Romney, What is your plan?

cimmee said:

Is reading a post something you cannot or will not do?

Click to expand...

I see you are new here, so let me give you some advice, if you have a specific point, make it, otherwise, don't make yourself look dumb by posting something without a point.

If you think Willard HAS posted budget/taxation specifics......link to them......but no one can...because he has not.

Kingleo702 said:

I'm not a Obama fan but it's getting tiring watching Politicians play the blame game. He does it with President Bush and Romney is doing it with him. If Romney gets in he's going to use the same line, "I'm cleaning up Obama's mess and it's going to take time". Man up, tell the country what you want to do and let the people decide what route to go.

Click to expand...

I totally agree....tell us what you plan for us....he makes a few big promises but gives nothing to support how he will make this happen....it's not like Obama is going to steal his plan at this stage so I agree....he needs to man up and lay out a plan that people can hold him to.

JPELKEY said:

Another thing, why will Romney not use fact checkers? ... Trying to do things with a majority republican house is very difficult. Romney looks over the fact that we were in a recession when he attacks Obama over national debit and out of work americans as if it didn't play any factor when it made a huge difference. I hate how Romney says that the economy is not getting better. anyone who listened to Bill Clintons speech knows thats a lie. ... Obama has given me facts, given me a plan of attack, and has shown he can keep a level head through all the stuff he had to go through his first 4 years.

Click to expand...

There are now "fact checkers" that are checking "fact checkers" and they are finding out that the fact checkers are no less biased than the main stream media.

Obama had a majority of both houses in his first two terms and lost it, with lots of help from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Here are some facts from the Wall Street Journal regarding one of Obama's failed policies that you may be unaware of.

" Americans know that ObamaCare requires insurance companies to allow families to keep adult children up to age 26 on their parents' policy. They are less likely to know that the provision increased the average family premium—even for families that didn't add adult dependents—by $150-$450 in 2011.

• The average family's health-insurance premiums are already up $1,300.

• Young workers who buy their own insurance will see a 19%-30% increase in premiums as a result of ObamaCare.

• Remember the 700,000 people whom the Congressional Budget Office predicted would make use of ObamaCare's federal high-risk program? Just 78,000 people have enrolled. As a result, each person in the program costs taxpayers millions of allocated dollars. Americans, when they hear this, know instinctively that there must be a better way to address the problem.

• ObamaCare was sold as the solution to covering the 47 million uninsured in America, but 10 years after the law is implemented, 30 million Americans will still be uninsured. What problem, exactly, is ObamaCare solving again?

• Americans are also generally familiar with Medicaid's problems, among them the refusal by many doctors to accept Medicaid patients. What most people don't know is that approximately 10 million of those who gain insurance under ObamaCare will just be dumped into the already cash-strapped Medicaid system."

Part of Romney's plan is to get rid of this huge albatross. It's time to get someone who understands business in the White House so we can start decreasing this huge debt that amounts to ~$30000 for every man, women and child in America.

If Romney wins, I wonder which country he is going to buy and run bankrupt to make America a profit. Heck, he just might solve our deficit problem by doing that. Maybe that's part of his specifics that he isn't releasing. I'm not a believer in someone whose response is, "We can talk about it" when it comes to specifics. Either you have a game plan or you don't. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

RenoCon said:

There are now "fact checkers" that are checking "fact checkers" and they are finding out that the fact checkers are no less biased than the main stream media.

Obama had a majority of both houses in his first two terms and lost it, with lots of help from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Click to expand...

News to me.

Here are some facts from the Wall Street Journal regarding one of Obama's failed policies that you may be unaware of.

Click to expand...

LOL....an editorial from a right-wing women's group, AKA "Women for Judge (Clarence) Thomas", is your version of a "fact check"?

Sigh.

JPELKEY said:

...Romney needs to get his act together before I will even conceder him as a true candidate.

Click to expand...

This is your first post here, so I'm going to give you a pointer: learn to use paragraphs and double-space after ending sentences. It'll make your stuff easier to read and more likely to be read.

Now. My response to your wall of text boils down to a response to your ending phrase: I seriously doubt you will ever consider Romney a true candidate so I see no point in responding to your rant.

Kingleo702 said:

The main plan Romney has is to blame it all on Obama. It worked during the debate.

Click to expand...

It worked for Obama during the 2008 presidential race, too.

