That sort of comment was sure to raise the eyebrows of fiscal conservatives in the GOP, who have long preached a message of fiscal restraint as a path to economic growth.

someone notify mr. webster that the definition of 'long' has been changed to 'roughly three years or so'.

With all the GOP Candidates miscues this election season it's no wonder they no one is the clear favorite.

HA HE ADMITS IT!!!!!!!! IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!

This statement proves how severely conservative confused Romney is!

""It's hogwash. It confirms yet again that Romney is not a limited government conservative," said Andy Roth, the vice president for government affairs at the fiscally conservative Club for Growth. "The idea that balancing the budget would not help the economy is crazy. If we balanced the budget tomorrow on spending cuts alone, it would be fantastic for the economy.""

Spin spin spin. That's not what Romney said. He didnt say that balancing the budget would not help the economy. He said one half of the equation, spending cuts, by itself is bad for the economy. It requires cuts and tax raises to move towards a balanced budget.

This is furthest center I've seen a Republican venture in 20 years. I also think he said this by design. The polls show conservative voters want a more moderate conservative than the right-wing nut jobs dominating the news. With Santorum gaining more extremist voters, Romney is likely trying to grab some middle-class, moderate voters now, rather than staying so far right. Smart move, but it won't win the general election.

"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he [Mitt Romney] said in part of his response.

What thoughts are going on in Romney's head? Is he going through despair as he sees the election slipping away? He is stuck between pandering to the far right of the Republican party guaranteeing a lose in the general election or using his brain and talking to the middle, but in the process losing the nomination. Mitt is having brainwashing flashbacks to his father's run for President. Maybe one of the sons of Mitt Romney will succeed where the prior two generations failed.

I think we may be witnessing Romney losing the republican nomination. If he had waited until the general election to bring this up he may have brought the Independents on board, but for now he needed to dole out all of the red meat he could find. This will blow your campaign out of the water for once and for all Willard!

Cygnus, Romeny wasn't saying that taxes need to be raised, he was stating that taxes need to be lowered to "stimulate" the economy along with spending cuts:

So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.

It's the same old GOP mantra, cut spending and taxes. At least he realizes that cutting spending hurts the economy.

Good point EngEsq. He of course wants more tax cuts, but his remark about spending cuts will be the talk of the debate. We will see Mitt turning on a spit!

Not really so surprising....

truth is truth, and facts are facts, regardless of the spin the RNC-TEA people try to put on it; even THEY get tired of their illogical garbage apparently. Oh! The tangled webs they weave.

Still should be very interesting how this Freudian slip is addressed....

Popcorn anyone?

With exclusive rights to the printing press, there is no reason for the federal government to collect an income tax at all. With the Fed printing trillions and trillions of dollars and giving to their friends, they could easily add a few trillions in lieu of taxes. States, counties, and cities are the only ones who have to tax.

A more likely reason for the federal income tax is to create economic hardship to lure us to a deceptively "better" world order.

The best solution for American people is sound market-based money and a balanced budget.

What!? Madness!

You mean to tell me that firing people isn't the best way to lower unemployment?

My god, it's rocket science!

Good thing we have strong fiscal leaders like Romney to stand up and point that one out. Let's hope their listeners will receive that message.

Now onto sound market-based money. What exactly would we base it off of? We, and the world, went away from the gold standard when the amount of currency exceeded the amount of gold. This happened a long time ago. We've been printing since then.

So please, tell me what we would ground currency in. I'm receptive and listening.

I don't know that much about economics but it would appear to me that if you have a deficit that you can't just have spending cuts without having more taxation. i don't think you can cut spending and cut taxxes in the same breath and bring down the deficit it just does not make sense.

EngEsq is right. Sad that 10 liberals cannot even understand a simple article.

Bottom line is that Obama has spent over $10.8 trillion, more money in 3 years than anyone in history of mankind and still has the worst recovery since the Great Depression.

Obama has proven that not cutting spending, ringing up stunning deficits certainly doesn't work .....

Sad that simple fact is beyond the typical liberals intellectual capacity to understand.

Mitt Romney said Tuesday that cutting spending slows growth in the economy -- a rhetorical slip more akin to an argument a Democrat might make than a Republican.

Uh oh, somebody's off the reservation.........

Neil, no one can answer that questions because it's unintelligable. At no point did you communicate anything remotely resembling a logical thought.

I am almost positive that this entire crowd has lost IQ due to trying to read your post.

I award you 0 points and may god have mercy on your soul.

And onto some logical thoughts...Bob...

I tender my disagreement with your statement. He has presided over the worst recovery since the great depression because this is the worst economic disaster since...the Great Depression.
The length of recovery is directly proportional to the economic damage suffered in the negative growth outlook.

Not only that, but the DOW hit 13,000 showing that certain sectors have fully bounced back. Or crazy people are pulling the money out of their mattress to stick into shares. No two ways to really look at that.

This entire issue is foundational in nature, not structural.

To be blunt, we need to invoke protectionism across the board and burn the Free Trade and WTO agreements in effigy. Or we will never truly see a return to 3% unemployment on a national scale.

@Teknishan:

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall, a retired financial consultant and bank president and author, said, "...I believe we need commodities as a whole to back our currency. In other words, I believe gold, silver, natural gas, coal, timber, fishing, etc., all of the natural resources of any state, should be able to back a state currency, for example. In my opinion, all wealth comes from the earth."

I think the point is any assets would work to back a currency better than debt.

And in order to get those commodities in sufficient supply, we need to nationalize them. Which is bad. Because I don't want the gov to nationalize my firewood. Or my wife's jewelry.

Bob,

You might want to lay off the Fox News hot sauce and actually read sources like the CBO or the Center on Budget and Policy priorities. Bush accounted directly for 5 trillion of the debt Reagan almost 3 trillion including 25 years of interest payments, decreased revenues from the Bush tax cuts and the economic crisis brought on by unregulated laissez faire accounted for all but between 1 and 1.5 trillion in Obama spending. Obama programs total spun out costs appear to come in just over 1 trillion in deficit spending. A president should be responsible for his initiatives not the mismanagement of others. The 1 million taxpayers whose jobs were saved by the auto sector loan problems and the million or so saved and created by stimulus spending so far as well as those whose unemployment was extended would disagree that no one has payed any taxes on the stimulus loans.

jkh

If a million monkees all pound on keyboards, one of 'em is bound to type something coherent.

If Romney makes a million statements, one of 'em is bound to make sense. Unfortunately for Romney, it didn't make political sense, as he's trying desperately to convince the Republican Party he's one of them, and that line was definitely outside the party platform.

