Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mitt Romney against the debt deal - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com
Mitt Romney issues his most explicit statement today on any form of debt-ceiling deal:
“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.”
Mitt Romney made a poor choice by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. What I find even more amazing is he talks about a budget that is balanced but at the same time doesn't want to put defense cuts on the table. His position puts him on par with Bachmann on this issue.
This is not going to win him over many Conservative voters who don't trust him at all to begin with. What this will do however is draw more support to Huntsman who did support the deal from the moderates who support Romney.
More spending would equal more debt.
OF THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT.
Figure in unfunded liability and it could be argued the ceiling does increase the debt.,
I just don't see it thast way. When ytou have people use to spending have extra credit is like a drug for the addicted.
Are you really that naive? If it weren't going to result in more debt, why did they just have this massive debate? They could have just said, Oh we wont incur any more debt and we can keep the old ceiling.
So why didn they do that? Ask an adult for help.
Raising the debt ceiling allows us to pay financial obligations already incurred. The fact we can borrow more is just a indirect result of that. However, there is no guarantee we would.
We just had this debate because the GOP manufactured a crisis and then later tried to weasel their way out of it through the Mitch McConnell plan. There was a $4 trillion plan on the table, but they rejected it because it included tax increases. They compromised on absolutely nothing, and got plenty of what they wanted. So instead of getting $4 trillion, and both sides being relatively happy. We got a deal that absolutely nobody is happy with. And we get to do this again in December.
The fact we can borrow more is just a indirect result of that.
there is no guarantee we would
No, but you proved that you are naive.Are you really that naive? If it weren't going to result in more debt, why did they just have this massive debate? They could have just said, Oh we wont incur any more debt and we can keep the old ceiling.I still don't get it. How is making more debt going to get you out of debt?
Except raising the debt ceiling isn't making more debt.
So why didn they do that? Ask an adult for help.
Are you really that naive? If it weren't going to result in more debt, why did they just have this massive debate? They could have just said, Oh we wont incur any more debt and we can keep the old ceiling.
So why didn they do that? Ask an adult for help.
Raising the debt ceiling allows us to pay financial obligations already incurred. The fact we can borrow more is just a indirect result of that. However, there is no guarantee we would.
We just had this debate because the GOP manufactured a crisis and then later tried to weasel their way out of it through the Mitch McConnell plan. There was a $4 trillion plan on the table, but they rejected it because it included tax increases. They compromised on absolutely nothing, and got plenty of what they wanted. So instead of getting $4 trillion, and both sides being relatively happy. We got a deal that absolutely nobody is happy with. And we get to do this again in December.
OF THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT.
Figure in unfunded liability and it could be argued the ceiling does increase the debt.,
I just don't see it thast way. When ytou have people use to spending have extra credit is like a drug for the addicted.
We are in agreement, so I am not sure what misunderstanding we have.
I am naive because when the gov't gets authority to borrow more money, and claims they need it because otherwise they wont be able to meet their obligations, that that means the gov't is going to borrow more money?No, but you proved that you are naive.Are you really that naive? If it weren't going to result in more debt, why did they just have this massive debate? They could have just said, Oh we wont incur any more debt and we can keep the old ceiling.Except raising the debt ceiling isn't making more debt.
So why didn they do that? Ask an adult for help.
Mitt Romney against the debt deal - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com
Mitt Romney issues his most explicit statement today on any form of debt-ceiling deal:
As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obamas leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obamas lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.
Mitt Romney made a poor choice by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. What I find even more amazing is he talks about a budget that is balanced but at the same time doesn't want to put defense cuts on the table. His position puts him on par with Bachmann on this issue.
This is not going to win him over many Conservative voters who don't trust him at all to begin with. What this will do however is draw more support to Huntsman who did support the deal from the moderates who support Romney.
He did not say he wouldn't have raised the debt ceiling. He stated that he would have demanded deeper cuts and a balanced budget IF HE WERE PRESIDENT. Unlike Obama, he would have offered a plan.
Where is Obama's plan on the debt ceiling? Oh that's right, he never had one!! He likes to "lead from behind"....
You're kidding right?
If Congress on both sides actually made sacrifices and compromises, then we could have done something significant with these talks.
I also like how Romney decided to not comment on this issue until the 11th hour. Guess he was busy trying to figure out how to get the most votes out of his comments.
Unfortunately the Democrats would not lay anything like a credible plan--hell, any plan, on the table. All they could do was sit there and gripe they wouldn't cut this or that.
You cannot negotiate with that.
Yes, an opportunity to change fundamentally the way gov't functions presented itself. But Obama and the Democrats killed it.
Unfortunately the Democrats would not lay anything like a credible plan--hell, any plan, on the table. All they could do was sit there and gripe they wouldn't cut this or that.
You cannot negotiate with that.
Yes, an opportunity to change fundamentally the way gov't functions presented itself. But Obama and the Democrats killed it.
Except President Obama and Harry Reid were both open to reform for Medicare, Medicaid, and they even offered up changes to Social Security on the table. The GOP wouldn't touch defense, didn't want to cut subsidies, close tax loopholes, or raise taxes. Can you name one thing the GOP was willing to compromise on that they were in a position to sacrifice in the first place?
Let's start with: Can you name any actual plan that Reid or Obama presented to anyone?
"Changes to Social Security" can mean "20 years down the road we'll raise eligibility to 62.5 from 62."
Can you name one thing the GOP was willing to compromise on that they were in a position to sacrifice in the first place?
Unfortunately the Democrats would not lay anything like a credible plan--hell, any plan, on the table. All they could do was sit there and gripe they wouldn't cut this or that.
You cannot negotiate with that.
Yes, an opportunity to change fundamentally the way gov't functions presented itself. But Obama and the Democrats killed it.
Except President Obama and Harry Reid were both open to reform for Medicare, Medicaid, and they even offered up changes to Social Security on the table. They also offered up cuts in education. The GOP wouldn't touch defense, didn't want to cut subsidies, close tax loopholes, or raise taxes. Can you name one thing the GOP was willing to compromise on that they were in a position to sacrifice in the first place?
[ Well you're incorrect again--Republicans do not have problems with closing loopholes to obtain new revenue.
In fact we can start with General Electric--Obama's favorite--who made 18.4 BILLION dollars last year and didn't pay a penny in federal tax on it. That along with Ethanol subsidies--farming subsidies--oil subsidies--etc.--most republicans and especially tea party members would be on board for. BUT--raising taxes on the general public is NOT on the table--and that's exactly what Obama wanted and didn't get. He wanted to hammer the over 250k crowd.
