Mitt Romney - prep school bully

[Conan71]

Guido is insecure. He wants us to think that he is important. It's a self worth issue that he is dealing with.

I like the way liberals deal with their own dooshbaggery, they blame the conservative over there in the closet behind that Bush.

[guido911]

I like the way liberals deal with their own dooshbaggery, they blame the conservative over there in the closet behind that Bush.

I wouldn't throw "friend of the d!ckw@d" in the "liberal" category entirely. That last post not only made ZERO sense, it's source is well documented:

[Gaspar]

Sounds like Romney is Ted Kennedy--except for the "dead girl" thing.

. . .and the alcohol thing.

EDIT: I do have to give Kennedy credit for almost 3 years of sobriety.

[Conan71]

. . .and the alcohol thing.

EDIT: I do have to give him credit for almost 3 years of sobriety.

Now who's gone all bully? 

[Ed W]

That's the biggest coffee maker I've ever seen!

[Teatownclown]

Mitt lies, he's just not skilled in the acting part.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/26


Published on Saturday, May 26, 2012 by Common Dreams
Doh! Romney Messes Up, Tells the Truth About Austerity
by William K. Black
Mitt Romney has periodic breakdowns when asked questions about the economy because he sometimes forgets the need to lie. He forgets that he is supposed to treat austerity as the epitome of economic wisdom. When he responds quickly to questions about austerity he slips into default mode and speaks the truth -- adopting austerity during the recovery from a Great Recession would (as in Europe) throw the nation back into recession or depression. The latest example is his May 23, 2012 interview with Mark Halperin in Time magazine.

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected -- why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course.
Romney explains that austerity, during the recovery from a Great Recession, would cause catastrophic damage to our nation. The problem, of course, is that the Republican congressional leadership is committed to imposing austerity on the nation and Speaker Boehner has just threatened that Republicans will block the renewal of the debt ceiling in order to extort Democrats to agree to austerity -- severe cuts to social programs. Romney knows this could "throw us into recession or depression" and says he would never follow such a policy.

Romney, however, has not opposed Boehner's threat to use extortion to force austerity on the nation. Romney has the nomination sown up, but I predict that he will stand by and let Boehner try to throw us into a Great Depression rather than upset the Tea Party-wing of the Republican Party. Indeed, Romney will attack Democrats who have the political courage to defend our nation against his Party's demands for austerity that would throw us into recession or depression.

What does one call a politician who, solely to advance his personal political ambition, supports his Party's efforts to coerce austerity even though he knows that the austerity would cause a national economic catastrophe and states that he, "of course," would never adopt such self-destructive austerity if he were president? Romney is failing the tests of courage, integrity, and loyalty to our nation and people.

Later in the interview, Romney claims that federal budgetary deficits are "immoral." But he has just explained that using austerity for the purported purpose of ending a deficit would cause a recession or depression. A recession or depression would make the deficit far larger. That means that Romney should be denouncing austerity as "immoral" (as well as suicidal) because it will not simply increase the deficit (which he claims to find "immoral" because of its impact on children) but also dramatically increase unemployment, poverty, child poverty and hunger, and harm their education by causing more teachers to lose their jobs and more school programs to be cut. Fewer children will be able to get college degrees. Austerity is the great enemy of children -- it is the epitome of a self-destructive, immoral economic policy.

Listen for the sounds of silence from Romney in coming months. I predict that he will not act to protect our children or our economy from the suicidal and "immoral" austerity his Republican allies are trying to coerce the Democrats to inflict on our economy and our children.

This post originally appeared at New Economic Perspectives.

[nathanm]

I would probably be a lot less sour towards Romney if he would tell the Teahadists in the House that they need to go read an economics textbook or five and then go read a history textbook before saying another word about spending, taxes, or anything else to do with money. The government is not a person. What makes sense for my budget does not necessarily make sense for the government's budget and vice versa.

Given the continued low interest rates and inflation and relatively low labor participation rate, it's pretty clear that the government is not taking too much of our productive capacity at the moment, regardless of what the budget deficit may or may not be numerically. When that changes, we need to be prepared to cut spending (or raise taxes, it doesn't matter) over a couple of year period. That's why we need to develop a realistic plan for doing that now. Running around like a chicken with its head cut off because we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we need to make immediate changes to taxation and/or spending will be much less pleasant than hashing all this out before it's actually necessary.

What is even more imperative, and even less likely, is throwing both parties out. They have both rigged the system to favor guys like Romney over folks like you or I. Hell, guido gets screwed by them even more than we do. He (probably) makes far too little to get access to the sheltering schemes, but enough that both the Republicans and Democrats see him as a piggy bank. Far better than being destitute, or being in the cohort that has actually been losing ground for the last 30 years, but I understand how it can be so infuriating to be lumped in with the shitheels at the top whose incomes have been growing far faster than any of us can really fathom while they pay less and less tax every year. Unfortunately, he chooses to direct his ire at the people below him on the income ladder, who not being part of the donor class get little say, rather than the folks who are doing the screwing.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I would probably be a lot less sour towards Romney if he would tell the Teahadists in the House that they need to go read an economics textbook or five and then go read a history textbook before saying another word about spending, taxes, or anything else to do with money. The government is not a person. What makes sense for my budget does not necessarily make sense for the government's budget and vice versa.

Can't happen...first ya gotta be able to read....