COL Gene COL Gene

Mitt Romney is a Flip-Flopper

▼

Mitt Romney is a Flip-Flopper

from JoeUser Forums


Today on Meet the Press Mitt Romney was on the griddle. Tim Russet did a great job of documenting the areas where Romney flip flopped. Romney responded “that a person can learn and then change” which is true for most people with the possible exception of President George W. Bush. The fact is that most of the changes in the positions of Mitt Romney about Abortion, Gun Control, Stem Cells, Taxes and Health Insurance correspond to when Romney was running for Governor of Liberal Massachusetts and now that he is courting the Conservatives.

Russet asked Romney if he thought he would have been elected Governor of Massachusetts with the positions he takes as a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. Romney did not answer that question.

It looks like what Romney believes depends on what office he is running for. If it is in a more liberal state like Massachusetts his views are more centrist. If he is trying to win the support of the conservatives he shifted to a very different stance.

Yes Romney is a flip-flopper to fit the office he is seeking and what the people he is courting want to hear!
politics
12,203 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
When Congress sets the spending, even though not all agree, they MUST set tax Revenue to equal that approved spending!
End of quote


This is backwards. They should set spending to the tax revenue.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
That is not the question.
The question was, how do I answer that? The answer I give is spending cuts.I really wish you would stop "shouting" at me when I concede a key point of yours. It's poor form.
WE WILL NEED both SPENDING CUTS AND ADDED TAX REVENUE TO BOTH BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND repay THE DEBT!
I disagree. IF we need additional tax revenue AFTER spending cuts are implemented, then and ONLY then should we even THINK about raising taxes, and yes, I agree, IF that becomes necessary, the wealthy should pay more than the poor or middle class.But I don't agree it would be necessary.


Your position makes no sense. Congress HAS agreed on what they want to spend. Any cuts were included in their FINAL spending choices. You may think more cuts are needed but that is NOT what CONGRESS Decided and under our Republic THEY have the final say on spending. Thus, we need to increase taxes to equal what Congress has chosen to spend!
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
When Congress sets the spending, even though not all agree, they MUST set tax Revenue to equal that approved spending!
This is backwards. They should set spending to the tax revenue.


NO that is NOT the way it works. For example, the added money we are spending on the Iraq war must be paid for. By your logic we must end the Iraq War TODAY because the tax revenue does not provide the money to continue the war!
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Congress HAS agreed on what they want to spend.
End of quote


But I don't agree with their spending priorities. Just because they agree doesn't mean it's necessary!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
under our Republic THEY have the final say on spending.
End of quote


no you are wrong the president has the final say.


unless the congress can override his veto.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
WE WILL NEED both SPENDING CUTS AND ADDED TAX REVENUE TO BOTH BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND repay THE DEBT!
End of quote


It always amazes me when I read comments like this from you.

You support democrats, who support and acknowledge they will increase social spending and create new social and entitlement programs.

If balancing the budget is so important then any additional programs should never happen.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Congress HAS agreed on what they want to spend.
But I don't agree with their spending priorities. Just because they agree doesn't mean it's necessary!


Yes it does. Under out Constitution it is Congress that has the final choice on the budget. What we need is a Constitutional Amendment that requires Congress to fully fund what then choose to spend!
Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007


under our Republic THEY have the final say on spending.
no you are wrong the president has the final say.unless the congress can override his veto.



Better take another look. I have read the Constitution and it is CONGRESS that is the final word on spending and the budget NOT the President. In fact there is a Supreme Court case that says the President MUST follow what the Congress passes and can not refuse to spend some of the money by sequestering it.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Better take another look. I have read the Constitution and it is CONGRESS that is the final word on spending and the budget NOT the President. In fact there is a Supreme Court case that says the President MUST follow what the Congress passes and can not refuse to spend some of the money by sequestering it.
End of quote




i said veto.


it is called checks and balances. you better read the constitution again.


the president even has the right to veto a declaration of war. that option will probable never be used since it is the president that has to ask for the declaration. but he does have the right.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would like to see Edwards or Obama or even Biden. They have been telling us we must change to solve the issues facing us!
End of quote


Since you like to quote Greenspan.....


WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Sunday Democratic presidential contender John Edwards' economic proposals would hurt the U.S. middle class.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Under out Constitution it is Congress that has the final choice on the budget.
End of quote


I'm not disputing the Constitutional authority for Congress to do it, Col! I am, however saying that their priorities, and yours, are misguided.

And unless I'm sorely mistaken, we do still have the right to ELECT Congress, and don't simply have to accept their way of doing things just because they say so!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
And unless I'm sorely mistaken, we do still have the right to ELECT Congress, and don't simply have to accept their way of doing things just because they say so!
End of quote


their working on that
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Better take another look. I have read the Constitution and it is CONGRESS that is the final word on spending and the budget NOT the President. In fact there is a Supreme Court case that says the President MUST follow what the Congress passes and can not refuse to spend some of the money by sequestering it.
i said veto.it is called checks and balances. you better read the constitution again.the president even has the right to veto a declaration of war. that option will probable never be used since it is the president that has to ask for the declaration. but he does have the right.


The Congress has the final say because they can override a Presidential Veto by a 2/3 vote in Both houses!!!!!!! READ the Constitution!!!!!!!
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
I would like to see Edwards or Obama or even Biden. They have been telling us we must change to solve the issues facing us!
Since you like to quote Greenspan.....WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Sunday Democratic presidential contender John Edwards' economic proposals would hurt the U.S. middle class.


He also said we should NOT return to annual budget deficits and that the Bush tax cuts should be TIED to the SURPLUS with which to pay for them!
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply | | DeleteReply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Under out Constitution it is Congress that has the final choice on the budget.
I'm not disputing the Constitutional authority for Congress to do it, Col! I am, however saying that their priorities, and yours, are misguided.And unless I'm sorely mistaken, we do still have the right to ELECT Congress, and don't simply have to accept their way of doing things just because they say so!


To Balance the federal Budget is not Misguided! On the contrary it is RESPONSIBLE! When Congress makes the final judgment on SPENDING then they should FULLY FUND that choice with tax revenue even if that means increasing taxes! What Bush and the GOP have done is set spending and then makes believe the TOOTH FAIRY will pay for the spending! The Iraq war is a PRIME EXAMPLE!!!
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Sunday Democratic presidential contender John Edwards' economic proposals would hurt the U.S. middle class.


I did not see that story and wonder just what about Edwards’s economic suggestions Greenspan was talking about? The only comment I could fine from Greenspan SUPPORTS the fund Edwards suggested to help people with mortgage problems. This is what was said: STEPHANOPOULOS: The political world is now looking at the immediate pain. And Senator Clinton looks — has called for a freeze on foreclosures. Senator Edwards called for a rescue fund to be set up by the government for people who are facing these kinds of foreclosures. What do you think about those ideas? GREENSPAN: It’s important to help those people … without affecting the mortgage rates and without affecting the structure of markets. Cash [from the government] is available and we should use that in larger amounts. … It’s far less damaging to the economy to create a short term fiscal problem, which we would, than to try to fix the prices of homes or interest rates. If you do that, it’ll drag this process out indefinitely.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did not see that story and wonder just what about Edwards’s economic suggestions Greenspan was talking about?

The only comment I could fine from Greenspan SUPPORTS the fund Edwards suggested to help people with mortgage problems. This is what was said:

STEPHANOPOULOS: The political world is now looking at the immediate pain. And Senator Clinton looks — has called for a freeze on foreclosures. Senator Edwards called for a rescue fund to be set up by the government for people who are facing these kinds of foreclosures. What do you think about those ideas?


GREENSPAN: It’s important to help those people … without affecting the mortgage rates and without affecting the structure of markets. Cash [from the government] is available and we should use that in larger amounts. … It’s far less damaging to the economy to create a short term fiscal problem, which we would, than to try to fix the prices of homes or interest rates. If you do that, it’ll drag this process out indefinitely.