Students can't afford Mitt Romney

[max1]

I dunno, I was uncomfortable with it. I spoke with a number of friends who lean to the right and most said they had no problems with him.

[Grin]

Someone on the intertubes said Clint had a 10 million dollar bet with Bill Gates, that he could get thunderous applause from the conventioneers for a line about withdrawing from Afghanistan.

[Beau Stockard]

Very interesting,Grin. Did you read that Bill Kristol criticized Mitt Romney for not mentioning the US withdrawal from Afghanistan ? Did Mitt Romney miss an Eisenhower moment when he did not talk about the war and how he would bring the troops home?First since '52: No talk of war in GOP speech

www.timesleader.com/stories/First-since-52-No-talk-of-war-in-GOP... · 19 hours ago
U-Review IT; RSS Feeds ... Mitt Romney did not mention the war in Afghanistan, where 79,000 ... commentator William Kristol, a Republican standard-bearer, criticized Romney…

With America embroiled in its longest armed conflict, Mitt Romney became the first Republican since 1952 to accept his party's nomination without mentioning war. ... The only one who did Thursday was actor Clint Eastwood, who won cheers for suggesting invading Afghanistan was a mistake and calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops a line that might have earned boos and catcalls four years ago. ...
Conservative commentator William Kristol, a Republican standard-bearer, criticized Romney's decision.
"Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week," Kristol noted on his blog. "What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? ... "talking about Obama's schedule for bringing troops home by the end of 2014, Eastwood said the sensible question was, "Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?"

Read More http://www.timesleader.com/stories/F...#ixzz25EPr2SjA

[hockey]

I don't understand how anyone who is NOT already a millionaire would want Romney in the White House. It doesn't matter if you are a DEM or a REPUB, to you non-millionaires, do realize that Romney and Ryan's plans will only help the rich and hurt everyone else? BTW, the red states will feel it the most.

How can anyone here benefit from this? If you make things worse for the poor the first thing you will see is a huge spike in crime. This country will be divided in two... NOT D's & R's..... I mean "The Have's" and "The Have Not's".

Not to mention the jargon being put out there is being run and bought by Big Corporations like the Koch Brothers... how can anyone be okay with that? Do you think they have our best interests in mind?

FACT: Romney/Ryan's Budget plan is the exact same as GW's.
FACT: Romney would personally save over $90m in just his first term using his budget plan, paying less than 1% tax and people think he cares about us?
FACT: Paul Ryan is blaming Obama for a deficit mostly created by programs that PAUL voted for – from two wars ($5tn+), new Medicare benefits and TARP? (even FOX News is agreeing with this)

Here are a few things about the Romney/Ryan budget plan that don't add up (ECON 101) ....

1) INCREASE military spending to $1,675bn or FORTY EIGHT per cent of ALL Government spending (How's your Russian history??).

2) Reduce federal spending to 20% of the economy by the end of four years without eliminating a single cabinet level department..... can anyone explain to me how this is even possible??

3) Eliminate every non-essetial government program however he thinks these ARE ALL essential.....

~Department of Housing and Urban Development
~Department of Education
~Department Energy
~Department of Commerce
~EPA
~National Endowment for the Art
~National Endowment for the Humanities
~NPR and PBS

4) Mitt Romney does not cut one government worker. He would reduce the federal work force only through attrition.

5) Romney favors block grants for Medicaid to the states capped at inflation plus 1%, which means Governors would lead a wave of federalist experimentation. The proposed cuts would reach $200 billion a year by the end of the decade.

6) Romney embraces about two-thirds of Paul Ryan’s “premium support” Medicare plan giving all seniors a defined cash contribution to choose among private insurance options. Missing from his plan is how the premium-support payments would grow over time.

7) Romney said he would align federal compensation with the private sector, which he said would save more than $40 billion by 2016.

8) Romney didn’t endorse private Social Security accounts so younger workers can build up wealth that they would own and be able to pass along to heirs. Instead, Romney would endorse “progressive indexing,” essentially an income test that would slow the increase in future benefits for wealthier seniors and gradually raise the retirement age.

9) Romney wants to “eliminate Title X family planning programs which cost roughly $300 million a year.

10)Romney wants to “eliminate subsidies for the unprofitable Amtrak” which he says would save $1.6 billion a year.

11) Romney says he would repeal ObamaCare, thereby saving $95 billion in 2016. Though, according to the CBO, the $95 billion reflects how much federal spending would be cut, not how much the repeal would reduce the deficit. Health-care repeal would cut the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, not $95 billion. That is because the health care law raises some taxes and cuts Medicare spending, changes that would also be repealed.

12) Romney favors block grants for Medicaid to the states capped at inflation plus 1%, which means Governors would lead a wave of federalist experimentation. The proposed cuts would reach $200 billion a year by the end of the decade.

13) Romney would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act saving $10 billion a year.

14) Romney would increase Defense spending.