Gimmesometruth said:

News to me.



LOL....an editorial from a right-wing women's group, AKA "Women for Judge (Clarence) Thomas", is your version of a "fact check"?

Sigh.

Click to expand...

Of course, even you knew I meant first 2 years...or maybe not?

You apparantly have some updated data on the facts in the WSJ that I am unaware of. I believe you missed those in your post. Please reread the bullet points from the WSJ and post your source's facts on those numbers.

Here is a "fact check" for you.

At a rally Friday in Fairfax, Va., Obama claimed Romney had outright rejected his proposal to end tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

"He said there's no way that he'd close the loophole that gives big oil companies billions each year in corporate warfare," Obama said, in the middle of a litany of complaints on Romney's tax positions from Wednesday's debate.

Just one problem. Romney didn't say that.

Rather, the Republican nominee said that if tax rates are lowered as his plan calls for, the $2.8 billion in breaks for oil companies should be on the table.

Here's what Romney said:

"But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive (if) you get that rate down to 25 percent."


Read more: Fact Check: Obama says Romney opposed ending tax break

Gimmesometruth said:

LOL....an editorial from a right-wing women's group, AKA "Women for Judge (Clarence) Thomas", is your version of a "fact check"?

Sigh.

Click to expand...

As I recall Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was approved by the Senate (including 11 Democrats) and is now protecting our Constitution. How's that for fact checking.

I am confident that part of Romney's plan is to appoint similiar great men and women to the Court.

helix2048 said:

If Romney wins, I wonder which country he is going to buy and run bankrupt to make America a profit. Heck, he just might solve our deficit problem by doing that.

Click to expand...

Seriously? It has been suggested that Obama's plan is to give the 90% of Nevada owned by the federal government to the Chinese to pay off our dept. This is of course rediculous, but much more credible than Romney buying a "country." On the other hand...Greece could probably be purchased at bargain basement prices, or perhaps just buy a city - San Bernardino, Calif., Mammoth Lakes or Stockton come to mind. All in California, a once great state being run in to the ground by Liberals and unions dependent on government handouts.

RenoCon said:

Of course, even you knew I meant first 2 years...or maybe not?

You apparantly have some updated data on the facts in the WSJ that I am unaware of. I believe you missed those in your post. Please reread the bullet points from the WSJ and post your source's facts on those numbers.

Click to expand...

RenoCon said:

As I recall Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was approved by the Senate (including 11 Democrats) and is now protecting our Constitution. How's that for fact checking.

I am confident that part of Romney's plan is to appoint similiar (sic) great men and women to the Court.

Click to expand...

Again, for the hard of reading....those were not "facts", it was propaganda from a RW women's group who got their diatribe printed in the opinion pages of the WSJ. It isn't like this is the first time or the last that such a thing happens, in fact it happens EVER DAY in the WSJ opinion pages.

Gimmesometruth said:

Again, for the hard of reading....those were not "facts", it was propaganda from a RW women's group who got their diatribe printed in the opinion pages of the WSJ. It isn't like this is the first time or the last that such a thing happens, in fact it happens EVER DAY in the WSJ opinion pages.

Click to expand...

I am awaiting your refutation of the "facts."

Here, let me help you. I quoted, "The average family's health-insurance premiums are already up $1,300."

This is where you respond; "The average family's health-insurance pemiums are already down $ X."

I gave you my source and I would expect that you can give me yours. But of course, it is so much easier to belittle the messanger rather than actually argue with the data.

Maybe this report from ABC will meet your approval.

"During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.

Investor’s Business Daily’s John Merline was first to note the difference in premiums climbing faster under Obama than the previous four years under Bush.

Experts point to rising health care costs as the driver of increased individual spending and higher premiums.

During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year.

At a rally in Virginia in June 2008, Obama said: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

The numbers of course vary, but by Democrat standards (where not increasing a tax is actually a tax cut) that amounts to an increase of $3091 in premiums for a typical family per year.

RenoCon said:

I am awaiting your refutation of the "facts."

Here, let me help you. I quoted, "The average family's health-insurance premiums are already up $1,300."

This is where you respond; "The average family's health-insurance pemiums are already down $ X."

Click to expand...

Uh, the average increase has been 4% for the year, the lowest increase in a very long time. When someone says it is up x dollars without a time frame, they are blowing smoke up your.....

