E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Obama embraced a general election fight versus Mitt Romney on the core issue of the economy, casting the fall campaign as a chance to break a "stalemate" between warring political factions in Washington.
In a highly-anticipated speech in the swing state of Ohio, the president sought to re-frame the 2012 campaign after weathering a series of setbacks mostly connected to voters' concern that the economic recovery has begun to sputter.
Speaking in Cleveland, Ohio, President Obama says "this election presents a choice between two fundamentally different visions of how to create strong, sustained growth; how to pay down our long-term debt; and most of all, how to generate good, middle-class jobs."
"There is one place where I stand in complete agreement with my opponent: this election is about our economic future," Obama said at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland.
Jewel Samad / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks on the economy during a campaign event at the Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 14.
The speech was intended to offer a sharp contrast versus Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who delivered a stinging rebuke of the president’s economic stewardship in a speech moments earlier in Cincinnati. The Obama campaign said it was the first in a series of actions by Obama meant to frame the general election.
“What's holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take. And this election is your chance to break that stalemate,” Obama said. “At stake is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two paths for our country.”
For Obama, the GOP path – which, he said, Romney would advance along with unpopular congressional Republicans, hand-in-hand – represented a retread of the policies during the Bush administration. A Romney administration, the president warned, would award expensive tax cuts mostly to the wealthy and let corporations run amok of regulations, all while gutting support for education and infrastructure.
The speech was firmly ensconced in a kind of “Blame Bush” strategy that Republicans frequently decry as a political red herring, and Romney tried to keep the focus on the past three years.
“He’s going to be saying today that he wants four more years. He may have forgotten he talked about a one term proposition if he couldn’t get the economy turned around in three years. But we’re going to hold him to his word,” Romney said in Cincinnati, referring to an interview given by Obama in which he said he’d be voted out if his administration failed to improve the economy.
“I know that he will have all sorts of excuses and he’ll have all sorts of ideas he’ll describe about how he’ll make things better,” Romney said. “And so if people want to know how his economic policies have worked and how they perform, why they can talk to their neighbor and ask if things are better.”
The president’s speech was billed as a major one by both the White House and Obama’s re-election team. It follows a bruising couple of weeks politically for Obama, coming after May’s lackluster jobs report, Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall election and the president’s gaffe last Friday, in which he suggested the private sector was doing “fine.”
(Obama made light of those comments at the top of his speech: "Over the next five months, this election will take many twists and many turns, polls will go up and polls will go down, there will be no shortage of gaffes and controversies that keep both campaigns busy and give the press something to write about. You may have heard I recently made my own unique contribution to that process.")
Obama’s message on Thursday ironically mirrored much of the rhetoric he used at his last speech at Cuyahoga Community College in September of 2010. Then, when Republicans were on the cusp of a swarming victory in that year’s midterm elections, Obama also warned in that speech about the perils of electing Republicans who would return to Bush policies.
“That’s the choice, Ohio. Do we return to the same failed policies that ran our economy into a ditch, or do we keep moving forward with policies that are slowly pulling us out? “ Obama asked in the 2010 speech. “Do we settle for a slow decline, or do we reach for an America with a growing economy and a thriving middle class? That’s the America that I see. We may not be there yet, but we know where this country needs to go.”
Obama paired his criticism of Romney with what he said was an alternative vision that made up the choice in front of voters this autumn.
"The debate in this election is not about whether we need to grow faster, or whether we need to create more jobs, or whether we need to pay down our debt," Obama said. "The debate in this election is about how we grow faster, and how we create more jobs, and how we pay down our debt. That's the question facing the American voter."
The crowd of about 1,500 cheered throughout most of the speech, which extended toward almost an hour in length. The president spent a considerable amount of time delving into his hopes for what investments in energy, technology, infrastructure and other priorities could do for rebuilding the middle class.
The dueling speeches, though, offered a glimpse of the general election battle that’s set to dominate the next five months. Romney will return to the Buckeye State as soon as Sunday, during a stop on a bus tour that will take him through six swing states.
Leave a Comment:
That's it "O" crank up this race and start kicking some ass! Let's show this two bit corporate hustler that he's in the big leagues now, and make him aware that his ass will be handed to him in November!
Obama/Biden 2012
Absolutly!
Let's go back to the exact same things that caused the crash in the first place!
