Romney - Holding a 14 point advantage with Middle Class

[geeker2]

or this....

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/regulation


Mitt Romney will treat regulatory costs like other costs: he will establish firm limits for them. A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy. It will also seek to make structural changes to the federal bureaucracy that ensure economic growth remains front and center when regulatory decisions are made.

Eliminate Undue Economic Burdens

One of the greatest problems with the federal bureaucracy is that each incoming presidential administration leaves in place much of what its predecessor constructed. The result is layer upon layer of often unnecessary or inconsistent regulation. President Obama has compounded this problem with unprecedented federal power grabs over wide swaths of the economy. Obama-era laws and regulations must be rolled back, and pre-existing ones must be carefully scrutinized.

Repeal Obamacare
Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
Reform Environmental Regulation

As president, Mitt Romney will eliminate the regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration’s costly and ineffective anti-carbon agenda. Romney will also press Congress to reform our environmental laws to ensure that they allow for a proper assessment of their costs.

Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with onerous new environmental regulations
Adopt Structural Reforms

An agency may be able to conceive of ten different regulations, each imposing costs of $10 billion while producing at least as much in social benefit. Moving forward might sound like a great idea to the typical regulator. But imposing those regulations, no matter what the social benefits, has a similar effect to raising taxes by $100 billion. Regulatory costs need to be treated like the very real costs they are.

Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation

[Danzig]

he says clear and realistic, and then says assuming 'robust growth, etc'. that's a laugh.
defense cuts-the ones that congress could have avoided? besides, if we cut defense in HALF, we would still spend 1/4 of the entire worlds defense monies-by ourself. so, what, instead of killing china ten times over, it would be six times over? i mean, people only have to die once....like we're going to war with china.
romney already said he wants to keep parts of obamacare, so that repeal is probably off.
been hearing about privatizing amtrak for years, not holding my breath.
nea-that's a gnat on an elephants ass when it comes to budget issues.
title x-that won't happen.
foreign aid-see nea, above.





let's be realistic about our issues that are facing us. much of that stuff you put up has nothing to do with the actual real, deep, growing issues that are centered on the federal budget.
the vast majority of federal spending goes to:
defense
medicare/medicaid/social security
interest on debt, and then
everything else combined, which doesn't equal any one of the above.

so, this guy wants to cut taxes (again, not mathematically possible to do what he said he wants to do) raise defense spending (WHY????), and give vouchers for medicare (will never happen).

and you mentioned above that he wants to repeal dodd/frank and have 'good regulations'. what does he mean by that? what would those regs be exactly? no one seems to know.
he deals in generalities. i'm going to fix this, this and this. how?

'empower states to innovate'. wtf is that supposed to mean???


presidential candidates have mentioned fraud and waste since i was born, during johsons term. yeah....we'll see how that one goes.


sorry, not seeing where romney is 'better'. it's all blather, smoke, and mirrors. which sounds par for the course actually!!! congrats mitt, you're a po-LIE-tician.