The practice of politics is an exercise in compromise. Not everyone walks away completely happy from every deal, and many times one side or the other may regret having caved on certain aspects of the final deal.

The core of Romney's position is nuanced, subtle, and with a genuine understanding of how best to govern. As President, he'll have the ability to veto, which is something that Congressional legislators do not.

For someone running against borrowing and spending it also probably wasn't the best idea to pick a VP that voted for the Iraq war, TARP and Medicare part D. Nice job, el rombo.

I don't get how the Romney and Ryan think they'd be good at running the country when they hate everything they've done in government so far.

It's not like the nutjobs who plan on voting against Obama for Romney care what Romney says.

It was a terrible deal, for republicans. Jan 1st we may actually get a budget surplus. It is the last thing they want, because a balanced budget gives them nothing to campaign on in the future.

devek: It was a terrible deal, for republicans. Jan 1st we may actually get a budget surplus. It is the last thing they want, because a balanced budget gives them nothing to campaign on in the future.

Not quite. If I'm recalling correctly, the last time this happened they declared that paying down the debt instead of cutting taxes was unfair to the taxpayers. More tax cuts (until there's a deficit under a Democrat)!

And that's assuming there's actually a surplus, which is doubtful.

The bush tax cuts also expire at the end of this year.

It will be impossible for congress to pass a bill that doesn't extend them for the rich, and try have no bargaining chip left with Obama to pass one that does include the rich.

Game over man, game over.

Nono. You've got Rmoney all wrong. You see, just because he is slamming a bill Paul Ryan voted for doesn't mean that he and Ryan disagree. Nor does it mean that they agree. Also, there will be no follow-up questions.

He was running away from them with the kind of pace I guess he ran in that fictional marathon you asked him about.

lol

Notabunny: somedude210: sirgrim: For someone running against borrowing and spending it also probably wasn't the best idea to pick a VP that voted for the Iraq war, TARP and Medicare part D. Nice job, el rombo.

To be fair, its not like anyone else wanted the job

Romney has been distancing himself from Ryan's positions almost since day 1. I'm not sure why he picked him for veep.

Because everyone else turned him down? Come on, the reason is right above your post! You quoted it!

Ryan's not exactly been a better spokesman/defender of his own actions. He's publicly distancing himself from the bill he voted in favor of, which contained base level defense cuts and more defense cuts if an agreement couldn't be reached.

It's one count of pure, unadulterated lies and one count of implausible deniability. To put his defense in metaphorical terms he's claiming he isn't responsible for the window broken from a baseball despite the bat in his hands because he never physically touched the ball. It's all Obama's fault, you see...

devek: The bush tax cuts also expire at the end of this year.

It will be impossible for congress to pass a bill that doesn't extend them for the rich, and try have no bargaining chip left with Obama to pass one that does include the rich.

Game over man, game over.

Because the most important thing to Republicans is getting tac cuts for the rich. Don't understand how there are peopel who can't see that.

liam76: devek: The bush tax cuts also expire at the end of this year.

It will be impossible for congress to pass a bill that doesn't extend them for the rich, and try have no bargaining chip left with Obama to pass one that does include the rich.

Game over man, game over.

Because the most important thing to Republicans is getting tac cuts for the rich. Don't understand how there are peopel who can't see that.

The funny thing is, even though I am middle class and know there is a chance that my taxes will get raised I don't mind. If it means my country will be better off, so be it. That is what makes me better than the entire GOP.

EvilEgg: Because he needs the loons and has no problem with paying lip service to whatever will get him elected.

If he doesn't have the base by now, he will never have them.

devek: liam76: devek: The bush tax cuts also expire at the end of this year.

It will be impossible for congress to pass a bill that doesn't extend them for the rich, and try have no bargaining chip left with Obama to pass one that does include the rich.

Game over man, game over.

Because the most important thing to Republicans is getting tac cuts for the rich. Don't understand how there are peopel who can't see that.

The funny thing is, even though I am middle class and know there is a chance that my taxes will get raised I don't mind. If it means my country will be better off, so be it. That is what makes me better than the entire GOP.

I wouldn't mind if mine were raised, but I am going with Obama because if I go with Romney they will be raised for me and not the rich.

Guntram Shatterhand: EvilEgg: Because he needs the loons and has no problem with paying lip service to whatever will get him elected.

If he doesn't have the base by now, he will never have them.

But which base? The Republican party is a three legged stool, with each leg trying to saw off the one to it's left. You have the Plutocrarchs, You have the Evangelicals. You have the Teabaggers. There are also a heap of bloody stumps where the other three have already done their work.

