• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

How much will Romney cut spending?

djinwa

Well-known member
In case no one has noticed, we are heading for financial collapse.

I'm told I should vote for Romney to save us from Obama, but then I ask how much he will cut government. I don't get an answer. I even asked several Romney delegates at our county convention, and they did not know. Some said he cannot tell us he will cut government, because he would not get elected. So how am I supposed to support a guy I cannot evaluate?

I know Romney wants to start a war with Iran, which will cost several trillion. Initial estimates for the Iraq war were 50 to 100 billion, but now expected to cost over 3 trillion after lifetime care of the maimed and debilitated.

Am I supposed to give blind support to Romney like the Obama supporters did for their guy?

Can anyone help me out?
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Who said Romney wants to start a war with Iran?

Well, Romney changes his mind alot, but I've read that he would bomb them if they come close to getting a nuke. And since everyone I know that supports him says they are making a nuke, then I assume he will be bombing them, just like we bombed Iraq for WMDs.

He certainly supports sanctions on Iran, which is also an act of war. Yes, if someone imposed sanctions on the U.S. we would call it war, and would retaliate with military action.

I would, however, like to get back to my original question which is how much Romney will cut government. Does anyone know?
 

Steve

Well-known member
If you believe Obama, Romney will cut 5 trillion....

if you listen to Romney he will cut several trillion while raising revenue through growth..

if you go by his record,.. and compare it to obama's..

Romney left office with a surplus..

and Obama has spent more then anyone in the history of the world...
 

cowman52

Well-known member
Romney changes his mind a lot---this from the view point that obama has a mind or uses it--all those votes "present"---this man will never never ever make a decision on anything - that would mean having to take a position on something and that means he might offend some voting bloc. Something he thinks he can not do,
Obama is just like a 6 year old in first grade--everybody has to like him or he is a failure as a person. Growing up as an only child always being told how great he was, despite the drugs, the booze, the paved roads to schools that were unavailable to some, never holding a job, but a sleazy deal to buy a home, this guy Is a wreck that has already happened.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
djinwa said:
In case no one has noticed, we are heading for financial collapse.

I'm told I should vote for Romney to save us from Obama, but then I ask how much he will cut government. I don't get an answer. I even asked several Romney delegates at our county convention, and they did not know. Some said he cannot tell us he will cut government, because he would not get elected. So how am I supposed to support a guy I cannot evaluate?

I know Romney wants to start a war with Iran, which will cost several trillion. Initial estimates for the Iraq war were 50 to 100 billion, but now expected to cost over 3 trillion after lifetime care of the maimed and debilitated.

Am I supposed to give blind support to Romney like the Obama supporters did for their guy?

Can anyone help me out?

Don't listen to a word either of them say. Just go back and check their records since they were about 16-18 years old. That should tell you a lot about their philosphy about a lot of things, their work ethic, the things that are important to them and what they think about their fellow Americans.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
I seriously doubt some trillion dollar war with Iran. I can see Romney destroying their nuclear facility before Iran attacks Israel, but he knows we're not in a financial position, nor is the citizenry of the US, ready for another such undertaking.

Obama doesn't have a clue about saving the US from financial collapse, nor do I believe he wants to. Give the reins to Romney.
 

Tam

Well-known member
I have a question for you djinwa tell us just how much Obama is going to cut spending? Honestly look at Obama's record and tell us just how much he will CUT spending in the next four years?

He said the other night he wants to hire more teachers, where is that money going to come from? He has not laid out any plan that I know of to get people back to work paying taxes so he can have more money to pay these thousands of new teachers yet he is going to "INVEST" money in teachers.

He has also given a pass to millions of illegals to get work permits but yet he has not laid out a plan that involved creating enough new jobs to deal with those born in the US looking for jobs let alone the millions he just gave passes to. So will these people land on the welfare and unemployment rolls like 23 million others have.

If you believe the unemployment rate is actually at 7.8% because Obama created enough new jobs to put all those people back to work I have a bridge I want to sell you. That rate is as lower as it is because people have given up looking for work Plain and simple. That unemployment rate should be seen as a FAILURE on Obama's part, but his stupid koolaid Drinking followers will believe he is to be given credit. :roll:

Obama was a community organizer in Chicago do yourself a favor do a little research on the crime rate in his community and tell us if he was a success at his job?