Why do Republican'ts take us to the abyss when in power, leaving the Democrat's to clean up the mess after them?
I'm fired up & ready to go!
Time to send Willard back to whatever state he's calling home these days!
Obama’s message on Thursday ironically mirrored much of the rhetoric he used at his last speech at Cuyahoga Community College in September of 2010.
_________________________________________
More of the same old, same old, failed policies of the current administration.
That's the BEST hot air he could come up with??
Putting a positive spin on it, you could say he is using a "recycled" speech.
Obama 2012 It Could Be Worse
Give Me Four More Years And I'll Prove It
TeaPeople are always crying foul....Foul mouthed Birthers who spew nothing but hatred and lies about the President.......
...and Yes! Dubya did it...Why aren't they proud?
Time to send Willard back to whatever state he's calling home these days!
Feisty, I think its called the State of Confusion....
LMAO!
*cleaning off laptop screen again*
Okay! I think that makes us even... no?
Hey Joe, Speaking of speeches, when is Nit-Mitten's going to start giving the Press some real interviews, besides that spoon fed crap we hear over at FUX News?
Martin Bashir just mentioned that Willard will be on with Bob Schieffer (sp) this Sunday.......unless he changes his mind!
Martin Bashir just called the NitMitt - Howard Hughs! lol
Pretty fitting...
Amazing how the GOPers can whine about President Obama still blaming President Bush and still talking about the Great Recession BUSH and the GOP caused. Sorry GOPers but we're still digging our way out of the GOP-dug crater so Bush is fair game whether Mitt and they like it or not. In addition, Romney's economic plan is Bush 43's economic plan on steroid (abd I think Clinton stole that line from me but that's okay). They claim Obama shouldn't do that, it's been almost 4 years so..... It's amazing hypocrisy after all, it was the GOPers who milked 9/11 for everything they could (and they still do) for Bush's re-election campaign and for every other election since. Get used to it. Romney = Bush x 10.
Barack Obama's platform= divide (the populace) and conquer.
He is not accountable for anything.
PALOOKAVILLE FOR ROMNEY !
“At stake is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two paths for our country.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track
In other words 71% of the Country believes its heading in the WRONG Direction!
Here's our economy on Drugs, I mean Obama, Any questions?
Martin Bashir just mentioned that Willard will be on with Bob Schieffer (sp) this Sunday.......unless he changes his mind!
C'mon Chilled, You know as well me that Willard never changes his mind.....LOL
Obama can't fool the masses anymore ....
He's done ....
His poll numbers are in the dumps more and more everyday now .... "LOL"
Adios , Obamos ....
bigbenalaska..can hardlt wait to see if Obam does lose the election..Just what do we as a nation have to lok forward to with Romney as president..more of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy....along with huge cuts tio the middle class and poor..and those on social security. Can hardly wait to see just how much will be cut from education..the fields of science..and others in order to make sure the wealthy get their tax cuts. Question then becomes..just when will any republican start working on jobs..as they made claim to years ago with the election of a bunch of tea party favorites ? So far..republicans have blocked anything and everything in the house..even items they brought up themselves just a couple of years ago..Granted, I am not happy with many of the democrates in congress either...many of them need to be gone...but..they have tried...that is more than any republican has done. Have to wonder just how they will cut the huge debt Bush gave us with all those tax cuts..maybe the idea will then be..if you are old, die..if you need health care die...if you are not among uis wealthy few...die.
Too bad...I was really hoping for some new direction from Obama.
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”.
