[Balco10]

Just remember early next year when the civil wars happens...Obama is going to destroy are country! He is a socialist! Look at his parents and mentors.

[Shaudius]

I haven't read where he hand delivered the payment.

Oh, so you read the article attacking the Politico piece from the right wing media source but you didn't actually read the Politico piece, got it.

There are plenty of ways to expand and improve the military and do it even cheaper than has been done over the last 20 years or so. Common sense cuts at DOD are fine with me....both sides are so quick to jump right to uniformed levels and salaries. That frustrates me to no end.

There are plenty of ways to expand and improve the military and do it even cheaper, but here's the thing, Republicans don't want that, what they instead want through the Ryan budget is an even bigger military budget. That's right the Ryan budget calls for INCREASED military spending.

What else are the Republicans doing? Oh that's right, trying to reneg on the sequestration cuts they agreed to last year, whereby if the supercommittee didn't come to an agreement there would be equal cuts to military spending and social spending to amount to a trillion dollars over 10 years. What are the Republicans now trying to do? Repeal the sequestration cuts, but not all the sequestrations cuts, only the ones they didn't want, the military ones. I don't see the democrats trying to repeal the social spending cuts they agreed too as part of the budget deal if the supercommittee didn't work out.

[itchypickle]

Oh, so you read the article attacking the Politico piece from the right wing media source but you didn't actually read the Politico piece, got it.



There are plenty of ways to expand and improve the military and do it even cheaper, but here's the thing, Republicans don't want that, what they instead want through the Ryan budget is an even bigger military budget. That's right the Ryan budget calls for INCREASED military spending.

What else are the Republicans doing? Oh that's right, trying to reneg on the sequestration cuts they agreed to last year, whereby if the supercommittee didn't come to an agreement there would be equal cuts to military spending and social spending to amount to a trillion dollars over 10 years. What are the Republicans now trying to do? Repeal the sequestration cuts, but not all the sequestrations cuts, only the ones they didn't want, the military ones. I don't see the democrats trying to repeal the social spending cuts they agreed too as part of the budget deal if the supercommittee didn't work out.

Sorry my bad, meant to put "haven't read WHY" not where. Meaning we both probably agree no Governor or Senator or any other elected leader makes their own schedule....where and when they do these types of photo ops and good gestures are all stage crafted by staff.

100% of the Ryan budget would never make it to final votes, its more of a blue print. I agree with some parts but not others, increased DOD spending being one area I don't agree with. Its unreal the clusterfuckk involved in those budgets whether it be for size of military vs pay vs equipment vs R&D and other contracts for weaponry. The way to fix the confusion would be to separate direct pay issues and size from the others and then do a common sense modernization of base closure and reorganization led by the military and not the state congressmen who base force structure on how many jobs the bases keep in their districts.

Of course the sequestration thing was never going to happen as it was framed, the whole thing was a joke. The House refuses to pass bills without a budget from the Senate so it is locked in and the Senate refuses to pass a budget because they do not have a safe vote count in the House to get their agenda....childish gridlock.

Now again, lets get back to specifics and not "you know what republicans wanna do" as a whole? You're trying to divert again.

Do you think Romney pushed for, passed and continued a Green initiative in Mass as governor? And did the one company mentioned lose tax payers funds? And Did they go belly up in 2012 because they were a bad business model for years or because of the market flop that has happened in the last 6 years or so?

[Shaudius]

Sorry my bad, meant to put "haven't read WHY" not where. Meaning we both probably agree no Governor or Senator or any other elected leader makes their own schedule....where and when they do these types of photo ops and good gestures are all stage crafted by staff.

But that's even more troubling. Say you're right and Romney didn't make his schedule(you probably are), he still has veto power over it, one would hope. If he didn't support the program that passed before he was government, and didn't support it months later when he tried to repeal it, why did he agree with his staff to hand deliver the check along with a press conference? If he doesn't have this type of veto power over is schedule, that's also troubling, it means that his handlers can tell him what to do and he has no power to stand up for what he actually believes. In either situation it doesn't make Romney look very good, either its another example of him flipping and flopping or its another example of him bowing to the will of those who actually lead him and not the other way around, both of these arguments are true regardless of the actual success of the project he publicly presented himself in front of.

100% of the Ryan budget would never make it to final votes, its more of a blue print. I agree with some parts but not others, increased DOD spending being one area I don't agree with. Its unreal the clusterfuckk involved in those budgets whether it be for size of military vs pay vs equipment vs R&D and other contracts for weaponry. The way to fix the confusion would be to separate direct pay issues and size from the others and then do a common sense modernization of base closure and reorganization led by the military and not the state congressmen who base force structure on how many jobs the bases keep in their districts.

That is all well and good, but that didn't stop the Republicans in Congress from voting on and passing Ryan budget plan verbatim as it stands. And it doesn't stop Romney from saying he 100% supports the Ryan budget plan and would pass it into law, warts and all.

Of course the sequestration thing was never going to happen as it was framed, the whole thing was a joke. The House refuses to pass bills without a budget from the Senate so it is locked in and the Senate refuses to pass a budget because they do not have a safe vote count in the House to get their agenda....childish gridlock.

The point was that it was supposed to happen like it did, sequestration was the poison pill for failure. Both sides lose, the point is that one side is taking its loss and moving on the other is trying to retract its loss. One party said, thems the breaks, the other says, when we said we'd compromise we didn't really mean it.

Do you think Romney pushed for, passed and continued a Green initiative in Mass as governor? And did the one company mentioned lose tax payers funds? And Did they go belly up in 2012 because they were a bad business model for years or because of the market flop that has happened in the last 6 years or so?

It doesn't matter when they went belly up, and it certainly doesn't matter that the company did or did not lose taxpayer money. At least as Romney and the Republicans have framed the debate. The Republican talking point is not, "Solyndra was a bad idea because it lost taxpayer money" the Republican argument is that the Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the first place. Solyndra wouldn't have been an issue like it is if it made money and remained solvent though because no one can point to a successful company and say, "Ah ha, the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers!"

You want to make the argument about losing taxpayer money, but that's never been the Republican position. Its never been elect me, I will pick the right winners and avoid the losers, its always been the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the first place.

You can go ahead and say I'm itchypickle, that's not my position, and not my point, but in so doing you are not supporting Mitt Romney's position, you are forging your own position that your presumably chosen candidate doesn't share, at least he hasn't expressed it in any open forum to date that I am aware of. Which is why your counterargument to my argument about Romney's press conference check doesn't make a lot of sense. Because you're not defending the candidates position with your responses, you're defending your own distinct position.

Now you can make the argument that Mitt Romney is not internally inconsistent because he didn't make the loan, and he wanted to end the program later, but that still doesn't answer why he held the press conference, his idea or someone else's that he didn't veto. As I started out my post by saying, its either another flip flop or a lack of decisiveness about what you believe in.