He was a Lawyer and the only case I know he was involved it was him sueing Citibank because they wouldn't give those that could not afford a home a mortgage. Obama won his case and look what happen to the housing market a few years later. That is right it took down the whole US economy because of sub prime mortgages that the Dems supported through Fanny and Freddy and the Dems would not rein in when they were told by Bush and other Republicans that something needed to be done. Yep sueing Citibank to force mortgages that later took down the whole economy was a REAL SMART PLAN. :roll:

Now look at Romney's past. he created a business with his own blood sweat and tears that created thousands of new jobs. Yes he might have out sourced a few jobs but if Obama actually thought that was a horrible thing to do then why did he appoint Jeffery Imelt, a guy that outsources thousands of jobs to China, to his Jobs Creation Counsel? Romney might have some of his money in a forenign bank but if that is so bad why is it that a list of Dems has come out with investments in foreign countries?

Romney not only has created jobs and successful businesses, he saved the Olympics and in doing so he had to work with foreign leaders. So Obama claiming he has no foreign affairs experience is a bit of a joke considering Obama foreign affairs experience dealt with living in a foreign country at the age of 6.

That said if you think Gary Johnson is the guy to vote for all I can say is REALLY REALLY :shock: have you seen that joke of a TV ad he has running? No candidate would put out something that stupid and think he was going to be taken seriously. :roll:

Romney is the only choice unless you want another four years of Obama and his far left agenda that he has already told Russia he will be more FLEXIBLE with them. More flexible could very well mean they get to keep their nukes while he cuts the US numbers AGAIN. If Obama is re-elected he will put so many US Citizens on the government tit, as Oldtimer would say, that they will not have enough money to defend themselves from an attack from his buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood. The Military will be gutted to pay for extended unemployment beneifits, welfare, and food stamps that the dems need to fund to BUY VOTES. So think about that do you want to live in a NANNY STATE UNDER THE THREAT OF TERRORIST ATTACKS. As that is what you are head for if Obama gets back in.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Good points in a good post, Tam.

Just remember djinwa, Romney is a businessman and numbers guy. Obama is a government grants, socialist type, with no first hand private sector experience. So who's qualified to save the country from collapse? Should be a no brainer.
 

CottageFarm

Well-known member
djinwa said:
In case no one has noticed, we are heading for financial collapse.

Seems to me, most everyone here does, indeed, recognize that fact.

I'm told I should vote for Romney to save us from Obama, but then I ask how much he will cut government. I don't get an answer. I even asked several Romney delegates at our county convention, and they did not know. Some said he cannot tell us he will cut government, because he would not get elected. So how am I supposed to support a guy I cannot evaluate?

But you can evaluate him. As has been mentioned, he has a fairly long and public record of actions that you can evaluate. Frankly, anyone who bases their opinion of a candidate on campaign promises alone, is, at best, naive.
But to more directly address your question as to how much he will cut Government: The truth is that he nor anyone else can tell you that until after the elections. It's not solely his role. Most of that responsibility falls to the house and senate. This is a good thing, by the way. It prevents a dictatorship and mob rule. If a president has a like minded legislature to work with he can slowly and incrementally roll back budget busting programs.
But it will take decades to get back to a stable position.


I know Romney wants to start a war with Iran, which will cost several trillion. Initial estimates for the Iraq war were 50 to 100 billion, but now expected to cost over 3 trillion after lifetime care of the maimed and debilitated.

Really? You KNOW he wants to start a war? All I KNOW is that he takes seriously the role of commander in chief and the oath we would take to defend the country. It's one of the very few things enumerated in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government. Whether you agree with it or not, the majority of Americans, of both major parties, do not see a Nuclear Iran as being in the best interest of the US, for a variety of reasons. There are many options available to a Nation short of a full blown ground war.

Am I supposed to give blind support to Romney like the Obama supporters did for their guy?

You're not supposed to do anything. However, a responsible adult could certainly give support to the candidate who most represents their views. One might even see it as a duty to be informed and make a wise decision, not only that which is in their own best interest, but also in the interrest of the nation as a whole, based on the information available. One can piss and moan about none of electable candidates being their ideal, and chose not to vote at all. One even has the right to cast their vote for a non-entity candidate whose views may match their own, yet has no chance in hell of being elected because they DON'T represent the views of a majority of voters, regardless of party affiliation.

Can anyone help me out?

I doubt it, because you would prefer to bitch about Romney's failings as a candidate, rather than Obama's failings as President
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Well said CF, you nailed it.

You have more patience than I do, I have a tendency to consider those questions silly and zip over them. I am glad you took the time.
 

djinwa

Well-known member
In summary then, we are just going to hope that Romney cuts government.

