E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRomney’s and Obama’s strengths were both on display last night… But so were their weaknesses… Romney, as expected, sweeps the GOP primary contests of CT, DE, NY, PA, and RI… Gingrich: “We are going to look realistically where we are at”… Santorum still not 100% embracing Romney… Have both of these men ensured they’ll be speaking in the afternoon in Tampa?... Veepstakes watch: Rubio delivers foreign-policy speech… Ad watch: Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS up with new TV ads… And two incumbent Dems (Altmire and Holden) go down to defeat.
This photo combo shows President Barack Obama in Chapel Hill, N.C. on April 24, 2012, and Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on April 18, 2012 in Charlotte, N.C.
*** Strengths on display: For the two men who will square off for the presidency in November, Tuesday night displayed the strengths of each. As he swept last night’s five primary contests, Mitt Romney delivered one of his best speeches of the cycle, focusing on the economy and emphasizing his business background. “As I look around at the millions of Americans without work, the graduates who can't get a job, the soldiers who return home to an unemployment line, it breaks my heart,” he said. “This does not have to be. It is the result of failed leadership and of a faulty vision.” Romney also stated, “After 25 years, I know how to lead us out of this stagnant Obama economy and into a job-creating recovery.” Indeed, our recent NBC/WSJ poll found Romney leading Obama (40%-34%) on who would be better for having good ideas how to improve the economy.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd explains Mitt Romney newest test – explaining why he should replace President Barack Obama.
*** Romney on the economy, Obama on likeability: Meanwhile, we saw President Obama address two audiences of enthusiastic college students -- and he’ll speak to a third today at the University of Iowa at 2:20 pm ET -- pushing for Congress to keep student loans low and reminding these students that his own situation was similar to theirs. “This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. And yet, the Republicans who run Congress right now have not yet said whether or not they’ll stop your rates from doubling,” Obama said at the University of North Carolina. He added at the University of Colorado, “We only finished paying off our student loans about eight years ago. Think about that: I'm the president of the United States, and so here I am and we were writing those checks every month.” Then he slow-jammed the news with Jimmy Fallon, demonstrating personal skills that his GOP opponent doesn’t have. And in our NBC/WSJ poll, Obama crushed Romney on being easygoing and likeable (54%-18%) and being compassionate enough to understand average people (52%-23%).
*** But weaknesses were also on display, too: But we also caught glimpses of weaknesses of both men, which will certainly come up again in the next six months. Romney last night laid out the “why not Obama” case very well, and that could be a powerful argument with nearly six in 10 thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction. Yet what was missing was the “why him?” In fact, he talked about his wife Ann and his father who grew up poor. But outside of his business background, he didn’t talk about himself. In addition, we were reminded that Romney will have a difficult time relating to others. “I’d say that you might have heard that I was successful in business. And that rumor is true,” he said. (Romney didn’t seem to realize that the line about “it’s still the economy, and we’re not stupid” needed a punchier/smirkier delivery.) For Obama, we were reminded that despite his enthusiastic audiences, this isn’t 2008. As the New York Times’ Peter Baker writes, “Mr. Obama is no longer the avatar of promise and possibility; he is the incumbent presiding over an anemic job market awaiting future graduates. He is a figure of compromised ideals asking for forbearance as he seeks to live up to the sky-high expectations he inspired the first time around.”
*** Romney’s sweep: As mentioned above, Romney -- as expected -- swept last night’s five GOP primary contests. With the Republican race effectively over since Rick Santorum’s exit earlier this month, Romney won either 60% of the vote, or close to it, in every state. In Connecticut (with 91% reporting), it was Romney 67%, Paul 13%, Gingrich 10%, and Santorum 7%; in Delaware (99% reporting), Romney 56%, Gingrich 27%, Paul 11%, and Santorum 6%; in New York (77% reporting), Romney 62%, Paul 16%, Gingrich 13%, Santorum 9%; in Pennsylvania (99% reporting), Romney 58%, Santorum 18%, Paul 13%, and Gingrich 10%; and in Rhode Island (99% reporting), Romney 63%, Paul 24%, Gingrich 6%, and Santorum 6%. And here’s NBC’s delegate breakdown after last night: Romney 844, Santorum 260, Gingrich 137, and Paul 79.
*** Gingrich: “We are going to look realistically at where we are at”: As for Gingrich, he made Delaware a do-or-die contest, and he didn’t win. And after his disappointing finish, he suggested that he may exit the presidential race in the coming days, NBC’s Alex Moe reports. “I want you to know over the next few days, we’re going to look realistically at where we are at” in the campaign, Gingrich told a crowd of just one hundred people at his election night rally, calling himself a “citizen” rather than a candidate. And this just happened this morning while Gingrich was campaigning in North Carolina today, Moe adds: Gingrich called Romney the nominee. “I do think it's pretty clear that Gov. Romney is ultimately going to be the nominee, and we'll do everything we can to make sure that he is, in fact, effective, and that we as a team are effective both in winning this fall and then, frankly, in governing."
*** Santorum still not 100% giddy about Romney: Santorum, meanwhile, announced on CNN last night that he will be meeting with some of Romney’s advisers today, and NBC’s Andrew Rafferty has confirmed that Santorum and Romney will meet together on May 4. But on CNN last night, Santorum didn’t enthusiastically embrace Romney. Here was the transcript, per NBC’s Morgan Parmet:
PIERS MORGAN: But you believe that Mitt Romney is the right guy?
SANTORUM: I believe he's the better--obviously, I believed I was the better choice, but then I'm not in this race anymore.
MORGAN: So he's won the race?
SANTORUM: He's won the race.
MORGAN: Is he therefore the right guy?
SANTORUM: Yeah, absolutely. He's the person that is going to go up against Barack Obama. It's pretty clear and we need to win this race. We need to beat Barack Obama.
MORGAN: You've just endorsed Mitt Romney
SANTORUM: Well, if that's what you want to call it. You can call it whatever you want.
*** Did Santorum and Newt hold out too long? After reading that exchange and also seeing Gingrich stay in the race probably a month too long (after not winning Alabama and Mississippi), we have this question: Did both Santorum and Gingrich hold out too long? What does Romney owe them now? Hope they enjoy speaking in the afternoon in Tampa.
*** Veepstakes watch: Marco Rubio will deliver a foreign-policy speech at the Brookings Institution at noon ET.
*** Ad watch: As we first reported on Monday, the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action and the League of Conservation Voters have teamed up for a new TV ad to air in Colorado and Nevada. And we now have the ad -- it hits Romney for being “in the tank for Big Oil.” And Crossroad GPS has announced it’s going up with a $1.2 million ad buy in the Senate contests of Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Virginia.
*** Two Dem incumbents go down to defeat: Also in Pennsylvania last night, two Democratic congressional incumbents – Jason Altmire and Tim Holden – were defeated. Altmire lost to fellow Dem Rep. Mark Critz in a match-up of two incumbents due to redistricting. And Critz ended up winning due to old-fashioned labor’s boots on the ground; it was the old Murtha machine in action (and Critz used to work for Murtha). Bottom line: Altmire got out-organized. Meanwhile, Holden lost to a political neophyte. But with Congress’ low approval ratings, it is surprising when these longtime members lose?
Countdown to Election Day: 196 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Method in their 'madness':
In a recent survey concerning "Citizen's United" by the Brennan Center for Justice, 69% of Americans agreed that "new rules that let corporations, unions and people give unlimited money to Super PACs will lead to corruption."
"Half of respondents — and 85% of those expressing an opinion — agreed that spending in this election is more likely to lead to corruption than in previous elections."
Americans have long-believed that elected officials favor whoever fills up their campaign coffers. And today Americans say elected officials will favor big donors to independent Superpacs ~ thanks to the mad-hatter SCOTUS decision that allows the conservative election ad lie machine to be funded by unlimited, domestic/foreign dollars.
All of which causes folks to trust Government less....the Rand/Friedman/A.L.E.C./Koch/GOP/Norquist dream.
By undermining our faith in fairness and democracy, the murky Roves and the crappy Crossroads hope to discourage voter turnout.
See a slew of revealing People polls at:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/national_survey_super_pacs_corruption_and_democracy
The funniest part of this charade is now that Willard has finally been crowned "The Biggest Loser" – his VP choices are running away in droves!
Well, with the exception of Bob (V)aginal (P)robe McDonnell - he has actually been preening for the position!
Personally, I think he would be a lovely choice, nothing better to get the womens vote out like state rape!
Obama/Biden - YES WE WILL!
Sugar Daddies: The Old, White, Rich, ‘Republican’ Men Who are Buying The 2012 US Election
During the primaries, the Republican sugar daddies fanned out to support various contenders, gladly bestowing tens of millions in mad money on the vainglorious crusades of Newt, the Herminator, and the two Ricks. But today these donors are starting to coalesce around Mitt . In retrospect, Romney, a one-percenter incarnate, is their natural candidate. And, for all intents and political purposes, they will own him if he makes it to the White House.
Rachel Maddow intervied the author
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/conservative-donors-2012-4/index1.html
If you want to count:
Foster Friess
($1.8 million in known contributions)
David Koch
Charles Koch
Seldin
At last look, there were 25 known sugar daddies on the right (or more,
Obama so far has claimed only two sugar daddies of his own: Bill Maher and DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg.
This isn’t quite what was supposed to happen. When the Supreme Court handed down its five-to-four Citizens United decision in 2010, pre-vetting Mitt Romney’s credo that
"corporations are people,"apocalyptic Democrats, including Obama, predicted that the election would become a wholly owned subsidiary of the likes of Chevron and General Electric. BTW:Will Romney’s "I like firing people’ & ‘corporations are people" rhetoric impair his Etch-A-Sketch? Is this classic Romney, Sugar Daddy, teabagging, provocative, double talk?
I see Newt is still up to his "pious baloney"-- he lost delaware! How can Noot say when he simultaneously lost to Romney in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania --"So we want you to know that as citizens, we are going to be right there standing shoulder by shoulder with you and that as we think through about how we can best be effective citizens over the next week or two — we are going to rely on you for help and you for advice?" Translation: Callista and I would like to sell more copies of our DVDs and books to help us pay our debts.
Oops, almost forgot:
Loved, loved, lov ed, the President's wanting to "slow jam the news' for
his student loans plan on Jimmy Fallon last night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8zgSVdcPGE&feature=related
================================================
Indeed, Mr President so do I, and many tens of thousands and thousands of other Americans
Add this to the list of ways the President of the United States woos young voters in an election
Copy that Mitt Rob-ney see if you can keep it real!
"It's still the economy – and we're not stupid."
Nice line Mitt, and spot on. By any objective standard we are experiencing the worst recovery from an economic downturn in generations. So why should any of us reward a president who has presided over such a mediocre economic performance? That is the central question of the 2012 campaign, and the Obama crowd knows it -- which is why they are trying mightily to divert our attention from the harsh truth of the slow motion economic disaster which continues to unfold.
So keep your eye on the ball, Mitt. Continue reminding the folks that settling for the new economic reality of 8% unemployment and 2% growth is unacceptable. Continue to push a vision of the brighter future all Americans aspire to as compared to the dismal economic reality over which this president has presided. Continue to celebrate the exceptional achievement that drives American prosperity rather than demonize it. And continue to push the message that Obama is a failed leader who promised to unite us but instead uses searing rhetoric that drives us ever farther apart.
Keep on doing that Mitt, and we'll be calling you Mr. President soon enough.
The next president of the United States of America took the podium last night after winning five more primaries. He took the podium with a presidential tone and a presidential command. Mitt Romney has the experience to turn this country around from economic collapse. He doesn’t need to be a comedian. He doesn’t need to be “hip.” That hasn’t gotten this country very far when a desperate nation became enamored with the false promises and hypnotic tone of an inexperienced community organizer who is unscrupulously trying to divide America into class warfare because his record is a failure.
‘It’s still the economy… and we’re not stupid.’
‘Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change,’ he said. ‘But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?
‘Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?’
Promising that he knew ‘how to lead us out of this stagnant Obama economy and into a job-creating recovery’, he predicted ‘a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions’ over the next six months.
‘That kind of campaign may have worked at another place over in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.’
He added: ‘Americans have always been eternal optimists, but over the last three and a half years, we have seen hopes and dreams diminished by false promises and weak leadership. Everywhere I go, Americans are tired of being tired.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134767/Mitt-Romney-lays-claim-Republcian-nomination-sweeps-victory-5-primaries.html#ixzz1t3a9n0nW
Truer words have never been spoken.
A BETTER AMERICA BEGAN LAST NIGHT!!!!!!!
ROMNEY 2012
In his victory speech last night, Mitt Romney proclaimed, "We're not stupid!" This man just can't stop lying. It can hardly be taken as a sign of intelligence that voters would cast their lot with someone who pivots so much he makes a whirling dervish look like a statue.
Mitt Romney is a liar. For him, truth is not stranger than fiction. Truth is just a stranger. Yet, Republican drones are now lining up dutifully behind him. How does a rational person throw in with someone who cannot be trusted, who will lie at the drop of a fact? The answer is: Rational people DO NOT line up behind someone like that. His supporters live in a world that is not dependent on fact. They live in a reality that exists only in their own weird minds.
Brianb, who claims to hate this site, is the epitome of a Romney supporter; a guy who is in the "Anybody But Obama" asylum. How dim is the bulb that sees Palin, or Cain, or Gohmert as a superior alternative to President Obama? Consider one-milliwatt Brianb, who says he is a conservative. It is virtually impossible to find two more meaningless and/or nebulous words out there in Internet world than "conservative" and "liberal", but not for Brianb.
He knows what they mean. (Disclaimer: These are HIS words. I swear I'm not making this up.) "Do you want the short version, or the long version.... tell you what.. I'll start with the short version and then justify it with the long version. Short version: Liberal - emotional hypocrite. Conservative - Long term thinker."
Who needs a dictionary when you have Brianb? That kind of "thinking" is why there is no compromise for these people. They do not understand what you are saying. They define what they hear based not on a common language, but on what they want to hear. They not only want to frame the debate, they want to define the words. Tell them that taxes must be raised to eliminate deficits, just as the Bowles-Simpson folks say, and they hear something like, "Blue squirrels in motorized canoes are coming to enslave your children."
Brianb is put out by those who wish to conduct debates on issues in a common language. If you can't speak his language, you lose. "My thoughts are my definition. You wanted to know... I spelled it out for you... and now you still are protesting. Maybe I should add that as a greater more expansive definition of liberals. They protest everything... even when things have been spelled out for them." Blue squirrels and motorized canoes!
Brianb is not unique. Indeed, he is the model for the cannon fodder that signs up to make the rich richer. He is in that seething mass of low and no-information citizens who see a President who is going to take their guns, ALL evidence to the contrary. These are the people who speak of personhood at conception, but work feverishly to reduce women to the status of chattel. They are immune to reason.
Arguing with them is a fool's errand. The real work at hand is getting voters to the polls. That fact is there really is an entitlement mentality out there. Many of the left-wing lazies really believe that government is magic, that life is a free ride. By staying home from the polls, they might just as well be actively campaigning to have their rights stripped from them.
Laziness and craziness are both deadly.
Here was this line in Romney's conclusion:
"There was a time -- not so long ago -- when each of us could walk a little taller and stand a little straighter because we had a gift that no one else in the world shared. We were Americans." Mitt Romney
*******************
Is he serious? This is the guy who laid people off so he could profit more. This is the guy who took hard working American’s PENSION. This is the guy who saw no problem with America invading Iraq. This is the guy who hides his money in the Cayman Islands.
So of course we have the usual suspects on tv last night saying this was Mitt’s best speech, without of course breaking it down. Although if they had broken it down, I don’t think they would have particularly cared how much lying he did.
Below is a real journalist and this is what he had to say about Mitt’s speech.
Steve Benen/The Maddow Blog
The presumptive GOP nominee went through a litany of predictable falsehoods, including the ridiculous lie that President Obama "apologized for America," but just as important was the disconnect between Romney's rhetoric and Romney's stated agenda.
Romney reached out, for example, to "the mom and dad who never thought they'd be on food stamps," without acknowledging that he supports slashing funding for food stamps. He spoke repeatedly about "unfairness" in the economy, without mentioning he supports some millionaires and billionaires paying a lower tax rate than most of the middle class. He talked about rising debt without noting that he has no way of paying for the massive tax breaks he's sworn to pass. He said he'd rescue "grandparents" without acknowledging that he intends to turn Medicare into a voucher program, push partial privatization of Social Security, and bring back the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole."
Listening to Romney, an uninformed voter would probably have no idea that his promises bear no resemblance to his stated intentions. The former governor said last night, "It's still about the economy -- and we're not stupid." It's a nice little line, but it rankles because Romney is absolutely counting on ignorance and gullibility to advance his ambitions.
*****************
Go back for the last 10 years and you will find out why we are a troubled nation. Then go to just last week when Romney advisors said he would follow GWB’s policies.
Yes, this was Mitt’s best speech according to msm.
He was once again able to pull the wool over mainstream journalists just like GWB and Reagan were able to do.
Romney deliberately lost people jobs. DELIBERATELY. So he could profit.
Yes...Romney's speech last night was fascinating...all you have to do is believe that he's about to contradict every position he took during the primaries so far.
Shake it, Mr. Romney!
"Etch-a-Sketch" 2012!!!
David, 100% correct. We need to get people to the polls and turn the House back to the Democrats. Republicans are incompetent at every level.
Re-elect President Obama and get the House back. It's so so critical.
The slow-bama “recovery” continues to slow down from the already pathetically anemic rate at which it had been crawling along.
Yeah, yeah, lefty liberals will cling to their talking point about “25 months of private sector job growth”, while ignoring the fact that the number of jobs isn’t even close to keeping up with population growth in the labor market.
And they will cling to the decline in the unemployment rate without acknowledging it is mostly due to discouraged workers finding the job market so dismal that they give up hope of ever finding a job and stop looking, and are no longer counted as unemployed.
And Barry is on a campaign college tour trying to distract young college voters from the grim reality of his slow-bama “recovery” where they can’t find a job (other than Starbucks) after graduation, by “feeling their pain” on student loan interest rates. I don’t know, but, I think they would rather have a job that fits with their degree.
Orders for Durable Goods Tumble 4.2% on Drop in Aircraft
Reuters
| 25 Apr 2012 | 08:34 AM ET
Demand for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods dropped by the most in three years in March and a gauge of business spending plans fell, suggesting factory activity lost momentum as the first quarter ended.
Durable goods orders tumbled 4.2 percent, the largest decline since January 2009, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday after a downwardly revised 1.9 percent increase in February.
Economists had forecast orders for durable goods, which range from toasters to aircraft, falling 1.7 percent after a previously reported 2.4 percent rise in February.
Orders were dragged down by a 12.5 percent plunge in bookings for transportation equipment — the most since November 2010.
Excluding transportation, orders fell 1.1 percent after a 1.9 percent rise in February. Economists had forecast this category rising 0.5 percent.
The report added to signs that manufacturing exited the first quarter with less momentum. Data last week showed industrial production was flat in March for a second straight month, while some gauges of regional factory activity weakened in April.
"It's still the economy, and we're not stupid." Well, that remains to be seen. Anyone who chooses to embrace Mitt Romney who offers the same failed policies of Reagan, Bush and Bush; the policies that literally collapsed all aspects of our economy are pretty darn stupid. I'd suggest Mitt Romney find a better line because every time he utters that phrase, there will be plenty of people both on FR and on TV reminding voters of which party caused our problems, which party gave us the massive deficits and debts, and which party intends to repeat the same trickle-down mess that has only trickled up.
On top of that the ObamaCare bill comes due as the taxes associated with it’s funding his all Americans as well. Democrats are also looking to double tax your 401K accounts. Under their plan you will get taxed as you make contributions to the fund and then taxed again as you cash out on your investment. What is Obama’s plan to avoid this from happening? Why he is campaigning, solely focused on his laughable Buffet rule. This country is headed for a financial crisis that will make 2007 look like chump change. We have no leadership and no governance from this failed administration. It’s a shame that we elected a progressive as the first African American President. If only we elected someone conservative like Colin Powell or Cond Rice things would have been different. Those individuals would not have wasted 2 years on a healthcare bill that the country did not want. Those individuals would have vetoed Dodd/Frank and countless other regulations that have totally bogged down any economic recovery. Now that office maybe closed to diversity for decades after the failed policies of Obama. Be that as it may. Mitt Romney is the right man at the right time. He understand job creation. He understands the devastating effects of Obama’s overregulation and anti-business posture. He understand free market and free enterprise. He knows what needs to be done to get us working again. If Romney had been elected three and half years ago our economy would have rebounded a year and half ago. Romney/Rubio 2012
Can I get an "Amen"!!!
Obama 2012 - "Joel Osteen has got nothing over me!"
Funny how both he Newt said they would support the eventual GOP nominee but fell well short of a endorsement of Romney.
If you loved struggling between 2000-2008 vote for Willard - he will take you straight back to the good old days!
Is it only me or have the regular RWNJ's around here finally embraced the Mittwitt?
Kind of like Boehner & the rest who held off until it became inevitable?
Such courage, conviction & enthusiasm these lost souls have! lol
I find it hilarious and pitiful that the ever steadfast -- but patently wrong, gutless, integrity-less, moral-less -- LWNJ minions on hear have to coordinate their efforts and select one story to try to dominate with lies, juvenile name calling. But all they do is to prove President Romney's point of diversions, distractions and distortions since they have nothing else. Their legion is small and growing smaller by the day.
A presidential man -- Mitt Romney -- took the podium last night and brought hope back for Americans who were hoodwinked into voting for lies four years ago.
A BETTER AMERICA BEGAN LAST NIGHT
ROMNEY 2012
Well, if that's what you want to call it. You can call it whatever you want.
Republicans have the screwiest way of talking, even about their own. Reminds me of how they responded to questions about Obama's religion and birthplace "well, if he says so..." You get the feeling they don't hold any real principles.
Hey, Joe in Albany
The slow-bama “recovery” continues to slow down from the already pathetically anemic rate at which it had been crawling along.
Orders for Durable Goods Tumble 4.2% on Drop in Aircraft
Whadda you think it would have been without President Obama at the helm? Ahhhh, you don't know do you based upon your usual, unenthusiastic, lament?
What is slow Joee are your instincts and brains.
Obama/Biden 2012
Nope. Hows about a big No Thank You! I think we've seen enough of the trickle down theory to last a life time.
Hell no! They have with the exception of Rob and Bob just recently received there vote for Mitt
noseclothes pins.The Weather Vane still boring. Bless his heart...
So, there's that word again 'compromised ideas'!
...but, nomention of just why?.......Compromise is a dirty word to the Tea People.