@Ted Patrick-

As it has been proved time and time again- if the Government cuts taxes- it increases revenues. It goes like this:

More money for people to spend/invest; more money for companies to hire/expand/create/upgrade and with it pay more in taxes because of increased payrolls/equipment/facilities (but less per head); more people on payrolls means more taxpayers- which all means there are more revenues coming in. Also- if business taxes are lowered- more people are willing to take chances on starting a business- which does all of the above in cycle again.

Cutting spending MUST happen, but to raise taxes would be counter-intuitive. The government would single-handedly take more from those who earn (the 52% that do pay taxes) while taking away from those who need it (the 48% that do not pay taxes- but need the services). It would, and does every time its tried, stunt growth in an economy. Less for EVERYONE to spend.

Bob,

In effect that is what backs our currency. It is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States which are any and all things necessary to pay the nations financial obligations. This in fact encompasses all revenues from minerals on federal lands, all timber rights, leases, taxes, sale of land or navigation rights and any other possible source of revenue. It is not that our currency is not backed we could meet our obligation by selling leases to all federal lands for 100 years but it would be stupid because when the economy recovers and trickle down is killed for another 80 years we will have time to rebuild the economic framework it destroyed. The major problem with Nixons breaking of the Breton Woods Accords was not so much taking us off the gold standard but in not picking some dollar value and pinning the dollar to it. Allowing your currency to float freely while while competing with government manipulated currencies like the yuan the yen and now to a large degree the rupee.

jkh

Lloyd Dahl, you do not know what you are talking about. It has NEVER been proven that reducing taxes increases revenue. If you are so sure about this, prove it. But you won't, because you can't.

If mittens keeps talking like that nobody in his party will want him. Call em like you see mitt. I just say thank you!

Obama Biden 2012!!!!

Ted, you might find the depression of 1920-23 very interesting. To get to 1920, the country experienced a war and on top of the war the greatest expansion in taxation and spending in history. In 4 years Spending increased 24.9 Times that of 1916 and Tax revenue increased to 5.7 times that of 1916. What a grand crash it was, but then, the stunningly grand recover. The results of cutting a 18.5 billion budget to just over 3.1 Billion, and cutting taxes to 3.8 billion. Unemployment records are pretty poor back then but best source say unemployment jumped from 5% December 1919, to 9.5% in December 1920 and dropped back to 5% by 1923.

There is one distinct difference between that period and today - NO government created entitlements that cannot be cut, even if they should be.

Romney is correct - cutting will cost immediate losses of government positions. Once the money starts building up in entreupenorial hands, those jobs will get replaced with productive, wealth making jobs. Those jobs will continue to increase until some other dumb government policy or disaster crashes everything.

The American people, the country, the sound nation of the USA backs the dollar. Because we back the dollar, most everyone in the world respects its value. That's better than gold or silver to me.

DB, where did you get the idea that 1) Income tax cuts will be invested or 2) That if the money were invested, it would go to the USA? Although Bill Clinton raised taxes, the American economy took off. Although Bush cut taxes, the economy went into deep recession. The main result of tax cuts since the Reagan years has been burgeoning deficits.

Mark my words, he'll use these remarks as a segue into his argument for increased defense spending.

DB Akron is false. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920. There were no widespread bank failures, regulation was increased, and there were no massive tax cuts.

@ Jim Hayes:

I just know we need a sound currency that holds its value. For example, if I saved and put $10,000 under my mattress in 1950 that money would have been able to purchase a nice house. If I tried to spend it today, I could not even buy a car.

Had I put $10,000 worth of gold under my mattress in 1950, today it would still buy a nice house.

My point is deficit spending and inflation are taxes on our savings.

The polls show conservative voters want a more moderate conservative than the right-wing nut jobs dominating the news. With Santorum gaining more extremist voters, Romney is likely trying to grab some middle-class, moderate voters now, rather than staying so far right. Smart move, but it won't win the general election.

I think the same, Cygnus. At least Romney is showing the courage to espouse economic common sense. Who knew?

Santorum's time in the sun is about over.

This is macro-economics 101 ''"So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies." very simple as you take money out of the economy{spending cuts} you must also cut taxes to put money in the hands of consumers and business!

Matthew, @ 1.24

.......It has NEVER been proven that reducing taxes increases revenue. If you are so sure about this, prove it. But you won't, because you can't.

But I can.......

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

And how about listening to President Kennedy on Tax Cuts and what they do for the economy?

John F. Kennedy on taxes

Looks like Kennedy took a page out of the supply side economics textbook when he was running for President.

We must Remember, Reagan was a Kennedy Democrat before he became a Republican....

Good to see you again Matt!

Cygnus..."This is furthest center I've seen a Republican venture in 20 years."

Romney is a RINO.

At last Romney leaks the truth.

Everyone in the Republican Party knows this, which is why they have been trying to strangle the economy so they could win the election. But they weren't supposed to say so OUT LOUD.

Boy, is McConnell gonna be mad!

reducing taxes increases revenue

Common people... there again? Seriously? Anyone with a brain can figure out that statement is illogical, and at best incomplete. Following that train of thought setting the tax rates at 0 would bring the most revenue.

TO: MGates73 who wrote:

"HA HE ADMITS IT!!!!!!!! IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!"

It's always a shocker to hear a Republican Politician tell the truth, as rarely as that happens it's always by pure accident (slip of the tounge).

Another shocker is that some Republicans would rather boil themselves in oil rather than believe the truth.

Obama / Biden 2012

bob 1805084:

Would you care to try to explain how cutting federal spending would stimulate an economy coming out of a recession? Come on, you state it as if it were a fact. You must be able to explain the mechanism by which it works.

Once the money starts building up in entreupenorial hands, those jobs will get replaced with productive, wealth making jobs.

DBAkron, you've been sold a bill of goods.

Look, I'm a small businessman. If you cut my taxes or even handed me money, I wouldn't hire anybody because of it. Why on earth would I?

I'll tell you what makes me hire the next employee: when demand for my business exceeds my current capacity.

And tax cuts have zero usefulness for creating good-paying jobs. A vanishingly small number of people got enough from the Bush tax cuts to buy anything more than a cup of coffee or a candy bar per day. (Maybe now you're beginning to see why Texas, "the leader in job growth," is the leader in minimum wage job growth.)

Direct government spending on things like scientific research and infrastructure projects is a far better way to create far better jobs and kick start the engine of the private sector economy.

You folks like to say that we're seeing the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Well, duh. That's because we're recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The definition of limited government: cut everything that I don't get or benefit from.

Flip-Flop

There he goes again!

