Did conservative pundits con their base?

[Lootifer]

Hehe, thinking theres a difference in anything other than optics (i.e. their political pandering) between Obama and Romney.... SiIly billies!

[stahrgazer]

I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.

That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.

Actually, it's an unfair assessment of my point. The difference is, Romney tried to be very specific about promises for jobs, which is an outright Lie BECAUSE he didn't have the numbers to analyze to make the claim.

Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.

My bigger problem with Romney is that Romney didn't have numbers to back up a specific claim of jobs he'd create. He said repeatedly his plan would create 12 million jobs, an outright LIE if he did not have the specific numbers to back them up, and he didn't. We know from him that he didn't because in a series of interviews he kept suggesting the interviewer pick numbers, and tossed out about 7 choices.

There are those on here saying 12 million jobs will be created anyway, maybe so. That would mean that with Romney's "plan" we'd have 24 million jobs, if his "plan" was to create 12 million jobs in and of itself, as he claimed, a specific number, WITHOUT the specific analyses to back up that very specific claim.

While Obama may be vague about his plan in public, his numbers are in his budget and he has not used his vagueness to claim to the public that his plan will result in a specific number of jobs created.

There's quite a difference between being vague and saying this will vaguely help (Obama), versus being vague, without analysis, yet being specific in claiming EXACTLY how many jobs this vague, no-numbers plan will create (Romney). IF ROMNEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STATE PRECISELY WHERE THE NEW DEDUCTION THRESHOLD NEEDED TO BE TO GENERATE THE 12 MILLION JOBS HE KEPT CLAIMING HE'D CREATE. And, without those numbers, we know he did NOT do an analysis and thus we know he lied about "12 million jobs" just because it sounded good.

If Romney'd remained vague about precisely how much it would help, as Obama has, publicly, they'd be almost even; in both cases, they cannot really predict because in both cases, they are still relying on some sector of public patriotism - at least, I wouldn't be calling Romney an outright LIAR over it. Still, I'd give Obama's plan 'the edge' because Obama's plan directs incentives at job creation, "You want this deduction? Create some U.S. jobs and you got it!" (We've seen in the past 2 decades that giving broad-base deductions and hoping hasn't quite cut the mustard as far as US jobs; companies have pretty much said, 'thank you very much' and invest elsewhere anyway - and that's what Obama means when he's said Romney's plan would be doing the same old thing that got us into the mess.)

So. Summarizing.
a) Obama's public plan vaguely states, "If I increase taxes on the rich, and offer tax deductions to business that create jobs within the United States, this will help the economy and the country."

b) Romeny's public plan vaguely states, "let's pick a lower tax for everyone, especially the wealthy, while at the same time we put limits on deductions folks can take, to some unspecified limit, pick a number, any number; and this will create 12 MILLION NEW JOBS."

I happen to believe a) more than b) because a) targets job creation for the deductions while b) does more of the same that has not been successful AND is vague about the numbers while trying to claim a very specific number of jobs it would create.

Can you see the difference yet?

[Phatscotty]

like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?

[stahrgazer]

like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?

Damn right it would have, I WANTED to be able to vote Romney!

[Phatscotty]

like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?

Damn right it would have, I WANTED to be able to vote Romney!

Who did you vote for?

[Symmetry]

I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.

That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.

Actually, it's an unfair assessment of my point. The difference is, Romney tried to be very specific about promises for jobs, which is an outright Lie BECAUSE he didn't have the numbers to analyze to make the claim.

Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.

My bigger problem with Romney is that Romney didn't have numbers to back up a specific claim of jobs he'd create. He said repeatedly his plan would create 12 million jobs, an outright LIE if he did not have the specific numbers to back them up, and he didn't. We know from him that he didn't because in a series of interviews he kept suggesting the interviewer pick numbers, and tossed out about 7 choices.

There are those on here saying 12 million jobs will be created anyway, maybe so. That would mean that with Romney's "plan" we'd have 24 million jobs, if his "plan" was to create 12 million jobs in and of itself, as he claimed, a specific number, WITHOUT the specific analyses to back up that very specific claim.

While Obama may be vague about his plan in public, his numbers are in his budget and he has not used his vagueness to claim to the public that his plan will result in a specific number of jobs created.

There's quite a difference between being vague and saying this will vaguely help (Obama), versus being vague, without analysis, yet being specific in claiming EXACTLY how many jobs this vague, no-numbers plan will create (Romney). IF ROMNEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STATE PRECISELY WHERE THE NEW DEDUCTION THRESHOLD NEEDED TO BE TO GENERATE THE 12 MILLION JOBS HE KEPT CLAIMING HE'D CREATE. And, without those numbers, we know he did NOT do an analysis and thus we know he lied about "12 million jobs" just because it sounded good.

If Romney'd remained vague about precisely how much it would help, as Obama has, publicly, they'd be almost even; in both cases, they cannot really predict because in both cases, they are still relying on some sector of public patriotism - at least, I wouldn't be calling Romney an outright LIAR over it. Still, I'd give Obama's plan 'the edge' because Obama's plan directs incentives at job creation, "You want this deduction? Create some U.S. jobs and you got it!" (We've seen in the past 2 decades that giving broad-base deductions and hoping hasn't quite cut the mustard as far as US jobs; companies have pretty much said, 'thank you very much' and invest elsewhere anyway - and that's what Obama means when he's said Romney's plan would be doing the same old thing that got us into the mess.)