President Obama had to work with the party of NO, a group of people who refused to budge an inch on any of their radical ideology....President Obama tried to reach across the isle and unfortunately in many cases was unsuccessful, so..........
Obama/Biden 2012!
I must say, the writers here have something of a gift for turning anything at all to Obama's advantage. They lob criticism at Romney's money line- It's still the economy- and we're not stupid- by claiming he should have been "punchier/smirkier".
Of course, if he HAD been either of those, they would have criticized him for being smirky and sarcastic- thus, not serious.
Hey, guys? You've got to be kidding.
The Obama is SOOOO likable trope reminds me of 1980. Then, we were reminded, daily, that Carter was the most honest president since Honest Abe. Why was that so important? Well, you might remember that we'd been through what Ford called a Long, National Nightmare. Honesty was at a premium. The fact that the electorate was so mindful of this quality informed the thinking of pollsters, who included it in all their polling- and weighted for it. Thus, on the eve of the election, we were told that it was "too close to call"- and Reagan won by ten points.
Just as Carter's honesty did not overcome his ineptitude, so will Obama's likability not overcome his wretched performance.
He's even having an issue with vapid phrases. Yesterday, he called on people to tweet at a hashtag "don't double my rate". Well, he got tweets, okay. Of course most of them referred to the more-than- doubling of gas prices, but, hey, he succeeded, right?
As to his supposed "swoon factor"- I'm thinking you guys keep bringing it up because, well, fewer people are swooning, except over the outcome of his policies. Gas prices are sky high, along with the debt. Durable goods orders plummeted last month-4.2% decline- this a day after the news that February home prices plummeted. Those two statistics have very real impacts- the first, because home sellers are seeing a deep cut in their net worth, the second because, when orders slow, layoffs rise.
Add to that all those Obama voters who will graduate next month into this job market, and I'm pretty sure the only swooning will be of the "how dumb could I have been" variety.
Obama shelved in 2012.
Reading these posts, it sickens me to think that people, either democrats or republicans, don't have a clue as to what needs to be done... with all the name calling, pettiness, childish behaviour, we are such a split society right now and we are all fools for battling each other rather than fighting the real enemies in WASHINGTON DC!
Can we stop the name calling, stop the "my candidate is better than your's" bull... and start to ask why our representatives and leaders are doing absolutely nothing to help their COUNTRY and their PEOPLE, instead of finger pointing, class warfare.
Grow up children, you are the SUCKERS!
Santa Barry is on his college tour giving away free gifts to the students. Well, free if you don't count spending more money the country does not have.
Lets give a big AMEN to Barry for his wonderful gifts!
Absolutely correct chilled. They need to be voted OUT. They're a disgrace.
Also, has anyone noticed that with today's economy, we are seeing 65+ year olds still working, even though they don't need to? They are quite well off financially. They're collecting paychecks AND social security. I'm talking about people who truly don't need to work in order to eat and pay their bills.
They're keeping others from securing a good job. Retire! It's time to step aside like our parents did.
Backhouse
All of which causes folks to trust Government less....the Rand/Friedman/A.L.E.C./Koch/GOP/Norquist dream.
Great Post; although I prefer to call it a nightmare!!!
So the loser Santorum is endorsing the loser Romney, where is the value in that?
Actually the Obama recovery has been excellent, and as planned just ask his cronies who have been the recipients of all our wasted tax dollars. Obama has lined the pockets of unions, green energy scams, Columbia, China, Iran, illegal immigrants, to name but a few. Funny, but any list of those that have profited from the Obama administration doesn't seem to include the American people. Well I am sure if given a second term Obama will have more flexibility to push his real agenda, and maybe that will include helping the American people.
So far. Obama has raised $191 million and Romney $86 million per opensecrets.org .
The really interesting fact, however, is that 11% of Romney's donations have been small (less than $500?) while over 45% of Obama's donations have been small.
Endorsement? Is that what you call what Santorum gave Romney last night?
Endorsements usually don't sound like, "MEH."
Somewhere deep down I believe Santorum is praying for the ruination of Mitt Romney so he can dance a jig on what is left of Romney's political career saying, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!"
JoAnnaSmith1
Santa Barry is on his college tour giving away free gifts to the students. Well, free if you don't count spending more money the country does not have.
Lets give a big AMEN to Barry for his wonderful gifts!
Nooooooooo, Sniff1
Let's have you atone for your sin; lying. Truly, that would be a blessed thing.
Rick I beg to differ. I received money from the Federal Government for solar panels. $10,000 through the State of Minnesota, Federal stimulus money, and a 30% tax credit which amounted $10,485.
So, my current month's electric bill is projected to be a $35.00 credit. Compared with 2 years ago of $80, that is a $115 swing in my favor.
How many persons supporting Obama make/have a budget i.e. one that tries to balance their inflows with their outflows? What happens when you have to use a credit card because of insufficient inflows? Do you worry about that debt? If you don't, then as Obama stated rightly in 2008, "it is un-American." Should we level the same criticism against Obama as he did against George Bush? Certainly, Obama has outspent George Bush.
I would go further and say that Obama is as much a failure as George Bush and we should be independent and not tolerate this failure. It will raise the standard we expect of our politicians.
Bruce -848280
So far. Obama has raised $191 million and Romney $86 million per opensecrets.org .
The really interesting fact, however, is that 11% of Romney's donations have been small (less than $500?) while over 45% of Obama's donations have been small.
Isn't that great? More people are giving to a leader.
Obama/Biden2012
Da Noid, yeah not sure what that is, Santorum thinks he has leverage to gain something from Romney in his Admin.
Funny how these 2 supposed christians, hate one another. Hate must be a true christian value.
Its a laugh that the right is as giddy as a school girl in love with mitt. Its going to be sad when your hearts get broken in November.
It certainly is an awful economy Obamanomics has given us. Imagine that, people still working in their later years! The shouldn't have that freedom, the government should force them to stop working. Obama should tell Congress to pass a law prohibiting anyone from working after age 65. Wither that or pull out his tried and true "If they won't, I will!" line of bs and sign an Executive Order doing so.
Obama 2012 - "You'll do what I tell you, and you'll like it!"
Bev
I believe that Romney excluded you when he said we're not stupid. Clearly he hadn't had the pleasure of meeting you.
Keep it up though, I enjoy your posts. Gets me laughing.
Bill in Fairfax,
Romney actually flubbed that line. It was based off of James Carville, when he said "It's the economy, stupid". Mitt's timing was completely off, as was his flow.
Rick,
Do you have any actual sources to back those claims up? How has he spent our money on Iran? How has he done so with illegal immigrants when he's deported more then Bush did?
But you're right about his second term. He's gonna go medeival on your asses. Everyone will be forced to drive hybrids and eat aborted fetuses. Your Bibles will be used as toliet paper, and all rich people will be herded into planes and subsequently pushed out over Christian churches, effectively using them as bombs.
One question though, why would he risk waiting for a second term? Why not, get into office, and then take over the world right away?
Everyone Else,
This is what I'm waiting for...
I've heard the case against Obama, now can someone please make the case for Romney?
David walker, and obama hasn't shown us his propensity to lie and deceive? Your post tells me that you are one of the deceivers as well. Keep on trying to keep on for you are stumbling badly.
Seems that the only valid thing you said in your diatribe was about voter turnout, and those of us who haven't been dumbed down like yourself know perfectly well how obamas "project narwhal" is intended to really work.
Of course we need not diminish the impact of social media as well, one only needs to look at its impact with the travon martin-zimmerman case.
John Nichols, The Nation:
Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by a landslide Tuesday in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.
In fact, hundreds of thousands of Republicans were still voting for "Anyone But Romney."
In Connecticut, 33 percent of Republicans rejected Romney.
In Rhode Island, 37 percent of Republicans rejected Romney.
In New York, 40 percent of Republicans rejected Romney.
In Delaware, 43 percent of Republicans rejected Romney.
In Pennsylvania, 43 percent of Republicans rejected Romney.
OK, let's do the math. You got a total of $20,485 from we the taxpayers and your net swing in monthly utility bills is $115, so the breakeven point comes in about 15 years. Gee, with "investments" like that no wonder we're going bankrupt.
Next, you should "invest" in a Chevy Volt. Might only take about 10 years to recoup your gas money from that.
Being Business owners and corporations make up 5% of the voters, the only chance they have to say their peace about.
Business speaks with it's money. Where did the money from wall street, corporations go each election.
2000 Bush
2004 Bush
2008 Obama
2012 it Flipped to Romney. Why? In their opinion, they think Romney will do a better job with the economy, meaning they will be able to grow again.
Why Obama in 2008? The crash in 2008 was blamed on Republicans. Obama ran as a moderate who even though his energy policy would destroy a huge part of the energy industry and energy exports, they were seeking stability. What they got was liberal governmental micromanagement, more fees, threats of more taxes, and stiff rigid environmental polices that more than bury any tax cuts Obama gave them.
Business people are no different than you and I. They are full of people who don't understand everything themselves. They too, are suseptible to the failure to understand that who runs congress may be more important than who is president.
In 2007, the democrats took over both houses of congress. From that point, every economic indicator began pointing down. Keeping the democrats in control of even one part of the system will keep the economy from turning up enough to be fully employed again, like we have grown to expect from JFK, Ronald Reagan, Bush 43, and Warren G Harding.
No Republican in their right mind wants to run for Vice-President with Romney. It would be political suicide for 2016. Bush, Cristie etc. see the handwriting on the wall. "Not This Time" "Not against an incumbent President like Obama". "We'll Wait, Thank You". Only the young, inexperience and foolish want to be on the ticket. Lots of luck boys. You can kiss off future consideration for the future. I love it.
Obama in 2012.
That is great news Rod_Father which generation do you think will be paying for your solar upgrade? Will it be your grand kids or your great great great grand kids? Because it certainly wasn't money this country had on hand to buy your Obama vote. So bragging about your total lack of concern for the fiscal health of this country fits right in with all the liberals that support Obama. I am sure the indentured servitude for future generations thanks to Obama will be well received.
Sarah: I see you are still rebellious. You need to let go of whatever weighs on your heart.
Romney's qualifications to be President is certainly more impressive than Obama's even after Obama's 3.5 years.
Is Mitt running for President, or contending on Dancing With the Stars?
Obama 2012 - "Amen"
Also, has anyone noticed that with today's economy, we are seeing 65+ year olds still working, even though they don't need to? They are quite well off financially. They're collecting paychecks AND social security. I'm talking about people who truly don't need to work in order to eat and pay their bills.
They're keeping others from securing a good job. Retire! It's time to step aside like our parents did.
____________________________
YEAH!!!!
Get out of the way you old farts.
Better yet, why don't you all kill yourselves so you don't use up all the SS and Medicare "Trust" funds.
I thought lefty liberals were supposed to be caring and compassionate about the elderly??
Ahem, strenghts?
Romney is a devout Muslim Republican.
Obama is a loyal Communist Democrat.
What more does a voter need to know?
Now, let's analyze this comment:
Well, Ms. Sarah, we all know Christianity is dead in the Republican Party, so what you are, in effect, saying is that Obama will go all Crusader style right here on Muslim Republican America! If only we could wake up and save our Republican Koran from you Godless Commies!
السلا م عليكم و رحمة الله و باركته
my Republican allies! Rise up, like a Shiite Rebellion in Iraq!
Exactly what Obama wanted: Young versus Old!
How about you try to compete with the old guys for their jobs rather than expect them to give you their jobs? You morons are just that: incomprehensible.
Anony,
And those qualifications are....
How is he planning on fixing things? What's different that he will try? What's innovative? What will he do, that hasn't already been done?
If only that rule of thumb were still in place, huh??? What's weighing on my heart right now, is about a pound of vomit, from where I puked all over myself after reading your comment.
Derek,
I prefer Godless Pinko. Thanks.
Oh yes, the days where unemployment was 5-6%, how I remember those struggling times. But Bush did have it easy, I mean other then the dot.com bust, and the largest attack on American soil ever. But then the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2006 and everything has been going gang busters ever since. (If you live in India and China where all the American businesses are running to get away from liberal take from workers and give to voters policies.) Yes, increasing health care costs, increasing taxes, increasing debt, increasing energy costs, and the soon to be increasing voter fraud all new joys we have to look forward to if Obama gets to continue his community organizing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47139341/
Some "plan" Romney has there.
Pat - you are talking yourself into a major disappointment. Romney has yet to announce a running mate. It will be a conservative, the question is which one. This will solidify the Republicans. How much it will solidify will depend upon the choice.
Rubio is a heavy favorite, and there are several other favorites, but not a sure thing. I know Romney said that Santorum would not be the choice, but, Santorum is set to meet with Romney on May 5th.
Santorum might actually be a better choice. Santorum was running stonger than Romney against Obama in the key swing states of Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Ohio and Pennsylvania spell Presidency for Romney, and the insurance in those other states would be welcome I'm sure.
derek Now that is quite a statement. "Muslim Republican America" well you said it well. I sure other republican/teabaggers will agree with you. Look a republican can speak the truth. Great Post
That is one way to look at it. LOL The other way might be that Romney got over 50% of the vote everywhere last night despite the fact he was one of FOUR candidates. In effect he got more votes then all the other candidates combined. Doesn't seem like such a big rejection when it's phrased that way does it.
Sarah: You are feeling that way because of your binge drinking.
You've seen the evidence of Obama's incompetence. You've seen the evidence of George Bush's incompetence. You know that Mitt Romney is successful. But you are not willing to let go of your partisanship and vote for a change. That is a very corrupt way of thinking.
Sarah says: "I've heard the case against Obama, now can someone please make the case for Romney?" Perfect, just re-read the case for Obama and you have the case for Romney, or anyone except Obama for that matter.
ROMNEY 2012!
Anony,
No, I'm immune to binge drinking at this point in time. I can take down a case of Pabst like a linebacker. The vomit is definitly from you.
And, how are you so insightful about me? That's a bit creepy. Anyhoo, you didn't answer any of my questions...
How will Romney be successful as POTUS? What is his plan to fix things? What's new and innovative? What is he willing to try, that hasn't already been done?
3Thirty,
That doesn't answer the question, that dodges it. What's the case for Romney?
Actually, it was a clever variation of the Clinton campaign's mantra at the time. But thanks for reminding us of Carville, always nice to have someone around here with the capacity to point out the obvious.
I wish people would stop using their heads as a tool for vaginal probing.
Anony Mous1, yes! Sarah, the drinker! She drinks the evil spirits, not like us Muslim Republicans. I bet she even has tattoos!
Ms. Sarah, let me remind you that the color red and all its forms has been taken in the name of Allah for the Republicans. You might be called a Godless Baby Blue-ey! In fact, I think that term fits you perfectly. You wear baby blue, drink and curse! And are Godless...well, at least your Party is.
Oh Mullah Romney! Protect us from Chairman Obama! Protect us from those who wear blue...or uniform grey. May all men wear beards and dress in red. May all women wear pink burquas and only leave their houses with husbands or fathers!
By the way, in ancient India, women in the palace were not allowed to look outside. So they had faux balconies where a carved wood diorama or a mirror would replace the view. Now that's some thinking! Republicans for mirrored balconies! Fix this economy? I don't think so!
Pat,
They are quite well off financially. They're collecting paychecks AND social security. I'm talking about people who truly don't need to work in order to eat and pay their bills.
They're keeping others from securing a good job. Retire! It's time to step aside like our parents did.
I am trying to be kind, but this is the most ridiculous comment I have heard in a long time. I am simply blown away by your attitude.
Bill,
Somebody needs to.
Derek,
The best part... One of those tatoos is in Chinese.
Well no offense, but even if I was well off when retired I'd want a part time job, at least during the winter. I'd need something to keep me busy or I'd go insane.
I bet many of those people you described feel the same way.
The best part... One of those tatoos is in Chinese.
:O
My head has esploded!
Where's my Koran? I know it will let me put it back together again.....
Sarah:
Please do some of your own research.
Romney says he knows how to get us out of this economic mess, yet it's the policies of "starve the beast" that got us here.
So, in effect, he thinks he'll move us forward when the reality is he'll move us backward.
For those that want to argue the economy. Any graph you choose will show progress on the economy by Obama.
Romney is untested and inexperienced.
Anony,
Why should I prove YOUR point. You're the one who's telling me I should vote for Romney, you should be able to back that up with WHY I should.
derek You go man Please keep telling us how you republican/teabaggers think. You represent the republican party well. I'll bet all you republicans are proud of your man derek.
Thank You derek for putting your party before yourself!
American lotsanumbers:
Inasmuch as you insist on stalking me, if you are going to respond to my posts, at least stick to facts. Mitt Romney has been shown repeatedly to be a liar. The quotes attributed to Brianb are his, without alteration.
If you have a quarrel with MY facts, put it out there. If you're going to simply sling around worthless opinions, you're wasting your time. Take your man crush elsewhere.
Not a problem, Smitty. I will!
Now, remember, Smitty, you can save yourself by picking up a Koran, praying to Mecca and joining the Muslim Republican movement. Its either that or a lake of fire.
Honestly, would you like health care reform instead of an eternity of burning? You know the Godless Commies aren't going to fix the economy. Point is, why would the Muslim Republicans? Its all naught in return for the promises of afterlife. Just saying, you still have time to save yourself!
Sorry I have to spell it out for you Sarah but that wasn't dodging anything. Your case for Obama is for more government, cradle to grave government. Your case for Obama is by spending more money we don't have it will make the economy better. That's like putting a bandaid on a severed carotid artery. Your case for Obama is to start undermining the Constitution starting with the first Amendment. I could go on, but you get the drift. So, just reverse all of those liberal ideas and you have conservative ones. There that wasn't so hard was it.
Sarah - Make the case for romney?? We fell for the "hope and change" hype obama gave us in 2008 and his subsequent policies since then.
Basically, that tells many of us that romney can do no worse, but he has the strength of first hand business acumen and as a governor who could work with his states legislative branch. Both of which required 1st hand decision making and analysis.
If one looks at the functions of what private equities do, it is not all about cannibalizing companies. Companies btw who have put themselves in a precarious position for a buyout by others. Alluding to them tearing apart a company for only cash and laying off workers is nothing more than stupidity. A simple review of history shows us that companies who were once strong in their fields no longer exist because of changing markets or policies that made them uncompetitive. Think of all those that once made buggy's of buggy whips. Think of where eastman kodak is today.
Romney's areas of inexperiences are no different than what the jr senator obama had in 2008 and are largely just as unknown and can only be defined once in office.
I will say that those who mocked obama for using a teleprompter better hope that romney uses one, he makes too many off hand gaffs.
Regarding romney relating to us "common folk", I am more interested in a politician with the skill sets to move us forward and to create unity, not just emphasise with them or blame someone else. Interesting that many complain that romney only supports the wealthy but ignore history on how obama does so as well. I mean, how many can afford $35,000/plate political benifit dinners?
Romney and tax cuts... rhetoric in the same category of obamas "hope and change". Even so, it would not be tax cuts for only the wealthy. We need tax reform and smart spending reductions first and then look where taxes should be. Regardless, boles-simpson should be the starting point just as it should have been the starting point in 2011.
Romney and being a morman. Kennedy had the same argument placed against him for being a roman catholic, obama the same regarding Islamic influence as a youth. Really a non-issue as long as it remains at an individual level when it comes to governing.
Romney and women... very subjective and really dependent on how one views governments role in individual rights and government financial mandates of those rights.
The bottomline will be when one walks into the voting both and asks the question on if we as a nation are going in the right direction with obama or do we change to a policy for growth.
And you do it so well. Please ring a bell or something if you ever decide to post an original thought.
Please go easy on Pat, thetotas. She has not recovered from hearing Obama booed at Fenway Park. Grasping at straws, blaming seniors for high unemployment, desperately trying to make an issue of those who did not vote with the majority last night- and neglecting to mention that 47% did not vote for Obama, and that did not alter the outcome of the election- is all she can do to get over the shock.
Obama booed at Fenway. My, my, my.
I see the usual liberals basking their glory posting on Romney. If you libs think that by taking the house and senate you will just magically FIX everything...well you are self deluded. Your spend a thon bunch will increase the deficit to 25T in 4 years most likely. We can't survive with cradle to grave mentality of the government. You guys as the handout brigade have become so embroiled in SAVING every single person that is lazy and unwilling to work that you have lost sight of how this country was made prosperous........HARD WORK.
It's really quite simple. It's the 99% vs. the 1%. It's OWS 99%ers vs. Wall Street 1%ers.
Will the 99% be swayed enough by the money the 1% is throwing at them via ads and slogans to lure them over to the dark side with false promises of making things better for them? Will the 99% fall to the 1% False Christians belief that theirs alone is the one true and righteous way?
Will the poor, the elderly, the students, the disabled, all minorities, and all women dismiss the recent actions of the GOP against them, or will they succumb to the best GOP silky sweet talk that 1% money can buy?
Will the 99% give the president another shot at fixiing the economy, or will they buy into the 1% twisted rhetoric of what's good for the economy is even more of what got us into this mess?
Let's hope the 99% is made more aware of what the GOP-controlled state legislatures have passed in their favor - absoutely nothing. There's as big a battleground on the state level as there is at the national level. The 99% needs to look at these GOP states to see what their fate will soon be on a national level if they do not act.
Take back your states and take back your country - Remember in November!
By that "logic" I can say Romney was glitter-bombed in MN. Twice.
"It's confetti!"
David walker, hardly a stalker, but at times you present the most inane arguments and generalizations. I will say this, that at times I even agree with some of what you say which is why I occasionally post referencing you directly.
If that bothers you, so be it. Perhaps you need to reflect more on what you are trying to say before you hit the "post comment" button
You have the potential for arguing a case, unlike many of your fellow LW posters.
Btw - are you implying that obama doesn't lie or spin facts in his favor?
That's what he DID do. What is his plan TO do with the house GOP that won't even consider revenues?
Again, how is this applicable to his duties as POTUS? This makes him qualified to be a business man, but how does it help the case for him being Commander and Chief and the leader of the free world?
Could care less if either of them do.
Could care less. They both have to play the political game. Neither will get money out of politics. Unless Romney has a plan too????
So his tax plan is "trickle down". That didn't work to well before, and it DEFINITLY isn't innovative, courageous, or you know effective. I agree about Simpson-Bowles, at least it would be a starting point, but that goes back to getting it passed through the house. Also, what is his plan for tax reform in its entirity?
Yeah, totally irrelevant to what he'll do as POTUS.
No, it's dependant on what Romney will try to get passed as POTUS. Which is????
So, let me sum it up, I should vote for him because he'll cut taxes on the wealthy, was a good business man, and had some moderate success with a state legislature. That tells me really nothing of substance...