Hi Egilman,

Nice to see you too. Don't listen to me, listen to the economists:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/in-addition-to-geithner-republican-economists-also-argue-that-tax-cuts-do-not-pay-for-themselves

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_06162004/

http://www.epi.org/publication/tax-reform-raise-revenue-restore-greater/

http://www.epi.org/publication/issuebriefs_ib157/

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20070829/

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20051026/

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp221/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx#page1

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html

The pertinent paragraph from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-does-anyone-trust-the-cbo/2011/07/27/gIQARUVfeI_blog.html

Similarly, in 2003, CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican appointee, experimented with using “dynamic scoring” for the tax cuts included in President George W. Bush’s budget. The approach, favored by many Republicans, would include the economic growth that tax cuts would likely generate when calculating their cost, rather than simply counting them as lost revenue. To the GOP’s great disappointment, “dynamic scoring” hardly had an effect on the CBO score of Bush’s tax cuts, which didn’t come close to paying for themselves.

Okay, I could put many more links up, and refer to many books I have read, but this should be enough.

Bottom line is: tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Never have, never will.

Matt,

from the first article on your list...

Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years

Then your comment at the end of that list....

Bottom line is: tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Never have, never will.

The original statement of yours that I responded to....

.....It has NEVER been proven that reducing taxes increases revenue....

Two completely different creatures here, related to each other for sure, but different issues altogether.

Reducing taxes does increase revenue, my link proves that economists say so and testified to that fact before Congress which was read into the record. I can provide just as long a list of links saying so as you can.

But, in your response, you bring up a whole different ball of wax, the proverbial "Paying" for a tax decrease. You do not get deficit reduction by cutting taxes you have to do it in concert with spending cuts.

The only reason Democrats do not want to cut taxes is because they do not want to cut spending.

I personally believe in cutting bloated spending first before you even think about raising taxes, this is what Reagan and Kennedy did, cut spending, cut certain taxes, and when the need arose, raised specific taxes. What killed Reagan's budget (and increased the deficit) was massive defense spending.

His domestic budget ran a small surplus.

You understand that what you originally said and I responded to is a different issue than what you are now stating in response to my response. These are completely different things, they are apples and oranges. there is no need to "PAY" for tax decreases, just cut the budget to compensate. (like the massive defense budget that is eight times what the rest of the world spends on defense combined)

Lloyd, are you F***ING KIDDING ME???? Cutting taxes does not work anymore. Tax rates are at an all-time low, and we need more revenues. The Bush tax cuts have contributed immensely to our deficits and debt, and we need to rescind most of them to raise revenues. I am tired of tax cuts. I want tax increases; yes, I want tax increases. RAISE TAXES. RAISE TAXES. RAISE TAXES.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

just cut the budget to compensate. (like the massive defense budget that is eight times what the rest of the world spends on defense combined)

HA!, yeah, like the republican party is ever gonna go for that.

WiN,

This is the centerpiece of Dr Paul's plan to reduce the annual deficit by 1 Trillion Dollars in his first year. If he is elected, it will be done.......Yes.... a Republican will cut the bloated defense budget.

There are two problems with what you are saying, Egilman. It's not that I don't like Ron Paul (to be exact, he'd make a great grandfather and is the most honest and consistent politician since JFK); it's his ideas that are troublesome. I am all for reducing the deficit; personally $1 trillion a year is too much. I'd say $800 billion a year is a bit more sustainable. My main problem with his deficit plan is that he plans to cut the deficit by simply cutting spending; we all know that you need a balanced plan to cut the deficit. I simply don't think we can cut the deficit significantly without hurting the economy by just spending cuts. And second of all, Ron Paul plans to slice the budget and eliminate funding for things like education (we all know that we need to reform and invest more in education) WHILE lowering taxes. It's as if he is ignoring the fact that revenues as a share of GDP are at 15% (yes because of the recession, but to be sustainable I'd say 19-21% is best). And this will only happen if he gets a commanding majority in both the House and the Senate filled with libertarians like him, which sounds a bit unlikely. And there will be bipartisan support against his massive spending cuts and he probably won't be able to get anything done.

And about the Kennedy cutting taxes, I admit that tax cuts can spur economic growth. But you have to remember that the top rate in Kennedy's days was about 90%, and when you have rates that high cutting taxes will almost always raise more revenues. Now the top rate is 35%, and I don't think cutting anyone's taxes any more will help our economy without destroying our fiscal house, even with massive spending cuts. Reagan also tripled the debt, and even though he had a domestic surplus one has to admit that he wasn't the "fiscal conservative" that people make him out to be. He would be, in my opinion, a moderate right Republican, due to his later tax increases and large spending sprees in defense.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Actually, Egilman, they are not two different things, and your links do not prove your point.

Well said, Freshieee. In short, as in anything, there is a point of diminishing returns, and we have long since passed that point in the 'cutting taxes increases revenues' argument. Even so, when the Kennedy tax cuts occurred (by a Democrat, no less!!), it could be argued that it wasn't so much the tax cuts, but rather the ramp up of the military/industrial complex in support of the Vietnam war, as well as an emerging European middle class finally shaking off the economic effects of WWII, and demanding more US exports, that fueled the economic engine that generated more revenue for the government.

Timing is everything, when it comes to perception.

Fair enough, Egilman, . . . sort of.

'Raising revenue' vs. 'paying for themselves'? What's the difference? If you cut taxes, by definition, if nothing else changes, you lower revenues. In addition, if you cut taxes, replacing that lost revenue can be defined as 'paying for the cut taxes', or, as the Republican/TP Inc. theory says: 'paying for themselves' (i.e. replacing the lost revenue). No matter what semantics you apply, lower taxes have never 'paid for themselves', nor have they ever 'raised revenues'.

In addition, your two links are highly partisan, and neither one is backed up by economists. All of my links are to articles, white papers, reports, or research papers, either done by economists, in economic publications, or vetted by economists.

The first of your two links (compared to my 11 links) is a 'report' written by the Republican/TP Inc. members of Congress that cherry picks data, and comes to conclusions based on what they would like the data to show, not what any economist would actually conclude, or that the data indicates.

The second is simply a collection of quotes by President Kennedy, on an extremely right wing, religious, and extremely partisan site, by an extremely right wing, religiously partisan author (who is not even an economist). All of these have been taken out of context (which doesn't necessarily invalidate that he said them, but does call into question their relevancy), and said by a President who did not have an economics degree (arguably, he did attend Master level classes in business at Standford, but that was only for 6 months, if that, and he never went any further).

As for what President Kennedy's tax cuts did to raise revenue, see my post 1.50 as to why it might appear that his tax cuts 'raised revenue', or 'paid for themselves', but did not.