So. Summarizing.
a) Obama's public plan vaguely states, "If I increase taxes on the rich, and offer tax deductions to business that create jobs within the United States, this will help the economy and the country."

b) Romeny's public plan vaguely states, "let's pick a lower tax for everyone, especially the wealthy, while at the same time we put limits on deductions folks can take, to some unspecified limit, pick a number, any number; and this will create 12 MILLION NEW JOBS."

I happen to believe a) more than b) because a) targets job creation for the deductions while b) does more of the same that has not been successful AND is vague about the numbers while trying to claim a very specific number of jobs it would create.

Can you see the difference yet?

I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

[Night Strike]

I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

If Obama wanted to cut spending, he wouldn't have doubled the annual deficit. In fact, he did promise to cut it in half by the end of his first term. And he didn't have to overtly campaign on raising taxes: he already passed the largest single tax increase in history in Obamacare's mandate along with dozens of ancillary taxes used to help "pay for it".

[stahrgazer]

I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

Letting tax cuts expire = increasing taxes, and Obama repeatedly stated he'd increase taxes on the wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

One difference is, Obama still expects Congress to do its job, and waits till he sees they absolutely will not before he makes mandates, and one of their jobs is to iron out the details of budgets; in other words, Obama wouldn't say, "we will cut x percent from x program" because he sees that as Congress's job.

And saying Romney provided nothing still misses my major beef: Romney provided nothing while claiming that nothing would lead to very specific (and massive) jobs creation. I'd leaned toward voting Romney till I caught this, and this is what made me look further into everything else which ultimately led to me realizing, between the two, Obama was the better choice for America.

[Phatscotty]

I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

If Obama wanted to cut spending, he wouldn't have doubled the annual deficit. In fact, he did promise to cut it in half by the end of his first term. And he didn't have to overtly campaign on raising taxes: he already passed the largest single tax increase in history in Obamacare's mandate along with dozens of ancillary taxes used to help "pay for it".

It's okay that he doubled the deficit, because we got unemployment back to 5.4%, just like Obama promised would happen if he were allowed to spend all that money and double the deficit. That's why he was re-elected

[Night Strike]

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

[Symmetry]

I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.

Letting tax cuts expire = increasing taxes, and Obama repeatedly stated he'd increase taxes on the wealthy.

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.

I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.

One difference is, Obama still expects Congress to do its job, and waits till he sees they absolutely will not before he makes mandates, and one of their jobs is to iron out the details of budgets; in other words, Obama wouldn't say, "we will cut x percent from x program" because he sees that as Congress's job.

And saying Romney provided nothing still misses my major beef: Romney provided nothing while claiming that nothing would lead to very specific (and massive) jobs creation. I'd leaned toward voting Romney till I caught this, and this is what made me look further into everything else which ultimately led to me realizing, between the two, Obama was the better choice for America.

That's fair comment- thanks for clarifying. It's annoying when people reduce fiscal policy to "Dems want to raise taxes, Repubs want to cut spending." Apologies for misreading, or maybe reading too much into your post.

[AndyDufresne]

I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.

No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

Maybe you and her are working off different definitions? There was a whole topic about all the nuances of conservatism a while ago I recall.


--Andy

[stahrgazer]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

But you WILL see me preferring some of what Obama did as opposed to what his predecessor did and his challenger said should have been done. For example:

You need to check financial history before you say bankruptcy courts would've saved things. Bank bailouts were necessary to prevent more from collapsing than did, not just on a national, but also on a global scale. The GM bailout may not have been necessary from a global standpoint, but Romney was plain-out WRONG to assume GM could "go bankrupt and still survive" - that stance counted on the type of bankruptcy where, after clearing some of the debts, the "bankrupt" business is able to borrow to continue doing business. In another time, that works, but it would not have worked at THAT time because of the overall near-crash of our entire financial systems. See, GM post-bankruptcy would not have been able to borrow the funds necessary to continue operating because the many nearly-collapsed banks were not lending.

Now, Romney's answer to that was that the government could simply guarantee the GM loans, and that much is true. But. As a taxpayer, after I saw the Bush-planned "bank bailouts" went to ridiculous things like conferences and more bonuses to (especially higher-up) employees, which means the money didn't go where it was intended to go so Obama was stuck either letting them collapse after all or giving even more "bank bailout" (this time with a few more strings attached). I preferred the few more strings attached, even though apparently not enough strings were attached since I hear "conservatives" screaming that the second bailout wasn't spent well either. Although, the most ethical banks that accepted the bailout money have repaid the money with a bit of interest.

But as for GM, I prefer that the government stepped in and said, "Okay, GM, we'll save your tush, but it's gonna cost you some power that we'll wield on behalf of the taxpayers who're saving your tushies."

