stlouiedipalma;1130933 wrote:Let's fast forward to late June 2012. The Supreme Court has just ruled Obamacare to be unconstitutional and throws the whole bill out. Doesn't that make a lot of Mitt's campaign rhetoric a bit of a moot point? Let's face it, a big part of his stump speech is about repealing it. And doesn't that put the spotlight right back on Romneycare, where he'll have to defend the only health care system in America that has an individual mandate?

Without Obamacare to rail against, Mitt might be forced to provide real details on his economic plans and his foreign policy agenda.

fish82;1130946 wrote:If gas is $5.00 a gallon, then Mittens can sit on the street corner playing with himself and still get to 270. If worse comes to worse, he can just come up with some empty slogan like "Hope & Change," or some other horse**** like that. Seems that's been proven effective to a degree.

I know you people love to get after the "Romneycare" thing, but swatting that away is easy. State government vs. Federal government. Next?

stlouiedipalma;1130962 wrote:C'mon, Fish. You know as well as I do that the average Joe out there doesn't understand the difference.

Besides, I can already see it coming in the debates. "Governor Romney, I can't understand why nobody liked the Affordable Care Act. After all, we based it completely on your own plan." That will be followed by some indistinguishable sputtering sounds from Mitt.

fish82;1130242 wrote:There was nothing "symbolic" about them. They were actual budgets, which Harry refused both times to even bring into committee for discussion. There was no chance given to even start the process of "compromise," and it's 100% Harry Reid's fault.

stlouiedipalma;1130933 wrote:Let's fast forward to late June 2012. The Supreme Court has just ruled Obamacare to be unconstitutional and throws the whole bill out. Doesn't that make a lot of Mitt's campaign rhetoric a bit of a moot point? Let's face it, a big part of his stump speech is about repealing it. And doesn't that put the spotlight right back on Romneycare, where he'll have to defend the only health care system in America that has an individual mandate?

Without Obamacare to rail against, Mitt might be forced to provide real details on his economic plans and his foreign policy agenda.

stlouiedipalma;1130962 wrote:C'mon, Fish. You know as well as I do that the average Joe out there doesn't understand the difference.

Besides, I can already see it coming in the debates. "Governor Romney, I can't understand why nobody liked the Affordable Care Act. After all, we based it completely on your own plan." That will be followed by some indistinguishable sputtering sounds from Mitt.

BoatShoes;1131057 wrote:Steve LaTourette gets Bowles-Simpson to come to a vote in the House and it gets destroyed because it asks for even more revenue than Obama offered in the debt deal. I just don't see how you can suggest the House is any better than the Democrats when the budgets they've passed are totally unrealistic fantasies. I'm not absolving Uncle Harry but c'mon man...

There are just no votes for compromise that both Republicans and Democrats can agree to in this Congress.

I don't see how Harry Reid would be any better off if the Senate had passed a fantasy budget or even bowles-simpson (which as we see would clearly get destroyed in the more partisan house).

fish82;1131089 wrote:Say what you will about Romney, but I have yet to hear any "indistinguishable sputtering sounds" coming from him. He nothing if not smooth on delivery. Does he need some work on content sometimes? Yeah.

That said, if that's the question in the debate, my response (these guys should hire me stat, fwiw) is "Well Mr. President, I guess it's time for Civics 101 class. I'm a little surprised/disappointed that we need to go down this road since you did the whole 'Havahd Law' thing, but let me explain to you the difference between the State of Massachusetts Constitution and the US Constitution."

fish82;1131092 wrote:Because Bowles-Simpson is a piece of shit. It adds 10 trillion to the debt over a decade. What you call "unrealistic fantasies," the rational homo sapiens calls "attempting to address the spending problem in the Federal Government.

2kool4skool;1131117 wrote:I don't know that the backhanded shot at Harvard Law would be a good idea considering Romney attended as well. You're fired.

wkfan;1131131 wrote:Wasn't a shot at Harvard Law....was a shot at BHO.

Difference is, Romney understands the difference between the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of Massachusetts......and BHO does not.

BoatShoes;1131137 wrote:It's a nice line and it will probably fly but let's not give Mr. Romney too much credit as he would have signed essentially the same law and been advised by the same Johnathan Gruber (who was behind his Massachusetts Mandate) had he won in 08 that Obama did and we would not be hearing Romney running around pretending like he's some kind of Anti-Federalist.

2kool4skool;1131117 wrote:I don't know that the backhanded shot at Harvard Law would be a good idea considering Romney attended as well. You're fired.

BoatShoes;1131130 wrote:
Laughable Assertion! Paul Ryan's Budget places a lower cap on 2013 discretionary spending than that agreed to in last years debt deal! Even the Democrats in Chris Van Hollen's budget adopted the 1.047 trillion discretionary cap!

fish82;1131146 wrote:Harvard Law, bro. It kinda applies, since we're talking about laws and that Constitution thingy. Keep firing me though...super entertaining. :rolleyes:

believer;1130643 wrote:Historically Republican presidents are viewed to have stronger foreign and defense policies than Dems. .

2kool4skool;1131177 wrote:Romney went to Harvard Law as well. It would be dumb to take a backhanded shot at it in a hypothetical Romney speech. You asserted he should hire you ASAP, but it doesn't seem like you'd be very good at it.

2kool4skool;1131177 wrote:Though it wouldn't much matter, Romney is headed for a loss in the general either way.

fish82;1131164 wrote:Van Hollen doesn't even pretend to set a timetable toward a balanced budget. That's laughable.

fish82;1131164 wrote:Van Hollen doesn't even pretend to set a timetable toward a balanced budget. That's laughable.

wkfan;1131142 wrote:Link?

BoatShoes;1131186 wrote:His budget has deficits at 3% of GDP through the 2020's just like Paul Ryan's budget which also doesn't project a balanced budget until the 2040's...so if that's what you're hanging your hat on...not balancing the budget for over 30 years...be my guest. Meanwhile the House Progressives propose a budget that is balanced in half that time but "Oh Noez...can't have a balanced budget w/ more moniez." And, the democrats would actually pass that over Van Hollen's unlike the Republicans not passing the more hardcore RSC's budget over Ryan's.

fish82;1131180 wrote:Apparently Romney paid more attention in class then.

Footwedge;1131184 wrote:The next time a budget is balanced is whenever the US declares bankruptcy.