General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMitt: I Won’t Detail Plans, Because Then I’d Lose
Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)
Mitt Romney has embraced a budget plan that would entail cutting federal programs other than defense and Social Security by more than half. It does raise the question of how he plans to carry out such a sweeping goal. In an interview with the Weekly Standard, Romney says he'd eliminate a bunch of departments. But he wont say which ones:
One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I dont care about education, Romney recalled. So I think its important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and well see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined?
The answer is yes, but Im not going to give you a list right now.
One of the things I have found in previous elections is that announcing my plans makes people want to vote against me!
<snip>
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/mitt-i-wont-detail-plans-because-then-id-lose.html?imw=Y&f=most-emailed-24h5
He is a deeply stupid man in many ways.
Mopar151
(9,992 posts)I'm pretty sure Mitt's gonna fail due dilligence. He's hoping he can charm us into buying him anyway. That would not go well........ He's been cooking his own books for years, in the attempt to conclude a successful merger between RawMoney Inc. and The Great American Dream Company. It is up to us, the shareholders in GADC, to turn down his tender offer.
BushCo. was a hostile takeover.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You are the first politician to EVER be criticized by an opponent. Here's a hint for you, Mitt. People don't want to vote for you when you share your ideas with them because they are horrible ideas.
He has got to be the lamest politician I've ever seen. I think he literally believes that no matter what dumb thing he says, he's got the election locked up. I keep wondering what stupid thing he's going to say that finally knocks him out of the primary. LOL.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)This is why we have a political system. Ideas are subject to criticism.
There are two ways to approach this:
(1) Adopt widely popular and reasonably sound ideas, and then stand for them.
(2) Adopt no specific ideas, then duck, dodge, and deny any attempt to criticise them.
Mitt is going for option 2.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)in 68 had a secret plan to end the Veit Nam war.. took till Oct of 72, same terms that were avalable in 68..
CanonRay
(14,112 posts)the plan is to fight it another four years for nothing.
Mopar151
(9,992 posts)Botany
(70,567 posts)n/t
Javaman
(62,532 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)If he is less stupid, he is also more dishonest.
Javaman
(62,532 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)You have been going at it for 5 years and we still have 8 months.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Ever? Anywhere?
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)throughout history. Most of them were kids though.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)...and the third one... (Psst... EPA!).