I gave you my source and I would expect that you can give me yours. But of course, it is so much easier to belittle the messanger rather than actually argue with the data.

Click to expand...

Pulling it Together: Reflections on This Year's Four Percent Premium Increase - Kaiser Family Foundation

Maybe this report from ABC will meet your approval.

"During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.

Investor’s Business Daily’s John Merline was first to note the difference in premiums climbing faster under Obama than the previous four years under Bush.

Experts point to rising health care costs as the driver of increased individual spending and higher premiums.

During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year.

At a rally in Virginia in June 2008, Obama said: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

The numbers of course vary, but by Democrat standards (where not increasing a tax is actually a tax cut) that amounts to an increase of $4870 in premiums for a typical family per year.

Click to expand...

Our 2012 Employer Health Benefits Survey found a 4% increase in premiums this year, continuing the recent trend of moderation in health costs and spending reported in several studies. Double digit increases in premiums were once a common occurrence, but we have not seen any since a 10% increase in 2004 and 13% growth in 2003. Rates of increase in total health spending have been holding at 4-6% per year recently, and per capita spending -- which is most analogous to premiums -- has been rising about a percentage point below that. These are strikingly low numbers to those of us who have been studying health costs for a long time.

Pulling it Together: Reflections on This Year's Four Percent Premium Increase - Kaiser Family Foundation

Gimmesometruth said:

Uh, the average increase has been 4% for the year, the lowest increase in a very long time. When someone says it is up x dollars without a time frame, they are blowing smoke up your.....

Click to expand...

"During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year."

So Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars (in the short term) on a health care plan that maintains the status quo? A 4% increase is still not a decrease, no matter how you spin it. My son just had his employee contribution to his insurance premium increase by 20%. His paycheck will certainly not reflect the savings Obama promised.

AdamT said:

Yeah, there's not a lot of beef there, either. Similar to Ryan, Romney is big on giving specifics about the good things he claims he would do (drop tax rates 20%, increase military spending, add 12 million jobs) while he fails to address the bad things that seem to follow from his policies (huge deficits and/or higher middle class taxes, destroy Medicare, etc.).

Click to expand...

As long as we get 20% income tax cuts, I don't care what liberal programs have to be cut to make up the difference.

Keridan said:

I've had this thought as well. I think the President has done a poor job. However, it's dumb to not acknowledge his starting point as much as it's silly to ignore that his results even with that included are less than stellar.

Problem is, if Romney got in, the folks who keep bashing Obama about pinning everything on Bush would have trouble when it really is Obama's fault on some issues. Of course, much of that will be ignored and it will be explained how it is different this time. It will have some entertainment value if it comes to pass.

I'd rather see Johnson, of course. The man wouldn't bother blaming anyone else. He promises a balanced budget in a year. Wouldn't be hard to figure out who's policy was doing what in that case.

Click to expand...

I never once recall GWB ever blaming anything on Clinton... not one time did he lay the attack on the WTC and later 9/11 on the wars that Clinton had falied on.. nor blaiming Clinton for preosecuting the first WTC as criminal and not delcaring it an act of war... and the not creating the HSD that has kept us safe...

GWB never blamed anyone.. he just went forward, and started the HSD and declared we considered it an act of war..

Thats leadership... like it or hate it..

RenoCon said:

"During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year."

Click to expand...

Uh, JT is wrong when he says:

During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.

Click to expand...

As the Kaiser article showed, the rate of increase is much lower than under Bush, ie, the cost curve it bending down.

So Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars (in the short term) on a health care plan that maintains the status quo?

Click to expand...

Which status quo? Private ins corps as HI providers? Yup.

A 4% increase is still not a decrease, no matter how you spin it.

Click to expand...

Um, 4% is less than 6%-13%.

My son just had his employee contribution to his insurance premium increase by 20%. His paycheck will certainly not reflect the savings Obama promised.

Click to expand...

He ought to get a better plan.

Gimmesometruth said:

Um, 4% is less than 6%-13%.He ought to get a better plan.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see, it's kind of like a tax break. Obama thinks he can convince the lemmings that if your insurance premiums goes up 4% instead of going up 6%, he has cut our rates $2500. The large rental car company that my son works for only provides one plan. Unfortunately, my responsible 23 y.o. son now has to pay for some floosie's birth control. When did that become a disease? Romney plans to end this kind of nonsense.