15) Mitt Romney tries to pass himself off as some champion for fiscal restraint, a candidate with grassroots Tea Party ideals with a history of job creation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Romney’s recordas Massachusetts’s governor is that of a liberal progressive; higher taxes, high unemployment and bigger government. And, this chart from the Boston Globe on Massachusetts’s economic performance during Romney’s tenure brings home the point.




Romney's plan cutting $500 billion by 2016 would, at best, leave the budget about 8% higher than it is now and only 11 % lower than it would be without any attempt to restrain spending. The implication: Mitt Romney thinks 89% of what the federal government does is “absolutely essential.”

Cutting the amount of an increase in spending is not a ‘cut’.
It is only a reduction in the increased rate of ‘spending’. All together, Romney’s proposed cuts represent less than 3% of federal spending in 2011 and less than 8% of the total deficit. Romney’s increase in the size and scope of government is hardly a commitment to fiscal responsibility. By contrast, Ron Paul's plan would balance the budget by 2015.

If you don't read anything else, read this......... my new favorite explanation to the above....

There is pervasive institutional dishonesty when it comes to D.C.’s budget math. A classic example is the way politicians rig the system so a “spending cut” takes place if the budget grows by, say, 6% instead of 8%. The nefarious D.C. budget math explained by Dan Mitchell during an interview with Judge Napolitano.......

"Romney is full of platitude and pander [stronger language deleted by author]. He has no intention or plans to cut much of anything, but is making symbolic attacks on things Republicans traditionally don’t like. It’s the most predictable, cliché list of pseudo-cuts I’ve ever seen, proving once again that Romney is a principle free opportunist. With Romney, we would only be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"

And this is why EVERYONE, even the R's should be very, very concerned.

Read this article in the UK(non biased) ...looking for a weblink if one exists ..... found it: http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/romneys-fiscal-plan-hypocrisy-or-idiocy.html

[Jessica]

Max, No, Max , you are wrong and you know it if you would have bothered to read through all of Jessica's post and mine. Jessica concluded , I'm surprised at you Max that you would disrespect a friend by not reading all of her post (or even mine) before condemning it . Tsk, tsk, my friend. ( )

Thanks, Beau, but truly it's not a big deal. There are some cases where nothing I post will be seen as factual because of personal issues that have happened on these boards, going back to waaaayyyy before you found us.

The graphic you posted contained factual information, all of which is in the GOP platform. The only part of it that was an opinion was that complete privatization will drive up education costs. The fact that they want the entire process privatized is part of the platform. I wanted to post what I did because of a reply to yours that linked only a section of the platform regarding natural resources and eluded to people reading it and seeing that the graphic was a bunch of lies. Sure, if you look at a single chunk in the middle of the document that has nothing to do with any of the issues at hand, you won't find what you're looking for. Still, this election cycle's platform is seen as one of the most conservative (fiscally and socially) in decades, more so than the Reagan-era platforms of the early 1980s.

Anyway, the only reason why that one statement is opinion is because it hasn't happened completely yet, so all people can do for the time being is assume that based on current practices, with all other things constant, x, y, and z will happen. Instead, the person who mad that graphic relied on their common sense to extrapolate what will happen if the GOP gets their way.

I believe that it will absolutely drive up the already sky high cost of post-secondary education (and that includes all colleges, universities, trade schools, etc.), and here's why: only the very best private student loans for students with exceptional credit have rates that are competitive with federal loans - around LIBOR + 2%. That's the absolute top tier of those applying. Good luck having top-tier credit with supportive income levels at 18 years old when you're applying for schools. I was 17 entering college and figuring out how to pay for it (turned 18 just after classes started) and many of my classmates were also 17 when they began the process of applying for loans for their first year of college. A 17 or newly 18 year-old shouldn't have any established credit. Their only option is a co-signer with equally awesome credit. Not all parents have that to offer their kids.

So, a student without A-A+ credit, without a viable co-signer option will be forced to get loans that are considerably higher in interest that those currently being offered by the fed. In addition to that, a bank who lends cash can charge whatever freaking fees they want to. After all, it's a for-profit enterprise, and they need to make their money. Unlike housing loans, which have slowed down, student lending tends to go up in time of economic troubles. People are pursuing higher learning degrees or changing careers when they're laid off. Banks can, will, and have seized on that opportunity to make more cash with origination fees, check issuance fees, application fees, etc. And - who can blame them? That's capitalism at its finest. They're in it to make money, not to make someone's future more secure.

There are many conservative and traditionally Republican financial viewpoints that I agree with. Fiscally I'm much more of a moderate than people would expect. But privatization of student loans isn't one of those things I can get on board with.

So, since it was the crux of your post to begin with, that's my take on it.

[Beau Stockard]

[max1]

So, in summary, no lies - just some extrapolations and opinions thrown in to make it more dramatic. If anyone is interested in the exact sections of the platform my quotes come from, just PM me. I'll be happy to let you know.

Funny how this can turn into fact.