restrain psizzle from killing everyone in the bar, and she's strong
Click to expand...
Truth lol

Pro-Obama people are threatening riots if he doesn't win, why shouldn't I?

I can see the headlines now: pissed off female juicer goes nuts on Obama supporters
 
I'd like to drink with the Texans, but I have to warn you all that I don't give a fuck who wins.
 
psizzle_8 said:
Truth lol

Pro-Obama people are threatening riots if he doesn't win, why shouldn't I?

I can see the headlines now: pissed off female juicer goes nuts on Obama supporters
Click to expand...

Lololol we could get tanked and head up gulfway and show SD why we have to run so fast

I bet they'll be partying their balls off in PA all week :(
 
psizzle_8 said:
Lmao our country is so fucked.

Sorry founding fathers, I know you're turning over in your fucking graves right now... I tried.

Sincerely,
- a woman who is as pro-Romney as it gets.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers would still be chewing on "wait, you assholes took "all men are created equal" to include negroes and women?"
 
binö said:
so two supreme court justices and boom the case is reversed?
it is that easy eh?
no brutal climb thru numerous state and appelate courts, no waiting for the perfect case that can slide thru all the way to the SC, no doubt it will be easy to get a majority in favor of overturning with with two romney justices (the SC is just so predicatble, nobody was suprized with roberts decision on obamacare).
roe v wade will stand for years to come, as it should
Click to expand...
Repealing Obamacare will have to go thru those very same courts, yet most Republicans consider that to be a mere formality.
 
Dial_tone said:
Repealing Obamacare will have to go thru those very same courts, yet most Republicans consider that to be a mere formality.
Click to expand...

“If Republicans take the majority in the Senate in the 2012 elections, McConnell said, he would use budget reconciliation to overturn the law — a move that would not be subject to the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.”

Said McConnell: “Reconciliation is available because the Supreme Court has now declared it a tax. They have unearthed the massive deception that was practiced by the president and the Democrats to constantly deny that it was a tax. … And as a tax, it is eligible for reconciliation.”
 
mistaballoonhands said:
You must have some sort of insight into the matter that I do not. Don't get me wrong, I tend to lean right, but I don't see this happening at all.
Click to expand...

not really insight...just from what i've observed via my GF and her career (CPS social worker)...she has multiple clients with multiple abortions, seems to be fairly common.
i realize that is a small view but it wouldn't suprize me if that is a general trend...what do you think from your angle?
imo i'd vote pro-choice, though the supporters lose me with their antics (leave my body alone but pay for condoms and abortions!! etc)
 
Dial_tone said:
The founding fathers would still be chewing on "wait, you assholes took "all men are created equal" to include negroes and women?"
Click to expand...

probably right about this.
poor crackas and dirt worshippers faced similiar discrimination but obviously not into the depths of the 20th century like bros did
 
U know why it's not racist to call mitt Romney a curious George look alike, And that it is racist to call obama one? Because Obama is a dumbass chimpanzee and people who scream racist are in denial. fuck! lets all get the baboons red n blue chapped ass out from the white house let's get the plastic off the couches in there. Get the monkeys off the porch of the white house! Make it right vote white!
 
dmaug2308 said:
U know why it's not racist to call mitt Romney a curious George look alike, And that it is racist to call obama one? Because Obama is a dumbass chimpanzee and people who scream racist are in denial. fuck! lets all get the baboons red n blue chapped ass out from the white house let's get the plastic off the couches in there. Get the monkeys off the porch of the white house! Make it right vote white!
Click to expand...

Lol @ some pathetic loser fuck calling anybody of wealth or power and dumbass chimpanzee. Post up some of your recent accomplishments, you stupid faggot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jasonhill800
Napsgear POTW : Get 50% Off On GP Nolva (Nolvadex)
Replies
7
Views
433
BodyMonster34
BodyMonster34
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale NapsGear Deal Of The Week - 50% Off On GP Anastrozole (Arimidex)
Replies
8
Views
363
SteveMobsterG
SteveMobsterG
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale NapsGear Deal Of The Week - 50% Off On GP Anastrozole (Arimidex)
Replies
8
Views
331
SteveMobsterG
SteveMobsterG
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale Napsgear POTW : 50% Off Now On GP Clomiphene (Clomid)
Replies
5
Views
280
Arabian
Arabian
Richard Brown
Napsgear Sale Napsgear POTW : 50% Off Now On GP Clomiphene (Clomid)
Replies
7
Views
470
ROIDDERS
ROIDDERS
Top Bottom