Iran?
Afghanistan?
China?
Trade?
Healthcare?
Infrastructure?
Wall St?
Education?
What are his plans in regards to those specific issues, and why are they better or more effective than Obama's?
Bill,
Why a bell? Or is that just what you're conditioned to respond to?
(Oh yeah, that was a Pavlovian dog insult, folks)
To the self-appointed critic - 'american'.
I've read David Walker's postings, and you're no David Walker. Far from it.
You couldn't carry his pencil.
Hi Sarah - From your picture, you look semi-hot. You wanted to know Mitt's plan? See link below; this is Mitt's plan for Trade, Tax, Regulatory, Fiscal, Jobs and Human Capital policies. It may just be me, but even not being president, Mitt has better plans to grow our economy that Obama did or does. Peace out
http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Summary.pdf
I watched Romney last night and had a hard time not throwing a brick through the television. This piece of GOP garbage lies so much I'm surprised we didn't see his nose grow right there. Putting Obama down is all he can do because he has nothing to offer. And, those with a brain in their heads, know Romney would have to reach up to touch Obama's shoes. He of course failed to mention the absolute obstructionists the GOP have been for all of Obama's term - yet Obama has still managed to get the economy moving - slowly but much better than the GOP would have done.
We are surely too smart to buy into the stupidity of Romney. We as a nation cannot afford to take our country backward with this moron.
Obama/Biden 2012
The American Competitiveness Act
Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
Simply reducing the corporate rate will not be effective. There are already so many loopholes and "outs" that corporations don't pay close to what the actual rate is. If he wants to reduce the rate, fine, but then penalize those who don't produce here.
The Open Markets Act
Reinstates the president's Trade Promotion Authority to facilitate negotiation of new trade agreements
Sounds good, but what will he address and do with that power?
The Domestic Energy Act
Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive
survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration
Doesn't sound good at all. For every ounce of effort we put into finding domestic fossil fuels, we need to put in 9 ounces into figuring out how we can get off of them. This plan focuses on the past, and is doomed to failure. We will run out. It's a given.
The Retraining Reform Act
Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and responsibility for these programs to the states
Specifics???? This doens't tell me much.
The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act
Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion
In no way is it fiscally sane to focus on discretionary spending only. The cash cows are defense and entitlements. Discretionary should be the last resort.
His executive orders?
Get rid of ACA, okay, what is his specific plan to fix healthcare? How will he send it to the states, why will that work?
Get rid of regulations? Which ones? Where is his case for repealing ALL of these regulations? What effect would that have?
Domestic energy? See above.
I like his plan to call China out, and I like his American Business plan. The rest... meh.
If I were a wealthy investor profiting from outsourcing American jobs and hurting American consumers, I would believe in Mitt Romney in a second.
Unfortunately, I'm a self-employed private music teacher, and all I see in Mitt Romney's economic plans is more my student's parents losing their jobs and no longer being able to afford to have their kids take lessons from me.
Mitt has an economic plan, but it is not for most of us.
Bill, I also got $11,400 from my energy supplier. My backback was roughly 24 months. I will do that allllllllllllll dayyyyyyyyyyyyyy longggggggggggggg.
Thank you "We the People".
On the flip side:
In Connecticut, 100 percent of Republicans rejected Obama.
In Rhode Island, 100 percent of Republicans rejected Obama.
In New York, 100 percent of Republicans rejected Obama.
In Delaware, 100 percent of Republicans rejected Obama.
In Pennsylvania, 100 percent of Republicans rejected Obama.
What's with the outsourcing being blamed on one party alone? Please take time to think about reality.
Maybe it's just selective memory, however I remember Obama standing hand in hand with Hu Jintao touting deals that put American jobs in China.
Juice, eeewww! That's weird. Don't talk about people's looks on a political forum it makes you sound especially ignorant and creepy.
David, LOVED your initial post! I laughed out loud! It's true too. When I first joined the vine I thought it would be nice to hear from some conservatives who have different views but could argue and articulate their stance with me and others. So far they are VERY few and far between. At least Alan will respond to points made in an argument but he's a moderate. I don't understand why a "real" conservative won't have a civil conversation about the policies and candidates they favor.
Sarah, keep it up lady! You're killing me here! Great entertainment today!
@David - that one gave me a great laugh. It is the response one always get when attempting to engage in discussions here. Much like the in-depth response Sarah gets as to why she should vote for Romney, they either say because he isn't Obama (well, that is obvious), and when asked again, they say "Blue squirrels in motorized canoes are coming to enslave your children."
You don't see anyone defending Obama's record either.
Oh wait you do: "It's Bushes fault"
John, Tucson - what a totally ignorant post. No Republicans in any of those states rejected Obama. They voted in the primary they were registered for as anyone with even a very small amount of intelligence would know. When the actual election is held in November you will see that many Republicans actually vote for Obama.
Obama/Biden 2012
Smitty - Beware you are standing on kavir in a brownout here with Derek. If you keep chasing him around the shod bogs,you just may step in it.
Sarah - as always - intelligent and witty posts.
President Harry Truman in 1948: "The Republicans … will try
to make people believe that
everything the Government has done for the country
is socialism. They will
go to the people and say: "Did you see that social
security check you
received the other day—you thought that was good for you,
didn't you? That's just too bad! That's nothing in the world but socialism. Did
you see that
new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the
protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital
that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the
farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you,
my
friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and
your
home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you
are just
surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, 'That's a
terrible thing, my
friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of
socialism is to
vote for the
Republican ticket.'" And President Truman made that speech 64 Years
Ago!!!, the republicanCrimeCartel is still doing the same exploitation of people
THEY ARE NOTORIUS FOR. Now, according to KingGeorgeTheVacuumBrained, it is
called "free market" capitalism; with families in the streets and 21%
Unemployment, unending ruinous wars, NO American UniversalHealthCareSystem which is A National Disgrace, the wealthy getting tax evasion bonuses from this party of Naught, ESP MittTaxPittanceRommrl.
Remember Fellow and Sister Americans: A vote for ANY
republicanCrimeCartelSoldier, Rommel, is a vote Against Yours and Your Family's
WellBeing
Heaven help us if Romney wins the election. If America is dumb enough to vote for the Bush economic policies that got us into this economic malaise, we deserve what's coming to us...
Where is the Left's outrage over Big Technologies ridiculous profit?
Apple announces $12B profit in the quarter.
I am sure Apple took advantage of all kinds of R&D tax credits.
Hypocrite much?
Are any of the current "policies" reducing our debt?
Bill, Fairfax VA
"It's still the economy – and we're not stupid." Nice line Mitt, and spot on. By any objective standard we are experiencing the worst recovery from an economic downturn in generations. So why should any of us reward a president who has presided over such a mediocre economic performance?
Why should we reward a party whose policies brought us to the brink of economic collapse 4 years ago? Even today you are advocating for the same exact economic policies. I think most people would take a slow and steady recovery than return to the policies that brought the country into a terrible recession. Romney is an empty suit with a lot of money and most people see that. He's the John Kerry of 2004. I think between now and November if the economy goes into a tailspin voters will hold their nose and vote for Romney. If things improve slightly or stay the same it will be closer than it was in 2008. When the economic visions are laid out on the table I'm convinced that Obama will prevail. At this point nobody but Republicans thinks continued tax cuts for the rich is good economic policy.
Of course they did, Obama wasn'e even on the ballot.
Hurp.
How are Obama's policies different then those of many European countries who are now on the verge of collapse and having to go through austerity measures to keep from going under?
Good Morning Sarah,
You are in rare form today.
I am not here to change your vote to Mitt Romney.
I would however like you to think about how things have progressed. There is no easy answer for the United States to get out of the mess that we are in. We could argue who is more to blame between the democrats and the republicans. The truth is a little bit easier to describe but a lot harder to grasp. The truth is we are all partially responsible for the mess we are in. The truth is we can not regulate our way out of this. The truth is we cannot tax the rich to pay for our sins. The truth is we are going to have to raise taxes on everyone that pays taxes. Cut spending on all of our programs, yes even defense. Oh yes I should clarify, slowing the rate of spending increases is not a cut. We need to up the age for social security. We need to modify medicare. It would be nice to stop demonizing the rich for being rich, and the poor for being poor. We need to really look at how effective the programs we have now are actually helping the people they are supposed to help.
We need to stop stimulus programs that take income for 10 years 5 years or 3 years and apply it for 1 year 2 years or 3 years. That is part of why the economy is slowing despite us spending 1 trillion dollars a year more then we are taking in for tax revenue.
I personally am making more money, which sounds good, but for some reason I actually have less money to use to support myself, and my children.
You will be happy to know that I did pay 20% more in taxes last year, so honestly I am trying.
My short answer to the question "Are you better off today than you were three years ago?" Well the answer is NO.
Honestly, I do not know that Mitt would be better. I do know what 4 more years of President Obama will bring.
Both parties need to stop adding all these little additions to bills that need to be passed. Do we really honestly need black boxes in our cars?
We need to stay on task and do what is best for our country. I do not see that with President Obama, I am not sure that I see that with Mitt either. There is not other candidate running. So I will have to wait and see who I actually vote for come November.
President Obama has 6 more months to get my vote.
Mitt Romney as 6 more months to get my vote as well.
Do I think things would be better under McCain, well honestly probably not. I am actually thinking that we might have been better of with Hillary Clinton though. You have no idea how much that pains me to say....
So happy Wednesday to you, the sun is shinning where I am today, but dam does the future look like rain!
So let's say Obama gets everything he wants as far as taxes goes, we would still be running a deficit. So now that you have all your new programs and policies and all your new taxes you find out you are still running a deficit, what are you Democrats going to cut to get to a balanced budget.
The media can hype up Mittens all they want, slant polls to make it look close, so that they have stories. America, and women, will not be electing an extremist 2012 Republican, especially a Mormon cultist, to the presidency.
Nor will blacks, latinos, asians, or LGBT folk. Seeing as white males are only about 35 percent of the population, and of that only 54% of them favour Romney, many being educated, liberal, and non racist, that gives Romney a base of 20 percent or so of voters.
Throw in the brainwashed 30% of evangelical women who'd vote for Hitler or Stalin if they were ordered to, and Romney reaches 35 percent. He reaches about 42 percent when you add in turncoat minorities who do not realize that no Republicans value them.
So tell me, Romney supporters, how does 42% win a national election? Tell me what large states that Romney has a prayer in, pun intended? The electoral math is even more grim than the popular vote. Romney may well only carry Utah and Mississippi as his only states.
You have to addMITT ....
At least Romney can add and subtract ....
In order to further balance the budget we would need spending cuts, as has always been discussed by the Democrats. It's WHAT we're going to cut that the two parties disagree on. (i.e., should we cut education, or tax subsidies to multibillion-dollar-profit oil companies.)
In addition, make no mistake, the huge deficits we are currently running have little to do with "new programs and policies" but rather old programs and policies that must be paid for and reduced tax revenue due to the recession.
Really? I would have guessed less.
Decreased revenue and increased cost, since more people qualify for "handouts" due to the recession as well.
anna-617587
Your post is disgusting. You like to put everyone in some category so that you can divide them and pit them against each other. You call Mormons "cultist", Evangelical women "brainwashed" and say they would vote for evil people like Hitler and Stalin. You call any minority who votes for a Republican a "turn coat" as if they are traitors. After using all of these awful, disgusting terms and phrases you think to call yourself "educated, and non racist"? I don't think many liberals would even agree with your nasty, bigoted post. I would hope not anyway.
I know you won't, but you should apologize for your hateful remarks! Disagreeing with people is one thing, what you have done is completely different, and against what liberals say they are for.
You could cut both, along with Obama's tax increases for revenue, YOU"RE STILL SHORT! Yes it is mainly old programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but Obama care isn't going to help the problem it is going to add to the problem. The choice isn't between cutting subsidies or education, the choice is raising the age of Social Security while at the same time cutting benefits, as well as cutting benefits for Medicare, and Medicaid. But you won't admit that this has to happen, you keep telling people all the problems can be solved with taxes. It just isn't true!
I said "Obama" gets everything he wants on taxes, and you reply we would cut tax subsidies? Isn't that a apart of Obama getting everything he wants on taxes?
Sarah, you're awesome. Why aren't REPORTERSasking these types of BASIC questions?
Rod_Father (and the rest of you), I also got some huge breaks installing solar on my house last year. 8kW system that covers 90% of my electric bill. Yes, saves "only" $150/month but also removes CO2 (equivalent of 90 trees worth so far) and reduces the need for my utility to build another power plant (that's the reason for the credits from the utility too!).
Can't wait for NY to pass the SREC law and I'll be MAKING money people!
Search for OIL, or take advantage of the SUN? Which one of those is going to run out? One of the many reasons for supporting Obama and the Democrats.
So what? What the hell are you telling me? Yes more people out of work means less taxes being paid in, and more benefits being paid out - so what? How are you going to fix the problem? You going to get those people back to work by raising taxes on employers? You going to see a rush to work by people getting paid to stay home when they could be going to work and losing 40% of what they make to taxes?
SmBusOwnerinNY
How does it work in the winter?
@LogicRequired
Those 'hateful' categories are what any poll or survey uses in statistics to break down what is happening.
I and most others, including even evangelicals, do believe that Mormonism is a cult, being ranked second only to Islam in sexism and racism.
Any minority that votes for any Republican is a turncoat, because Republicans do not care for them whatsoever, not in 2012. Gone are the days even of the Bushes, who were inclusive in their Cabinets, with Condi Rice, and Colin Powell, among others.
I am a moderate, not a liberal. I make no apologies, for calling things as they are. There are two sides to this election:
The Republican Party, of white males, preferably wealthy, must be misogynist and support anti women, anti gay/lesbian, and anti immigrant policies.
And the Democratic Party, everyone else, including the rest of white males who are not right wing fanatics wanting to return to pre suffrage and bring back isolationism and Jim Crow.
Apologies? No I am a gadfly, and state truths that make people uncomfortable.
SMBusi,
I'm guessing they don't ask them, because our media outlets are giant conglomerates that participate in the purchasing of our politicians. Ergo, they don't wanna shake things up.
And thank you.
Tonight when you go to drive home use nothing but the sun and no oil and tell me how far you get.
Republicans aren't against solar energy, but the last time I checked oil was still needed for MOST of our energy needs. Until every car, and every house, only needs sun, wind, or whatever, we are still going to need oil during the transition.
obama is in for a surprise in November.
Anna,
I have to give you credit for at least admitting you are part of the problem with the social disparages in this country.
"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money, than what Barack Obama does with MINE."
Why, yes he can. Invest $1M and buy a healthy company, subtract all employees, add all retirement fund and other assets to my overseas account, final total $50M with a footnote, one company closed down.
Eric-913730
So, do you also believe Obama has been using the “starve the beast” tactics the last 3 ½ years? Because Obama’s tactics haven’t produced jack when it comes to results with our economy. Do you remember the stimulus package? Or Obama raising our national debt more in 3 years than any other President in history, including GWB's 8 years in office? Yet we are still in an economic mess. Starving the beast isn’t my preference but shoving food in its face like Obama has done hasn’t worked either.
Really? Numbers do not lie.
Let’s look at unemployment….
Unemployment when Obama was elected 6.5%
This month’s unemployment 8.2%
How about the under-employment numbers...
When Obama was elected 11.8%
This month 18.60%
Median home prices...
When Obama was elected $183,300
This month’s median home price $171,881
Average national gas price per gallon...
When Obama was elected $2.40
This month’s national average $3.83
Oh yes, very untested and inexperienced. Because being a governor doesn’t test your leadership skills or give you experience. Running an international corporation doesn’t require experience and certainly doesn’t test you as a leader.
I’m curious Eric, if you believe a former Fortune 500 CEO and ex-governor is untested and inexperienced, what did you think 4 years ago when the Democrats rolled out a freshman Senator who won his election because his opponent had quit? Personally, it didn't matter and I voted for Obama anyway.
But I won't again. There has been absolutely NO progress in the economy since Obama has gotten elected and most Americans are well aware of this. This is the single most important issue in the coming election and those who believe Obama isn’t in trouble haven’t looked at the history of elections. No President has been re-elected with such abysmal economy numbers. Attacking Romney for his wealth, lack of experience, lack of likability, religion, etc. play very well to some on this forum but doesn’t really matter to the average American. They want results and for all the likability Obama has, that’s where he falls drastically short.
What are you talking about, Marco Rubio is a front runner for VP he is not white.
Try looking up Mia Love (Black, Women, daughter of Immigrants), all the things you say Republicans are against yet here they are nominating Mia Love for Congress. Here is some help....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/22/Haitian-Daughter-Tea-Party
Allen West Elected to congress and a "rascist" tea party favorite.
Jennifer Carrol, Herman Cain (Republican front runner for awhile), Clarence Thomas - Still a conservative favorite. Llyod Marcus, Thomas Sowell, Karl Malone.
Women like Laura Ingram, Michelle Malking (also a minority), Anne Coulter, Meg Whitman, Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina,
The lists can go on and on. I know you fell good about yourself thinking that somehow you are superior to those you disagree with because they are evil and racist, but the fact is you are believing your own lie. Republicans welcome everyone who shares their values no matter color, sex, or sexual orientation. People like you just think dumb crap like that because it makes you feel better about yourself and you are hoping to scare people away from the Republican party. My guess is your a Straight, White, Female, who lives in a white suburb who says $hi! like this to ease your liberal white quilt.
The political pundits really have their work cut out for them. It appears the general election campaign will be Maytag politics - we're in the spin cycle. I haven't seen this much enthusiasm for a Republican candidate since Gerald Ford.
According to polling data - ask three people what they think
- one says 'Anybody But Obama'
- one says 'I don't trust Romney'
- one says 'Romney who?'
It is going to be fun watching the LWNJ and RWNJ run the Maytag politics. And you know, when the spin cycle is finished, both sides are only going to end up with their panties tied in knots.
I am beginning to think that this if the first election cycle during my lifetime where there is not going to be a winner.
Anna...
"Mittens"...how quiant !
Maybe you can come up with a cutesy name for Mr. Obama too...how about "Girliehands" or "Ladyfingers".
ITripleDogDareYou!
I agree with a lot of your post.
There is a first for everything. This nation has shifted it's mentality. We are lazy, and achievements are now frowned upon instead of celebrated. People are jealous of everything and excuses are part of the America norm now.
You could bring up any issue and some groups would think it's our human right to have it. The entitlement mentality exists in all of us.
The political atmosphere just accelerates this type of attitude and politicians are pushing the class warfare agenda for their own PERSONAL gain instead of the betterment of our entire nation.
To get out of this mess we need sacrifice and hard work from everyone. That will never happen.
The fighting back and forth between which crook is better is past amusing, and to the point of outright pathetic and ignorant.
If we could just realize NO politician can help us, we as a nation might just ignore Washington and do what we need to do in order to achieve success and happiness.
What an utter out and out lie. Since Obama took office, the economy is growing and the stock market has improved. Those are just two economic indicators that have improved. The problem with these piece of crap lying conservative freaks is that while they love to tell you the economy is worse under Obama, they have absolutely no clue as to where the economy should be. The challenge to all these whiny back-seat economists is; If you are unhappy with the current indicators, what should the indicators be, and what actions needed to be taken to get us there? Of course, we will never hear an answer. They are too busy bashing Obama and miming their flip-flopper Romney, the man of all talk without a plan.
Seeking...
Mr. Romney has been one of the nation's most successful people, in many areas...including what appears to be having a great family.
So I guess your comment about his "stupidity" really doesn't apply...at least to him.
Keep seeking !
@ITripleDogDareYou! -- Actually, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reelected three times with even worse economic numbers. And FDR did such a horrible job that his Vice President was reelected as President, too.
The Republicans, however, could not reelect a real Republican President because he allowed a small tax increase - when the economy was in good shape.
If you are going to run a spin cycle - I suggest you select something other than 'delicates'.
IR 'rational american'
Can you point me to the tax payer subsidies that Apple is receiving to garner such profits?
I must have missed that.
Nerm_L
Unemployment
1932: 25%
1936: 16.9%
1940: 14.6%
Can't find a source for gas or home prices before 1940's.
So easy Clara (I don't have to insult you),
All companies take R&D tax deductions. A deduction is a taxpayer subsidy.
Arguing about which candidate will be better for this country is like arguing about which type of gunshot wound to the head is better for you.
None of them are actually good for you...but some are more likely to result in your death.
Until everyone starts realizing this, America will only continue it's downward spiral. The only question concerning those of us who have already figured this out is whether or not the rest of you party-worshipers will realize it before they've managed to destroy us for their own profit.
@Bobby Jones Bia -- Yes, FDR 'shoved legislation down America's throats' - and - improved the economy by doing so. But, FDR's economic numbers were still much worse than today's economic numbers - every time he was reelected.
It is not about the state of the economy. It is about how a President's actions improved the economy - and - provided some hope to Americans.
The RWNJ do not even understand what they are spinning. The LWNJ do not even understand what has been accomplished.
Phantom Beast,
You took that right from the Fired up Missouri website did ya?
here's the link...
The 10 Truest Things Harry Truman Said About Republicans
Posted 2/2/2011, It was also posted on the Democrat Underground site on 5/29/2011 also.
Actually, that is a compendium of Truman snippets from the 1952 presidential campaign edited into a single paragraph. It was never actually said by him the way it was posted.
In response I offer a number of links to what Truman Actually said during the '52 campaign while he was campaigning for Stevenson.
March 29, 1952 Address at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner
October 2, 1952 Address in Tacoma at a Rally in the Armory
October 2, 1952 Address in Seattle at the Auditorium of the Fraternal Order of Eagles
October 4, 1952 Address at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco
October 4, 1952 Address in the Oakland Auditorium
October 7, 1952 Address at Colorado Springs
October 22, 1952 Address at the Syria Mosque in Pittsburgh
November 1, 1952 Address at the Kiel Auditorium in St. Louis
November 3, 1952 Radio and Television Remarks on Election Eve
Please pay particular attention to his remarks on christians on election eve,
And last but not least.... (after Stevenson losing to Eisenhower in a landslide)
November 5, 1952 Statement by the President on the Election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States
I would submit for your perusal and comment the understanding that President Truman would never be nominated as a Democrat Presidential Candidate in today's political climate, and would stand a much better chance as a Republican.
And also, given The Presidents comments of the media of the day being a one-party republican favoring press just makes me chuckle....
There is one main point I do want to make,
The Democrat rhetoric hasn't changed in 60 years, HAS IT?
Think you all need to get a new message? Or at least rephrase it, it's getting a little moldy after 60 years...
