Obama racks up the endorsements!

[New Mama]

Oct 22, 2012 11:33:20 GMT -6 New Mama said:

I don't know where you are looking.

Pathway to Prosperity is in the website link name, on the cover sheet and throughout this document: budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

From you own quote....

Ryan's plan to revamp Medicare — which included Obama's $716 billion in cuts to the projected growth of Medicare — was a central feature of a federal budget proposed by the congressman and passed by the Republican-controlled House in April. Romney has said he would sign it as president. The voucher system would begin in 10 years.

In his 59-point economic plan, Romney praised Ryan's Medicare plan, saying it "makes important strides in the right direction by keeping the system solvent and introducing market-based dynamics." Romney's economic plan says the Republican presidential candidate would share Ryan's objectives on Medicare but that his own revamping of the program would differ in unspecified ways.

Gordon Romney is on record support the "Path". The above is from your own quote where I showed his support in RED. Show me where he said he doesn't support the "Path"?

[Ardbeg... innit]

Show me where he does, the highlight below is from the same quote. AND ONCE AGAIN, its the SAME thing that the President has adopted. The President did EXACTLY what the Ryan plan calls for and the Republicans run against his actions.

How hypocritical for conservatives to blast the President for recognizing a good idea and adopt it THEN use it as a campaign stance against him.

Where in Romney's website does he say he supports Ryan's plan?? SHOW ME.. YOU HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY that those against Romney should check out his website for ROMNEYS position on something. WELL, I have and its not there. Sorry m'dear. YOU made the statement, you have not backed your statement up, and your go to source is silent on the subject.

Oct 22, 2012 11:33:20 GMT -6 New Mama said:

Ryan's plan to revamp Medicare — which included Obama's $716 billion in cuts to the projected growth of Medicare — was a central feature of a federal budget proposed by the congressman and passed by the Republican-controlled House in April. Romney has said he would sign it as president. The voucher system would begin in 10 years.

In his 59-point economic plan, Romney praised Ryan's Medicare plan, saying it "makes important strides in the right direction by keeping the system solvent and introducing market-based dynamics." Romney's economic plan says the Republican presidential candidate would share Ryan's objectives on Medicare but that his own revamping of the program would differ in unspecified ways.

[New Mama]

As I said above "The Pathway legislation is not on his (Romney's) website because it was written by the Republican House Budget Committee that is chaired by Ryan. It would be disingenuous for him to claim it as ‘his’ plan."

In your glee to try to catch me making erroneous remarks you miss the point. Did I ever say that you will find out everything about Romney on his website. The fact is that he does support the plan and I provided a link to that plan...not his website.

Regarding the budget this is from his website:

•Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

One of the other plans on his website is his 5 point plan to create 12million jobs. Not an unimportant issue that represents his plan as opposed to the Republican parties plan for a budget. Do you expect him to have each and every statement he makes on his website? Much can be found there but not everything.

In four years Obama NEVER managed to get his own party to proposed his budget for a vote including the first two years when they held the Congressional majority. Do you call that leadership?

You said:

The President did EXACTLY what the Ryan plan calls for and the Republicans run against his actions.

How hypocritical for conservatives to blast the President for recognizing a good idea and adopt it THEN use it as a campaign stance against him.

Contrary to your understanding Obama DID NOT SUPPORT Ryan's plan...

The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise was the Republican Party's budget proposal for the United States federal government in the fiscal year 2012. It was succeeded in March 2012 by The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal, the Republican budget proposal for 2013. Representative Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, played a prominent public role in drafting and promoting both The Path to Prosperity proposals, and they are therefore often referred to as the Ryan budget, Ryan plan, Ryan proposal, etc.

The plans stand in contrast to the 2012 and 2013 budget proposals, outlined by President Barack Obama and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The 2012 Republican proposal was formalized and passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, April 15, 2011 by a vote of 235 to 193, largely along party lines. No Democrats voted in favor of the bill

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity

[Ardbeg... innit]

You missed the point on Obama, Ryan and his plan, and Medicare... both Ryan's plan and Obama's actions cut $700billion from Medicare... so same thing.