I was kind of looking for something like Ron Paul offered. He proposed cutting a trillion dollars the first year, and proposed cutting the department of education, HHS, energy, and a couple others I don't remember. The Republican platform once called for eliminating the dept of education, but no longer.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11312/romeny-takes-swipe-at-ron-paul%1As-budget-blueprint

In response to a question, Romney said he would not cut a trillion dollars because "it would hurt the economy". The trillion dollar cut would leave spending still higher than when Obama took office. So in effect, Romney was supporting the spending increases of Obama. He also admitted he believed that more government spending was good for the economy.

“My job is to get America back on track to have a balanced budget,” he told attendees at a suburban Cleveland town hall event Monday. “Now I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year,” he added — a clear jab at Paul’s plan.

“Why not, someone in the crowd apparently asked,” according to the Times.

“The reason,” Romney explained, “is taking a trillion dollars out of a $15 trillion economy would cause our economy to shrink [and] would put a lot of people out of work.”

This, of course, is pure Keynesian economics — the idea that the economy cannot grow without massive government spending. History proves otherwise: The economy stagnated while the government spent more and more during the Great Depression, but it took off when federal spending plummeted after World War II.

For all his vaunted business acumen, Romney has apparently forgotten that the government cannot spend $1 trillion without first taking it from the private sector. Therefore, if the government fails to spend that money, it is not being taken out of the economy; it is merely being left in the hands of its rightful owners. As a result, it gets put to use meeting people’s needs and improving their standard of living. When the government takes it, however, it is used to meet politicians’ desires for reelection by redistributing wealth and rewarding political cronies. One trillion dollars left in the private sector will do infinitely more good than that same cash will do when confiscated by government.
 

djinwa

Well-known member
In summary then, we are just going to hope that Romney cuts government.

I was kind of looking for something like Ron Paul offered. He proposed cutting a trillion dollars the first year, and proposed cutting the department of education, HHS, energy, and a couple others I don't remember. The Republican platform once called for eliminating the dept of education, but no longer.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11312/romeny-takes-swipe-at-ron-paul%1As-budget-blueprint

“My job is to get America back on track to have a balanced budget,” he told attendees at a suburban Cleveland town hall event Monday. “Now I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year,” he added — a clear jab at Paul’s plan.

“Why not, someone in the crowd apparently asked,” according to the Times.

“The reason,” Romney explained, “is taking a trillion dollars out of a $15 trillion economy would cause our economy to shrink [and] would put a lot of people out of work.”

This, of course, is pure Keynesian economics — the idea that the economy cannot grow without massive government spending. History proves otherwise: The economy stagnated while the government spent more and more during the Great Depression, but it took off when federal spending plummeted after World War II.

For all his vaunted business acumen, Romney has apparently forgotten that the government cannot spend $1 trillion without first taking it from the private sector. Therefore, if the government fails to spend that money, it is not being taken out of the economy; it is merely being left in the hands of its rightful owners. As a result, it gets put to use meeting people’s needs and improving their standard of living. When the government takes it, however, it is used to meet politicians’ desires for reelection by redistributing wealth and rewarding political cronies. One trillion dollars left in the private sector will do infinitely more good than that same cash will do when confiscated by government.

Cutting a trillion a year would leave the budget higher than when Obama took office. So in effect, Romney agrees with all the spending increases of Obama.
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Now he says he is going to balance the budget, but won't commit to any serious spending cuts. So how is that going to happen? I mean, he talks about tax cuts, but not spending cuts. In fact, the budget increases automatically every year, so if you don't do anything drastic, it will keep growing.

Now I figure you actually don't have to balance the budget, because any shortfalls will be covered by the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air and feeding it to government. Then our dollars become worth less, so we pay the debt through inflation. Which few people understand so don't complain, which is why it works so well.

This money printing scheme appears to be supported by Romney, as he has said the Fed is doing a good job.

I don't know what good a business background does for running government. Government can take money by force, while a business cannot. You don't have to earn money for government.

I also notice in his latest speech he is itching to get more involved in messes in the middle east, so figure on more trillions spent there.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Have you seen Paul Ryan's budget cuts? It's here somewhere, I'll try and find it. Of course, it's not Romney's, but I assumed Romney would be on
board with what Paul Ryan proposed. But now that you mention it,
Assume makes an ass out of U and me.
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Pure republican bullshit cottagefarm.But your going to get to find out how wonderful your man Romney is .He will be elected.In four years we'll see how you like it then.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Well then tell us what Johnson will cut and how much. Then when you are done with that verify that he will cut what he says he will.
 
Top