Oops . . .

. . . President who did not have an economics degree (arguably, he did attend Master level classes in business at Standford, . . .

That should be 'Stanford', not 'Standford'. My bad, I ran out of time to edit the original post.

Romney suggested letting them go bankrupt and the liberals have a fit, yet they DID go through bankrupty! Yet when big government, the God liberals pray to, does it, somehow it's better. All hail socialism! Re-education camps for the rest of you.

Either path would have led to bankrupty (thank the liberal unions for that one), and it's eventual comeback, which it has. I tend to think Willard Mitten's way would have been healthier for all. Mittens for President!

Technically, I don't recall the Big Three declaring bankruptcy. And neither did they go through it. They were essentially nationalized (something that I am not against in times of trouble) in a capitalistic sense, where the government bought a majority of the company's shares to gain control, and managed it in order to stave off insolvency. Bankruptcy would require less government involvement; when was the last time a government bought shares of a company going through bankruptcy??? Were Blockbuster or Mervyns or Circuit City or Lehman Brothers' shares bought by the government too???? I think not.

Not as stupid as you think

I'd gladly have some popcorn, and bring you some Coca Cola. Here's a toast to Feisty; Here here!!!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

FINISH OFF THE FASCIST RIGHT-WING GOP/TEA PARTY 2012

DEMOCRATS 2012

Of course Obama is a great leader with big ideas. He saved Detroit right? We are now paying GM to make cars and paying GE to buy cars at the same time. Over 100 Billiondollars dumped into this hole so far with no end in sight. Together they posted over 25 billion dollars in profits last year and didnt pay 1 dollar in taxes, but Obama has the nerve to point at Warren Buffets secretary. Not to mention the garbage about 1% and "fair share" With yet the 3rd side of his face its absolutely disgusting that Mitt Rommney only paid several million dollars in taxes that he earned with no government handouts at all.

No one is attacking Obama for sitting in Reverend Wrights church of "Kill all White People" for how many years? I wonder if Wright baptized his daughter.But sure attack Rick Santorum because he believes in God. The poor man has endured more suffering than Obama has thats for sure. I mean holy cow Reverand Wright "Church of America is Evil and must be Destroyed" and your boy has the nerve to criticise the pope?

There are a lot of good people in the Democratic Party. LGBT,Greens, Pro Choice, Dead People and Illegal Aliens, but Obama isnt one of those. He belongs to the scum sucking communist labor unions who only care about one thing money, and they will never be able to rape this country for enough to satisfy their hunger if Obama sits on the throne for a hundred years.

Obamacare? Another bottomless moneypit designed to fail. You think thats about healthcare? Its about making money disappear through massive beauracracy, regulation and fraud. All of his economic policies are designed to fail. He could raise taxes 20 times and it would alldisappear into one moneypit or another and we would still be broke and he still be trying to squeeze us for more. I miss you Bill Clinton.

All of you idiot Obamabots have been duped by a man intent on the rape of the greatest nation in the world, and hes laughing all the way to the bank with his scumsucking communist union buddies, but the punchline is that you people are too stupid to see who hes really laughing at. Everyone of you should be ashamed that you sold out your country for 40$/wk and free condoms. Except for the ones that sold us out because they hate white people.

LB-3426829

Romney suggested letting them go bankrupt and the liberals have a fit, yet they DID go through bankrupty! Yet when big government, the God liberals pray to, does it, somehow it's better. All hail socialism! Re-education camps for the rest of you.

Dude, You don't get what situation was GM and Chrysler were in, What Romney advocated vs. what Obama did. Lastly, what was the result of Obama's actions vs. what would have happened, if we had let Romney have his way w/r to GM.

1. Situation at GM and Chrysler in 2008: Because the nation was in deep financial recession, plus the auto industry sales had fallen from the cliff (sales of 15+ million units in 2007 to less than 10+ m units in 2009), both were draining lot of cash.
2. What did Mitten suggest vs. Obama did which was initiated by Bush? Mitten suggested that Detroit go bankrupt, meaning that they go look for private funding and no public funding. The private finance pipeline was totally dry, that means Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation of GM and Chrysler assets) and the result would have been devastating for Ford as well as the Markets would have lost confidence in the entire industry, and thus about 1 to 2 million additional people directly and in-directly related to auto industry would have lost their jobs. Of course, it's possible foreign car companies would have picked up the slack and would have become behemoths. On the contrary, Obama's car czar, went for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, whereby he shunted off all the existing shareholders of GM and Chrysler, created a new class of shares and (owned by US government, Ontario Gov, and UAW union) and almost paid zilch for the bondholders. In addition, the new contracts with GM and Chrysler called for laying off of many workers, closing the factories, extremely low starting pay for new hires (~$18 / hour).
3. What would have happened if Romney had his way in 2008? US auto industry would not be alive today and 2 million or perhaps more people would be out of work, with a major domino effect on other industries in the mid-west, as well. Possible, social chaos and unrest.

Who needs a re-education now, Dude?

I think you have depicted a realistic scenario Tea Sucks. That final cataclysm would have destroyed this country.

We cannot allow the fascists to get back into power again!!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Neil, if by government handouts you exclude tax breaks and legal loopholes, then maybe Romney did not get a government handout. However, he did shift the pension burden of one of his acquisitions from Bain's shareholders to the local government. Plus he has received millions in tax breaks and benefits over the past few years, and that could be construed as a handout, just as you consider Obamacare is a bottomless money pit (even though it will shave off billions from the deficit) or that the rescue of GM was pointless and wasteful. And Obama is not pointing a finger at Buffet's secretary. He is pointing at Buffet's tax returns and how the tax code enables the wealthy to exploit expensive loopholes in the system. Oh and stop deriding the Democrats (and it is obvious). And how are unions communist?? Because they try to level the playing field for workers??? That was the exact position held by Big Business leaders and crony capitalists before strikes were declared legal. And I highly doubt that Obama is a traitor to America, as you are supposing, because he made it big in this nation. Are you really sure a guy who became successful in part because of this nation would really want to destroy it??? If you did, then I'd feel sorry for you. Cut the anti-Obama and Commie bashing crap and abandon the SS Republican Party. They are a sinking ship, so best you save yourself. Seek the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

"COMMIE" LIBERAL DEMOCRATS 2012

SINK THE SS REPUBLICON!!!!!!

Tea Sucks, how do you figure the private financing was dry-haven't you read the latest President Obama has raised $250mil for his campaign and that doesn't include the Super Pacs who have contributed millions to their favorite candidate. Money didn't dry up. All these bail outs were politically motivated.

