ROMNEY TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA VOTERS

Is that like being driven by your dick in men?


And you know that sucks..... I believe I should make it or not based on my own merit. I also am very willing, and do often, give every single thing I have to someone else. I get ridiculed daily about being someone center right....... I just had a thought for a thread. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Yes, it's EXACTLY like that. Men are constantly horny and ready to hump on a moment's notice. Nature designed us that way. It's a weakness that can be taken advantage of.

Men take advantage of women by exploiting their emotional nature. Women take advantage of men by exploiting their sexual nature. Ain't life grand!

Government spending has exploded under Obama. You must be psychotic. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Nope, not psychotic and not hallucinating either.

For all the talk you hear about Obama’s historic spree, government spending actually hasn’t increased nearly so dramatically under this president as under the last three Republicans. The stimulus was big, but it’s over (and 36% were tax cuts). It’s been replaced by, if not austerity (which has struck our states and cities) then a hard correction to the center.

Republicans continually decry the Obama Administration’s “runaway spending” since he took office, blaming him for growing deficits and a mounting national debt (primarily a result of the decline in GDP and attempts to limit the damage from the recession by compensating for "aggregate spending" or stimulus, a concept Republicans used to believe in until recently). But a quick glance at the facts show that, compared to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Obama is actually embracing fiscal conservatism more than any other president in recent history, with perhaps the exception of fellow Democrat Bill Clinton.

The Atlantic crunches the numbers: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...istory/254658/

Nope, not psychotic and not hallucinating either.

For all the talk you hear about Obama’s historic spree, government spending actually hasn’t increased nearly so dramatically under this president as under the last three Republicans. The stimulus was big, but it’s over (and 36% were tax cuts). It’s been replaced by, if not austerity (which has struck our states and cities) then a hard correction to the center.

Republicans continually decry the Obama Administration’s “runaway spending” since he took office, blaming him for growing deficits and a mounting national debt (primarily a result of the decline in GDP and attempts to limit the damage from the recession by compensating for "aggregate spending" or stimulus, a concept Republicans used to believe in until recently). But a quick glance at the facts show that, compared to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Obama is actually embracing fiscal conservatism more than any other president in recent history, with perhaps the exception of fellow Democrat Bill Clinton.

The Atlantic crunches the numbers: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...istory/254658/ Originally Posted by austxjr

Horseshit.

You and the facts don't get along to well eh Joe?

Pause, so your solution is to put the party that had the white house for 8 years and the congress for 6 and caused this mess back into power?????

That makes no fucking sense at all.

And Clinton DID use Arithmetic, that's how he created the surplus that the republican's squandered.

SMH Originally Posted by markroxny

First this problem was caused by BOTH parties over the past 60+ years. Not just by Bush and the republican Congress he had for 6 years.

Romney is not Bush and the tea party republicans in Congress were not there for those years so I am not voting for the same. That said, I am leery of Romney and the only reason I choose him is because Obama and the Democrats have PROVEN they will not solve the problem.

As for Clinton he never balanced the budget if you take out the social security surplus. He also had to compromise with a republican Congress that forced him to spend less. Sadly once Bush was elected they quit being responsible.

Regarding the so called surplus that got eliminated by the tech bubble bursting primarily and partially by 9-11. Both items that Bush inherited. Bush can be blamed for many things but to put all of that on him is misleading.

You can spin all you want, but the fact is that the National Debt was around $10-11 trillion when Obama took office, and is now over $16 trillion. We didn't get there by "fiscal austerity." And the fact that we cannot continue to sustain that type of debt growth seems to escape you people.

Romney is not Bush and the tea party republicans in Congress were not there for those years so I am not voting for the same. That said, I am leery of Romney and the only reason I choose him is because Obama and the Democrats have PROVEN they will not solve the problem.

As for Clinton he never balanced the budget if you take out the social security surplus. He also had to compromise with a republican Congress that forced him to spend less. Sadly once Bush was elected they quit being responsible.

Regarding the so called surplus that got eliminated by the tech bubble bursting primarily and partially by 9-11. Both items that Bush inherited. Bush can be blamed for many things but to put all of that on him is misleading. Originally Posted by Laz

No Romney is not Bush....HE'S WORSE. He will be even MORE of a tool of the right, as he has proven.

You are wrong on the tech bubble burst. Bush did more financial damage to this country by cutting taxes for the so called "job creators" who created no jobs mind you and excecuting wars in a really stupid and wasteful manner. If we didnt' run off into Iraq and focused on Afghanistan the way we should have imagine the money we would have now.

No the REPUBLICANS HAVE PROVEN that their solution doesn't work. Tax cuts for the "job creators" has not created jobs. It has not created a good economy, it has done the opposite.

