Romney, other 2012ers (except Huntsman) call for first ever US default

[Bull Moose Base]

For all intents and purposes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/romney-rejects-debt-deal_n_914827.html

[Yelnoc]

And this is why Huntsman is the only Republican I would vote for.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

For all intents and purposes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/romney-rejects-debt-deal_n_914827.html

You're making an incorrect logical leap here, thinking that the dynamics of the situation would be the same if Romney was president and if Obama was president. If there was a Republican in control of the White House instead of Obama, I can guarantee you that we never would have never had this kind of showdown in the first place.

Saying Romney is in favor of a default is an absolute untruth.

[Bull Moose Base]

For all intents and purposes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/romney-rejects-debt-deal_n_914827.html

You're making an incorrect logical leap here, thinking that the dynamics of the situation would be the same if Romney was president and if Obama was president. If there was a Republican in control of the White House instead of Obama, I can guarantee you that we never would have never had this kind of showdown in the first place.

Saying Romney is in favor of a default is an absolute untruth.

I have no doubt there never would have been this kind of showdown.  Republicans have never hesitated to vote for a clean debt ceiling lift when they had a Republican president, even one who was growing the debt faster than Obama.  But the question isn't what Romney would do if he were president now, it's what he's calling for now: a no vote on an 11th hour compromise, which given the absence of any other available options, is advocating for the US to default and the economy to crash.

[Torie]

No, they did not say they would have preferred the US not paying its bills for awhile over this deal. They just said they didn't like the deal. Who does?  Almost everyone dislikes it. That is why it was the deal.

In short Mitt was just playing politics - as usual. So what else is new?  T-Paw tempers his little stand a bit regarding the "default" thing.

It will be interesting if the campaign is as much about reforming the tax code and how as the suck economy itself. That is what is in play here, since the Bush tax cuts, all of them including the middle class tax cuts, expire right after the election. And tax changes via reconciliation cannot be filibustered if for no longer than 10 years, so the results of the election will really matter on this issue.

[Bull Moose Base]

No, they did not say they would have preferred the US not paying its bills for awhile over this deal. They just said they didn't like the deal. Who does?  Almost everyone dislikes it. That is why it was the deal.

In short Mitt was just playing politics - as usual. So what else is new?  T-Paw tempers his little stand a bit regarding the "default" thing.

It will be interesting if the campaign is as much about reforming the tax code and how as the suck economy itself. That is what is in play here, since the Bush tax cuts, all of them including the middle class tax cuts, expire right after the election. And tax changes via reconciliation cannot be filibustered if for no longer than 10 years, so the results of the election will really matter on this issue.

No, sir.  Romney didn't say he didn't like the deal.  That's Obama and Boehner.  Romney said that (unlike them) he doesn't support the deal.  He instead says he "supports the [unattainable] Tea Party debt plan in the hopes they will forget about Romneycare".  That's a paraphrase.  He rejects what is the only available compromise.  Which is tantamount to advocating instead- well, not default exactly, but a massive economy-sinking, interest rate-hiking collision with the debt ceiling.

As for the effect on the campaign, we'll have to see what Super Congress does and what happens with tax reform.  I don't think it's a sure bet at all that the triggers aren't triggered.   Tax cuts can still pass without super majority?  You sure?  That sounds wrong to me.

[Torie]

That is how the Bush tax cuts were passed yes, without a super majority. That is why they last for only ten years - they were done through reconciliation.

I still don't see anything where Romney said he would have preferred no deal, and the inability of the US to pay 40% of its bills for some indefinite period of time, to this deal. 

[Napoleon]

They are right that this deal sucks. They are wrong about a working alternative.

[Bull Moose Base]

That is how the Bush tax cuts were passed yes, without a super majority. That is why they last for only ten years - they were done through reconciliation.

I still don't see anything where Romney said he would have preferred no deal, and the inability of the US to pay 40% of its bills for some indefinite period of time, to this deal. 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ju0IWd3dXAXCQf4VZAhfgtB_zTDQ?docId=58e9f7ed31984be9b298f877d4f946bd

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know any other reasonable way to interpret this.  Setting aside his blaming of Obama, he describes it himself as 11:59 and says he rejects the deal.

I don't think Bush tax cuts could pass by reconciliation any more.  Otherwise, Democrats would have been able to extend tax cuts for income under $250,000 last December.  Republicans used a filibuster to block any tax cut extension that didn't include income above that (and something like 5 Dems joined).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't know any other reasonable way to interpret this.

The correct way to interpret it, of course: That if Romney was president, he would not accept this deal. You are creating a false choice -- that rejecting A is an endorsement of B, when there are options C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and so on to consider.

He instead says he "supports the [unattainable] Tea Party debt plan in the hopes they will forget about Romneycare".  That's a paraphrase.

If it's a paraphrase, you do not put it in direct quotes.

Which is tantamount to advocating instead- well, not default exactly, but a massive economy-sinking, interest rate-hiking collision with the debt ceiling.

Romney can only speak to what he would do as president -- everything else is meaningless. As president, he would not support this deal, because as president, this is not the deal he would have negotiated. It requires Obama to be president, something that would not be the case if Romney was president instead.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ju0IWd3dXAXCQf4VZAhfgtB_zTDQ?docId=58e9f7ed31984be9b298f877d4f946bd

That article specifically says that Romney's spokesman did not address whether or not Romney would have vetoed this deal, thus risking default. In other words, it says that Romney's spokesman refused to indulge the same false choice that you seem to be pushing.