GranCanyon; political contributions occur when people are confident about a particular candidate. And most of the funding for private financing bankruptcy would come from businesses and private equity funds that were devastated by Wall Street's collapse; plus the economy is currently on the mend, giving people more money to spend on charities and political contributions. Plus the majority of the campaign's money came from people who donated less that $250. And I have another politically motivated bailout that occurs every year-earmarks. Both parties have used that.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Tea you are actually incorrect.

GM would have gone Chapter 11. It would have still gone through a similar downsizing as with Obama. The only real difference comes down to who loses.

If GM filed Ch11 - the value of GM would have been to the Creditors first, Investors Second, Unions last.

what the unions would lose was all the money GM was supposed to be paying into the retired employees pensions and health insurance. I don't know about anybody else, but I don't feel to great about the retiree's not getting what they where promised - especially if it was reasonable. However, this benefit was the brainchild of UNION arm twisting GM into paying, and GM arrogantly agreed to in hopes to sink Chrysler and Ford who were not as wealthy as GM.

In December 2009, the GOP came up with a plan that the investors, creditors and Unions would share equally in the pain of the losses and eventual profit. The investors and creditors agree and the Unions said no way, they wanted every penney.

The union fit caused Bush to loan $14 billion to GM & Chrysler to keep them solvent until Obama stepped in. When Obama stepped in, he wrote the agreement that the union got every penney the creditors less than they would have gotten and the investors got ten cents on the dollar. Do you know who the investors are? YOUR 401K!

Tea - unless you are a union worker - you got snookered - especially if you are a taxpayer and on the hook for a loan that may never be paid.

And if Romney thinks he would never have done a deal, he needs to come back to the real world like Bush did. Bush would never have done TARP - until after he learned what being president was really like.

Technically, the taxpayer may not have gotten his money back, but the saving of the auto industry and its robust comeback has boosted the economy and has gotten us on the road to recovery. That is a much better return than getting your money back.

Republicans: stop criticizing Obama on the economy. You know very damn well that his policies have helped the recovery, so I advise you to stop acting like a bunch of delirious whiners and start working to HELP America instead of divide it.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

maybe you should vote for him

Mittens got his talking points mixed up with what he knows is true!

So conflicted.......It's hard to keep repeating the lies.

It's a bird...it's a plane...it's a conservative...it's a liberal...it's Romneyman.

Makes one wonder if he enjoys watching his audiences eyes roll backwards every time he changes positions.

maybe you should vote for him

Yeah!

Maybe you will win the Lotto - the chances are about the same!

Romney's comment, if nothing else, would represent a rhetorical departure from the rest of the Republican Party

Quick, someone get to the Norquist house and grab the dog. He's going to come home ready to kick the holy crap outta someone tonight.

Maybe you will win the Lotto - the chances are about the same!

LMAO! Thanks for the chuckle Feisty!

LMAO! Thanks for the chuckle Feisty!

Any time Devie - I aim to please! ;o)

Romney forgot to add the part where he says they also have to have another tax cut for the wealthy to offset the slowdown caused by the spending cuts. You know----the trickle down plan that has worked so well for the past 10 years.

Romney's politics are cynical at best. He will say whatever he needs to so that he is elected. Good thing it won't work.

Well, I'll give Romney the kudos for realizing that cutting spending is not good for the economy in a fragile recovery. The problem is, he is hell-bent on cutting taxes for the wealthy and raising them on the lower income workers. In fact, he's taking away breaks for low-income Americans (education and child-care) while retaining those for millionaires. Who's instigating class warfare now???? Plus he's convinced that only spending cuts can be used to reduce the deficit. For all his business success, the guy has not basic management skills. To turn a profit a firm needs to do TWO things; raise revenues through increasing prices (not hope that their income will go up when prices go down) and cutting costs through pay cuts or freezes, skimping on budgets, laying off workers, and look for cheaper ways for marketing or producing products. THAT is how you balance a budget. For all those who say that cutting prices will raise revenues, you cannot apply that to the government. For one thing, lowering prices encourages more demand, while taxes are already mandatory. For another, tax rates are low enough; we need to abandon the theories of the Laffer curve and trickle-down economics (that don't work) and start raising taxes, especially on those who have had most of the benefits and own most of the economy (i.e., the rich).

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DESTROY THE FASCIST RIGHT 2012

Jeez Freshieee, your being aggressive tonight!!

Still writing RP in though!! I am sick, sick, sick, sick of all of these welfare folks not getting jobs, driving NEW cars, putting their kids in taxpayer daycare and buying food on taxpayer dime. When you apply for a job Freshieee do you wear your lowest cut see though blouse and daisy dukes with flip flops, talk on your cell while asking for an 'apication' and then ask for a business card to prove to unemployment you looked for a job? I hope not bc you seem sane to me! I probably saw on average 12 of these a week at the place I worked and it was disgusting, those are the types these politicians are pandering to. So you have the mean corporations who skimp on taxes and you have the welfare folks who could careless about contributing and want to stay on yours and my tax dollars. I say screw the corporate taxes and make a deal with them to create a certain number of jobs based on what taxes they would owe. We can raise taxes all we want and cut the breaks they get, they will still find a way around the system. GREED, GREED, GREED!!!

Raising taxes on the wealthy 1% will only make them more greedy, if Obama wants to get smart he would throw whatever money he had into a tax auditing system and FORCE those greedy jerks to PAY or we will throw them in jail, no bond, no fancy lawyer will get the out. Lock them up and have them grow food for the poor! LMAO

and we do need to cut spending! We need to cut spending on foreign nations or send them a bill! Why should we kiss their hind ends? If they want to be an ally of ours, they will be with or without our financial aid. Cut the BRIBERY!

But like I said I like Ron Paul and its mainly bc he wants to get us out of other nations business. HE wants to stop policing the world and I could not agree more! We have such massive issues here at home that we have no right telling other nations what to do. I have said it before and it needs repeating, A REPUBLICAN AGAINST WAR AND AGAINST POLICING OTHER NATIONS, is very different from any other demo or repub we have ever seen. A repub that says " you know guys, the federal govt really sucks at deciding things or getting anything done which benefit the average citizen, so maybe we need to let the states handle things, bc congress, senate and the POTUS are busy elsewhere and can not concentrate on the little people." I do not agree with everything he says 100%, but some of his ideas have real merit.

Ron Paul 2012

Big brother sucks at its job and the lowly states need something to do! Like not renaming the gulf of mexico into the gulf of america. This folks tells you just how bored the states politicians are! Wow that's terrible! Funny but terrible!