Waste your vote if you want to, Romney is going to lose.

Romney is not Bush at all. I'm not a huge fan of ol' George, but he didn't waffle. Romney is the king of waffling. Not to mention, those of you who have conspiracy theories of Obama wanting to completely take over the government should have been paying attention to what Romney's camp was up to at the RNC... they were replacing delegates that did not agree with what the Romney camp wanted. Both Obama and Romney are dangerously power hungry. Obama is too altruistic to be effective, and Romney is too damn clueless to be anything more than a talking head for those who pull his puppet strings.

Romney is not Bush at all. I'm not a huge fan of ol' George, but he didn't waffle. Romney is the king of waffling. Not to mention, those of you who have conspiracy theories of Obama wanting to completely take over the government should have been paying attention to what Romney's camp was up to at the RNC... they were replacing delegates that did not agree with what the Romney camp wanted. Both Obama and Romney are dangerously power hungry. Obama is too altruistic to be effective, and Romney is too damn clueless to be anything more than a talking head for those who pull his puppet strings. Originally Posted by GracePreston

Obama's half brother, George, lives in dire poverty in Kenya. He was recently forced to essentially beg for money, from a conservative journalist, to provide medical care for his sick daughter. Obama has never given him a penny or lifted a finger to help him. Obama also has an illegal alien aunt that lives on welfare.

Like most liberals, Obama is all for the government, taking care of the poor, he just doesn't want to do anything personally.

Obama is not even close to being altruistic.

No Romney is not Bush....HE'S WORSE. He will be even MORE of a tool of the right, as he has proven.

You are wrong on the tech bubble burst. Bush did more financial damage to this country by cutting taxes for the so called "job creators" who created no jobs mind you and excecuting wars in a really stupid and wasteful manner. If we didnt' run off into Iraq and focused on Afghanistan the way we should have imagine the money we would have now.

No the REPUBLICANS HAVE PROVEN that their solution doesn't work. Tax cuts for the "job creators" has not created jobs. It has not created a good economy, it has done the opposite.

Waste your vote if you want to, Romney is going to lose. Originally Posted by markroxny

I know nothing I say will change your mind but just to correct a couple of things.

First the tax cuts were applied to everyone not just the rich and the did help strengthen the economy while revenues to the government increased.

I will let history determine the benefit of the wars if any. While the cost could have reduced the deficits they are not the long term problem. As for how much money we would have now it would only have made a minor difference.

The damage to the economy was caused by the mortgage bubble and melt down. While Bush shares the blame for not doing what was necessary to avoid it, the democrats were front and center in opposing any effort he made to do so and are at least equally responsible.

As for proof that tax cuts help all you need to do is look at history. Even John F Kennedy supported that. Many times, including in the Clinton years, when taxes are cut revenues to the government go UP.

The failures have been proven by both parties that increasing spending causes deficits. In an economy with low inflation why does the federal budget automatically increase by 8% a year? Why are proposals to reduce that increase called a massive cut?

You only confirmed what I said. The tax cuts didn't save the world, nor can they, nor will they.

Republicans spend FAR more on military and wars than the dems ever could on "entitlements" that has been the case for a LONG time.

Start a 3rd party that shuns both sides failures and I'll support it. But Romney? The republicans? Now?

No fucking way.

FYI

the tax cuts cost taxpayers more than ALL the wars in the mid east AND social programs combined ...

fuck this alice in wonderland, double-talk, the white rabbit, 1984 orwellian speak that tax cuts cost money.

start with the idea of zero taxes and everyone works to eat and then collect some tax for our common defense, there is no "cost" to a tax "cut"

there is only a "cost" of spending money not in not collecting wha tisnt the governments to start with

fuck this alice in wonderland, double-talk, the white rabbit, 1984 orwellian speak that tax cuts cost money.

start with the idea of zero taxes and everyone works to eat and then collect some tax for our common defense, there is no "cost" to a tax "cut"

there is only a "cost" of spending money not in not collecting wha tisnt the governments to start with Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

BULLSHIT!

Simple math. If you CUT taxes, you CUT revenue to the government. IT IS A LOSS OF MONEY!!! It then has to be covered by taking money from somewhere else!

Are you guys in another fucking universe?

BULLSHIT!

Simple math. If you CUT taxes, you CUT revenue to the government. IT IS A LOSS OF MONEY!!! It then has to be covered by taking money from somewhere else!

Are you guys in another fucking universe? Originally Posted by markroxny

Reagan cut tax rates and DOUBLED TAX REVENUE. It's called supply side economics. You should read up on it.