-
rthhokie92 said...
You realize thats not a controvesial plan. Do you know what it costs to run an aircraft carrier with 4000 sailors on it? (As compared to what it will cost to run the the new generation of carriers who will be run with about half the sailors?) The costs are staggering. This also sits aside that - you know - ships and planes age and have to be replaced.
This post was edited by redraven1 on 10/23/2012 at 11:05 AM
redraven1
- 4 stars Rating: 68
4872 votes total - yankes pls
- (5168)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
redraven1
- 4 stars Rating: 68
4872 votes total - yankes pls
- (5168)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
bkmalik said...
The "less expensive" smaller ships we're already building cost nearly a billion a piece when they were supposed to cost nearly half that. Ignoring the fact that the maintenance programs have been substandard and overbudget as well.
If Romney's thing is reducing deficit and government spending, building a bunch of new warships isn't going to do it.
-
frode said...
What the hell does this even mean?
It's hilarious when people keep trotting out the line that Politician X is going to be the same as Politician Y. No, Romney is going to be Romney. He has no intention of mimicking another President. Although some issues are still relevant as in years past, he'll address them as he sees fit. So will Obama.
-
sohlman6 said...
It means that all of it will stay the same. The "choosing winners and losers", the infrastructure investment, the education spending, the energy policy, Obamacare, tax policy, foreign policy; all of it will stay about the same as it is under Obama. And you're OK with that. You're already rationalizing huge, dramatic shifts in Romney's policies from the primary to the general elections, and once he's elected, you'll rationalize any other changes. This will mean that, on the most important policy issues, Romney will be about the same as Obama. Meanwhile, you just spent the last 4 years thinking those policies were bringing about the end of Western Civilization. And the worst part about all of this is, you can't even see the humor in all this.
-
rthhokie92
- 4 stars Rating: 64
1339 votes total - Nat Itude
- (1532)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
redraven1
- 4 stars Rating: 68
4872 votes total - yankes pls
- (5168)
- 21 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
rthhokie92 said...
You seem to forget that Obama has spent more in 3 years...than Bush did in his entire 8. We still have Trillion dollar deficits. What does Obama do? He doesnt focus on the economy, jobs or the deficits. He spends all his time and political capital on an entitlement that will had another trillion or two to the deficit the next decade. So, excuse me if I dont cede the moral high ground to Barry on his spending.
Terpmenacestan ●
- 4 stars Rating: 68
110 votes total - (163)
- 13 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
sohlman6 said...
Really, what major policy change will happen?
As an example, I'm going to use Obamacare. Obama's first term just showed why you don't mess with healthcare policy. It is messy, complicated and politically extremely painful. You really think that Romney's first act in office is going to be attempting to break a Senate filibuster for God knows how long? Meanwhile, pissed of liberals (including in the media) re-litigate Obamacare on their terms, making sure people realize all of the good things in it that will be gone in the event of a repeal. Sure, he could do it with reconciliation, but you know who wants that the least, fucking Boehner and McConnell. They know it will end up causing the same type of wave that they rode into power!
So he'll try once, say Senate dems blocked it, you'll blame Harry Reid and everyone will be happy. But he doesn't really want to spend the political capital necessary for a full repeal, hell, it's his fucking idea. It's just such a joke.
-
sohlman6 said...
Really, what major policy change will happen?
As an example, I'm going to use Obamacare. Obama's first term just showed why you don't mess with healthcare policy. It is messy, complicated and politically extremely painful. You really think that Romney's first act in office is going to be attempting to break a Senate filibuster for God knows how long? Meanwhile, pissed of liberals (including in the media) re-litigate Obamacare on their terms, making sure people realize all of the good things in it that will be gone in the event of a repeal. Sure, he could do it with reconciliation, but you know who wants that the least, fucking Boehner and McConnell. They know it will end up causing the same type of wave that they rode into power!
So he'll try once, say Senate dems blocked it, you'll blame Harry Reid and everyone will be happy. But he doesn't really want to spend the political capital necessary for a full repeal, hell, it's his fucking idea. It's just such a joke.
PaulUMD
- 4 stars Rating: 79
15542 votes total - 2006 Time Magazine Person of the Year
- (16158)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | ... | 469 | 470 | 471 | Refresh
Obama vs. Romney 2012: Debates - Foreign Policy Monday Night