P.S Wheres that budget thingy of yours Freshieee? Seems like a good place to post it! Just sayin'

Nevermind you posted it below.

Steeler Fan..."You know----the trickle down plan that has worked so well for the past 10 years."

Many a liberal has commented that trickle down started under Reagan 30 years ago, and that is why we are in the mess we are in today. Yet, in the middle of those 30 years, we had, again according to many liberals, the Clinton surplus. Obama has not repealed W's trickle-down tax cuts, yet as many liberals have pointed out, the economy is on the mend.

As you guys come across as quite confused, could you please get together and decide whether you think trickle-down economics works or not?

From 1980 to 2010 the top 5% of earners saw a total increase in pre-tax income (with adjusted dollars) of around 29%. During that same time, the bottom 20% of earners saw a 6% increase. Seems a little one sided, doesn't it?

Interestingly, during Clinton, the top 5% of earners saw an increase of 18%, while the bottom 20% saw an increase of 15%.

Back to "trickle down" times, during Bush II, the top 5 % saw a decrease of 1%, while the bottom 20% saw a decrease of 8%.

These numbers come from the census bureau. Please explain how is trickle down working when the data does not support it.

Feisty --Mr. MITTENS is R.I.N.O lost in the wilderness of the TEABAG garbage heap of political ruins.

Ah, Texas, it is always a pleasure to debate with you.

Like you, I oppose people on welfare who are cheating the system. If it were in my power I would strip them of their benefits and kick them to the curb. But the majority of welfare beneficiaries are not freeloaders. Many, like the unemployed, are down on their luck and didn't choose to go on the system. And yes, our welfare system ought to be reformed, like mandating all people who are fit to work to actively look for work. But people who take welfare are often doing so with guilt. Why? Because it shows that they are unable to provide for either their families or for themselves, which makes them look like less of an adult and more of a dependent. And welfare has helped our economy in rough times by enabling the poor or the unemployed to keep spending money; it is essentially a stimulus. It also keeps the unemployed from begging on the streets (or at least decreases the number of beggars).

I don't think that we should write off corporate taxes. I mean, countries like China and Germany are booming (somewhat), and they have corporate taxes that are slightly lower. We should just keep it at a competitive rate to encourage investment while making sure companies pay their fair share.

And I have to disagree with taxing the rich more. If we can simplify the system, they would have fewer ways of getting around it, giving the Treasury more money for necessary projects. And I do agree with cutting spending; but foreign aid constitutes for only 1.3% of the budget. And much of that aid goes to allies in terms of aid; yet I do not oppose prioritizing military aid.

And although I agree with Ron Paul that we shouldn't police the world (at least not alone; we ought to pair up with the UN), he doesn't really solve most of our domestic problems. If you ask him about things like education and social services, his simple answer would be "send it back to the states." He claims that the Constitution mandates that, which it does. But one cannot take take the Constitution literally 100%; we must maintain a flexible interpretation. And while there are a lot of things that the feds suck at, there are a lot of things that the states suck at. You can't send education to them because they would simply cut it substantially every time they have a shortfall, as they are mandated to balance budgets. Plus maintaining things like social services and education can be very costly for them, which is why a lot of funding comes from the larger and better-supplied federal government. I don't buy into the states' rights argument because the states are often too small to handle many things and they are always cutting from social services like education whenever they happen to have a shortfall, which is quite often. Decentralizing services is not the best idea, which is why I proposing REFORMING the services instead of simply dumping the burden on the next guy in line.

And our government is not Big Brother. At least not as many people think it is. Ron Paul would simply turn Big Brother into Baby Brother, who cannot even control his own excretory system, much less the citizens of an entire nation. That would destroy America a lot faster than making government Big Brother. And by the way, the term "Big Brother" was coined by a left-wing democratic socialist named George Orwell, author of 1984. I have always wondered why conservatives criticize liberals and still use a term created by a liberal...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

LMAO, I use the term literally, I have 3 big brothers and they always used to say "big brother is watching you." So it sticks in my mind! And big brothers screw up made the babies of the family learn from 'their' mistakes instead of making them all over again themselves.

I totally agree that the U.N should have a military made up of each nations citizens. And they "protect the world".

And my biggest complaint about the rich tax issue is, that they are greedy and it will take sooooo much work to ENSURE they pay their fair share, I am not sure its worth the hassle it will take to SIMPLIFY the system. Thats really all we need is a simpler system, period!

I agree that we should always have a help system in place to assist people during times of need, but that is such an easy target for corruption its ridiculous. S.S was just sitting there all happy and growing, then some a-hole said "well lets just skim a little from here, no one will really notice and I promise we will put it back."

And a competitive tax rate would be great, but it takes an act of congress to get it done, "there was a pun in there btw, lol." And then yet another act to keep competing, question, how long would it take the chinese govt to vote to lower their corporate tax rate vs how long it would take us? Its all about who catches on faster and acts the swiftest.

My baby brother is literally 6 foot 9 inches, he is bigger and taller than all my other brothers, he is more quiet and he works a slower pace to ensure he does the job right, whereas my big bros do jobs so quick they always break things in the process and forget a few major details. When I was 16 and he 8, we got into a fight with some neighborhood kids, I got jumped by three guys and when my baby brother saw me get jumped he roared into action and proceeded to kick the holy hell out of three guys who each where twice his age. Whereas this baby sister has had to whip-up on guys beating up my older big brothers. So yes, In a fight I will choose my baby brother whose diapers I changed and taught to walk, over my big brothers who still see me as inferior (bc I am a girl).

You have got to remember that sometimes its the quiet leaders who make the best leaders. And it would stand to reason that a smaller federal govt might just be the best govt to have at your back in times of need. Squabbling like a bunch of idiots over gay marriage rights, abortion rights, etc, does no good to getting our federal govt to do its job. And we all know that even IF every single congressman/woman was a demo, they would STILL be fighting and bickering. Same with repub control as well. They have too much on their plates and are becoming fat with gluttony. Lets just slim them down alittle. I want a balanced budget and a good military. Thats all I want from them right now.

Sure raise the taxes on the rich but I bet you dollars to donuts any money we hope to receive will go towards making them pay those taxes or putting them in prison for not paying them. Its all crap Freshieee! We keep thinking that by making them pay more they will be more equal to us middle class and thats just nt how the mentality of the rich work. They want to be better than you, smarter than you and have politicians in their pockets to get out of petty trouble such as tax evasion. Not all demos are good and not all repubs are good. We have GOT TO find a better way to ensure we are not lied to anymore. This is not about party wars anymore its about a civil war between the regular hardworking american citizens and ANYBODY who abuses us, and that includes the lower income or so called poor who abuse it, not just the rich.