RedDevPS
I give you 5 separate indicators that you did not dispute, you give me one accurate one (the stock market) and you call me the liar. I’d rather have the facts speak for themselves and leave the name calling to school children. As for the stock market, it has certainly increased under Obama. Unfortunately, that progress has not trickled down to the average Americans in the form of more jobs, higher salaries, less foreclosures, more disposable income, etc.
You think I’m a conservative freak? Based on what? That I voted for Obama in 2008? That’s the only comment I made regarding my political beliefs. For the record, I’m an independent but I guess if I point out facts you CANNOT dispute, you just resort to call me names because you have no argument. By a 5-1 margin, I’ve already proven to you the economy is worse. How much more proof do you need?
I’m not unhappy with the indicators, I’m unhappy with the results of this current Administration. Do I know if Romney will do better? No, but I’m open to hearing his plan. I think a compromise of spending cuts and tax increases are the best solution.
If you think pointing out the FACTS of where the economy was when Obama was elected and comparing them to now is bashing him, well too bad. There needs to be accountability of what he’s done so far. Romney’s record as a governor in MA is good with respect towards spending/deficits. He turned a massive deficit at the beginning of his governorship into a surplus in 4 years. It would be unfair to think Obama could do the same for the country given the recession but he has only made the problem worse.
I'm not sold on Romney but I won't be voting for Obama.
Nerm
The point was no President has ever been reelected with worse economic number compared to when he was elected.
The numbers have got worse and Obama's actions have not improved the economy. He does all he can to promote hope.
You can argue the stock market is up. I don't see the stock market as an economic indicator. It's faith that investors have in the future of the economy.
Interest rates can't rise because the economy is so fragile. The dollar is still weak, commodities are expensive, unemployment is still higher, Outsourcing is still getting worse.
The election is going to come down to what people care about the most. Economy Romney will win. Social issues Obama will win.
Nerm - you are correct, FDR's numbers were worse. I believe Bobby argued my case of why Obama's term is different. FDR made substantial gains leading to his re-elections. Obama can't make the same case for himself.
Great article about unions taking their toll on Moderate Democrats. Really demonstrates the diminishing middle argument (the compromise) in the house and senate.
To those too put off to click on the link the important statistic is in 2008 when Obama was elected there were 54 Blue Dog Moderate Democrats and now there are 26! Unions have targeted moderate Democrats in favor of more union loyal politicians. And you guys think the Tea Party is the only reason we have an impasse in the congress.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/moderate-democrats-vanishing-breed/
@Bobby Jones Bia -- @ITripleDogDareYou! --
- The stock market has been allowed to recover - without interference.
- Banks are healthier today than four years ago.
- The number of bankruptcies have stabilized and are declining.
- Corporate profits are up from four years ago.
- The tax burden on the economy is lower today than four years ago.
- The trade balance has improved over the last four years.
- Companies are considering on-shoring jobs instead of off-shoring jobs.
- US Treasuries (debt) are still being used as monetary reserves by other nations.
Every indicator is that the fundamentals of the economy have improved quite substantially over the last four years. The recovery, so far, has shown that improving the economy at the top (the fundamentals) does not 'trickle down' to most Americans.
Are you simply disappointed in Obama because 'trickle down' economics has been proven wrong?
SmBusOwnerinNY
How does it work in the winter?
Honesty how does it work in the winter? I live in Michigan and wonder if it's worth it because of our annual sunshine.
Kath, @1.93
YOU GO GIRL!!!!
My name is Egilman, and I approve this message!
ITDDY,
Lets keep it in historical perspective, FDR's '36 economy made massive gains because the congress had repealed most of the New Deal over FDR's VETOS by '35......But he still claimed in the '36 campaign (as did Truman in '52 and democrats today) that his policies is what saved the economy when in actuality it was the free market policies of Bob Taft and the Republicans in congress...
Same problem for the democrats in '52, the republican congress repealed all of FDR's wartime wage and price controls in '48 over Truman's veto's which led to the landslide election of Eisenhower and the greatest growth economy in human history...
Nerm,
Those are evidence of a recession not becoming a depression. Yes we averted a depression, however the economy is not recovering like it has after past recessions. Analysts are already talking about another QE round.
This has nothing to do with trickle down economics. These are pure economic indicators. Trickle down economics is more of a social issue regarding salary and tax rates.
I think tax rates need to be raised on everyone, and severe cuts need to be made across the board to fix budget problems. However the way in which the economy would be impacted is debatable.
I see Anony Mous 1, and others are still trying to push the idea that you run a nation's economy the same way you would run a household budget, or a company. This shows a distinct lack of economic knowledge, and doing it day after day, after day, after day, shows rank stupidity.
Here is a hint: you cannot run a country's budget/economy the same way you run a household budget, or a company's finances, the same rules, and dynamics do not apply.
I'm curious Bobby, what do you think should be cut from the budget because I agree that cuts must be made but that's what might kill the economy's upturn. Use Greece's austerity measures as reference. I also agree that tax rates HAVE to go up as well.
I think you're wrong about Obama being to blame for the slow economic upturn. He isn't as much to blame as our legislative branch that just really sucks right now. That is the biggest problem our country has; the obstructionists in Congress. Get those losers out! I think we should have term limits on these people so they can't make a career out of being a politician. I also think we should put all of them on Medicaid instead of their awesome health insurance plans.
First a note to the right-wing collapse cowards – We see that right-wing posts at the top of the thread are not collapsed. Progressives could collapse your posts too, but then the entire thread will be collapsed. Perhaps that is your goal, to suppress speech altogether? Wow.
------------------------------------------------
In Romney’s speech; 1) he pretends to care about the unemployed. “…it breaks my heart,” he said. That was over the top, and based on his record, not believable. And 2) He goes on to repeat the GOP/TP promise made before the 2010 election – “I know how to lead us … into a job-creating recovery.” Romney promises jobs, Jobs, JOBS!
HOW?!
Ruken addresses it in post #1.51
Juiceisgood – Despite the irrelevant comments toward Sarah, this is the first right-wing post (#1.82) with a link to Mitt Romney’s actual plan.
I took a brief look at it, but Sarah beat me to posting a reply (#1.84).
THIS IS IT IN A NUT SHELL. Just analyze Mitt Romney’s plan, and his promise to create JOBS! I for one do not see anything concrete from him on how he will actually do it. Certainly not with the Paul Ryan plan he also endorses, which is the old failed tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and draconian “eating the corn seed” cuts in spending.
Nothing about investment in job creation, whether education and training, infrastructure -- no Jobs Bill like the president and Dems have tried to pass. Nothing!
This is the CLEAR choice voters have. To continue GOP/Bush-era policies that caused the Great Recession--only more “severely,” or give the president a second term and hopefully a cooperative Congress to continue the recovery achieved so far.
I'm referring to recovery that is supported with data -- If you look at the stock market, exports, manufacturing, tourism, and a whole slew of economic indicators including GDP and unemployment, you can see the LIE that Romney the Teapublicans like Boehner are telling.
They also lied about JOBS in 2010, and they are lying now. Why would anyone trust them to be back in charge?
Obama/Biden – 2012!
Wow Egilman, nice history lesson!
For the first time in months I think I may have learned something on one of these silly vines. It's funny how the Presidents get all the blame or all the praise when all they do is sign their name / or veto bills passed by congress. The politicians in the House and Senate are given complete passes when a President only gets eight years and many of those in Congress have been screwing stuff up for decades.
Rational AmeriCAN -- You say there are still 26 moderate (Blue Dog) Dems. How many moderates are in the GOP/TP (and don't fudge)? Utah is a great example--with Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch being "primaried" from the far-Right. The Teapublican Party has gone so far to the Right with "purity tests" that there aren't any more moderates. The "my way or the highway" problem is a GOP/TP problem and only the GOP/TP's.
I don't think it's fair to blame a President or give him credit for many things, however that is how the game is played.
Obama also had a great chance with an overall majority to push through legislation that could have effected the economy in a positive direction. They took the social issue route instead, whether right or wrong is an entirely different topic. It's just an example of democrats at the time thinking it was more important than the economy. No budget was also an issue.
I honestly think cuts need to be made everywhere. If I had to put an order of importance it would be:
Many of these are just because of the pure volume of spending. However they would also have the greatest potential of negatively impacting the economy.
@Bobby Jones Bia -- That's might weak spin - better check the drive belt on that Maytag.
How many years have we heard that allowing the 'job creators' keep more of their money would expand the economy and create jobs? That is what 'trickle down' economics is about.
We have positive GDP growth that is in the same range as before the collapse. There are income reports, profit reports - even Fed announcements - that clearly show the fundamentals of the economy have improved substantially. The data clearly shows that the 'job creators' are accumulating more income - that businesses are generating more profits. The data clearly shows that the government - and - Obama has not interfered with that.
The 'trickle down' economy has been allowed to operate unabated - yet most Americans still believe we are still in recession. 'Trickle down' economics - favoring the 'job creators' - has clearly and undeniably been proven a hoax.
The RWNJ are blaming Obama because Reaganomics has been demonstrated to be an ass-backwards approach to economics. The LWNJ are blaming Obama because he has done too much to favor the 'job creators' - and - those 'job creators' are not rebuilding the economy.
A recession is when Main Street feels the economic downturn. A depression is when Wall Street feels the economic downturn. When are the 'job creators' going to end the recession - as Reagan promised.
The election this year will focus on whether we can afford 4 more years of Obama.
Here are the Deficit figures for the last 5 Presidents - with a link to the official government source to verify;
Reagan (1981-1988) = $1.339 Trillion over 8 years, or $167 Billion per year.
Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years, or $233 Billion per year.
Clinton (1993-2000) = $320 Billion over 8 years, or $40 Billion per year.
Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2.006 Trillion over 8 years, or $251 Billion per year.
Obama (2009-2012p) = $5.333 Trillion (Proj) over his first 4 years, or $1,333 Billion per year. That's $4.6 Trillion more than Bush spent in his first 4 years.
If Obama is reelected, he projects another $5 Trillion of Deficits in the next 4 years, or over $10 Trillion which our children and grandchildren will have as a 'millstone' around their necks for their entire lives. Running up huge debts is a great way to 'pander for votes', but somebody will have to pay it back (our children) - with interest. Here's the official government link - See Table 1.3;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
PS – Let's also look at the 'JOBS' picture under Obama;
The total average number of people employed in 2008 (Bush's last year, including losses at the end of 2008) = 136,790,000.
The total average number of people employed in 2011 (Obama's 3rd year)
= 131,359,000 – that's a LOSS under Obama of 5,431,000 net jobs.
Here's the Link to official Bureau of Labor Statistics site on employment to verify - Compare jobs for 2011 vs 2008;
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
@Egilman -- Wow, applauded for not understanding history - but - it sounds so Reaganesque.
It is true that the Republicans repealed a lot of FDR legislation - over his veto - in '36. It is also true that the economy fell back into recession in '37.
You are confirming that Republicans only know how to wreck a recovery. And are apparently very proud of that.
Nerm,
Did you listen to or read about Bernake's statements today? He flat out said raising rates would most likely ruin any recovery gained since the recession started. Stagnant GDP is not growth.
I'm not spinning anything. Trickle down economics is an economic theory, not a measure of any economic factor. The term or idea of trickle down economics is spin in itself. Both sides spin the theory.
@ROY WILSON-336103 -- Your numbers are based on fiscal year accounting. When does the government's fiscal year begin?
How does your accounting factor in that fiscal years begin a full month before an election takes place? How does your accounting factor in that fiscal years begin four months before any President is inaugurated?
How does your labor accounting factor in the number of retirees and deaths?
@Bobby Jones Bia -- Nope, did not listen to Bernanke - only read about it. Just to be clear, what 'rates' was Bernanke talking about? And how do those 'rates' affect profitability in banking? How do those rates affect the fundamentals of the economy to create capital? Does the ability of the economy to create capital indicate how that capital is distributed in the economy?
Call it 'trickle down' - call it 'horse and sparrow' - the whole idea is to provide a favored economic position to 'job creators' so that capital moves from the top of the economy to the bottom. One political party has been arguing that the economy works from the top down. One political party has been promoting that lower taxes and lower regulations for 'job creators' - that increasing capital at the top of the economy - spurs business development and job creation.
Which political party has been promoting those economic ideas? Have those economic ideas actually worked? Which parts of the economy has recovered and which parts have not?
Raising rates makes borrowing more expensive for everyone. Banks would make more money by higher rates. However businesses and individuals would be less likely to apply for loans at higher rates. Which would mean less money in the economy.
I think we both know the economy is effected by all kinds of issues. Trying to determine which theory works best is virtually impossible. Right now you can say the rich are not spending money and "trickle down" doesn't work.
One can also make an argument that the excessive spending by everyone middle class especially caused the recession in the first place. So how did "trickle up" work for us.
What we all know is irresponsible spending period is never good for any economy, and borrowing and spending has done us all in.
Bobby Jones Bia, ROY WILSON-336103, et al:
THIS IS IT IN A NUT SHELL. Just analyze Mitt Romney's plan, and his promise to create JOBS! I for one do not see anything concrete from him on how he will actually create jobs. Certainly not with the Paul Ryan plan he also endorses, which is the old failed tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and draconian "eating the corn seed" cuts in spending.
Nothing about investment in job creation, whether education and training, infrastructure -- no Jobs Bill like the president and Dems have tried to pass. Nothing!
This is the CLEAR choice voters have. To continue GOP/Bush-era policies that caused the Great Recession--only more "severely," or give the president a second term and hopefully a cooperative Congress to continue the recovery achieved so far.
I'm referring to recovery that is supported with data -- If you look at the stock market, exports, manufacturing, tourism, and a whole slew of economic indicators including GDP and unemployment, you can see the LIE that Romney and Teapublicans like Boehner are telling.
They also lied about JOBS in 2010, and they are lying again now. Why would anyone trust the GOP/TP to be back in charge?
If the concern is getting people back to work and making money. How is the unemployment rate a lie?
It's simple we don't make products like we used to. Jobs will be hard to come by. Government doesn't innovate and the private sector bears that burden. The U.S. is turning into a service industry. When we look to tourism to be a driving force in our economy we are in trouble. Neither side cares about outsourcing, hell they both endorse it.
Actually there is one government agency that has a huge part in innovation. NASA
Bobby Jones Bia -- The right-wing is intent on muddying the waters, and non-stop posting making a thread like this so lengthy is one example of the waste of BTUs. The choice voters have is very CLEAR per the following posts:
Ruken
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47139341/
Some "plan" Romney has there.
Sarah-3043284
(RE: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Summary.pdf
The American Competitiveness Act
Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
Simply reducing the corporate rate will not be effective. There are already so many loopholes and "outs" that corporations don't pay close to what the actual rate is. If he wants to reduce the rate, fine, but then penalize those who don't produce here.
The Open Markets Act
Reinstates the president's Trade Promotion Authority to facilitate negotiation of new trade agreements
Sounds good, but what will he address and do with that power?
The Domestic Energy Act
Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive
survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration
Doesn't sound good at all. For every ounce of effort we put into finding domestic fossil fuels, we need to put in 9 ounces into figuring out how we can get off of them. This plan focuses on the past, and is doomed to failure. We will run out. It's a given.
The Retraining Reform Act
Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and responsibility for these programs to the states
Specifics???? This doens't tell me much.
The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act
Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion
In no way is it fiscally sane to focus on discretionary spending only. The cash cows are defense and entitlements. Discretionary should be the last resort.
His executive orders?
Get rid of ACA, okay, what is his specific plan to fix healthcare? How will he send it to the states, why will that work?
Get rid of regulations? Which ones? Where is his case for repealing ALL of these regulations? What effect would that have?
Domestic energy? See above.
I like his plan to call China out, and I like his American Business plan. The rest... meh.
-------------------------
The main problem is lack of revenue. And I left out an important part, which is the increase in defense spending in both Romney's and Paul Ryan's plans. In order for Romney to balance the budget with the increase in defense spending, all entitlements would have to be eliminated!
I thank my secret friends. You know who you are.
If raising taxes will stop the "job creators" from creating jobs, then conversely, all these tax breaks were an incentive to create jobs - so where are the jobs? People keep talking about not deterring job creators from creating jobs, as if that's what they're actually doing.
If you put more money into a wealthy person's pockets it's not incentive to create jobs, it's simply more money. The incentive to create jobs is demand, which relies on the middle class consumers. Who, if they have no money, do not consume.
If you are wealthy, and a large portion of your income stems from investments, dividends, and capital gains, then you don't really have an exact idea of what your income will be. So a few percentage points up and down is marginal and hardly noticeable at that level of income.
I find it incredibly ironic that we keep hearing about the 'job creators' as if they are demi-gods and we should fall to our knees in worship. We for some reason have created this mind-set that we need to give the 'job creators' more and more offerings, in the hopes that they will look out for us. Meanwhile, they take and take our sacrifices, and laugh at our stupidity while at the same time guilt-tripping us into giving even more. "You need our jobs, little peons. So pony up!" When in reality they rely on us to make their money; we were simply stupid enough to abdicate our power and hand it over.
The right keeps saying the left just wants to put its lives in the hands of the government, "cradle to grave." When that's exactly what the right wants to do with corporate interests. Just leave it to the greedy corporate world, they will take care of us. The truth is that neither will take care of us, but both are dependent on each other and on us, and vice versa, and we need to stand up for ourselves and demand accountability and responsibility on all sides.
Nerm -
I don’t care for trickle down economics, I’m for a more balanced approach. If you read my post, I was noting the effects of the stabilization of the stock market and how that has not impacted average Americans. Housing prices, unemployment, underemployment, gas prices – those things are what truly affect average citizens and Obama has failed at improving them since he took office. Noting how great banks are doing or how US treasuries are doing without acknowledging our credit downgrade is a bit humorous Nerm.
As for my disappointment in President Obama, it boils down to results. I had realistic expectations but believe things should have rebounded more by now. Had the stimulus package targeted long term jobs, more reliable industries and subsidies to small businesses, it could have worked wonders. Instead I believe it slowed down our recovery. Obama also spent far too much time on healthcare. He should have prodded his own party sooner to force a vote.
He has repeatedly missed key opportunities to tackle a problem head-on. Take spending – Obama rolls out his spending reduction plan months after our debt ceiling and downgrade crisis, missing the boat on getting public support and forcing Republicans up against a wall.
Take gas prices – Obama repeatedly says he can’t control things but now that it has been a hot topic for MONTHS, he rolls out a weak plan to stop speculators from manipulating the market.
Ultimately though, it comes down to jobs growth and in 3+ years, he has yet to have any net job increase. I don’t have anything personally against the man, I don’t think he’s evil or has bad intentions. I just don’t buy his charm anymore. A lot of talk, little action.
Egilman – while I think some of what you said is subjective because there are so many factors that affect growth in the economy, I generally agree with your statement about FDR. I was simply trying to point out to Nerm that 1) I misspoke and 2) the FDR comparisons are inadequate as you also illustrated far better than myself.
Bobby – well stated, I agree with much of what you have posted today. I would not cut spending for the VA but otherwise agree with your spending cuts. If only we had a candidate willing to stick their neck out and actually cut spending AND raise taxes like Clinton, we might actually reverse our course.
@Bobby Jones Bia -- Raising Fed rates makes lending more expensive because banks will be reluctant to borrow to meet reserve requirements. That means banks have less money to lend so they can hold more in reserve - but - the banks have the same need for revenue coming in. Raising Fed rates throttles the risk exposure of commercial banking.
Don't blame people with mortgages. Lehman Brothers was not a mortgage lender. Bear Sterns was not a mortgage lender. AIG was not issuing credit swaps on mortgages. Fitch, Moody's, and S&P were not rating mortgages.
The collapse was caused because derivatives were used to bypass reserve requirements - simple as that. Deregulating commercial banks so they could also operate as investment banks allowed the banks to assume entirely too much risk and hide that from the government and the public. Investment banking is what collapsed - and - it was not caused by consumers borrowing too much. The collapse was caused by banks trying to be too greedy.
@ITripleDogDareYou! -- Obama has tried not to change course too radically - that is true. But ignoring that Obama has made requests that could address the things you highlight is disingenuous. Holding Obama responsible for the credit downgrade is even more disingenuous.
The point about US Treasuries holding up is that the rest of the world recognizes what the credit downgrade was really about - and - that the downgrade was caused by politics instead of any worries about the long term US economy. Like it or not - the US economy is leading the global economy out of recession.
Spin any way you like. Vote Obama out of office if you like. The point is that attempting to return to the economic policies in place before the collapse will only lead to another collapse. Those economic policies put us in this economy - what makes you think they will get us out?
Romney is not going to fix the economy because he wants to go back to what collapsed it. Ron Paul is not going to fix the economy because he is ignoring what caused the collapse and is attacking the actions that are bringing us out of the collapse. Those are not viable alternatives.
LogicRequired....on your "Solar at night" question..
There is this nice thing called "Net Metering" where your rooftop solar array is hooked up to the regular utility grid. During the day you produce more than you use. The meter spins backwards. At night, you use those "banked" kilowatts while the meter spins forward again. Your bill from the utility is for "net" power used.
Bobby Jones.... Same thing goes for winter. You produce less power because the sun angle is lower and the days are shorter, but the net meter idea works here too. Your power production can be carried forward up to 12 months, so if you've got a system designed to net 100% for the year, you produce a LOT more in the summer and burn that down in the winter.
I like the sun. It produced all of that fossil fuel we burn too. Plant matter and ocean microorganisms millions of years ago made the raw materials for all of the fossil fuels we use now directly or indirectly from the sun. We're just using that stored energy. Seems like we ought to save that stuff rather than just burn it. So many more cool things can be made from petroleum--plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers--all kinds of stuff....and of course for times when there is no other way...like for airplanes.
Roy Wilson, I think your explanation about debt by different presidents misses some important points, like ReaganBush TRIPED the debt $1T to $4T. Obama has only increased it by what 40%, 50%? ..and that's during a global recession. Reagan had some nice boom times. Obama hasn't had any of that good luck(yet).
See http://zfacts.com/p/318.html to get a real sense of who's been responsible for what changes in our national financial condition. Enjoy.
We can vote for the man in the moon as PotU.S. for all the good it will do.The simple reason that the western world is in financial dissolution is that our jobs were allowed to be outsourced,without any consideration for the results. The rich are allowed to receive big tax relief and the workers were put onto shorter work hours.The government is considering bribing the people who started that to stop doing it and no-one in government appears to realise what the results of that would be. We can't get out of this mess by keeping our workers un -employed and not paying income tax. We can't get out of this catastrophe by the majority of our population being unable to join the ranks of consumers . The only people who benefit from the present situation are the 1% and the few,such as our politicians,state and federal. Anyone with a normal job i.e. nonsecured,knows that the government should have intervened when this started to be endemic.