The difference with GM is, with what Romney wanted we would have been stuck with the bill with no say-so, and with what Obama's administration did we were stuck with the bill but have some say-so. Either way, the chance of recouping the investment was slim, but with what Romney wanted the chance of recouping was almost none, and Obama's method gives us a little better odds.

Maybe you and her are working off different definitions? There was a whole topic about all the nuances of conservatism a while ago I recall.
--Andy

Prob'ly so.

I'm a patriot first, a conservative second. Where conservatism is not what's best for my country, I lean the other way. I'm a swervy line, not a right-wing zealot, nor am I typically left-wing UNLESS leaning left is what's best for my country and its people, at the time.

Further, I don't believe that historically, Conservatism=Blindly Zealous Capitalism like neo-Reps tend to sound like today.

[thegreekdog]

I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.

That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.

Actually, it's an unfair assessment of my point. The difference is, Romney tried to be very specific about promises for jobs, which is an outright Lie BECAUSE he didn't have the numbers to analyze to make the claim.

Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.

My bigger problem with Romney is that Romney didn't have numbers to back up a specific claim of jobs he'd create. He said repeatedly his plan would create 12 million jobs, an outright LIE if he did not have the specific numbers to back them up, and he didn't. We know from him that he didn't because in a series of interviews he kept suggesting the interviewer pick numbers, and tossed out about 7 choices.

There are those on here saying 12 million jobs will be created anyway, maybe so. That would mean that with Romney's "plan" we'd have 24 million jobs, if his "plan" was to create 12 million jobs in and of itself, as he claimed, a specific number, WITHOUT the specific analyses to back up that very specific claim.

While Obama may be vague about his plan in public, his numbers are in his budget and he has not used his vagueness to claim to the public that his plan will result in a specific number of jobs created.

There's quite a difference between being vague and saying this will vaguely help (Obama), versus being vague, without analysis, yet being specific in claiming EXACTLY how many jobs this vague, no-numbers plan will create (Romney). IF ROMNEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STATE PRECISELY WHERE THE NEW DEDUCTION THRESHOLD NEEDED TO BE TO GENERATE THE 12 MILLION JOBS HE KEPT CLAIMING HE'D CREATE. And, without those numbers, we know he did NOT do an analysis and thus we know he lied about "12 million jobs" just because it sounded good.

If Romney'd remained vague about precisely how much it would help, as Obama has, publicly, they'd be almost even; in both cases, they cannot really predict because in both cases, they are still relying on some sector of public patriotism - at least, I wouldn't be calling Romney an outright LIAR over it. Still, I'd give Obama's plan 'the edge' because Obama's plan directs incentives at job creation, "You want this deduction? Create some U.S. jobs and you got it!" (We've seen in the past 2 decades that giving broad-base deductions and hoping hasn't quite cut the mustard as far as US jobs; companies have pretty much said, 'thank you very much' and invest elsewhere anyway - and that's what Obama means when he's said Romney's plan would be doing the same old thing that got us into the mess.)

So. Summarizing.
a) Obama's public plan vaguely states, "If I increase taxes on the rich, and offer tax deductions to business that create jobs within the United States, this will help the economy and the country."

b) Romeny's public plan vaguely states, "let's pick a lower tax for everyone, especially the wealthy, while at the same time we put limits on deductions folks can take, to some unspecified limit, pick a number, any number; and this will create 12 MILLION NEW JOBS."

I happen to believe a) more than b) because a) targets job creation for the deductions while b) does more of the same that has not been successful AND is vague about the numbers while trying to claim a very specific number of jobs it would create.

Can you see the difference yet?

You keep changing the reason why you voted for Obama over Romney.

Questions for you though - How does Obama's plan "offer tax deductions to business[es] that create jobs within the United States?"

As far as I know, there is only one deduction a company can get for creating jobs - a compensation or payroll deduction on their federal income tax return (Line 13 on the 1120). Is the president going to push for a double deduction or something? Now maybe the president meant a tax credit, but, well, there are already tax credits for job creation in the U.S., so I guess he's going for a double credit.

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

[stahrgazer]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

[thegreekdog]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.

[Metsfanmax]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.

Yes, Gary Johnson was the viable alternative.

/sarcasm

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if Romney lied or not

This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.

[Night Strike]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

[Symmetry]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.

We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.

You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?

[Night Strike]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.

We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.

You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?

The deficit was doubled. Actually, what he said was that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, which is what he doubled.

[Symmetry]

For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.

I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.

Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?

As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?

It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.

We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.

You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?

The deficit was doubled. Actually, what he said was that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, which is what he doubled.

What you said was that spending was doubled. That was obviously nonsense. Now you're trying for something different. Can we at least agree that you were wrong about spending?

[thegreekdog]

It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."

That's what started me looking.

As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.

Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.

I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.

I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.

Yes, Gary Johnson was the viable alternative.

/sarcasm

It depends on what your definition of "viable alternative" is.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if Romney lied or not

This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.

Did you think it was a main problem for the president and the pundits supporting him?

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure if Romney lied or not

This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.

Did you think it was a main problem for the president and the pundits supporting him?

He won, dude, and his pundits were pretty spot on about it.