Now to address the poor welfare issue, rather than continue to just give money over, why not take over in each city a small little building which cooks meals and gives away canned foods. We do have some of these but more would be better and the govt employs some of the unemployed to work there TEMPORARILY until they find other employment. Freshieee, you would be amazed at how many jobs listings I have in my small home town newspaper, on a bad week 10 and normal week 25. I live in a tiny town and that is actually quite a few jobs. And that does not include the boxed ads which usually fill up at least one entire page of our paper, from walmart to the local insurance agencies. Good jobs with good pay. I actually heard a lady in the check out line being offered a job by the manager checking her out and she said "no I dont wanna work, I got five kids to take care of. and the manager actually said " we have daycares here in town that take federal assistance." "And my kids go there, but I still got to clean my house." So she paid with her lonestar card/food stamps and went on her way to her nice new ride parked in the handicap spot, with no sticker or mirror hanger. To top that off she flicked off the old man getting his wheelchair wife out of the back of his van bc he was blocking her pulling straight out, like she was unaware cars have reverse. My town is a great town littered with these types of jerks.

Makes me sick! I used to work with the elderly and I just about threw a big rock into that womans windshield. Cooler heads prevailed!

he forgot what team he is on

The real problem is that no team wants him. How many times have the republicans picked the skinny short kid next to him?

Or the fat, pasty-faced kid with the grey hair on the other side of him?

Or even the old crazy geezer in the back.

Woops

Landslide Mitter was supposed to wait until he sewed up the nomination before his hard left turn to co-opt the independents.

Maybe even he has decided that he cannot out God The Honorable Sanctimonium.

Kind of scary isn't it. Let's see how he addresses that if questioned at the debate tomorrow night.

I think this was called the flip - tomorrow at the debate we will see the flop.

Let's see how he addresses that if questioned at the debate tomorrow night.

Oh! Oh! Pick me! Pick Me! The Wheather vane will go whatever way the wind blows.

Tired, yes, it is kind of scarey that truth only slips out now and then. It's really kind of sad when you think about it. Romney shifted his views so far to the right because he desperately wants to be President and by doing so, he lost all sense of principle; saying whatever he thinks the right wants to hear instead of being truthful and honest.

And as Newday questioned last week ... will he be able to pivot center in a general election and have any credibility?

It is strange to see a Republican admit the truth. Of course, the Grover Norquist crowd are going to shove him out the door so fast he won't know what hit him. The last thing a Republican wants is the truth, or at the very least, a reality check.

Tired, nope; no way he can pivot back to center for the general. There's too many clips of his comments to allow it and be considered credible.

Agreed Jody - I think his 'severely conservative' statement was the final nail in the coffin - I don't see how he can un-severe himself. The moderate republicans I know have already said they will sit this election out by leaving the president box blank.

Mitt is in a quandary; either he punts the center and pray that the moderates will be his charming knight, or he throws red meat and hope that he can somehow redeem himself. Once people see his tax plans and budget proposals, however, he'll be screwed.

Agreed, Jody. I have a deficit proposal that I am moderating and I'd like people to take a look at it:

Obama has no control over the gas prices, unless you want him to be a dictator. Oh no wait, you Teapublicans already think he is one. First of all, the GOP is criticizing Obama for being soft on Iran, while their policies would start a new war and actually increase gas prices. Secondly, gas is determined by three things, supply and demand, speculation, and OPEC. The last two have a huge impact, and the first one indicates that as the economy improves and demand grows, so does the price. Third of all, we are exporting a huge amount of oil. We already have enough; its just that speculators are pushing up the prices due to foreign event.

And there is a solution to fix this economic problem. To all those concerned about the debt, there is also a solution. Here it is:

I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 200 bases to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• $1.25 trillion in entitlement savings: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $2.8 trillion by repealing Bush tax cuts but retaining about $700 billion for the middle class.
• Institute Buffet Rule and save $500 billion.
• Reform tax code: decrease about 70% of all tax expenditures unless they are PROVEN to promote a significant amount of growth. Close loopholes, lower corporate tax rate to between 20-25%. Eliminate all corporate welfare. Approximate savings=$ 737.1 billion a year.
• Reduce subsidies to oil companies, farmers, and ethanol producers by $100 billion.
• Total savings=~$13 trillion plus perhaps trillions more in interest.

I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3472). Just removing 90% of our tax code's loopholes and tax expenditures would save $947 billion a year. Maybe we ought to do that and simply reform entitlements and we'd have practically no debt by the mid-to-late 2020s.

II. Economic Recovery Package

• Education reform. Increase funding for Department of Education, adopt RAND education policy and further Head Start programs.
• Create Department of Tourism with $36 billion budget to support 150,000 employees to speed up process for foreign tourists to apply for visas to US and make system more efficient.
• $90 billion in infrastructure bank to leverage capital for infrastructure repairs to employ millions of Americans.
• Incorporate policies of Obama's Jobs Bill.
• Offer incentives for businesses to buy US-made equipment and to employ people in America to the tune of perhaps $2,000-$3,000 per head; includes only people earning the median salary that the companies provides for its workers.
• Increase duties and tariffs for Chinese goods to 35% until China appreciates its currency and lowers subsidies; place more cases on Chinese fraud and stealing,
• $60 billion in incentives and federal loans and grants to green technology.
• Regulatory overview to decrease unnecessary regulations for economy and add regulations were needed.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall.
• Lift moratorium on offshore oil drilling and open up certain areas for energy exploration WITH safety and environmental precautions and insure safety.
• Invest $40 billion in new R&D projects.
• Offer more scholarships and Pell grants; prioritize scholarships to promote getting degrees in engineering, technology, etc.
• Negotiate lower tuition deals with private institutions in return for aid and invest more money public higher education. Negotiate with states for a state education surtax to pay for public universities.
• Help housing market: tighten regulations on housing and financial markets, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; create partnership programs between the government and the private sector to buy houses and rent it out to former owners; persuade banks to write off parts of underwater mortgages; quicken time for foreclosures; demolish old buildings to open up to construction projects.
• Increase federal gasoline tax to $.225/gallon and use extra revenues to revamp infrastructure.
• Extend payroll tax cut.
• Reform Post Office. Eliminate 60,000 payrolls through early retirement, increase stamp costs to $.51, cut administrative salaries and budgets, pay freeze, adopt methods that FedEx and UPS do, transition to an energy-efficient postal fleet and turn postal buildings "green," and find more ways to trim costs.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

This is an awesome package. I wish dems had the balls to push it.

