Is Mitt Romney on crack??

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-exert-u-leadership-globally-025943222.html

Seriously. He wants to increase military spending? Not for any specific reason, but in order to make us 'world policemen' and create some vague 'American Century'. And he plans to go to our Chinese creditors and ask them to please not dump our Treasury Bonds and loan our broke country even more money so we can build more battleships, park them at their doorstep and meddle in their affairs? How is that going to work?

Mitt needs to put down the pipe.

Military spending solves all of our problems (so does cutting taxes)

Cone_Junky wrote: Military spending solves all of our problems (so does cutting taxes)

At the same time? That's brilliant!

AMERICA... F YEA!!!!!!!

Joshua wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Military spending solves all of our problems (so does cutting taxes)

At the same time? That's brilliant!

Almost as brilliant as raising taxes on job creators in an effort to "create jobs!"

So.......we increase spending.....to cut spending.......to build up our military.........to bring peace....

Sounds like the beginning of a Lewis Black rant....

I think this would work a whole lot better if we didn't have to borrow money from our enemies in order to buy guns to point at them.

poopshovel wrote:

Joshua wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Military spending solves all of our problems (so does cutting taxes)

At the same time? That's brilliant!

Almost as brilliant as raising taxes on job creators in an effort to "create jobs!"

Yes because those tax cuts that the "job creators" have gotten for the last ten years completely averted a depression and high unemployment.

Why would the right wing keeping spitting out such nonsense when reality has proven that it is a COMPLETELY FALSE theory?

poopshovel wrote: Almost as brilliant as raising taxes on job creators in an effort to "create jobs!"

I am going to jump on this one. This statement always bugged me (and not because it is a pundit standard) because it doesn't really make sense to me.

First of all, let me state, I don't like the idea of raising taxes in general when the government is currently so inefficient / misguided.

But, raising taxes on PEOPLE who make over (let's say) $200,000. I really don't see this affecting job CREATION. People that make that kind of money are generally involved in successful businesses certainly. But unless they are idiots, the keep their business money and personal money SEPARATE. So letting them keep less money does not cost their business money.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but business expenses are deductible from business income (lowering taxes). So basically the more you spend on your business, the less tax you pay (I don't know if payroll is considered a business expense though). So, in a way, even if business taxes were raised, more taxes encourages business spending (not that I think this is a generally viable economic plan).

One comment I heard on this used as an example was a dentist who was worried he would not be able to hire another person. Well, come on now, if you are making over $200,000 a year in a personally owned business (I don't know if dentist incorporate their businesses in some way) you are making pretty damn good money, and maybe giving up a $20,000-$30,000 to hire someone to help you out (not necessarily bringing in more business to cover the costs) is not a huge deal.

Tell me why I am wrong, please. What am I missing here?

Your missing the fact that logic has no business in politics.

Trickle down economics has never worked but it's a great way to fatten your donors pockets while pretending that you care about anyone who's not rich.

Cone_Junky wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

Joshua wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Military spending solves all of our problems (so does cutting taxes)

At the same time? That's brilliant!

Almost as brilliant as raising taxes on job creators in an effort to "create jobs!"

Yes because those tax cuts that the "job creators" have gotten for the last ten years completely averted a depression and high unemployment. Why would the right wing keeping spitting out such nonsense when reality has proven that it is a COMPLETELY FALSE theory?

So we are going to build those battleships and NOT increase taxes on the job creators and just borrow the money and kick the can down the road and ...

Hey! Wait a minute! Isn't that what those Tea Party guys were complaining about?

wow you might as well run for office, sounds like you understand it as much as the people running the show..

blockquote>aircooled wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Almost as brilliant as raising taxes on job creators in an effort to "create jobs!"

I am going to jump on this one. This statement always bugged me (and not because it is a pundit standard) because it doesn't really make sense to me.

First of all, let me state, I don't like the idea of raising taxes in general when the government is currently so inefficient / misguided.

But, raising taxes on PEOPLE who make over (let's say) $200,000. I really don't see this affecting job CREATION. People that make that kind of money are generally involved in successful businesses certainly. But unless they are idiots, the keep their business money and personal money SEPARATE. So letting them keep less money does not cost their business money.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but business expenses are deductible from business income (lowering taxes). So basically the more you spend on your business, the less tax you pay (I don't know if payroll is considered a business expense though). So, in a way, even if business taxes were raised, more taxes encourages business spending (not that I think this is a generally viable economic plan).