For Romney to play to any one leg of the party will be at the expense of the other leg. And the only thing they have in common is that each is betting on the United States turning into a failed state. The Evangelicals want to bring on the Rapture. The Teabaggers want to bring on a revolution where they imagine themselves on the delivering and of the firing squad. And the Plutocrarchs just want to crack the skulls of their neighbors and feast on the gooey insides.

Not exactly a winning ticket to your average voter.

AverageAmericanGuy: The practice of politics is an exercise in compromise. Not everyone walks away completely happy from every deal, and many times one side or the other may regret having caved on certain aspects of the final deal.

Wasn't it regarding this legislation that the Republican Speaker Of The House said he got "98% of what he wanted"? Not a lot of compromise there.

jm105: AverageAmericanGuy: The practice of politics is an exercise in compromise. Not everyone walks away completely happy from every deal, and many times one side or the other may regret having caved on certain aspects of the final deal.

Wasn't it regarding this legislation that the Republican Speaker Of The House said he got "98% of what he wanted"? Not a lot of compromise there.

That was not intended to be a factual statement.

I hate to say this, cuz Lord knows I am not voting for Romney, but I have to be fair (or try to be). I don't agree with Paul Ryan, but Ryan and Romney aren't always going to agree. They both have records and they are not identical. They aren't the same person, but they are the same ticket. What is sadder to me is that Governor Romney has a better record of compromise. I wish I could feel better about him if he got elected, but he is such a shill for the Republican Party that I don't think he could compromise even if he wanted to.

Jackson Herring: Here's the thing though - he can attack the sequestration all he wants because in Republican Voter Fantasy Land, those cuts are all Fartbama's doing.

Which is great because it totally demolishes the GOP talking point that Obama is a spend-o-crat, trying to run us into debt. The sequestration is one of Obama's greatest accomplishments, it will force budget cuts on the military and elsewhere whcih both parties have been trying to avoid. The main problem is that it is risky to the economy, but he doesn't have to worry too much because he doesn't have to be reelected. It may be remembered as Obama's greatest political win yet.

On the plus side, Romney probably still has attacked less policy positions/votes that Ryan has made in the past than he has his own previous policies and votes.

/An oldie but a goodie...
//hot

Notabunny: somedude210: sirgrim: For someone running against borrowing and spending it also probably wasn't the best idea to pick a VP that voted for the Iraq war, TARP and Medicare part D. Nice job, el rombo.

To be fair, its not like anyone else wanted the job

Romney has been distancing himself from Ryan's positions almost since day 1. I'm not sure why he picked him for veep.

Because someone was under the impression you will win a "battleground state" by randomly choosing an elected official from said state......regardless of poll numbers or recent political upheaval.
This "Anyone but the Black Guy" and "Lets fellate the Tea Party" political campaign is backfiring on these pricks and I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Romney was referring to the half a trillion dollars in automatic defense cuts - known as sequestration - that will take effect on Jan. 1 unless Congress passes an alternate way to cut spending. The deal, negotiated last summer between the White House and Republicans, included unpopular cuts as a mechanism to force an agreement on additional deficit reduction - but that never happened.

Now, with less than two months to go before the election, the Romney campaign is placing the blame for the looming defense cuts squarely on President Obama.

Because, obviously, a failure by the legislative branch is always the Executive's fault. That's just simple Constitution 101, libtards.

FTA: Now, with less than two months to go before the election, the Romney campaign is placing the blame for the looming defense cuts squarely on President Obama.

Come on... everyone saw this coming a mile away. This, right here, was the plan all along. It didn't really matter who the Republican candidate was going to end up being, Republicans PLANNED on having this deal default into the defense spending cuts. All they had to do was keep doing what they've been doing... fark up everything they can in the hopes of pinning it on Obama.

And here's the rub... the Republican faithful... they're going to buy it hook line and sinker. They're going to eat up every nugget of bullshiat the Republicans plop in front of them... and they will do it again and again without once thinking to question why they are eating it up so willingly.

Notabunny: somedude210: sirgrim: For someone running against borrowing and spending it also probably wasn't the best idea to pick a VP that voted for the Iraq war, TARP and Medicare part D. Nice job, el rombo.

To be fair, its not like anyone else wanted the job

Romney has been distancing himself from Ryan's positions almost since day 1. I'm not sure why he picked him for veep.

He didn't pick Ryan. The GOP did.

thenewmissus: I don't agree with Paul Ryan, but Ryan and Romney aren't always going to agree. They both have records and they are not identical. They aren't the same person, but they are the same ticket.