RenoCon said:

Oh, I see, it's kind of like a tax break. Obama thinks he can convince the lemmings that if your insurance premiums goes up 4% instead of going up 6%, he has cut our rates $2500.

Click to expand...

I can't help the fact that you quote the idea of "bending the curve"....and don't understand what it means.

The large rental car company that my son works for only provides one plan. Unfortunately, my responsible 23 y.o. son now has to pay for some floosie's birth control. When did that become a disease? Romney plans to end this kind of nonsense.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see, Romney will stop women from having to pay for testicular cancer coverage too, I suppose.

Is that what it boils down to, the high cost.....of "the pill"?

Great argument.

AdamT said:

Yeah, there's not a lot of beef there, either. Similar to Ryan, Romney is big on giving specifics about the good things he claims he would do (drop tax rates 20%, increase military spending, add 12 million jobs) while he fails to address the bad things that seem to follow from his policies (huge deficits and/or higher middle class taxes, destroy Medicare, etc.).

Click to expand...

You have there what is typical of candidates running for President. General outlines, and ideas on how to achieve that but progressives seem to want every detail specifically outlined, not to see if it would work mind you, but to do just what you have done here, pick it apart and demagogue it.

The specific outline we should see in this election is what Obama is going to do differently. What's his plan? So far all I hear is 2008 redux without the hope and change.

Gimmesometruth said:

Ah, I see, Romney will stop women from having to pay for testicular cancer coverage too, I suppose.

Click to expand...

What? What does cancer have to do with birth control? Is cancer now something a person elects to have?

Is that what it boils down to, the high cost.....of "the pill"?

Click to expand...

High cost of the pill? Are you kidding me? $4 at WalMart for a 30 day supply....Tell them to buy it themselves.

j-mac said:

What? What does cancer have to do with birth control? Is cancer now something a person elects to have?

Click to expand...

Uh....try to read for context.....his argument was that men should not have to pay for the pill, so the counter would be women shouldn't have to pay for a male form of a disease.

High cost of the pill? Are you kidding me? $4 at WalMart for a 30 day supply....Tell them to buy it themselves.

Click to expand...

Uh....isn't that the point, if it is so cheap, then what are you guys whining about, whereas testicular cancer coverage isn't cheap...but women still pay for that in the insurance pool.

Romney has answered that. What he said is that he does not plan to become CZAR GOD PRESIDENT like Obama, for which you declare exactly what will be done and either ram it down everyone's throat or just totally fail - which is how Obama approaches all things and thus fails are about everything and pisses everyone off over what he rammed thru.

Romney said he is going to eliminate preferential tax deductions - nearly all of which are special favors in the tax code for the super rich as was pointed out by the bi-partisan debt reduction committee - to offset a 20% reduction in tax rates. He gave some examples of bad deductions and said he also suggests a maximum total deductions allowed for anything - which would overwhelmingly hit the super rich - but for all details he will work thru that with both Democrats and Republicans.

Anyone of intelligence understands the distinction between tax RATES and tax revenue in light of the thousands of pages of deductions.

I suppose Democrats can continue to rant that the President should be the dictator-god of the government and everyone, and Romney does not agree. For Romney to accomplish anything at a BiPartisan level - which is necessary to get anything done - he can not be or act like the all powerful know-it-all Obama claims he is.

Thus, the Democrats attack now against Romney is that he lacks Obama's unlimited ego mania and narcissm.

Gimmesometruth said:

Uh....try to read for context.....his argument was that men should not have to pay for the pill, so the counter would be women shouldn't have to pay for a male form of a disease.

Click to expand...

What disease are you preventing with the pill?

Uh....isn't that the point, if it is so cheap, then what are you guys whining about, whereas testicular cancer coverage isn't cheap...but women still pay for that in the insurance pool.

Click to expand...

Because cost isn't the measure, what the drug is used for is. Why should I pay for you to prevent the result of your own irresponsibility?

j-mac said:

What disease are you preventing with the pill?

Click to expand...

Uh...what prevents testicular cancer? Hello...is this thing on?

Because cost isn't the measure, what the drug is used for is. Why should I pay for you to prevent the result of your own irresponsibility?

Click to expand...

Uh....often, the pill is prescribed for lots of things other than prevention of pregnancy.

I'm still waiting for you to write your ins corp to protest about women having to pay for male diseases.

It just isn't getting through, is it?