@SmBusOwnerinNY -- Who says solar panels can only be powered by light? Light is only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The earth is bombarded by that full electromagnetic spectrum whether it is day time or night time. Solar radiation passes through the earth all the time.
How does an antenna work? Why can solar flares affect the energy flow in an antenna?
If physics allows our sun to generate energy across the electromagnetic spectrum - then physics will also allow us to capture and use that energy.
Very funny, Slick Mitt. Blame the president for a recovery that is slow mostly because of YOUR party's obstruction and of virtually uncontrollable factors. Obama led this out of the recession, and he's gonna be leading us for the next 4 years. And since when does tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts on domestic programs create jobs????
Nice try, Bill. The major reasons why this recovery is slow are out of the President's control. Income inequality, expensive college, outsourcing, and the loss of manufacturing are major reasons. But the biggest one, in my opinion, is wage growth. Wages have barely grown over the past 40 years for middle class workers, and prices have soared unfathomably. In fact, even with tax cuts, middle class Americans didn't see a single increase in wages. THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE RECOVERY IS SLOW. People don't have enough money to help support our economy via demand. Ergo, jobs grow at a slower pace and recoveries become more protracted. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage. This is why we need to invest more in education, reform it, and help make college more affordable. This is why we should rebuild our manufacturing and high-tech industries and start raising taxes on everyone (but especially the wealthy) to reduce the deficit and repair our roads, bridges, and schools. We also need to evolve our economy into one based on savings, investments, labor, AND production, not just consumption. A consumption tax (like VAT) would greatly help.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
JLS-3799002 -- Well said about the supposed "job creators!"
Freshieee -- Bingo about increasing the minimum wage. Other than summer jobs for kids, we should have a living wage nationwide. Many companies are sitting on piles of cash but not willing to pay employees.
True,
Discretionary spending happens in every department. It's spending that is agreed upon on a yearly basis. Where mandatory spending is fix for a longer period of time. The easiest thing to cut period is discretionary spending.
Nerm,
I fully agree banks are to blame for much of the economic collapse. However I am not going to let all borrowers off the hook. People knew what they were doing was unsustainable and reckless. However because someone gave them the option, they went ahead and took the loan.
When we bought our house in 2002 they tried to get us to borrow 2.5X the amount we requested. We walked out and went to the next lender. Glad we did we have lost 60% of the value of our home.
Nerm
Made requests? What has he done Nerm, that’s what I care about. Does he need a filibuster proof majority to get something done? Take a look at Clinton who pivoted and worked WITH Congress. Obama can do more than simply make requests. I do also hold Congress responsible but we are talking about Obama vs. Romney. Romney would potentially face the same battle.
Hold on, I never blamed Obama for the credit downgrade. But if you give Obama credit because the world is still using US Treasuries, then you should also mention how less valuable they are now because of the downgrade. China’s economy has fallen off the rails, the UK is in a double-dip recession. Italy, Greece, Japan - all experiencing retractions. By comparison we are better off but look at who you are comparing us to. For the record, I don’t blame Obama any more than all the other politicians who have been in Washington for the past 10 years. I’d go back further but I believe SOMETHING could have been done to avoid that disaster in the past decade.
I don’t disagree, it was politics. But if you want to tout US Treasuries as a positive economic indicator for Obama, be prepared for the pandora box you open with that. Adding over $5 Trillion to the debt in 3 years like Obama has done certainly made the downgrade more possible.
I don’t. That’s why I’m not in favor of just having tax cuts, or just having spending cuts or just having tax increases. I prefer deep spending cuts and tax increases. I’d cut spending close to the range we were spending a decade ago. The only exception is defense and foreign aid, which I would cut to levels even before 2002. Of course not overnight but also not over 10 years either. Then I would also have tax increases, beginning with the top 5%. I would also increase capital gains tax. I’d also reduce subsidies to corporations, including big oil and alternative energy.
While my solutions don't mesh with Romney's plan, his record in MA does. He cut spending drastically while also increasing taxes. So I wouldn't characterize him as more of the same (when compared to Bush).
Conversely, you can argue staying with a President who hasn't been able to grow our economy more than 1-2% will get us more of the same stagnation we have had the past 3 years since the recession ended. Blindly re-electing Obama without really looking at what his Administration has done will only lead to more of the same. I’m not willing to accept that. Are you?
Sarah,
Here you go.
The
American Competitiveness Act
Reduces
the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
Simply
reducing the corporate rate will not be effective. There are already so many
loopholes and "outs" that corporations don't pay close to what the
actual rate is. If he wants to reduce the rate, fine, but then penalize those
who don't produce here.
Top
Ten Companies and what they paid.
http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-topcompanytaxes/exxonmobil/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html
Later
in your post you talk about investing in energy, so what do you want to
do? Tax companies or invest in alternate
energies?
Also
just so you know to receive the tax credit for hybrid cars and electric cars
you have to owe that much in taxes. I am
assuming that if you paid in that much in taxes you can afford to buy the car
without the tax break.
The
Open Markets Act
Reinstates
the president's Trade Promotion Authority to facilitate negotiation of new
trade agreements
Sounds
good, but what will he address and do with that power?
That
is a pretty open ended question.
How
about answering this question?
Obama wants to grow high-technology U.S. manufacturing capacity and supply
clean energy projects with American-made parts and equipment. That’s why he’s
provided tax incentives to and made investments in clean energy technologies
such as wind turbines and advanced car batteries.
Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, a national effort to
invest in technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs and
enhance America’s global competitiveness.
Obama signed the America Invents Act, historic patent reform legislation that
will help American entrepreneurs bring inventions to market sooner, helping to
create new businesses and new jobs.
Sounds
like President Obama is going to give more tax breaks. It sounds good but the President has had
problems picking the right company, so far quite a few have had to file for bankruptcy.
The
Domestic Energy Act
Directs
the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive
survey
of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and
initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration
Doesn't
sound good at all. For every ounce of effort we put into finding domestic
fossil fuels, we need to put in 9 ounces into figuring out how we can get off
of them. This plan focuses on the past, and is doomed to failure. We will run
out. It's a given.
Coal,
well it seems that there is a lot of debate on that issue right now, either we
have 250 years, 100 years, or why the heck are we selling it.
Natural
gas, well they do not give a time frame. But here is the link
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp
oil
and natural gas
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110619161320AA8MYbI
Yes
we will run out, it is the “when” that we do not have the answer to. Our proven reserves has actually increased
over the last 5 years. Reading the
article it might actually double. This
is without the shale oil. Which is
available in the United States as well.
Look
at how much energy is used to build the wind towers, I am not sure what the
trade off is.
The
Retraining Reform Act
Consolidates
the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and
responsibility for these programs to the states
Specifics????
This doens't tell me much.
No
it does not, but this should be handled at the state level. President
Obama has a habit of starting a federal program and then making the
states pay for it.
The
Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act
Immediately
cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent reducing the annual
federal budget by $20 billion
In
no way is it fiscally sane to focus on discretionary spending only. The cash
cows are defense and entitlements. Discretionary should be the last resort.
I
agree, but you did notice that it is a down payment?
President
Obama says? Well this is it.
Obama has cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. One of
the first things he did in office was cut taxes for 95 percent of working
families. He has also signed 18 tax cuts for small businesses and extended
the payroll tax cut for all American workers and their families, putting an
extra $1,000 in the typical middle-class family’s pocket.
too long, the U.S. tax code has benefited the wealthy and well-connected at the
expense of the vast majority of Americans. A third of the 400 highest income
taxpayers paid an average rate of 15 percent or less in 2008.
why President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, asking millionaires and
billionaires to do their fair share. But if you're one of the 98 percent of
American families who make under $250,000 a year, your taxes won’t go up.
President has asked Congress to take action to reform our tax code and close
tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, as well as hedge fund
managers, private jet owners, and oil companies.
His
executive orders?
Get
rid of ACA, okay, what is his specific plan to fix healthcare? How will he send
it to the states, why will that work?
Once fully implemented, the law will slow
health care premium growth rates, adding another $2,000 to family savings by
2019.
He says that the rate of increasing costs
would slow. I am not sure how that would
work. It has already gone up! Also what about all of the waivers that have
been issued. Some of these to buy votes
to pass it in the first place.
What is President Obama’s plan to fix
health care? He is going to mandate how companies
spend money on it?
The Affordable Care Act also helps keep
insurance premiums down. Insurance companies must publicly justify excessive
rate hikes and provide rebates if they don’t spend at least 80 percent of
premiums on care instead of overhead, marketing, and profits. As many as 9
million consumers are expected to get up to $1.4 billion in rebates because the
President passed the Affordable Care Act.
How can anyone do that? Will we have any insurance companies
left? The government could not follow
this guide line.
Get
rid of regulations? Which ones? Where is his case for repealing ALL of these
regulations? What effect would that have?
It
is hard to find all of them for President Obama, they are scattered all over,
there is the health care above, this one on fuel mileage
The President made
an agreement with auto manufacturers to improve the overall fuel economy of the
nation’s passenger auto fleet to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025—nearly twice the
27.5 miles per gallon standard that was in place when he took office.
True Patriot writes:
So if we pay a living wage nationwide, which becomes our minimum wage, the poorest today will still be the poorest tomorrow.
So when inflation consumes the "living wage" raise as always happens, what will be the purchasing power of the poorest American?
Answer: The same as today or maybe less. Draw a bell curve, on the left we have the poorest and on the right we have the richest, good so far? Now shift the wage on the left towards the right until you are comfortable we have a living wage. What happens? The whole bell curve will shift to the right. Supply and demand governs price. If there is more money among the poor they will create demand which will create price pressure which will raise prices (inflation). Economics class will serve you well.
Our public education system has failed you sir.
Why don't we just adjust the minimum wage for inflation??? If inflation in 2012 is 2.5%, then the minimum wage increases 2.5% to cover the costs. And then we can increase it to help workers increase their standard of living. And don't give me the crap that increasing the minimum wage will destroy jobs. Wages for the middle class haven't increased in years. And some surveys say that raising the minimum wage will actually create jobs. I am skeptical of that, but increasing the standard of living for Americans is worth the cost of a few thousand jobs.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
(04/24/2012) Ann Romney’s comments Monday night at the Connecticut Republican Party’s Prescott Bush Awards Dinner could potentially reignite the issue about “working” versus “stay-at-home” moms. After discussing how she understands the challenges mothers face, Romney said, according to BuzzFeed:
“I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.”
If that wasn’t enough to reopen the “war on women” controversy, yesterday Rush Limbaugh started another rant toward Sandra Fluke over her posting “#DontDoubleMyRate”. Limbaugh laid into the law student, saying that "contraception isn't enough" and that "some people want their education paid for by other people too."
Republicans clearly do not want this controversy to go away since they keep saying things that keep it alive.
“A BETTER AMERICA BEGAN LAST NIGHT” ROMNEY 2012
NYT Ombudsman’s Startling Admission: ‘Time to Offer an Aggressive Look at the President’s Record’
For those who have long thought the New York Times has been covertly, and even overtly, waxing poetic about President Obama’s record, they just got a startling admission of those sorts from the Times’s public editor — its version of an ombudsman, or paid self-critic. In short: Yes, the Times hasn’t been as critical as it could have been.
“Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008,” Arthur Brisbane writes. And that’s after he says “The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?”
Brisbane then launches into a lengthy explanation. He defends the paper in part, but he also doesn’t shy away from including reader criticism:
According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”
I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites. Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by collateral factors — for example, political views that creep into nonpolitical coverage.
To illustrate, Faye Farrington, a reader from Hollis, N.H., wrote me earlier this year in exasperation over a Sunday magazine article about “Downton Abbey,” the public television series, in which the writer slipped in a veiled complaint about Mitt Romney’s exploitation of the American tax code.
“The constant insertion of liberal politics into even the most politically irrelevant articles has already caused us to cancel our daily subscription,” Ms. Farrington wrote, “leaving only the Sunday delivery as I confess to an addiction to the Sunday crossword.”
The warm afterglow of Mr. Obama’s election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers — these can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now. [Emphasis added]
Now is the time to shift to a campaign coverage paradigm that compares promises with execution, sheds light on campaign operations and assesses the president’s promises for a second term.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nyt-ombudsmans-startling-admission-time-to-offer-an-aggresive-look-at-the-presidents-record/
Lots of words about Obama but …
Where is his plan?
Ann Romney's comment sums up the trouble both she and her husband have connecting with ordinary people. No one should "love" the idea that women out there don't have a choice but must work and still raise children. What a dumb word to choose in what was for the most part, a reasonable comment.
Rush Limbaugh is a pompous, woman-hating pig and that's the nicest word I can choose to describe him on FR.
Ben, to repeat Dennis, WHERE IS ROMNEY's PLAN?
The list of Obama's strengths just keeps growing. Obama can play golf, party, use AF1, and vacation like no president before him. Obama can spend, borrow, and print like no president has ever done before. Obama can promise, promise some more, and then promise again. Obama can blame, and yes he is the blame expert. Yes blame is far and away the Obama strength. Apparently when something works you stick with it, even if that does nothing to help the country.
"its still the economy, and we're not stupid"
Well, Mittens, some of us aren't anyway. We recognize that the Republicans have been selling the same load of manure since the 80's, always with the same outcome.
The rich get richer on the backs of everyone else.
I have often wondered how the Republicans manage to convince people to vote against their own self interest. One only need look at the state houses, run by Republicans, to see what the outcome would be if Mittens won the Presidency.
Attacks against worker rights, at the behest of ALEC and the Koch brothers, to make it easier for the Corporate masters of the Republican Party to enrich themselves, further depleting the middle class.
Attacks and punitive measures against women, from state sponsored rape, making contraceptives difficult to access, forcing women to get doctor's excuses to give to their employers so that they may get contraceptives through employer heath insurance, rescinding of equal pay laws, the list is to long to enumerate here.
A continual demand that the 1% do not have responsibility to pay for the benefit of living in this country, and getting the largess, leaving the working poor and middle class to bear the increased burden of taxes, the antithesis of what a Progressive Tax should look like.
The war on Health Care Reform, accusing people of wanting health care free, instead of the honest realization that if we all don't pay for insurance, rates will continue to climb out of sight.
Those of us who recognize that the benefits of this country cannot flow to the people who can pay for legislation to benefit them, must realize our duty in the next election. We must work to elect progressives, and be willing to get out and vote, and write and communicate to make sure our voices our heard above the din of the Citizens United enabled Super Pacs.
This election is about us. Not about the 1%. They have had their way far too long.
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio
Republicans clearly do not want this controversy to go away since they keep saying things that keep it alive
Worst, Ann Romney is not running for president!!! I find it laugable and highly unsual that she is more popular that her Wooden husband.
Ben To repeat Dennis & Jody, Where is romneys Plan
Again, an odd way of putting something, "I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids."
I think what she meant to say, was that she loves the fact some low income families choose to work harder, instead of coasting on handouts, which is the Republican mantra. It came out screwy because she really doesn't have any knowledge of these people's lives, and she is just following an ideological position.
I have to laugh when rightwingers denigrate people who get assistance, especially considering many people on assistance vote Republican. If you qualify for assistance, your life is pretty miserable to begin with. To stay on assistance means you are really in tough shape. Even with assistance you aren't living large. Our Teapublican governor just capped workmans compensation for severely injured workers (their term, not mine) at ten years. So, in Maine, you become disabled on the job, if you aren't recovered in ten years, you lose everything and go on welfare. Yippee! It's like a vacation, except you are homeless and disabled.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47139341/
There's his plan. Of course, it's just more garbage and "cut spending" hypocrisy. Gotta keep spending that money on the military!
So, she misspoke. Not unlike our current First Lady who, during the 2008 campaign, said "For the first time in my life..., I'm proud of this country". We really didn't see to much of her after that, did we?
Ben - what you may be seeing is a campaign of get the bad news our quickly. Old bad news doesn't hurt as bad as stonewalling the realities.
Ruken - you think that 10% of warming is caused by man when the correct amount is 2 - 3%. To believe the number to be 10%, you have to believe a lot of garbage. But then, when you immerse yourself in one kind of trash, it can get pretty comfortable to the point anything else is trash.
Way to spew off-topic, and not even get my views right.
I believe <10% of our current global warming is caused by the sun.
Try again.
Beverly in Chicago says:"Worst, Ann Romney is not running for president!!! I find it laugable and highly unsual that she is more popular that her Wooden husband." Even worse Bev, Michelle is more popular than Barry. As Bugs Bunny would say "What a maroon."
The use of the word "maroon" is not a corruption of the word "moron". "Maroon" is a corrupted form of Cimarron, which is a Spanish word that refers to runaways slaves that lived a tribal existence in the Caribbean. I don't expect you to know that, so I wouldn't call your comment racist. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maroon
What a maroon?
That post might make you sound like a moron.
newdayDAWNING...RETURNED
What a maroon?
That post might make you sound like a moron.
Oh dear, Newday
It looks like 3thirty3 escaped grammar school.
FYI: 3thirty3
First Lady Michelle Obama has so much class and sophistication; she is more popuplaur than Mittens, Ann Romney, and the President.
Plus, she is a self made rich workind woman and mother who started out with very little money,
edit for the moronic marron 3thirty3:
should be...
she is more popular than Mittens, Ann Romney, and the President.
Plus, she is a self made rich working woman and mother who started out with very little money.
Mrs. Obama is one of the better First Ladies that this country has been graced with.
Dennis of columbus, how droll...
Didn't he have a written list of over 100 items he supported? Now place that against obamas rhetoric. Would I hold romney to accomplish all those goals? Heck no! Some are non-starters, some are inane and some have merit. Just like obamas were after taking office.
Unlike pelosi and obama saying that one didn't need to read and understand obamacare before voting for it or having an incumbent justify his actions, wannabees need only offer change. Romney will still have to interact with congress, hopefully better than obama.
Bev and newday - Never watched bugs bunny while growing up? "what a maroon" was pretty common for bugs to say and it was never said as a compliment.
american,
[Didn't he have a written list of over 100 items he supported?]
Supporting something is NOT a plan to achieve anything.
Where is his plan?
@Beverly& newday DR: "3thirty3" Fashions him/her self as "Daffy Duck" reincarnate, and as per the posts He/She writes, may indeed, very well be.
Ben - A Better American will begin when we vote the majority of Republicans out of Congress so President Obama can accomplish a great deal during his 2nd term.
Obama/Biden 2012
Baderly in Chicago...what a racist you are. You dish on Romney's wife because of her being a white woman. It is obvious that you love to play the race card to support your Indonesian President.
see 2001-2008 for a synopsis of Mitt's plans. And we all know where that plan took us...
Oh Dennis - silly you, the GOP/TP plan is "Not Obama". It must work, you see, I wake every day and my plan is "Not Bernie Madoff", and guess what, it works. I haven't turned into an investment Ponzi Schemer.
Bob-1136191 - your stupidity is totally shown with your ignorant "birther" post. Please - anyone with a brain put that idiotic nonsense away long ago. But, I guess the operative words here would be "with a brain."
Beverly, newday, & Mac. I even reference the cartoon character that makes the remark. You on the other hand think it's a grammar school mistake. Let me clear it up for you. All of you are imbeciles.
Since 3thirty3 was "QUOTING" Bugs Bunny, giving him grammar and dictionary lessons seems stupid. For you idiots who were to busy being indoctrinated to watch cartoons as kids here is a short you tube clip to show what the hell everyone else already knows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
this. Let's stop with the grade school attacks on 3thirty3 as he properly cited and referenced a pop culture staple.
Those attacking him for this are not helping the cause AT ALL (and it pains me cause although I mostly agree with them politically, I have to just roll my eyes in disgust at their posts).
I will spend the rest of the day laughing.
Only the right wing would think referencing Bugs Bunny on a blog makes them sound erudite.
Words matter, and words like that tells us who you are.
So I repeat: use of the word maroon, could make you sound like a moron.
Got it?
Let us all give "3thirty3" a round of applause, or a lollipop. He/She has learned a new word!
Dems? Superpacs? Priorities USA Action? Ring a bell?
Round of applause given. Isn't 333 half of 666, the upside down number touted by Bachmann's criticism of Cain's 999 plan?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/michele-bachmann-herman-cain-999-plan-devil-gop-debate_n_1006185.html
***Clapping loudly****!
Good to see you, Mac!
Detroit-Storm
Hear that thing whizzing by Detroit? It’s the JOKE that flew about 30,000 feet above your head.
Quick, have the cartoon network remove Bugs Bunny, that intolerant racist Wabbit!
Dog,
you certainly are a joke. Now go back to fondling yourself while you play WoW.
Bev...
I'm really surprised you didn't add to the First Lady's amazing and unprcedented resume the fact that 'People' ( 'Sheeple' ?) magazine today proclaimed Ms. Obama as one of the 10 most beautiful women in the world !!! Wow !!!
"Self made rich working woman" (your words) ANNNNND one of the ten most beautiful women in the world ! Who would ever have expected it !
tony - seeking sanity in the GOP but seriously none to be found. Romney has been successful at the expense of others. He has nothing to offer this country and basically has said as much since he has said absolutely nothing. He is a stupid, arrogant person who thinks his millions can/should buy him the White House and idiots like you are following him like he has something to offer. Like I said, no sanity in the GOP.
Yeah...a person just has to be 'stupid' to accomplish what Mr. Romney already has in his lifetime.
If you want "arrogant" or "petulant" or "redundant" you don't have to look any further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
tony - Romney accomplished displacing a lot of people from their jobs - I don't count that as an accomplishment. He is stupid to believe the American people won't learn about that and take it to the polls with them. He is stupid to believe it is "his turn" to be President. He is stupid to believe people think he has anything to offer - since he doesn't even know what to discuss. He is just plain stupid.
President Obama probably seems arrogant to those less educated since he can actually talk and present ideas. Your post is just plain STUPID!
Seeking...
Simply not offended...considering the source.
Romney's Message: Obama's Not a Real American
—By David Corn
| Fri Apr. 20, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
Ted Nugent's violent remarks at the NRA's annual paranoia-fest triggered (pun intended) a new round in the always-good-for-cable debate over extreme rhetoric in the political discourse. The episode showed—no surprise—that GOP presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney was unwilling to condemn an out-of-bounds Obama-hater when his campaign released a mealy-mouthed response to the uproar, ignoring Nugent's specific comments and noting that "Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil." And Nugent's threatening words were nothing new; in 2007, he held up two machine guns at a concert and told Obama to "suck on my machine gun," adding, "Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch." But his latest rant, in which he denounced Obama's "vile, evil America-hating administration," was part of a never-ending Republican/conservative crusade to portray the president as not a true American. And it's an effort that Romney has played footsie with.