It's not so much that they are different, that's fine. Biden is pretty different from Obama and doesn't have an identical record. The problem is that the only reason to pick Ryan is because Ryan is a well-known policy wonk who actually came up with a plan to counter Obama's. But the very things that Ryan is known for are also in contradiction to the campaign, so they're swept under the rug. If they just came right out and said that they disagree on things but the GOP understands the nature of compromise and country before party bla bla bla, it might even be a good talking point for them. But they aren't - they're just acting like Ryan had no record and a plan with no concrete points other than "Tax cut. Cut spending. Good."

AverageAmericanGuy: The practice of politics is an exercise in compromise. Not everyone walks away completely happy from every deal, and many times one side or the other may regret having caved on certain aspects of the final deal.

The core of Romney's position is nuanced, subtle, and with a genuine understanding of how best to govern. As President, he'll have the ability to veto, which is something that Congressional legislators do not.

This has nothing to do with nuance and everything to do with a series of ads in swing states that tout using the military to increase employment. Frankly, it's hard to imagine anything more stupid, unless the plan is to saddle us with a lot of extra debt while a few people pocket huge profits, leaving the people working for the military worse off.

Using the military as a job corps is a really bad idea for the areas hit hardest by unemployment. A large chunk of the workers hit hardest are over thirty. What place will there be in the military for them? If you suffered a financial set-back or if your house is upside-down, the odds of your passing a security clearance are zero. Good luck getting employed by a military contractor. And, if you fail the clearance once, it's nearly impossible to pass it when times get better. We've already seen stories about active duty parents losing custody of children, so this definitely will not help families.

Even if we look at this proposal as a way to only attack the unemployment rate of young people, it's too expensive. In the 2008 election, the Democrats proposed a Job Corps-type program where young people who give two years' service in exchange for certain benefits. The major benefit was supposed to be money for education as on-the-job training to prepare for future employment.

The military is a lot more expensive, and the benefits are for more costly (as they should be for young people who offer to put their lives on the line). There's housing, clothing, food, and more extensive healthcare. Plus, the military is more than just a two-year program. If it's going to be treated like a real job creation tool, the jobs have to be longer term. That means more pensions and long-term benefits. (Unless Mitt has a plan to cut pensions for our fighting forces - and, if he does, we need to know about it NOW.)

Plus, young men and women who are enlisted in the military do not have lots of spending cash. This will hardly create demand in the economy across the board. There's a reason why military families buy what they can at the Base Exchange. Stuff is cheaper on base, and soldiers don't have a lot of cash. Many families of enlisted service members get food stamps because their low pay qualifies them as poor. I find it really hard to imagine that the party of no birth control is suggesting that we tell Americans in their prime fertile years that they should not marry and have families, so, unless they are looking to pack in a lot more people at the officer level, we're going to be looking at many more poor families.

If Mitt wants his plan to be just a militarized Job Corp, then he's not solving the jobs issue. He's going to create cycles of unemployment at regular intervals. Not good for the economy. Not good for the people who will be dumped from the military in just two years unless they are lucky enough to be placed in a function that will be in high demand when you get out. Honestly, could there be a more ill-thought-out proposal and a bigger waste of money? Did anyone put any thought into this - at all? Is this really your idea of nuance?

sprawl15: thenewmissus: I don't agree with Paul Ryan, but Ryan and Romney aren't always going to agree. They both have records and they are not identical. They aren't the same person, but they are the same ticket.

It's not so much that they are different, that's fine. Biden is pretty different from Obama and doesn't have an identical record. The problem is that the only reason to pick Ryan is because Ryan is a well-known policy wonk who actually came up with a plan to counter Obama's. But the very things that Ryan is known for are also in contradiction to the campaign, so they're swept under the rug. If they just came right out and said that they disagree on things but the GOP understands the nature of compromise and country before party bla bla bla, it might even be a good talking point for them. But they aren't - they're just acting like Ryan had no record and a plan with no concrete points other than "Tax cut. Cut spending. Good."

I agree with you on that. I was actually happy that Romney picked Ryan. I knew that it would bring spending and the budget into focus. I also knew that it would mak e people take a GOOD look at the Ryan plan. The secrecy around which tax deductions they would get rid of is going to last well into the debates. And then, Obama will hand them their own ass on a platter. It is going to be epic. BTW, I personally think that Romney is only going to agree to one debate. Ii think he is a coward and if his income taxes come out before the debate, he is screwed.