Well, nobody would pass it, unfortunately. The GOP wouldn't because it cuts from defense and raises taxes, and Democrats probably wouldn't because of cuts to spending and entitlement reform. But there might be some Democrats who might pass it. Not even Ron Paul, who will probably make cutting the deficit his number one priority, would take it, because it does not cut spending enough, keeps entitlements, and raises taxes. I just wish they would take me up on it...

Umm Freshieee, you did say close loopholes and lower the corporate tax rate right. So it does cut taxes, so Paul might vote for it. And it is a darn good start, even if only 50% of it were done it would be an awesome start!

Keep sending it girl, heck send it to Ron Paul, over and over again! Send it to all of them! You just never know who might concede your points and start talking about the Freshieee Bill!!!

Reform Post Office. Eliminate 60,000 payrolls through early retirement, increase stamp costs to $.51, cut administrative salaries and budgets, pay freeze, adopt methods that FedEx and UPS do, transition to an energy-efficient postal fleet and turn postal buildings "green," and find more ways to trim costs.

You do realize that the USPS is NOT under the Government umbrella and does NOT receive any money from the Federal Government, right? This change happened in the 1970's. The USPS was forced to pre-fund retirement accounts for 75 YEARS and then maintain at least a 30 year pre-funding going forward. When the USPS goes to Congress to "ask for money" they are asking for their OWN MONEY which has been funneled into the US Treasury. The USPS is supposed to be essentially a private entity with Government oversight - but NO Government money. In addition, UPS and FedEx do NOT deliver to some areas - both the inner city neighborhoods which are ajudged to be "high risk/crime" areas and the extreme rural areas where UPS/FedEx have decided it's not worth the time and gas to make those deliveries. They contract with the USPS to deliver those packages.

Good grief, Nit pick why dont ya? Try saying something positive, there are some good ideas in the post!

Remember I am a repub and Freshieee made some decent cuts even for me!

Thanks, Fighter Gal.

Cat-the Post Office is a government owned enterprise. Its administrators are appointed by the government, so technically the government controls it.

But let's be honest, the way the government typically propels the economy via spending is through the defense budget.

War is (unfortunately) good for the economy.

That, unemployment benefits, other safety nets, and government employees.

Spending here in this nation is a good thing, but we give too much to other nations without protecting our own butts. It really bothers me that China holds most of our international debt! Wont say why, it just bugs me!

It is a half-flop, is there is such a thing. He is not flipping to the center, but to the center-right Republican establishment that admits that spending cuts are not the best for the economy, but he still supports tax cuts for the wealthy. That is, at best, a half-flop. Romney is now officially a flip-flopping KING. He has proved that the half-flop can be made. Let us crown him King of the Hypocrites. All Hail King Flip Mitt!!!!!!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Send Mitt and the rest of the GOP to the dark cave where they originated.

There is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative" in either party. Conservatives have saddled us with giant levels of debt into infinity. If you imply that conservatives practice sound budget practices you are simply buying in to repub messaging/talking points.

Everyone on this board needs to banish the phrase "fiscal conservative" from their vocabulary PERMANENTLY.

"Conservatives have saddled us with giant levels of debt into infinity"

Huh? Is that a joke? Because that's funny as hell? I would say what has been the budget in the last three years, but there hasn't been one. I forgot, how much has Obama spent in the last 3 1/2 years? Obama inhered 10 Trillion, what is it now? Close to 16 Trillion, so using that outstanding Michigan education, What Bush did in 8 years and what Obama did in 3, you're saying Conservatives are the big spenders? OK

If he loses Michigan and Arizona, he'll polevault over Obama to the ultraviolet part of the spectrum in order to get elected.

Perhaps he sees a race to the presidency via the republican channel as a lost cause, and is finding a new pathway as Obama's VP.

Well said..with one caveat. Government is the U.S. is bloated and has redundancies that we need to question. For example, the Department of Homeland Security. Budget of $57B a year. Do we really need this department? Couldn't those responsibilities be split among the other Intelligence departments already in place?

I'd say transfer the Department of Homeland Security and its responsibilities to the Defense Departments (why do you call it Defense???), cut about $15 billion from the budget (save $150 billion over 10 years), and look for better technology.

I hope you just forgot to include the /sarcasm tag. LOWER the capital gains tax? Drill Baby Drill? I can only assume that is sarcasm.

Jeff, are you insane???? I agree that spending cuts are necessary; and we ought to drill for oil more (safely, however), but we can't keep lowering the capital gains tax like its a magic button; we have lowered it too far and it has increased income inequality. And I say we should RAISE taxes, including the capital gains tax, to increase revenue, balance the budget, decrease borrowing, raise interest rates and raise the dollar value through less spending, and stop the crowding out that government borrowing does in a good economy in terms of draining capital that could be used for more economical purposes.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

You know its funny, nobody seems to be against drilling for more oil here in the U.S, so whats the hold up? I even agree with Freshieee and she is usually way left from my far right! Two totally diff. mind sets and yet we agree on that point. More oil and LOADS of common sense safety regs. This is one area I am fairly comfortable having more regulations and higher fines/penalties for not following the safety regs.

....Ugh, Fighter Gal, not to be rude. I mean, I like your logic. But I'm not a...how do I put this??? I'm a dude, lets just keep it at that. Sorry for the intrusion, but I gotta get this clear....

Wow totally sorry, My bad, its all the eee's that gave an idea of your sex. But hey now I know, and its not rude to correct something like that!

It's fine. At least you know.

Wait, how does the eee's do that????

That and Right-Wing Extremism 101.

Tom...........can't add anything to your summary since it covers all the bases........Tell them what they want to hear and when elected find really good reasons to do something else.......Except the bomb them overseas of course..........THAT'S good for business!!!

Keep trying to spin the economy republicans. It's not doing you any good. Romney finally spoke the truth and that will condemn him in the republican party. Bye, Bye Willard.

henrillis-we know that the debt is spiraling out of control. The problem is that the GOP (and the entire conservative/libertarian spectrum) all think that spending is out of control. While that may be true, revenues are also down, and need to be put back up. We need a responsible debt plan, not one that relies only on spending cuts and "pro-growth policies." We need EVERYTHING-tax increases, entitlement reform, AND spending cuts. Check my deficit reduction package on comment 5.9.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

I think its more of the GOP saying "live within your means." And the Demos saying " nobody lives within their means and we need more revenue." They are both up for a battle!

I was a non brilliant economics major. However, cutting spending during a poor economy is a GUARANTEE FOR DISASTER. Of course, that's what these treasonous Republicans want anyway. Romney is NOT a skilled politician and the Republican base sees that. Of course the the Republican base is in an alternative universe.