OH BTW- since you brought up the 12 million jobs thing.

VERY BOLD of Romney to create a 5 point plan that will create 12 million new job which Moody's Analytics said back in August, the economy will create in the next 4 years by doing nothing regardless who is the President.

If 12 million jobs are going to be created by doing nothing, and Romney has a 5 point plan that creates 12 million jobs... then Romney's 5 point plan equals nothing.

[Chicago Jake]

Unless it's an additional 12 million jobs on top of the automatic 12 million.

[Ardbeg... innit]

Then he should say so. I have only heard that his plan will create 12 million jobs.

[♥ COVID-19♥]

Obama should say he'll create 12 million jobs by doing NAFT (not a fucking thing)

Sent from my DROID Pro using proboards

[Tex]

Oct 23, 2012 11:31:12 GMT -6 ♥ COVID-19♥ said:

Obama should say he'll create 12 million jobs by doing NAFT (not a fucking thing)

Sent from my DROID Pro using proboards

NAFT would have been a marked improvement for him.

[Ardbeg... innit]

Oct 23, 2012 11:31:12 GMT -6 ♥ COVID-19♥ said:

Obama should say he'll create 12 million jobs by doing NAFT (not a fucking thing)

Sent from my DROID Pro using proboards

I prefer to think of it at the SWTUA 12 million (sitting with thumb up ass)

[♥ COVID-19♥]

Oct 23, 2012 11:33:22 GMT -6 Tex said:

Oct 23, 2012 11:31:12 GMT -6 ♥ COVID-19♥ said:

Obama should say he'll create 12 million jobs by doing NAFT (not a fucking thing)

Sent from my DROID Pro using proboards

NAFT would have been a marked improvement for him.

So is the neo-con view now that government should be a job creator? Interesting ...

[Chicago Jake]

Oct 23, 2012 12:00:57 GMT -6 ♥ COVID-19♥ said:

Oct 23, 2012 11:33:22 GMT -6 Tex said:

NAFT would have been a marked improvement for him.

So is the neo-con view now that government should be a job creator? Interesting ...

I'm not sure what counts as a "neo-con" view, but I do know what the conservative view is: the government CANNOT create jobs, but it can sure as shit prevent the creation of jobs by unnecessary regulations. So a corollary could be stated that the government can help the process of allowing jobs to be created by staying THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY of the private sector. I think that is what the conservative view is. At the very least, it is my view.

[Ardbeg... innit]

Oct 23, 2012 19:19:58 GMT -6 innit Geezer said:

I'm not the political caliber you guys are but don't you think popular vote would be more accurate than the current electoral collagen.

Sorry for the drift.

In short "Yes". How would you explain to someone from a non-democratic country, how we can have a person directly elected President who didnt get the most votes.

[Tex]

The electoral college goes back to the US as a confederation of governments (the states). The individual votes in the lower populated states carry more weight than the higher populated states, mirroring representation in the US Congress. IMHO, if you were to ch-ch-change to popular vote, you would have to agree to do it say eight years in the future. Otherwise, the current politicians would be doing all sorts of calculus to determine which system would give them a leg up and you would never get there.

[Ardbeg... innit]

Agree on all counts

[Chicago Jake]

Imagine two foxes and one rabbit stranded on an island. They take a vote on what to eat for dinner. The rabbit loses.

Or imagine a referendum on the nationwide ballot to make all Black Americans slaves again. The country is roughly 10% Black. It would likely pass.

That's the theory behind the electoral college: to protect the rights of the minorities, i.e., the smaller states. You don't want to go on record as being against the rights of minorities, do you?

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

This is just silly!! We have SEEN that Obama's "plan" sucks. Just look at the last 4 years. 'nuff said.

[♥ COVID-19♥]