For years, conservatives have said (or implied) that Obama is not really one of us: He was born in Kenya, he's a secret Muslim, he pals around with terrorists. They have also endeavored to attach this otherism to all Democrats. Ex-presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) accused Obama and his wife of holding "anti-American views" and called on the media to investigate Democratic members of Congress to determine if they were anti-American, too. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a tea party darling, declared that "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." After he was lambasted for uttering this absurd charge, he defiantly proclaimed that he did not regret his statement and reaffirmed his stance: "I'm not going to back down. I'm not going to be afraid about the fact that I called a spade a spade." (House Speaker John Boehner said nothing about West's derogatory and fact-free claim.)
Labeling anyone left of center a commie or traitor who hates America is a time-tested tradition of conservative politics that stretches back decades, from the Palmer Raids to the McCarthy era to Richard Nixon's criminal administration to Ronald Reagan's attempt to smear the anti-nuclear movement as a Moscow spin-off. Romney is too moderate (and too fearful of losing independent voters) to engage in DEFCON-1-level rhetorical nuking. But he has devised a way to speak to—and exploit—this sentiment without contracting cat-scratch fever
Romney routinely criticizes Obama as someone who neither likes America nor gets it. In his book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney decried Obama for repeatedly apologizing for "American misdeeds, both real and imagined." (He didn't explain what was wrong with apologizing for real misdeeds.) PolitiFact.com judged Romney's claim "false." Yet this untrue accusation has been a steady theme of Romney's campaign. At a speech earlier this month to the Newspaper Association of America, Romney asserted that Obama failed to rescue the US economy in his first years in office because he was too busy "apologizing for America abroad." Romney's point is obvious: Real Americans don't apologize for America.
Obama the Apologizer is not Romney's only jab designed to depict the president as apart from the great American public. He repeatedly charges that Obama does not truly understand this nation or grasp that America is special. As if Obama were an outsider. A few examples:
* In May 2011, Romney delivered a speech—accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation—to defend the health care plan he implemented in Massachusetts as governor and to criticize Obamacare. One of his slides read: "The Obama Administration fundamentally does not believe in the American Experiment." That was a rather broad statement—especially about the biracial son of a Kenyan and a Kansan who became the first African American president of the United States.
* On the stump last November, Romney said, "Sometimes, I just don't think that President Obama understands America. I say that because this week—or was it last week?—he said that Americans are lazy. I don't think that describes America." Of course, Obama had not called Americans lazy. He had said that US policymakers had become lazy in promoting the United States as a outstanding opportunity for foreign investment.
* In an address to the Republican Jewish Coalition forum in December, Romney contended, "I don't think he understands America." Romney explained further: Obama did not realize that American "society gathers and creates a citizenry that pioneers, that invents, that builds, and creates." Yet Obama often talks about investments and innovations as part of a winning-the-future agenda.
* Campaigning in New Hampshire in January, Romney again repeated this mantra—Obama "doesn't understand America"—and maintained that his "agenda will make us a European welfare state." With this version of the charge, Romney was making it seem as if Obama was an anti-American who's plotting to Europeanize the country.
* A few weeks ago, Romney echoed a complaint that conservative foes of the president have long hurled: He doesn't fathom that America is unique. "Our president doesn't have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do," Romney said. Obama, in a rare response to a Romney poke, replied, "It's worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism." Romney's camp, no doubt, was delighted that the president was playing defense on the American exceptionalism front.
* This week, during an interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, Romney repeated his assertion that Obama "doesn't understand" America's economy. This has become a catchphrase that Romney often doesn't bother to explain.
Romney doesn't call Obama a commie. He doesn't question his birthplace. He doesn't say the president is a criminal. He doesn't suggest he's Muslim-y. He doesn't declare that Obama hates America or harbors anti-American views. But Romney has welcomed the backing of those who make these types of claims, and he has even courted these over-the-top Obama foes (as he did with Nugent, after the gun-lovin', aging rocker had violently threatened Obama and Hillary Clinton). He legitimizes and exploits those who engage in Obama hate-mongering and who debase the political discourse Romney claims to care about. More important, with his own words, Romney has attempted to reinforce the notion that Obama is not truly part of the nation he leads. He has mainstreamed the Obama-ain't-really-American meme of the right. And that is hardly civil.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/ted-nugent-conservatives-mitt-romney
__________________________________________________________
Obama Derangement Syndrome strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
Independent, Romney is a bad bad person. This article you posted says it all.
The last time we had a so- called business man as President was Jan. 2001 through Jan. 2009, and we all know about his record as President.
No Thanks
IR, thank you for posting this great assessment of Romney and republicans by David Corn. It speaks to how unprincipled a person he is, and is the perfect leader for the equally unprincipled party of liars and hypocrites.
Morning IR,
Great fact finding Information!
I believe Obama is just as despicable a failure as George Bush. Measure Obama against successful Presidents like Bill Clinton and not George Bush. If I compare Romney to Bush and Obama, Romney is by far more successful and intelligent than both Obama and Bush combined.
Stop partisanship and vote for the most qualified candidate. Don't stick with a failure because of partisanship. If Romney doesn't do the job in four years then we kick him out. Have a standard and hold our elected officials to it. In the end, we will be a greater nation.
Thanks for sharing this post, IR. The Republicans will just not give up this "other/not one of us" theme they have with the President. They don't seem to get that it doesn't match his likeability ratings.
Romney has only a failed record to run on. No thanks!
IR, terrific article. Great reminder of what Mitt Romney really is, an empty suit who sounds less radical but still manages to imply what the crazies in his party claim.
Mitt Romney is a perpetual liar; it's all he knows to do. Why would anyone elect a perpetual liar as president?
Backhouse, David Walker, Pat Boston -- great posts in the first thread!
Yeah we don't need a businessman that might actually understand economics to run this country, when we have a community organizer doing such a great job. Obama will down in history as the worst president of all time, and he will be loathed and hated by the generations of those born in the United States of China. But he will be revered in most of the Middle East, China, North Korea, and Russia as the person that brought down the United States of America without a shot fired.
I saw Romney in person in Portland, and the biggest surprise to me was, he didn't seem that bright.
I really expected a guy who makes 120 million a year to be super smart. I guess, like most Americans, I equate being rich with being a genius. It makes you think about how a person makes such an ungodly amount of money. I mean, I've worked for clever, hardworking, even ruthless people, who didn't accumulate as much money as Romney has. I don't think it's just luck, I think it has to do with a system that some people are able to exploit.
For one thing, Romney is not a "self made" man. He was given Bain Capitol to run by the owner, with the assurance, if he wasn't successful, he could have his old job back. It' isn't even like Romney took a big risk in accepting his new job, managing an investment company. The truly successful business people I personally know, accepted tremendous risk, for which they were rewarded. Not Romney.
Anony Moust
Even more a dismal failure has been the congress who acted as oversight to these presidents. Never forget, a president proposes a direction and spending. Congress is the one who writes the spending and direction.
In fairness to Bush, the congress from Jan 2005 - 2007 had decreased deficits from over $500 Billion a year down to $340 billion. The Democrat controlled Congresses actions and inaction's from Jan 2007 - Jan 2009 Added over $550 in spending, and brought about the financial crash in late 2008 resulting in Bush requesting the $700 billion TARP fund.
What did we do? We turned everything over to the Democrats in Jan. 2009 and immediately ADDED $850 Billion in stimulus that didn't work per the CBO. Now that that new level of spending has been established leaving us with $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. That was a Democrat controlled congress that Rubber stamped almost everything that Obama asked for.
We not only need a President that will get us back to some sanity, but a congress that also has a mindset to establish a sane process that makes real serious cuts.
More tax increases and regulations will not work, that is what our economy is telling us. Besides, do you really think a financial counsellor is going to tell you to raise the money from someone else, OR Borrow your way out of debt, OR spend your way out of debt?
What Finance adviser Dave Ramsey would say to Americans "You are on beans and rice, and rice and beans, until you get this mess cleaned up!"
Amy: I vividly remember you post this same falsity a few months back. I can't find the post because MSNBC only holds the archives for one month.
The fact is Romney is a Baker Scholar. Do you think Harvard University erred in awarding this prestigious award upon Romney? Assuming that Romney had a way out if Bain Capital failed: Did it fail? Was he not a success?
I really wonder if there is anyone on here who actually agrees with you. It will truly be a new low.
Anyone can be a businessman. However, not all business men are smart and successful. I will stick with the President because he has the best plans and has done a GREAT job for America.
Anyone can be a businessman. However, not all business men are smart and successful. I will stick with the President because he has the best plans and has done a GREAT job for America.
Amy, when you actually try and suggest that decades of Democrat control of the legislature in Augusta has been good for the State of Maine, your ability to ascertain whether someone is bright or not is highly questionable. After all being a Harvard grad has dropped a few notches with Obama. Obama can't come up with a solution to anything other then tax, spend, borrow, and promise. Maine is a welfare state, Obama wants a welfare nation. As Maine goes so goes the nation, it seems a political inevitability.
Amy B. Portland, ME
I saw Romney in person in Portland, and the biggest surprise to me was, he didn't seem that bright
Thanks, Amy
I was always suspicious of that nervous laughter of Romney. Now I know how he compensates his stupidity. What about those trees in Portland? Did Romney talk them being the right size?
I think Amy might not be that bright. The sad part is that she has some followers. It is the reason why Jim Jones, David Koresh etc. could have fooled so many.
Perhaps instead of blaming Amy for her perception of Romney, you might be honest enough to realize that Romney creates his own problems by not being able to relate to those who are not in the 1%.
That he was successful at Harvard is not the only measure. So was your President. Empathy matters.
And, you may apologize to Amy for the way you spoke of her.
Anony Mous1
I call it like I see it. I don't claim to be particularly bright myself; maybe that's why I look for intelligence in people I vote for. I remember being shocked at how inarticulate George Bush was, when he really started talking off the cuff in interviews towards the end of his second term.
I wouldn't say Romney is inarticulate, the way Bush was. He can talk well enough, although his personal skills are pretty lacking. It's more like, Romney doesn't have a broad intelligence.
Obama has that spark that is really special. Obama withstood Republican calls to stop "dithering" on Libya, for example, and in the end, the Obama approach worked: Qaddafy was removed without American lives being lost. I don't think Romney has that kind of skill, the ability to hold that tension, between conflicting impulses. Romney strikes me has someone who only sees one side, (even if he flip flops.) There isn't alot of intellectual depth there.
LMAO! FR lefts puts so much faith in op-ed pieces as thinking the author has presented facts because on how they connected the dots.
Anony Mous - FYI, regarding posts, I can track my posts back into 2010, as I can others. Just hit the show more button and choose the month and year of the posts.
Keep in mind that some posters opt out of having others read past comments.
Anony Let's make at least some attempt to keep it civil. Don't make me get out my rolled up newpaper and smack your little puppy butt for piddling on the rug. You to Rick and American.
IR - oh please - use the newspaper! I can't stand all their nonsense and babbling! And, we can all see how "astute" (NOT) Anony is!
IR - Great, Great post. It is correct & so true. They always try to put Obama in this "other" category which is always clouded and mysterious and full of innuendo. That nut West in Florida who is still finding Communists behind every door is a real unfortunate situation. I live in Florida and it is getting most tiresome to have all this craziness down here. He was one of the Tea Party crazies who was swept in on the wave. Hopefully and thanks to our crooked Gov Scot, they will also be swept out.
Amy B Portland Maine says "I call it like I see it. I don't claim to be particularly bright myself; maybe that's why I look for intelligence in people I vote for. I remember being shocked at how inarticulate George Bush was, when he really started talking off the cuff"
Obama never leaves home without his Teleprompter. So maybe you should be voting for his speech writer as Obama doesn't dare go off the cuff. Great reader but a terrible leader. Obviously for Amy an ability to read is a demonstration of intelligence.
Sorry, Rick, I've seen Obama speaking off the cuff enough times to know he really is bright.
And I've seen Romney speaking in person, and also off the cuff, so I have made up my mind. Romney is just not "all that."
Anony Mous1,
I read your post and Amy's post, and I will stick with Amy, because she is the bright thinking one.
Bush/Gore told us popular vote means nothing this all about the electoral college and its not that close no matter what the pundits say
Obama/Biden blow out again!!
Oh brilliant come back Rick seeing as how old Romney was reading his address off a "gasp" teleprompter last night. Just so you know I don't care whether Obama and Romney uses a teleprompter when their coming up with the sweet nothings their whispering in their significant others ears in the hopes of a night of conjugal bliss if it does something to move the Country forward and helps them accomplish the mission. Most of us have long since moved past this. What's next there Yahoo or are you one of those fellows that wants to see the President's "real" Birth certificate.
Amy B. says: "I saw Romney in person in Portland, and the biggest surprise to me was, he didn't seem that bright." Yes, unlike the genius Barry, who needs a teleprompter in the bathroom so he knows what to do. Has he visited all 57 states yet?
Rick
Mittins is Not very bright...I meet him at the 2002 winter Olympics in SLC. He also has a temper if things don't go the way he wants. He was uppity to all the volunteers. He is a shallow suit at best. As for his experience...he would sell off the USA for a pat on the back and a fistful of dollars.
3thirty3 I know you just didnt say teleprompter being that thats the only way No Core Mitt can speak without offending anyone
to be fair, it's rather difficult to call Clinton a "successful president." The man DID sign NAFTA (although GHWB negotiated it) and he DID sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley (although the bill bears the name of the 3 Republican clowns who authored and cheerled for it).
uh... how on earth did the Democratic congress (just the house really, they did not control the senate, it was 50/50 with Cheney as the tiebreaker) "bring about" the financial crash? Nevermind that it started building in mid-2007, not late-2008 as you claim.
Your perception of reality is very skewed...
3thirty3: so how did you think that Mittens did with the teleprompter that he used last night?
Anyone can call themselves a "businessman". Anyone, anyone at all can be a successful business person? Of course, they can. All it takes is the ability and sheer will to out-work, out-think, out-plan your competition, then doing it over and over everyday for 20-30 years. Then you can call yourself a successful "businessman". Let us know when you become one.
Independent Redneck...I like your style!!Keep up the fine work. Knowledge is power. If America chooses to flush its future down the toilet with 4 more years of being trickled on, it's at least important that no one votes for this pirouetting chameleon out of ignorance.
Fear not Feisty One. The Romnymator has miles to go before he sleeps. With no real oppostion last night, he still failed to draw 60% of the vote in at least 2 of the states. He might have averaged 60% in total. Not too good when your choices are Romney and "none of the above". I'll bet Brewster would be soo proud of New England last night.
What didn't you like with the Clinton Presidency? The peace or the prosperity. Even with the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton will go down in history as greater than Obama or Bush.
I will even go further and state that Bush was the reason Obama was elevated to highest office in the land. You see, the bar was lower. We had eight years of George Bush and we could not see a better future. We had 3.5 years of Obama and we can't still see a brighter future. If we give Obama 4 more years how on earth will be be better off?
Be Independent! Think for yourself! Don't let the media dictate your future. Your future is in your hands. Again, if Mitt Romney doesn't do it for us in four years, kick him out. Hold politicians to a standard.
Thomas Blue!
I like your style too. I have enjoyed reading your posts.
Glad I've read these intelligent posts today...I have learned that Mr. Romney is actually stupid !!! Amazing how he has earned hundreds of millions of dollars in the cut throat world of business and he's a borderline idiot...according to the rocket scientists on this website.
Then I guess even more credit is due...any brilliant businessman can earn millions and millions of dollars...but it is an even more amazing accomplishment to reach such heights of success in the business world, while being an idiot...at least according to the rankings of 'job1, praysalot, and amy'...experts on intelligence, of course.
As someone actually in the business world, hats off to the slow-witted Mr. Romney ! He must really be something special !
Thanks a lot, new day.
Anony mous...allow me to point out that Clinton signed NAFTA and the Glass-Steagel repeal. The first attempts to regulate futures and derivatives occurred during his administration. He had several opportunities to put/keep a firewall between the banks and the rest of the economy. He's not as responsible as bush for the collapse but he's certainly not clean. I also contend that the 2001 recession, which started on his watch, never really broke. Remember the "jobless recovery"? Now granted, that was largely the Busher who botched that recovery but the so=called recovery was all smoke and mirrors. The only people who really recovered from that recession were the bankers. That so-called recovery was fueled by very,very low-cost money that lots of people used to refinance and incur more debt. So all of the borrowing made GDP look good, but it was all smoke and mirrors. Clinton left office with the economy essentially in a very vulnerable state and bushco just finished it off. Obama? I think any intelligent and objective person would say the jury's still out on him. Neither Clinton not Bushco faced the kind of intense headwinds and hatred that he has.
to tony-268769
Michael Milken made a ton of money too. Do you remember how that turned out?
A successfull business deal is one where both sides of a deal prosper. All parties should benefit:customer, owner, employees. In Romneyworld, he makes a ton of manoey and everyone else files for unemployment. Yep! Sounds lkike a good Koch Bros disciple! I wonder why a man that brilliant couldn't get more than 60% of the repugnican vote last night with no opposition? How odd?????Are the repugnicans that stupid or have they figured out something you don't want to admit. The biggest mystery is why no one he has ruined has shot him yet.
to all the people with the lame teleprompter attacks on Obama - every modern President - including Regan - used a teleprompter. Romney uses one regularly. The difference is that President Obama can actually deliver a speech while Romney just looks like he's reading one.
One last point, Tony, my boy...
If the Mittster is so dazzlingly successful in these business deals, why is it that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS OF HIS INVALUABLE HELP HAS BEEN WILLING TO STEP UP AND SING HIS PRAISES???NOT ONE!
And another little btw, this in-depth story,http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-04-18/news/mitt-romney-american-parasite/ , details some of his brilliant deals. Yet oddly, neither he nor Bane Capital were willing to be interviewed or go on record for this story! That seems odd to me that a hero of such magnitude would be willing to run for president but not willing to accept credit for his "accomplishments". Why is that, I wonder? Any clues,Tony?
SeekingSanity: Obama is about a smart as a door nail.
ThomasBlue,
I also enjoy your posts and hope you stick around. I'm also really jealous of the fluidity of your writing style. ;-P
Thanks a lot,Gates. My connection is terrible so I wind up with a lot of errors that I later find embarrassing but I try to keep my content in a straight line. I appreciate your kind words.
Thomas...
Try to opine for a second that many of your dreaded 'repugnicans' didn't bother voting in New England primaries yesterday since the time and the votes were not needed. I worked late yesterday and preferred dinner to voting on a non-event with my not needed vote. If Barack Obama was in a primary challenge with only Ron Paul, how fast would you be running to the polls ?
And of course...none of the businesses Mr. Romney was ever involved in ever hired a single employee...not a one. He just fired people for fun while he was having their televisions stolen from their houses so he could improve his financial statement.
Probably beats his wife too !
Just a last word for today...I know that often I'm a bit critical of President Obama but I want to go on record here as saying that I think that I have never seen anyone who carries himself with more dignity and composure than Barack Obama. It has appalled me the severity of a blatant racism and even worse, people who try to hide their racism with some other vaneer than just doesn't stick. I was astonished at the jackass from S.C. who insulted President Obama during the SOTU address and even nore amazed at how composed and dignified was his reaction and response. While I am disappointed in some of his decisions, I have extreme admiration for the man, Barack Obama and hope that under the same severe scrutiny and pressure he has faced that I could acquit myself as well as he has. He is a great man. It's a shame to see so many midgets hacking at him for no reason other than his skin color or the (D) in front of his title.
Wow...is that really the best you can offer,Tony? Really??? The numbers don't lie. He made a ton of money, most others wound up unemployed and then his apologists complain about the number of unemployed. Really? This is your best reply????
As to the businesses that survived his "help", like Staples...yes they hired and grew but Bane was a small minority investor and didn't have the power bury them with debt and "management fees" and then gut them, take the money they forced them to borrow, cut them loose and let them die. Staples survived their brush with Romney because Romney had no control over them in that deal.
Anony - that's all ya got? Really????? Let's see the President was head of Harvard Law Review. I understand that is FAR above your intelligence level to even remotely understand the intelligence it takes to even be part of Harvard Law Review. But, try talking to anyone with an IQ over 100 and they can probably give you a clue!
Oh, and just for the record, you're a moron!!!!
Thomas Blue - LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your posts! You make sound comments and back them up! Great job!
Done.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Done.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Dude, you know as well as I do that the recession caused the extra spending and revenue decreases. Unemployment insurance and food stamps pushed it up by hundreds of billions, while we lost billions more in taxes.
Check again, the CBO stated that the stimulus created over 3 million jobs. And the stimulus was spread out over 3 years, reducing the impact on the deficit. What really caused our trillion-dollar deficits were the Bush tax cuts and the recession.
Where the @!$%# did you get this information??? Obama already signed into law $2.4 trillion in cuts. Now we need to raise some revenues, and a good way is to raise taxes back to Clinton levels for those making over $250,000 and reforming the tax code.
And a financial adviser would tell you to EARN MORE MONEY along with cutting your expenses. The GOP is so crazy that they are actually asking for a pay CUT in the name of "dynamic growth" and "fiscal discipline." We heard that crap back in 2001 and 2003, and where did that lead to???
And who the hell ever borrowed or spent their way out of debt???? Obama didn't. He borrowed and spent our way out of the depression, and as far as economists are concerned, it was a success. He reversed the recession and under his watch job growth has occurred for over 2 years. Sorry, dude, but your argument is ridiculous.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Thomas, usually I agree with your posts, but in the case of NAFTA I have to disagree. NAFTA could, I repeat, could, have been a windfall for American employees had we done one of two things: reform education to make American productivity a large factor when it comes to outsourcing, or pressured the Mexican government to lower protectionist barriers in exchange for the agreement. Had we done that with every bilateral free trade agreement, we probably would have less outsourcing. But we didn't. That is why now I think free trade is faulty: it can only occur when both sides are acting fairly. That is why I support fair trade now, which is free trade but add barriers for revenues and mild protectionism.
Romney Sweeps Last Night's Primaries. One would hope he would sweep the states last night since Santorum quit to avoid embarrassment in PA and Gingrich was out of it ages ago despite his ego that claims otherwise. No doubt Mitt breathed a sigh of relief that he did win them all because losing even one would have negative repercussions.
Steve Schmidt and Chuck Todd were giddy with high praise for Mitt Romney's speech; best one he's given to date, he successfully pivoted to the general election, he struck the right cord for the 4-5% of voters in the middle, etc.; rah rah, cis-boom-bah--the only thing missing was a band behind them. At least Howard Fineman provided a more realistic assessment; it was one of his better speeches but....
