11 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

Washington Post said:

The central difficulty of covering this presidential campaign — which is to say, of explaining Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s disparate plans for the country — is the continued existence of what we might call the policy gap. The policy gap, put simply, is this: Obama has proposed policies. Mitt Romney hasn’t.

It is important to say that this exists separately from any judgments about the quality of either man’s policies. You can believe every idea Obama has proposed is a socialist horror inspired by Kenyan revenge fantasies. This would, I think, be a strange judgment to reach about plans to invest in infrastructure, temporarily double the size of the payroll tax cuts and raise the marginal tax rate on income over $250,000 by 4.5 percentage points. Nevertheless, Obama’s policy proposals are sufficiently detailed that they can be fully assessed and conclusions — even odd ones — confidently drawn. Romney’s policies are not.

Read more

And I thought I was the only one who had understood only one Romney campaign promise: Stop health care by executive order.....

[OverSword]

Well it's nice that after 4 years he's proposed policies

Seriously though, I will pay you $1.00 if they disagree on one single thing at the back patting contest known as the presidential debates.

Wake up people!!!!!  There is no two separate political parties with differing agendas!!!!!  American politics is a friggin puppet show made to get you to focus on piddly crap like birth control and gay marriage, while they enslave us to debt they have no intention of ever paying back!!!!!

end of true rant.

[Hilander]

At least Obama gives you some idea of what he intends to do even if it never gets done.  Romney on the other hand would like to surprise us.  Some surprises you don't need.  I really think Romney will make things worse for us.  I would like to see his tax records for the last ten years.  Because he won't show them to us makes me wonder if he is hiding something.

[DieChecker]

Do all the dozens of subjects that Obama will not supply history or documents for make him Suspicious too? He's refused to submit Education records, Medical records, State Senate records...

[Bama13]

Hilander, on 06 August 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

At least Obama gives you some idea of what he intends to do even if it never gets done.  Romney on the other hand would like to surprise us.  Some surprises you don't need.  I really think Romney will make things worse for us.  I would like to see his tax records for the last ten years.  Because he won't show them to us makes me wonder if he is hiding something.

You mean suprise us with legislation no one has even read? You know, like the ACA? We have to pass it so we will know whats in it. That kind of suprise? Or suprise us with gun running (Fast and Furious)?

Romney has released all the tax info he is required to by law. That is all he has to do. Why should he be transparent when running against the most obfuscating president is our history?

[ninjadude]

Bama13, on 07 August 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

You mean suprise us with legislation no one has even read? You know, like the ACA?

Millions of people read the entire ACA. Why didn't you? It was not a surprise as it was debated and changed and debated some more for over a year.

[OverSword]

ninjadude, on 08 August 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Millions of people read the entire ACA. Why didn't you? It was not a surprise as it was debated and changed and debated some more for over a year.

That's bull.  Millions of people read thousands of pages of dry legaleze?  Right.  99.5% of people wouldn't understand the technical jargon, most of the people in the healthcare industry (in which I've worked for over a decade) don't understand alot of it.  Health insurance is a very very very complicated subject and for you to say that was just a lie you invented because you can't stand it if someone makes a less than stellar comment about your lord and saviour President Obama.

[ninjadude]

OverSword, on 10 August 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

That's bull.

because you can't stand it if someone makes a less than stellar comment about your lord and saviour President Obama.

No I'm irritated that you don't understand that it was read, debated, summarized, and analyzed to death. For someone to claim that no one read it is the height of ignorance. The Congress was well aware of what was in it. They have armies of analysts to read it and summarize it. This is how laws are made. The are not short declarations that you can read in two minutes. Most laws aren't "read" by congress. They have people do it for them because they don't have time.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 11 August 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

No I'm irritated that you don't understand that it was read, debated, summarized, and analyzed to death. For someone to claim that no one read it is the height of ignorance. The Congress was well aware of what was in it. They have armies of analysts to read it and summarize it. This is how laws are made. The are not short declarations that you can read in two minutes. Most laws aren't "read" by congress. They have people do it for them because they don't have time.

So did every Representative and Senator that voted for it read all those pages? Did all of them even have a single aid that read all of it? Because at the time, Pelosi was getting a lot of flak that not everyone (not every Democrat congressmen anyway) had read it, but she pushed it to a vote anyway and strongarmed the Dems into line to vote for it.

I agree that it was analyzed to death. Which was a great problem with the legislation to begin with. It should have been introduced as a series of bills, not a giant juggernaut, and then the pieces could have been passed much faster and been put into effect sooner. It was simply partisan politics and arrogance that required Pelosi, Reid and Obama to push through a single unified bill.

Edited by DieChecker, 13 August 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[ninjadude]

DieChecker, on 13 August 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

So did every Representative and Senator that voted for it read all those pages? Did all of them even have a single aid that read all of it?

of course not. I said that. And yes they had aids that read all of it.

Quote

It should have been introduced as a series of bills, not a giant juggernaut, and then the pieces could have been passed much faster and been put into effect sooner.

A series of bills would still be being discussed today (I suspect the real reason for your idea). It would have paralyzed the Congress. (not that the current congress does much anyway). The effective date doesn't have anything to do with the speed of passage. It was not a "giant juggernaut" as much as conservatives would like to claim..

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 14 August 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

of course not. I said that. And yes they had aids that read all of it.

A series of bills would still be being discussed today (I suspect the real reason for your idea). It would have paralyzed the Congress. (not that the current congress does much anyway). The effective date doesn't have anything to do with the speed of passage. It was not a "giant juggernaut" as much as conservatives would like to claim..

But weren't some of the laws effective immediately, like insurance for children under age 27?

The parts that would still be under discussion are parts that probably still need discussion to this day.

[Rafterman]

questionmark, on 06 August 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

And I thought I was the only one who had understood only one Romney campaign promise: Stop health care by executive order.....

It seems pretty clear to me.  It's all right here - pages and pages in fact.

http://www.mittromney.com/

But it's no surprise that those on the left and the Washington Post say that "there's no plan".

Besides, why should I expect any plan that Obama might have to be any more successful than all of the failed plans of the last four years?

Wasn't it just last week that he was touting his fantastic auto bailout and making the claims that we need to do that for multiple other industries here in the US?

Yeah, that was a good "plan":  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/us-auto-bailout-treasury_n_1773811.html

WASHINGTON, Aug 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department has said the auto industry bailout will cost taxpayers $3.4 billion more than previously thought.

Treasury now estimates the 2009 bailout will eventually cost the government $25.1 billion, according to a report sent to Congress on Friday.

That is up from the last quarterly estimate of $21.7 billion.

Yeah, he's got plans - and they all suck.