One comment I heard on this used as an example was a dentist who was worried he would not be able to hire another person. Well, come on now, if you are making over $200,000 a year in a personally owned business (I don't know if dentist incorporate their businesses in some way) you are making pretty damn good money, and maybe giving up a $20,000-$30,000 to hire someone to help you out (not necessarily bringing in more business to cover the costs) is not a huge deal.

Tell me why I am wrong, please. What am I missing here?

The man has advanced degrees from Harvard. Maybe you should just listen and learn.

I don't know who I'm yelling at

This could flounder, or it might have traction for a while. All I know is that between pronoun abuse and broken blockquotes, I'm already having trouble keeping track of who's talking to (or about) whom...

I am not going to join the rhubarb here, but I think Mitt Romney is a presidential candidate largely because he looks presidential and he is pedigreed.

I can see where Mitt is worried. If China gets their hands on anymore unfinished 30 year old Russian aircraft carriers they could be a major threat.

1988RedT2 wrote: The man has advanced degrees from Harvard. Maybe you should just listen and learn.

All those guys who were involved in the bank meltdown had advanced degrees from Harvard too. Do I really need them to teach me how to run up my credit cards?

In reply to Snowdoggie:

A degree from Harvard usually means you have family and/or friends in high places. Now, if he had a master's degree from say, MIT, I'd be impressed.

aircooled wrote: I am going to jump on this one. This statement always bugged me (and not because it is a pundit standard) because it doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, let me state, I don't like the idea of raising taxes in general when the government is currently so inefficient / misguided.

Good.

But, raising taxes on PEOPLE who make over (let's say) $200,000. I really don't see this affecting job CREATION. People that make that kind of money are generally involved in successful businesses certainly. But unless they are idiots, the keep their business money and personal money SEPARATE. So letting them keep less money does not cost their business money. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but business expenses are deductible from business income (lowering taxes). So basically the more you spend on your business, the less tax you pay (I don't know if payroll is considered a business expense though). So, in a way, even if business taxes were raised, more taxes encourages business spending (not that I think this is a generally viable economic plan). One comment I heard on this used as an example was a dentist who was worried he would not be able to hire another person. Well, come on now, if you are making over $200,000 a year in a personally owned business (I don't know if dentist incorporate their businesses in some way) you are making pretty damn good money, and maybe giving up a $20,000-$30,000 to hire someone to help you out (not necessarily bringing in more business to cover the costs) is not a huge deal. Tell me why I am wrong, please. What am I missing here?

But see that is the one thing that isn't discussed properly, salary and bonus. Most everyone I know in a business take a very small salary to cover just enough their personal expenses and if they make more, they write themselves a "big fat" bonus check. There are also a LOT of deductions businesses are afforded to "keep employees", which seem to make it look like business don't pay for jack.

As to your dentist, if he isn't running himself AND his practice as a PLLC, he is a moron. He has completely opened up himself personally to anything that happens in his practice. I also bet he is taking his paycheck with what is leftover after everyone is paid. That is how he is clearing 200k. But if the gov't wants to take another 30k, he going to have to either lay someone off or increase the work load on everyone in the office to make up the difference to maintain his comfort level. I never have understood the "You make enough, fork it over for someone else" mentality. Who says that IF he DOES hire that new employee that they contribute to increased productivity and therefore more profit to the business owner. You do know that a 30k/yr employee can cost an easy 50k to an employer before they even work one minute, right?

What about Mitt Romney and defense spending?

Now this is military domination -

Xceler8x wrote: Trickle down economics has never worked but it's a great way to fatten your donors pockets while pretending that you care about anyone who's not rich.

That old "trickle-up" theory has worked so well.......

oldsaw wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Trickle down economics has never worked but it's a great way to fatten your donors pockets while pretending that you care about anyone who's not rich.

That old "trickle-up" theory has worked so well.......

Where has it been applied?

"This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president," Romney said. "You have that president today."

He does have a point.

There's spending and then there's SPENDING!

Pres. Hope has been SPENDING.

And if you wait until the problem exists you don't have the hardware, the people or the training to counter said problem.

A weaker America means more attacks on it's soil and less of an ability to counter any attacks.

Where will the next problem arise. I too feel it's China.

But with all that said, it doesn't take SPENDING to keep us strong - that is as long as the infrastructure already exists. Now if they dismantle most of it then we simply won't have the time or the money to counter any real threats. We don't need Cold War spending but military does create jobs and helps the economy.

If it stopped or was decreased dramatically, while my neck of the woods wouldn't be a ghost town we would at least have several more candidates for large autocross courses or old school race courses like Sebring.