Yes, Mitt Romney gave a very good speech last night; probably his best "I Won" speech to date. For the right-wingers who love to credit teleprompters for speeches, Romney used one so conservatives need to be consistent and credit the teleprompter.
A great speech to convince voters he will do what he claims, however, requires some detail, requires a ticking off of ideas to solve problems. Romney's again lacked any details, lacked any ideas beyond the usual President Obama has failed to do this, that and the other. His GOP base doesn't care about details, they would vote for anyone with a "R" but those 5% of voters who need persuading, need the ticking off of ideas on how he will solve problems. In all these months of campaigning, voters only know to blame President Obama.
Listening to Mitt Romney speak about how badly he feels for people who have been struggling, those who receive food stamps was indeed a miracle for Mitt except for the fact that Romney and Ryan's plans will starve those people who struggle in order to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and spend more on Defense. Empty words, Mr. Romney, and a whopper of a lie.
Romney gave a good speech last night but voters are still waiting for ideas beyond the failed, trickle-down, voo-doo economics of Reagan, Bush and Bush. A man who thought up the health care reform in Massachusetts surely has some ideas other than failed ones. How about telling voters what they are instead of playing "hide and seek".
You mean as opposed to Obama's failed redistributionist policies, Jody?
People seem to want serious solutions to serious problems- not "doubling down" on divisive, failed campaigning as governing.
And, while you and the other members of the cult might have been riveted to Obama's "performance" on Fallon- the rest of us want a serious president with the skills to fix this economy, and, by the way, the negotiating skills to achieve real aims with antagonistic nations like North Korea and Iran.
Obama seems more suited to American Idol than the Oval Office.
Good morning new day DAWNING...RETURNED
"its still the economy, and we're not stupid"
Well, Mittens, some of us aren't anyway. We recognize that the Republicans have been selling the same load of manure since the 80's, always with the same outcome.
The rich get richer on the backs of everyone else.
It's so unfathomable that "Willard the Rat" would even think Americans would buy his bull. He can releash all the droppings he wants. Come debate time President Obama will exterminate him.
Obama/Biden 2102
How shocking Jody that Mitt used a teleprompter to deliver his speech---where is all the right wing outrage about that?
It sure sounds great to say that you feel bad for the people on food stamps. Mitt will feel even worse for them when the Ryan budget, which he says is "marvelous" eliminates them in order to pay for even more tax cuts for the 1%. 14.9% just isn't low enough for Mitt.
Seems to me I saw that Mitt Romney on the Tonight Show last month. Where was No Joe's outrage then?
Hi, Beverly!
Hope all is well with you.
I agree with you, how does anyone buy what Mittens is trying to sell? I realize that Ben, no jo, JS1 and company lack insight but really.....?
Early voters stalled when Rams Head site runs out of Democratic ballots
“They said it would be about five minutes, but it ended up being 20 or 25 minutes,” said Eden Sipperly, a freshman environmental sciences major.
“I went in around 5 p.m., and there were around 20 people loitering,” she said.
Other students didn’t get the chance to vote at all, said a few N.C. Amendment One opponents.
“Some guy said he tried four times to go up there and vote,” said Ian O’Keefe, a campus organizer for the Coalition to Protect N.C. Families.
“They said about 50 people left,” he said. “People came out and told me that they didn’t have ballots available.”
http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2012/04/early_voters_stalled_when_rams_head_site_runs_out_of_democratic_ballots
No dirty tricks or voter supression there; at least none right wing nut jobs would acknowledge.
Oh, stuff it No Joe; you wouldn't recognize ALL President Obama has accomplished if it was in front of you, printed in gold. The list is LONG and that's your problem, you can't stand the idea that President Obama has succeeded in spite of the GOP's efforts to prevent any accomplishments. Your daily rants are the same today as they've been the past 3 years--boring, old, tired, petty and outright lies which is probably why you like Mitt Romney so much--he spews lies all day, every day, too; two phonies pushing "pious baloney".
So you nominate Romney? How do I say it.... LOL!
Poor no jo: still so upset that her crush Hillary failed to secure the Presidency.
But, no jo, "redistribution" is far more evil when it takes from those who have little to give to those who have a lot. Sort of the reverse of what the "holier than thou" Republicans ought to be about, don't you think?
Beverly, you're putting up some terrific posts this morning!
new day DAWNING...RETURNED
Hi, Beverly!
Hope all is well with you.
I agree with you, how does anyone buy what Mittens is trying to sell? I realize that Ben, no jo, JS1 and company lack insight but really.....?
Thanks, Newday.
The only problem I'm having is this laptop has already broken down. I bought it in September and Toshiba says the warrant for the HDD disk was only for 90 days to send it in and they'll fix it. But, I have to pay.
Oh, the other warrant is still fine until September; corrupt bas-turds. Anyhow the RWNJs you named know better; they are just a bunch of hater's as I see. They never, ever have anything positive to say.
They sure don't, and I hope the computer issues work out. Never fun.
Jody, Iowa
Beverly, you're putting up some terrific posts this morning!
Thanks Jody
I do the research;I just need to work on that typing thingy.
Bravo, Jody. You've put your finger on it---Mitt & No Joe-- perfect for each other.
Here in Pennsylvania, President Obama received 608,988 votes in yesterday's primary. Mitt received 464,357 votes or 58%. So he couldn't break 60% even in an uncontested primary. Tells me all I need to know about the "enthusiasm gap."
Yeah, nice job Beverly. However, if all your research is done on liberal web sites then if follows that your conclusions will all be liberal. Therefore, all of the liberals here will just love your posts or should I say lies?
And if you do all your "research" on right wing sites, all your conclusions will be WRONG.
Right 3thirty3?
Beverly, it's the content that counts, the typing not so much.
SF, thanks and great news about President Obama in PA. It doesn't always get mentioned but in a lot of states Obama has received more votes than all the GOP candidates combined.
In the recent Wisconsin primary, one had to designate and vote as republican or democrat - no designation as an independent on the ballot and no crossing party lines to profess an opposition vote.
As a former republican turned independent, I actually wanted to place an opposition vote against Romney by voting as a republican for Obama. Given the only option toward that goal was to designate myself as a republican and choose one of the GOP's underlings over Romney, I instead designated myself a Democrat and voted for Obama. Again, no Independent option on the WI primary ballot.
Yet, if I were a republican in Wisconsin I would be able to place myself on the ballot to run as a democrat in the democratic primary to muddy up the ballot. That's just flat out not right although the challenge to it was recently upheld. I also hoped that the Obama vote total would be announced or published as it was in PA - still waiting.
3thirty3 - and if you do your research where you do yours (Fox, Glenn Beck, etc) your posts will all be laughable, nonsensical lies.
Good job Jody - as always. (Does no joe sleep with her head in the garbage or what??? She's clearly dumpster diving for her posts.)
Since it looks like this is the beginning of the General Election, I want to take a moment before we begin to express my appreciation for all of the Republicans who hang around this blog.
Thank you.
...because without you I wouldn't know all the things that I know and you know and you know that I know but I don't seem to know that I know.
...like just yesterday when I learned from "no joe" about how I know that President Obama is proud of eating dogs. Seriously, I had no idea that I knew that until you told me that I knew that.
So, I'm just going to sit back today and wait for the GOP to tell me more of the things that I know and they know that I know but that I didn't seem to know that I knew.
How is it possible to run for President TWICE and folks still have absolutely no idea wtf you would do if elected?
Can some intrepid reporter perhaps trouble Mr. Romney with an actual policy based question?
I mean, yesterday on CNN, I heard a tease announcing that they were going to ask Joel Osteen if he thought Mitt Romney was a Christian. I didn't stick around for the answer. Who cares?
Why is it that "journalists" can go around the country asking folks who are NOT running for President what they think about folks who are, but they cannot ask the actual CANDIDATE for SPECIFICS about what WHY he wants to lead this country?
It should be impossible for someone to be on TV all of the time without ever being asked to answer a real question. And to add insult to injury, the media tells up that Mitt Romney gave a "good speech" . . . how can it be a "good speech" if he didn't actually say anything?
Just trying to heighten your awareness, noid.
See, you really DO know that it is ridiculous to flatten, or even, decrease, usemployment, by simply removing millions of people from the civilian labor force.
And you really do know that, after past recessions, GDP growth was much higher than it is today. We in the field typically see either "V" shaped, or "U" shaped, GDP growth graphs. What we have here is an "L"- that is, we are scraping along the bottom, with no life in sight.
You know that Obama's idiotic performance on Fallon is a further symptom of what is wrong with this presidency- and that he is too egotistical to even recognize that presenting himself as Entertainer in Chief is completely absurd. It points to his lack of comprehension of the seriousness of the job he sought- but does not do. It points to a lack of comprehension of the derision he earns when attempting to negotiate with allies- let alone with antagonistic nations. It exposes him to contempt- contempt that would be thick, were he a republican.
Imagine the press were a republican president to position himself as more a contestant on American Idol than Commander in Chief. Imagine the derision heaped on a performance like that- the adulation seeking, ego affirming, smarmy posturing- during a time when the economy was limping, and nations like Iran and North Korea were moving along smartly in their nuclear weapon development.
You do know what that would be like.
You choose not to recognize it. I choose to force you to see it.
Take it as a compliment- I'm pretty sure you're a lot smarter than the cult members.
Finally, an admission from no jo about what her problem really is:
Delusions of Grandeur and control over the thoughts of others:
"I force you to see it"
Is she still stuck on the dog meat? Reminds me of a dog with a bone; keeps chewing on nothing but doesn't know the difference.
How odd, that tid bit has been around since Dreams from my Father was first published in 1995 which says conservatives are mighty slow in comprehension and reading skills. Just look at what they missed in 2008 when they were focused on birth certificates, flag pins, accusing Candidate Obama of being a secret Muslim and that Christian Rev Wright--an oxymoron in and of itself.
Just another effort by the ignorant to get the spotlight off an adult, Romney, for showing poor judgment by transporting a dog on the roof of a car.
Interestingly enough, Romney says the only reason he wouldn't do it again is because of the negative attention it drew.
Yep, quite the caring individual.
Jody, what does it say about the sycophantic press, (who presumably DID read the book), that it was not brought up before now?
Ummm... maybe because when you ACTUALLY read the passage & put it in proper context it doesn't f@cking matter expect for delusional bitter old broad like YOU!
If this was a big deal like YOU want to believe it is - then why didn't McCain/Palin use it in 2008?
Hint - NO ONE cares other then those suffering from ODS!
Clear now?
The reason that only the right wing nut jobs bring that story up is very simple. Thoughtful people understand that this is a story of a nine year old boy in a different culture.
The ones who don't, are, according to no jo rules:
BIGOTS!
No Joe, it says the press is a lot brighter than conservatives. In Indonesia during that era, poverty was extremely high; it was acceptable to eat dog meat; it was preferable to starving. It is not acceptable in the USA so you are talking about something that took place when he was 9, in a country where it was acceptable. Mitt Romney was an adult, he showed poor judgement to stuff a pet in a car carrier on the roof and drive for 5 hours then stop, rinse the dog off and stuff it back in the carrier on the roof. Therein, No Joe, lies your problem--you are incapable of recognizing the difference.
Absolutely Classic Mr. Da Noid.
If if was not true, it would not be funny.
No, Jody. It was not, and IS not.
Indonesia is a Muslim country- where dog, like pork, is unclean. It was, and is, illegal, with the exception of a couple of tiny islands far from Jakarta.
Obama, I must note, lived in Jakarta.
Your regurgitation of this falsehood exposes two things- first, that there is nothing you will not make up to try to rationalize anything Obama does, and
Two, your complete ignorance of Muslim beliefs and customs.
Do, please, keep repeating this falsehood. It is highly insulting to Muslim American voters, who could conclude that you are getting this false information from the Obama campaign.
Maybe you are. That would be as rich as Obama getting booed at Fenway Park.
But still not as rich as Romney getting glitter-bombed in MN, twice, then calling it confetti.
Feisty Redhead says: "Ummm... maybe because when you ACTUALLY read the passage & put it in proper context it doesn't f@cking matter expect for delusional bitter old broad like YOU!"
I think you need a new moniker. Feisty you are not; foul-mouthed, mean, nasty, obscene, raunchy, smutty, tacky, uncivil, uncouth, or vulgar are a few appropriate choices for you.
Poor no jo: she will have no one to vote for. She can't vote for Romney, because of his maltreatment of dogs. She can't vote for Obama, because of her outrage that he ate dog when he was nine years old.
Do you suppose that no jo knows that Obama's stepfather was of a Muslim group that had animist and Hindu beliefs mixed in? That he believed that "you are what you eat"? Or does that get in the way of her stereotyping of all Muslims?
She would have known that had she read the book.
Oh Dear!
I do hope someone feels better now that she got that off her chest!
PSST... like I give a rats ass what YOU think, I've seen your 'work' and let's just say I am not in the least bit impressed! lol
Patholigical serial lairs have never been my 'thing'...
3thirthy3: as to your post to Feisty:
It is all right for you to make a personal and vile attack?
So typical.
@no joe
It seems to me your appraisal of Jody's post was incorrect as well. You seem to assert you are an expert on Muslim beliefs and customs, yet you seem to lack the understanding that Muslims may eat haraam (forbidden) food if the alternative is starvation. Jody's post seems to imply that understanding.
Even if it was not permissible for Muslims to violate haraam and was against the law, I fail to see how you can criticize people in another country from doing whatever they did, expecially if they were facing poverty. Perhaps President Obama did eat dog meat as a child. I fail to see how food eaten by a nine year old boy several decades ago has any relevance to anything today.
@Feisty& newday DR: Wouldn't pay much attention to "3thirty3". He/She,It, is just an unbloomed bud, born of a small and insignificant pile. Never be enough substance there to interest even the "tumble turds".
Mac,
"tumble turds"... I ♥ it! lmao
Quite right, Mac: Have a little extra time on my hands, waiting for the vet for the spring work on the horses. Fun to poke at the right wingers now and again.
newdayDawning...Returned: You're fortunate. I love both horses and mules. Agree, it's fun messing with the crazy extremists, but for me, it does sometimes get tiring. Best Regards
I like the horses until vaccination day. My mare puts on quite a show. Be glad when this is done!
Regards to you as well.
no joe - it says the press has much more sense than you - but that was never in doubt. What Obama ate as a 7-9 year old in another country the press knows, has absolutely nothing to do with his values or what he would do today. Totally different than what Mitt did as an adult and says he would do again today if people wouldn't be upset (and let's be truthful, even if people didn't like it he'd do it if he wasn't running for President since he really doesn't given a damn what people think).
Well I see Mac, Feisty, new day are all congratulating themselves. Needless to say that all of you are full of "substance" and that "tumble turds" are actually interested in you.
3thirty3 - my guess is you're related to no joe? You clearly share the same low-level intelligence!
SeekingSanity - keep seeking and your comment about my intellect is simply brilliant. Such depth and so thought provoking. Did it take you 30 minutes to think that one up? LMAO .... at you!
Dear Mr. Santorum,
Loved the endorsement last night...or whatever the hell you wanted to call that.
In his work at Bain Capital, Romney was able to identify the hidden potential in companies then work with them to maximize their profits. Sometimes that meant restructuring to create a lean, mean, profit-making machine, and other times salvaging whatever assets remained once it was clear the business was hopeless.
Once elected, President Romney can apply his business savvy to the US economy…bolstering (tax breaks, reduced regulations) the most promising enterprises and pulling the rug out from under those on the brink. Same is true for citizens (after all, corporations are people…so people must be corporations). He’ll make sure the best and brightest (and well-heeled) have the opportunity to attend the best schools then let the rest self-deport.
You obviously never dealt directly with Bain. Romney never created a single job at our company. Romney cared only about himself and the guys who invested with Bain, which is fine with me, but that does not create jobs. Now that the gloves are coming off, you will enjoy the release of factual information regarding Mr. Romney. I would not trust this guy to park my car, or walk my dog.
Ursula, great post.
What you wrote is exactly what Romney plans to do. It's why he's getting so much PAC money.
The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company.
Mitt Romney was offered the CEO position of a new company, Bain Capital, by his current boss Bill Bain. Mr. Bain guaranteed Mr. Romney that if the company did not perform well he would get his old job back at Bain & Co. at the same pay plus any pay increases he would have received.
There was no risk for Mitt Romney {period}.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital
Hopefully, the real dirt is going to come out on Romney and Bain. Just keep investigating and the smoking gun will be found.
If corporations are people, shouldn't Mitt be up on charges of assault and murder for what he did to those "people"?
Terry -
"... regarding Mr. Romney. I would not trust this guy to park my car, or walk my dog." Which for Mitt is the same thing, just ask Seamus.
Why are we looking so hard into Romney's past? We still have much to learn about Obama's past. I say who cares? I care about someone who is going to work with congress no matter which party is in power. I don't care if our president can dance or tell jokes, I want someone with America's best interest at heart. I don't want to hear about how much the other guy sucks. So many of your posts have been collapsed because you continue to spew your hate speech about your candidate's opponent. Convince me your guy is the right one to vote for by espousing their virtue, not how lousy the other guy is.
Diamond60
Good for you! I'll take that challenge. My guy is Barack Obama:
In 2008, Hillary Clinton ran an ad saying Barack Obama wasn't capable of taking a 3:00am phone call about a national crisis. Boy was that wrong!
Obama was elected at the very start of a recession caused by the financial crisis linked to Wall Street malfeasance and the housing bust.
It was a scary time: there were projections we were entering another Great Depression. Thousands lost their jobs. 401K's lost their value. Comedian Wanda Skyes joked "sure, give the worst job in the country to the Black man." There is no denying Barack Obama assumed the office during one of the worst economic times in our country. How'd he do?
Well, the big three American automobile companies are profitable again for the first time since 2006. Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, is really and truly dead. Troops have withdrawn from Iraq. This administration has prosecuted more Medicaid fraud cases, and more illegal immigration cases, then the Bush administration did in eight years. Working with a Democratic Congress, Barack Obama was able to pass legislation that addresses the rising cost of healthcare, and prevents insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick, or denying them coverage for pre-existing conditions. I could go on...but I guess that's enough for now. Thanks for letting me make my case! Obama 2012
Dennis, you mean that you would work such a deal if you could?
Pat
Because business people only get 1 vote, they are outnumbered at least 20 - 1. Before McCain Feingold, they contributed directly to Candidates. Because of McCain Feingold they can spend more using Super Pacs. That is them giving their opinion.
In the PAC system, they are not to directly coordinate with campaigns. If anything is severely wrong right now, it is that they don't have to divulge what PAC's they are giving to so the public understands what business is giving their opinion.
I think we should be in partnership with corporations and businesses and not so adversarial. They provide us products and jobs. If we are not reasonable with them, then we won't have jobs and benefits. Per our economy right now, we are far too adversarial.
And what makes you believe Romney will be able to work with Congress? He has done nothing but show he favors the wealthy. Are you suggesting the only pathway work with Congress is to enact legislation that favors the rich (1%) on the backs of everyone else (99%)?
Still waiting for Mitt's tax returns to see how tough he's had it the past 10 years.
What's the problem with showing those to the American people Mitt?
You have got to be kidding. You are like most of the republican morons who think
that Romney will change things for the better. Fact: the majority of americans are
much better off under a democtric administration than a republican one. Case in
in point just look at what happened during the last 8 years of republican rule.
And if you think that was bad, with the new crop of republican lunitics the
damage would be ten times greater.
Dennis, the republicans simply cannot help themselves in their attitudes and actions toward women. There is a real disconnect in their lives that speaks to lack of respect. For me as a women, it appalls me when women support and espouse this kind of thinking. Where did they learn that it is OK to treat people this way? And from that, if they have children, is this what they have taught their sons, it is perfectly fine to consider a woman as a second class citizen, or their daughters that it is acceptable to be goods and chattel for some bullying yahoo.
Madeleine Albright, speaking at a Women's Convention several years ago, said.....There is a special place in hell for women who do not support other women.
In this election cycle, if you have a vagina, do NOT vote republican.
Obama/Biden 2012
I don't have a vagina so I'll vote for whomever I want to.
Well said, as always, GBM but I hope you wont mind if my gender does not vote republican as well!
My daughter had the occasion to speak with Madeleine Albright at Vanderbilt. She holds her as one of the most pleasant and intelligent human beings she has ever met.
As for that horse pucky last night "Hold on just a little longer America. I will ride in and save America. Just hold on!"
Really, Mitt - just as we were starting to climb out of the mess your buddies got us in!
Especially, Belfast Lad, when Romney is trying to ride in on the back of the Ryan (I have never seen a middle class or poor person I didn't want to rob blind) budget.
Gingerbread Mama
What she meant was support women in the way Liberals think women should be supported.
What a pompus and presumptious statement to make when less than half of women agree with key liberal concepts
23% of women are Liberal
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
51% of women believe abortion to be morally wrong http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/23/gallup-poll-americans-want-all-or-most-abortions-illegal/
Pro-choice is a misnomer in this link because many labeled "pro-choice" includes those who only say choice under certain circumstances only.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/abortion/new_low_47_view_abortion_as_morally_wrong_most_of_the_time
23% of women are Liberal
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
Hi Belfast Lad....... Mon ami, vote against a republican.
In my haste, I was remiss in not including all the good men whether they be spouses, fathers, brothers, significant others, friends, all those who love, support us and respect us. Thank you all for supporting human rights.
Comme je trouve, alors, je le parle
When men disregard others as equals, they become less than men. When those who have been disregarded as equals allow it to happen, they become less than themselves.
DB Akron:
Good work on finding those poll links. Extra credibility goes with the "Defeat Obama 2012" at the bottom of the page.
The danger to everyone during an election cycle is when a group loads a question to create statistics that suite their purpose. Both sides do it.
There is a question on the Florida Republican Questionnaire that asks, "Do you want to continue the freedom hating, liberal policies of the current administration - or do you want change?" With the results from this question, the FGOP will most likely be able to proudly annouce that 100% of those polled want change. As such, polling women on a conservative web site such as the link you quoted will deliver different results from a broad-based, national sample.
None of your quoted links explain why Obama has a +20 point lead with women over Romney.
Je crois que oui, GBM
Vote the GOP out Ladies!
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER! Not to mention the poor, the elderly, the disabled, students, all minorities, the OWS folks, the 99%ers, and oh yeah - the PETA people!
Remember Mitt's Mutt in November - Vote the GOP OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ooops, my bad. Forgot to add all Catholic nuns to those at odds with the GOP.
