Romney declared in debate: "my experience as a governor is if I come in and -- and lay down a piece of legislation and say, "It's my way or the highway," I don't get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. " So let's be clear here on what is Romney willing to compromise? He brags right off the bat that he will cut PBS in a way that doesn't seem too compromising. The problem I have with it is the arrogance in how he declares it. The sun king Romney has spoken I suppose. Does that sound like someone willing to compromise? What about: -gay marriage? Will he compromise on that? - What about separation of religion and state?Will he compromise on that? - What about tax havens in caymans and helping the top 1% Will he compromise on that? -corporate welfare? Will he compromise on that? - What about abortion?Will he compromise on that? -What about healthcare? Will he compromise on that? - What about medical mar1juana? Will he compromise on that? - What about stating any clear plan? Will he compromise on that?something besides 'conservative values' That's like saying you believe in 'being nice to puppies' come on! It's easy to say you will work together when it's clear that there is no intention whatsoever. Just because he says it ,yet he is showing that he wont give an inch on ANYTHING. I remember seeing a guy in wheelchair trying to talk to Romney about medical mar1juana and Romney looked through the dude like he didnt exist and laid out his uncompromising stance. I would maybe vote for Romney but this compromising when he isnt going to thing irks me. it even more of a slap when you go down the list and realize he is blatantly lying about compromising item by item.. Its a hard headed proudness and we dealt with that all through the quagmire of false war with iraq ,WMDs, war criminal gw bush/cheney and the 1 % cronyism. The countless loss of rights under bush that was all about absolutes with no compromising. With Romney I can't get my head around how someone can claim to be willing to work together when his stance on everything is so rooted. Sounds like it's his position then we work from there? How is that compromising? Poor big bird I suppose right? oh well king mitt said it so I guess that's the deal?? Seems pretty compromising huh?
Romney is all smoke and mirrors. He didn't exactly get rich by being a pillar of honesty. So, let's proceed: Romney says he won't raise taxes on middle class earners (the marginal rate, I assume), but by limiting deductions, he will effectively do just that -- raise taxes. Also, his words of not raising taxes on the middle class and not lowering taxes on high income earners, can easily be interpreted as "let's keep the Bush tax cuts." The words don't mean a whole lot. I'd also liked to hear what middle class is for him. $200k-250k? Nice try, Mitt.
I would think, any Romney 'apparent' bi-partisan compromise would turn out to be a bait and switch. He has no convictions or scruples and his behind the scenes handlers are some ruthless sons-of-b****es.
Romney successfully governed in Massachusetts when 87% of the legislature was Democratic. He has PROVEN that he can lead in a bipartisan fashion. Obama on the other hand, has PROVEN that he can not lead in a bipartisan fashion -- Washington has never been more gridlocked than today, and in the two years when the Democrats controlled everything, he showed no interest in including Republicans. But those are just the facts...
Romney successfully governed in Massachusetts because Democrats were willing to work with him. Let me remind you that this is a matter of choice. If Romney is president, will Democrats work with him? Remember this: what goes around, comes around.
That's because he governed as a moderate. So he is either lying about what he would do as president or he has undergone an extreme ideological makeover to become an abomination to all but the most greedy and ignorant.
The OP's original question -- "What is Romney willing to compromise on?" -- can't be answered. When negotiating a compromise, one cannot announce beforehand what is negotiable. (This is why Obama is such a poor negotiator with other countries.) Each party has to put forth their positions and proposals and start from there. Why compromise on positions ahead of time?
Didn't he say he would lower the marginal tax rates and simultaneously minimize deductions to a point where tax revenue would remain level? When incomes go up, tax revenue will likewise increase. RE: cutting PBS, here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeNybC4eIgk The litmus test is this: is the program important enough to borrow money from China to fund: Obamacare was #1 and PBS funding was #2....
Cutting PBS loose from the public teat to compete in the private sector is just an example. Romney said he would consolidate bureaucracies -- which is much needed -- and get rid of programs that are no longer useful, i.e., obsolete. His stated goal is to stop borrowing money ... from the Chinese or anyone else.
He did say that. And everyone who's tried to make the math work - liberal or conservative - has failed without ending up with higher taxes on the middle class. Cutting rates and cutting deductions still nets a tax decrease on the wealthy; so if you're going to be revenue neutral, that has to come from the poor or middle class. That's the fundamental problem and why he refuses to lay out any specifics: he can't.
Yeah, this is a great way to know what programs Romney POTUS would cut---Obamacare #1 and PBS #2. seriously, does it get any more random than that?
The same guy who says 47% of Americans are not his concern is able to work with both sides? Color me confused...
Quite frankly, Romney is fairly racist towards the Chinese, and it wreaks of nothing but ungratefulness. Before Romney was a politician, the Chinese were the creators of much of his wealth. Could it be that Romney has shipped so many jobs over to the China that he's worried it'll bite him in the butt? Don't blame that on the Chinese; blame that on the outsourcer himself -- Mr. Romney.
Has any statement ever been taken more out of context. His lack of concern for these people was as a candidate. His "take" was that they would never be swayed from an Obama vote yet this remark has disingenuously become the centerpiece for Obama TV ads depicting WWII and Korean war veterans as reflecting the people Romney is allegedly talking about.... "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M