[Bull Moose Base]

I don't know any other reasonable way to interpret this.

The correct way to interpret it, of course: That if Romney was president, he would not accept this deal. You are creating a false choice -- that rejecting A is an endorsement of B, when there are options C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and so on to consider.

He instead says he "supports the [unattainable] Tea Party debt plan in the hopes they will forget about Romneycare".  That's a paraphrase.

If it's a paraphrase, you do not put it in direct quotes.

Which is tantamount to advocating instead- well, not default exactly, but a massive economy-sinking, interest rate-hiking collision with the debt ceiling.

Romney can only speak to what he would do as president -- everything else is meaningless. As president, he would not support this deal, because as president, this is not the deal he would have negotiated. It requires Obama to be president, something that would not be the case if Romney was president instead.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ju0IWd3dXAXCQf4VZAhfgtB_zTDQ?docId=58e9f7ed31984be9b298f877d4f946bd

That article specifically says that Romney's spokesman did not address whether or not Romney would have vetoed this deal, thus risking default. In other words, it says that Romney's spokesman refused to indulge the same false choice that you seem to be pushing.

Where does Romney talk about what he'd do if he were president?  (EDIT: Romney does say he'd do cut, cap, balance if he were pres. as he has before.  But here...)

Romney is talking about the deal between Obama and House Republicans that was reached at 11:59, the only way to avoid hitting ceiling in the real world.  He "can't support it" and there are no options C, D, E, T, C.  If so, what are they?  The position you are describing is Huntsman's, i.e. ''I'd have different circumstances if I were president but I'm not so I'd take this deal rather than default''  (Paraphrase marks look very similar to quote marks to the untrained eye.)  Romney's position is not that at all.

[Torie]

Thanks Moderate.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Where does Romney talk about what he'd do if he were president? Romney is talking about the deal between Obama and House Republicans that was reached at 11:59, the only way to avoid hitting ceiling in the real world.  He rejects it and there are no options C, D, E, T, C.  If so, what are they?  The position you are describing is Huntsman's, i.e. "I'd have different circumstances if I were president but I'm not so I'd take this deal rather than default"  (Paraphrase marks look very similar to quote marks to the untrained eye.)  Romney's position is not that at all.

You have no idea what Romney's position is, so you're just making one up for him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bull Moose Base]

Romney didn't say "I wouldn't support this deal" he said "I can't support this deal".  Though I can certainly understand given his track record why you'd say Romney stating his position still makes it impossible to know Romney's position.

*I do enjoy that the defense of Romney is that he successfully concealed his position with a dodge.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Romney didn't say "I wouldn't support this deal" he said "I can't support this deal".  Though I can certainly understand given his track record why you'd say Romney stating his position still makes it impossible to know Romney's position.

Romney talks about not supporting this deal in terms of his own plan. Christ. It's like talking to a wall.

"My plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced -- not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table," Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, said in a statement released by his campaign. "I personally cannot support this deal."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/31/bloomberg1376-LP96UH6JTSEX01-30TVPM79PSKCD3MHNHFBKQN5T7.DTL#ixzz1ToKRu22Z

[Bull Moose Base]

Romney didn't say "I wouldn't support this deal" he said "I can't support this deal".  Though I can certainly understand given his track record why you'd say Romney stating his position still makes it impossible to know Romney's position.

Romney talks about not supporting this deal in terms of his own plan. Christ. It's like talking to a wall.

"My plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced -- not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table," Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, said in a statement released by his campaign. "I personally cannot support this deal."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/31/bloomberg1376-LP96UH6JTSEX01-30TVPM79PSKCD3MHNHFBKQN5T7.DTL#ixzz1ToKRu22Z

Talk about the wall calling the wall "wall."  Here are a couple Romney quotes on last night's Obama-Boehner deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your read on that is we can't know one way or another whether Romney supports or rejects the deal to lift the debt ceiling Obama announced last night?

Also btw, why do you oppose cutting government spending but support a guy who advocates a debt plan that includes draconian spending cuts?  And whose campaign has as one of its few messages that we have to cut government spending?  Or am I wrong to assume you support him?  (I don't for sure because you didn't say flatly that you support him in the way that Romney stated unequivocally that he opposes this debt deal.)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Also btw, why do you oppose cutting government spending but support a guy who advocates a debt plan that includes draconian spending cuts?

I do not support Romney, only accuracy in reporting.

[Bull Moose Base]

Also btw, why do you oppose cutting government spending but support a guy who advocates a debt plan that includes draconian spending cuts?

I do not support Romney, only accuracy in reporting.

And you don't take the word of a Pulitzer Prize winner like myself?

If Romney actually were saying ''I have no comment on this deal I just want you to know it's not what I would have proposed'' (paraphrase quotes) I'd vote for a constitutional amendment banning his candidacy on the ground that he's wasting everyone's time.

[Sam Spade]

default.  lol...

[Mr. Morden]

McCotter voted for it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll690.xml

so he joins Huntsman as the only GOP prez. candidates who are "pro-debt deal".

[Simfan34]

Let's make sure we find something to contradict that. And so that's why I was hearing so much about the "Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002"- the debt deal was an amendment to that. Congress!