C'mon Sisters, Remember in November - Vote the GOP OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DB in Akron would NEVER post an accurate poll of women since he knows it would not support his lies. The majority of women believe in pro-choice even though they might not select to have an abortion themselves. YOU do not speak for women!
Last nite Romney looked and sounded like our next President. He can and will turn America around! No silliness just presidential.
I don't trust him. All he does is lie and Flip on every issue, and he is out of touch with the average American.
That is why he is known as Willard Flip Romney.
Huh??? More like boring! Don't worry if you liked that he soon change his position and your mind. The Weather Vane never fails to disappoint the GOTP faithful.
President Obama saved the Nation from a Great Depression.
Obama - Biden 2012
hot daddy, please elaborate on just how Mitt Romney will turn around; heaven knows Mitt hasn't told us how he plans to do that. Oh, did I mention to borrow from the words of conservatives, he looked presidential and gave a good speech because he used a teleprompter!
I think you might've been watching a different speech...Presidential? He was arrogant, insulting, condescending and wooden. He does nothing but say Obama is wrong and then give that pained fake, patronizing smile. How the hell does that help?
hot?? ah yur lying eyes!
hot daddy - you were clearly either drunk or on drugs. Nothing Romney said nor the way he said it was presidential. He was the same old "it's my turn so vote me in," Romney. No plans, nothing! pathetic excuse for a human being and totally unacceptable as a President.
SeekingSanity: You really need to be seeking more diligently. Your posts have no facts just throwing out junk comments. Insulting comments make you less credible. Say something intelligent, please.
The Republicans have a brilliant campaign strategy. Destroy the economy during their last eight years of a Republican presidential administration, then blame the democrats for not fixing everything they screwed up in three years.
Who would have ever thought of a plan so brilliant?
Rove. Like a living comic book supervillan. The only chance we have against him is to get Stan Lee to create his nemesis.
SIMPLE for us in Massachusetts. The WIZARD Romney DROVE us to 47th in Job Creation. HE may be able to muscle weakened Companies and profit from it BUT we in MA know HE IS NOT prepared for GOVERNMENT.
Taking over a failing Company is one thing. Leading a NATION is a whole different story. Unfortunately TOO MANY people in America BELIEVE this DORK can "magically" cure ALL. Get READY TO PAY for your gullibility !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob,
You are 100% correct.
Thanks
Romney's record while he was in Mass. will be a big problem for him, for sure. I think thats why he's focused on his biz creds. Its coming, but probably after the summer when people actually start paying attention. The Obama camp will sit on this and use it for max effect. These people are not stupid. The serious politics will happen after the conventions. Until then, non controversy's and silly BS.
Bob you're 25% correct. Sorry Job1 that makes you 75% wrong.
Romney's record as Governor is FAR better than that one irrelevant statistic.
1. Romney balanced the budget from a $1.5 Billion deficit to a $700,000 million surplus.
2. The unemployment rate went from 5.6% down to 4.7% the year he left office. This is considered better that full employment.
3. Not only did the UR drop but the labor force grew under his administration.
4. The drop in unemployment was NOT a result in a smaller workforce as Massachusetts added 51,362 jobs during Romney's tenure, while its population grew by 26,500 residents during that same period. Massachusetts therefore added two jobs for every resident gained.
Atticus:
See! Romneycare worked. Why don't you want the same for the rest of the US?
Bob
Romney took over the Bankrupt Olympics and made it the most profitable in history. His work was so good everyone uses that Olympica as the model for a succesful Olympics, even the Communist countries!
Bleary Eyed
Health insurance and care needs to be left to the states. There is too far a diffence in scale of costs from Arkansas, Florida, Massachussetts, New York, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington D,C, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Texas, . . .
Besides, Romneycare really isn't the Romneycare he signed. After he left office the next governor signed into law many budget buster provisions Romney was able to eliminate.
As a result of the changes, there are less insurers in Massachusetts now than there were when Romney was governor.
The ACA used Romneycare as a model, but is more restrictive and interferring that Romneycare after the Democrats increased it's grab.
DB, just how did Romney save the Olympics? Didn't the Feds save the Olympics with $600 million in taxpayer funds via Romney's urging for earmarks? Or the lobbyists he enlisted? Or the Bain execs.? Or the same Olympics that Sen. McCain said was an incredible pork-barrel project with a total cost of $1.5 billion? How about Kem Gardner, who was a friend of Romney, awarded the contract to build the Olympic Legacy Park in his shopping mall with millions of tax dollar reimbursements at his disposal. Or how about 25 of the Olympic board senior manager's severance pay being boosted. They obviously felt so good about it that they donated to Romney's campaign for governor of Massachusetts soon after the games ended, along with additional donations from the board of trustees. All told, Romney reaped more than $1.5 million in campaign funds during his governorship from individuals and families with ties to the Olympics. Moreover in 2007, Many of his Olympic-related donors have since joined a massive fundraising movement for Romney's presidential campaign. So, DB, did Mitt Romney's business experience REALLY save the Olympics or did he USE the Olympics to save his political career on his way to the White House? This is the model he wants to go by as an investment to a 'New' America?'
DB - we have no problem with Romney continuing to work for the Olympics. See - we agree with you. It's a job he's qualified for!
Have you been talking to your neighbors, they say the exact opposite.
Still waiting to here Romney say something other than "Obama sucks, I can do better". Nuts and bolts please. Not vague references to this or that. MITT ROMNEY: WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO IF YOU WIN THE PRESIDENCY? IN YOUR WORDS. Not some overblown hype from the Romney website. What will you cut to suppliment a bloated military? What about infrastructure? What about Veterans benefits? What about energy dependence? What about immigration besides that BS self deportation crap? Womans issues? SAY IT MAN, SAY IT OUT LOUD SO WE ALL CAN HEAR IT.
All he needs to talk about is hope and change. It worked for Obama!
Hope and change is a hell of a lot better than: "the other guys sucks worse than I will". Its hard to sell the bitter pill when things are no where near as bad now, as the day Obama took office. Could they be better, yes. Do you think Romney can turn around that size mess in just 3 years? If he happens to get elected, he better hope so.
So you haven’t actually gone to Mittromney.com and read his plan? Under the issues tab is a Jobs and Economy link. There you can find 7 aspects detailing what he will do to solve this most pressing issue.
While you're there, feel free to donate to his campaign! Hehe
Ok, I read it. Its a bunch of rehashed BS thats already been tried and failed miserably or was never enacted because it is draconian. BUT, until it parses his lips, his advisors might as well have wrote it. And many of the features start out with "Obamas failure". Thats a great way inspire people. Espcially swing voters. And I'm not daft enoughto give any politician any of my money. So no thats. Hehe.
Why do you need more "nuts and bolts" when "Hope and Change" was more than enough to get Obama elected?
Obama didn't wander the country saying "Hope and Change" and then walking away. He specifically talked about what needed to change and then laid out plans to do it. I've seen Romney's "plan." He may as well just write "I'll put more money in my own pockets and screw you, most of America!"
Obama's plans were always about making things better for everyone. Romney thinks corporations are people, for crying out loud. He knows nothing about life in regular America, and he doesn't care.
Why should Romney care whether Newt or little Rickie endorse him. They are both weird extremists. Also, they show their considerable egos and jealousy of a man who is suited for the job. I would have preferred Jon Huntsman, but will take Romney. Jon has a very intelligent mind, and good experience in life. Not a lifer like Newt or a religious fanatic such as Santorum. Santorum said too many stupid things while he was running. I hope Romney gives him the brush.
It seems to me neither has any ideas. Both Obama and Romney are only bad mouthing each other. I will vote for Romney since all I have seen of Obama is partisan politics and campaigning ever since he took office. I have not seem him ever transition from campaign mode to presidential mode.
I think maybe Osama Bin Laden may not agree with you there. Or anyone working today in the auto industry and support industries. Gay folks in the military might not either. Lybia doesn't think that I'm sure.
Some probably don't agree with me. But I think our kids that will pay big time for all this may realize Obama made mistakes in time.
Osama probably would realize that it was CIA and navy seals and not Obama that killed him.
Fred.....your kids and mine will be paying for George Bush's mistakes for a long time. Two unfunded wars, a prescription drug plan that was a gift to the pharmeceutical companies and financial blow to seniors, all this put on a credit card.
Keeping in mind, that the Romney camp, has many of the Bush Administration's former employees as advisers, you can expect more of the same. Don't kid yourself on that account, his words are soothing to your ears right now, but his actions will hurt you and your children more than you could ever realize.
I'm not saying Obama is perfect. Far from it. But the call came from the top. CIA provided intel. Seals excuted the mission. Obama said "GO". It would take an order from the top to cross into Pakistan to do this. CIA and Navy do not make that call. Commander in Cheif does. But thats just one example. Obama is def. in campaign mode now for sure. And should be. But he's done plenty (good and bad) when he's been legislating. And I think the Partisan politics of which you speak is just as bad or worse on the GOP side. Remeber the good ole line: "Our job is to make him a one term president"? That is about as partisan as it gets.
Anyone with half a brain knows a repub pres would not have allowed the demise of Osama. McCain would have called it off because it removed an important cog in the fear mongering the repubs need to fan the flames of their faux patriotism.
Or, McCain would have been fearful of offending the Pakistani's. Even if he would have wanted to proceed, he would have told the Pakistan govt of the plans to get Osama as a gesture of goodwill. Then those Pakistani faithful to Osama's cause would have moved him and Seal Team Six would have either assaulted an empty house or a house filled with Al Queda.
I am really really tired of having to defend Obama's role in the killing of the world's top terrorist. If you didn't want Osama eliminated - just say so.
It seems to me neither has any ideas. Both Obama and Romney are only bad mouthing each other. I will vote for Romney since all I have seen of Obama is partisan politics and campaigning ever since he took office. I have not seem him ever transition from campaign mode to presidential mode.
Then you haven't been paying attention, or you are lying.
Fred, to each his own, but all I've seen Republicans do since 2008 is attempt to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest.
Our Tea Party governor was elected in 2010, at the height of the recession, with a Republican majority in our state legislature and the first thing he tried to do? Lift the ban on BPH in children's sippy cups. I'm not kidding. Second thing? Attack public worker's unions. (Average teacher's pension in Maine is only $19,000, and they don't get SS. It's not like our teachers are overpaid.)
Results: Maine is the only New England state who hasn't seen a decline in unemployment. So much for "focused like a laser" on job creation.
So Fred have you been asleep? Wow totally out of touch it would seem.
I voted yesterday in Philadelphia. Did not see a single Romney supporter. Literally everyone voted for Ron Paul. Everyone I talked to was voting Paul and was disgusted with Mitt Romney. I wasn't scared to call out the media black out on Ron Paul, and I can't be with calling out the blatant voter fraud either. This race is a sham. I am changing parties and will no longer be a registered republican. Come election time, I will write in Ron Paul as a matter of principle. Romney and Obama are scary men, and I refuse to vote for the lesser evil like the rest of you do. When this is all said and done, don't dare come back to us Ron Paul supporters shaking your heads.. cause we told you so.
You are a moron. Ron Paul is a weirdo and he attracts other weirdos like you.
Then you'll be voting for Obama.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul was robbed in Maine's primary. They called it for Romney before the votes in the North were counted, where his support was the strongest. My brother was selected as a representative to the Republican convention and he supports Paul. I think the convention will show many people do.
Myself, I like Paul's intelligence, although I do not think his ideology works that well in the real world.
Did you see today's durable goods orders report? Weakest in 3 years. The Republicans' dream of an economy in shambles is coming true. Meanwhile, impotent Team Obama's total incompetence will be fully on display from here through November.
Remember that in the battle between idiocy and evil, evil generally wins. That's what we'll see in November, as Romney wins in a landslide.
Jack Mack - it's doubtful Romney will even carry his own state (or does he claim citizenship in a country with one of his homes?). He is not about to win by a landslide. The landslide you see coming is for President Obama and he is no idiot. You've been watching the GOP way toooooooo much!
Jack Mack you most certainly are a democrat since you're blaming Republicans for the economic shambles. However, you do know we have a Democrat in the White House and we have a Democratic majority in the Senate. Fact is our government is in the control of the Democrats and has been for the last 3 1/2 years. Are you suggesting President Obama is evil because he won.
Gran - I've voted mostly for Libertarians since 1984, though I did vote for Clinton in 96. In Texas, where I live now, one doesn't register with a party. I'd probably be more inclined to vote for Democrats here since my county, and more broadly the state, is suffering from the corruption and decay that is almost always the result of the total dominance of one single party. That said, I'm certainly not "a democrat" as you assert, though it seems evident from your comment that you'll have a difficult time with the cognitive dissonance that causes.
Yes, I am aware that Obama is a Democrat and that there is a Democratic majority in the Senate. That said, having paid attention to politics for the past 35 years, and having looked at them through a left-libertarian lens through much of that time, it's pretty clear to me that the Democratic Party's "strategy" (and I use the quotes because in all honesty I don't truly believe they have ever worked out a truly conscious strategy for governing) has been to capitulate, apologize, backtrack, stumble, mumble, and otherwise submit to the manipulation and the will of the Republicans.
Supply-side economics, colored especially these past fifteen or so years with a massive dose of exceptionally bald-faced influence peddling and corruption, has ruled the governing agenda since 1981. Of course, it's a kind of papering-over of the right-wing Keynesianism (watch out - more cognitive dissonance!) that has REALLY driven economic "performance" (again, quotes for a reason) for the past 30 years. We spend $700 billion a year DIRECTLY on the military, and more than a trillion when you really count up all the expenditures. Why? Simple: ECONOMIC STIMULUS.
This is fantastically wasteful, and while both Republicans and Democrats embrace it wholly, it is core to Republican policy for two reasons: one, they know the US economy is now fully centrally-planned and they know it's only being propped up by this nonsensical stimulus spending, and two, it's a great club with which to beat the spineless Democrats. "They're soft on defense! They're capitulating to terrorists! They want to cut twenty bucks from the military budget! They're socialists! They're Muslims! They're going to take that twenty bucks away from our soldiers and give it to lazy illegal immigrants to buy dope and rape your daughters!" On and on and on.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are so hopelessly cowed that they'll give in to anything the Republicans throw at them in this arena. "We can't be seen as being soft on defense," they all say, all the while knowing the same thing the Republicans know: take away the sugar-water of economic "stimulus" that goes to General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, General Electric, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc. and the economy plunges into a world of hurt.
Ultimately what all of this means is that the partisan nonsense gripping America ("It's all Obama's fault! He's a Marxist Kenyan Socialist Baby-Killing filth-monger!" "No, it's all Bush's fault! He's a lying, incompetent boob who let Cheney run the country off a cliff!") is all a sideshow. It's a sham designed to keep people distracted and designed to keep people divided so that the institutions that REALLY run our government (oh, did I mention General Dynamics, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, etc? What about Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and those folks? Think they've ever done any deals for General Electric? Wal Mart?) can continue their complete takeover unfettered.
Back to the original point: while the Dems have been "in control" for the past 3 1/2 years, everyone who's been paying attention has known that this doesn't really matter much. Frankly, look at Obama's trajectory anyway: Guantanamo? NDAA? Transparency? All rejections of the supposedly left-wing ideology to which he so dearly adheres according to deluded right-wing shriekers.
The Republicans set the agenda and define the terms of every debate (look at the healthcare law, which went from an idea hatched by the Heritage Foundation - the individual mandate - to a "government takeover" in a single week and never looked back). The Democrats roll over and huddle in the corner. Ultimately, they're both just players in the same game, but to the increasingly limited extent that they are different, the bottom line is this:
When it comes to politicians, Democrats are idiots, and Republicans are evil.
Romney sweeps 5 States! Wow! Can you believe that. Santorum has bailed out, Gingrich is broke, and Paul is unelectable. Romney is still fighting to find his voice, and convince people that he is truly is a "job creator", other than simply by being a member of the 1%, and automatically a member of the GOP's most favored Americans, instead of being a most successful "corporate raider", a murderer and butcher of undervalued American corporations (as he has now suddenly decided are: "people too"), and an All American destroyer of jobs and their fired former employee's destroyed hopes and dreams.
This GOP Primary, which has now become Romney's march to attain the magic number of GOP delegates has turned into the GOP equivalent an " Iranian Election". Now, in this Primary, vote for Romney, or else stay home. Any other candidate is now out of the picture.
And the analysis goes on and on- soon they'll compare what brand of shoes Romney wears vs Obama. Who cares, but what is worse is that Romney will probably be elected and people will place so much hope in him magically turning things around with rainbows, candy canes & unicorns appearing everywhere. After the parade is over the reality will sit back in and many will be disappointed to see that little to nothing will change at all and it will be business as usual while the rich get richer and the serfs continue polishing their shoes
Middle class jobs will disapper regardless of politics because of technology and foreign competition and are out of control of the president. Probabably the fed that is independent of the president has the most control.
Most of the rich getting richer occurred on the late 1990's and stock indexes are down from there.
mitt that rhymes with...
Only socialist media would consider a crooked president offering bribes to college students as a strength.
Only the ignorant left would consider having their leader on late night TV acting like a jackass as a good quality,,,,,,,
Romney 2012,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,restore leadership to the White House.
Ahhhh, another vacuous soul peeing against the winds of change. How did the 8 years of Bush ruining America make you feel, as warm as you feel now with that wind blowing in your face? I think not.
What's the difference between suggesting legislation that would make life for the middle class and working poor, and the economy on the whole, better and bribery? It can't be party affiliation, since I can't think of a single Republican "plan" that even considers the working poor at all....
paidmyfee - you've spent WAY too much time in the basement. Your brain - if you had one - has turned to mush.
President Obama is a very good President and will be better in his 2nd term. No one is bribing students - however, the GOP is certainly bribing the 1%!
This article gave zero numbers. All it says is Willard won. Here are some real numbers:
Delegate count in Minnesota:
Paul: 20
Santorum: 2
Gingrich: 1
Romney: 1
(apparently I have to give facts since MSM wont)
Today is April 25th, Minnesota primary did not happen last night and Santorium is out of the race,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,welcome to spring time.
Outside of the far right wing GOPer's I haven't found hardly anybody that thinks Romney could get elected as president. We know his family might vote for him and hope he does so they can get their hands on the family LOOT. It is pretty hard to find anyone that really thinks he could get enough votes to win. He is about the most unimpressive candidate around. Even Gingrich is better liked than Romney. Hope he spends tons of his money in this losing cause.
I suspect this will be a close election and possibly the polls flip flop between now and November. Even Obama's press secretary expects a close election.
I don't thinik it will be close unless Republicans can suppress the vote which they are trying desperately to do
The popular vote will be very close, but Romney will likely win 40 states or more, and will cruise to an electoral landslide. He'll pick Rubio as his running mate and seal up Florida. He'll win North Carolina easily, squeak out a win in Virginia, Ohio will be extremely close but as the economy continues to deteriorate he'll probably win there as well. He has gone from 18 points down against Obama in Michigan to 4 points down, which is a statistical tie, and so he clearly has a chance to win there too. That's pretty amazing given that he pretty much gave the state the middle finger with respect to its principal industry.
Even if Axelrod and Plouffe know how much trouble their guy is really in, I don't think they're capable of stemming the tide. Put the fervor of the "Anyone But Obama" crowd together with the apathy of Obama's shrinking base, and then add in the power of the right-wing hate machine, which hasn't even begun to crank up yet, and layer over that the haplessness of the DNC and strategic incompetence of Team Obama, and you pretty much have a recipe for a lost election.
It was plainly evident in 2008 that whoever won would be a 1-term President anyway given the depth of the economic washout we faced. None of this should surprise anyone.
Yes Jack, use the tired, tried but true GOP tactic...fear-mongering.
Speaking of "fearmongering" ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who has Obama blamed for today's failures?
Maybe he can call "stay at home" mom's something nasty in an effort to bring people intot he fold?
Or promise college kids they won't have to repay their student loans if they vote for him!!!!
Oh yea,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,he has already done that.
Jack - in your dreams. Romney will be lucky to win 10 states and he won't win his own state. No way he takes North Carolina OR Virginia. He will not cruise into anything other than the sunset.
Fred, so you know Obama's secretary???? Never said anything like you're claiming!
SeekingSanity - Look, from my perspective the only thing worse than Obama winning is Obama losing. It's a choice between disaster and apocalypse, just as 2008 was a choice between disaster and calamity. So I'm hardly sitting here rooting for a Romney victory.
However, I can't see any evidence that suggests Obama can possibly win NC in particular. Put the various polls together and it comes out as a statistical tie, but factor in voter enthusiasm and the quickly worsening economy and the math is pretty simple.
Michigan is extremely telling. Here's a state that based on news alone OUGHT to be leaning very strongly to Obama, and yet his lead over Romney has evaporated in a single month from +18 to +4, again a statistical tie.
While there are many government workers in Virginia, that's not going to be enough to carry the state. Again, this comes down to voter enthusiasm. Who's going to the polls? The people whose seething hatred for Obama has been stirred up for years, and whose seething hatred will be even more inflamed come election day thanks to billions of dollars poured into SuperPACs to pile on the most egregious lies and slander imaginable. If you thought Swiftboat was bad... well, just wait. This year, it's going to be sickening.
Thus far, the folks who think I'm wrong have only been able to say things like, "you're crazy" and "in your dreams." Nobody thus far has an argument about how Obama can win those states. If you do, I'm interested in hearing it. As I've said, the only thing worse than another 4 years of Obama is 4 years of Romney. This is especially scary given that the Republicans are virtually certain to take back control of the Senate. They'll have all three branches again given their 30-year dominance of the Judicial branch... and if there's anything worse than the hapless Dems in charge, it's the Reps.
Jack - as a former NC girl, could not disagree with you more. Obama will again take NC - if just because of the college vote.
And, I don't believe the GOP will take back the Senate - in fact - would not surprise me if they lost the house. People are tired of the way the GOP has acted the last 3 years. And, I believe the next few months will make many of them toast!
Remember the GOP has been out campaigning hard! The Democrats haven't really started yet. They are well organized and will be getting the vote out. Don't count any states out yet.
Oh, Dear Lord paidmyfee - really? Why does everyone spouting nonsense use so many punctuation marks? Does that mean something to you?
The person who made the "insulting stay-at-home-moms" (which it wasn't really) remark wasn't even a member of the President's staff, much less the President himself. Also - the student loan thing? He's simply trying to keep interest rates from rising in June. That's it. No free rides. Try reading once and a while instead of just letting Rush tell you what to think.
flip flop Mitt
guilliani on romney
mccain on romney
romney = obama
Will creating corporations or enabling established corporations with special tax rates by Romney translate into jobs for the middle class within those corporations? Mr. Gingrich, while your campaign may be ending, you do not end a sentence with a preposition.