-Barak Hussein Obama
“today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
-Barak Hussein Obama
Failed POTUS
Right On Schedule: The republicanCrimeCartel Created this disaster back in Reagan's time and Perfected it with the Bushies, especially With KingGeorge the VaccumBrained during his NOTORIOUSLY SHAMEFUL Shrubber Reign 2001 - 2008. FACE IT Fellow and Sister Americans, The republicanCrimeCartel IS Causing this Depression we are back into to get people mad at Prez O and vote for Rommel and Whomever his love mate is. You KNOW what Rommel's got in mind: HUGE American military, OTHER PEOPLE's Sons fighting Newly thought up And VERY PROFITABLE WARS And NO American Universal National healthCare System. Even Prez O was forced to cut a deal with the powerful health insurance industry. Does ANYONE KNOW what the ceo of United HealthCare took Home for 2008 Salary? Hold onto your hats: $128,000,000 *C A S H* WHILE, Mind You, their paid policyHolders were denied and DIED. The fact that America HAS NO Universal HealthCare System like the other countries, which take care
of their citizens, instead of fattening the wallets of the EVIL Rich and paying for Unending Wars, IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE... YEAH, A lot of US are mad at Prez O; He let the $4.00+Gas and oil go by without a protest OR Complaint to the Justice Dept Going after the oil companies for price fixing And price GOUGING. AND that shaking hands with karzai of afghan
after what he said????? "thanks sucker taxpayers..." NONEtheless has anybody got an idea what republicanCrimeCartelSoldierRommel will do to US and ANY economic progress made?? He will GUT US LIKE A FLAPPIN' FISH ON THE DOCK.....You're gonna' see Unemployment up to 38% and NO Social Security..Gotta Pay for New Wars And NO MEDICAL CARE
AS "healthcare" policies cost SKYROCKET out of control. Don't fall for the republicanCrimeCartelPropaganda and just say NO!!! to MittTaxPittanceRommel.
Here's the rundown on Mitt Romney's devastating record as CEO of Bain Capital, a tenure marked by bankruptcies, bailouts, and mass layoffs — all while Romney and his partners raked in Billions of Dollars in profits for the firm and Romney himself amassed a Quarter-Billion Dollar Fortune.
Romney's Bain Capital Caused Mass Layoffs, Sent Jobs Overseas
Thousands of Americans were laid off by Bain Capital at companies it purchased, managed, and, at least a quarter of the time, drove into bankruptcy, ruining Lives, Destroying Careers and Families including Many Many Suicides While stuffing his pockets, Keeping his Darling son OUT of service to his country with the line "My son is Fulfilling his Patriotic Duty by helping me get elected"...Got that one?? and, Of Course, installing the InHouse car elevator for his "darling little boy's $180,000Ferrari....Listen Up People...This guy IS Count Dracula In carnate. A vote for ANY Republican politico is a vote against Yours and YOUR FAMILY'S Well Being. You can take that to the bank.
The 110th Congress made up of Mr Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat Congress destroyed our economy. For the past 31/2 years America has entrusted Mr Obama to heal the damage he and his cronies caused. He has failed!
Fix the mistake of '08.
All you will get from Obama is a warmed-over version of blaming Bush. He tries to be cute and blame Republicans for running the economy into the ditch. Even if that were true, his ass backwards policies have done nothing to get our economy out of that ditch.
Meanwhile, there is no economic plan, the national debt is rising faster than floodwaters in New Orleans, and Obama's administration has yet to pass a budget .... or even present a budget proposal getting ANY SUPPORT AT ALL from his fellow Democrats. That, in itself, speaks volumes about his failed leadership.
Borrow and spend or tax and spend, grow government and create dependency .... these are the hallmarks of Obama's economic policy ! Obama is leading the U.S. towards bankruptcy !!
Which policies? Tell me...in the last year, which policies have gotten through Congress?
TO: Joe in Albany who wrote:
Versus the same old, same old, failed policies of the former Republican Administration.
We know how we benefitted from the Democratic Clinton Presidency, which was the last time our economy what doing beautifully.
And we know how we suffered with the last Republican Administration that bankrupt all of America and nearly every single one of the American People (only the wealthiest were spared any pain from Republican economic calamity).
It's an easy choice for me. The Democrats who always have winning economic policies, or Republicans who always have losing economic policies.
Obama/Biden 2012
Also, Romney, if given the chance, would stack the courts with the kind of justices that gave us Bush V Gore, and Citizens United...On the issue of the Supreme Court (and the lower courts as well), i will always vote Democratic - and you should to...
Obama 2012
At this pace Obama will lose us 2.8 MILLION jobs if he's elected again, wow thats very encouraging. How could anybody not approve of those numbers. And if elected again maybe we could lose another 40% of our personal wealth. But how could we go another 4 years without blaming someone else and actually for once take some responsibilty? The new gold standard for Democrats how uplifting.
Wait... if Obama hasn't really been able to pass anything because of the bolstering of the repubs, and Boehner getting 98% of what he wanted, and basically no one willing to compromise for the good of the country, who has failed policies??? I thought the president doesn't make policies?? Emphasize on 'make'.
Jody:
And unlike the Great Recession, which started more than a year before Obama took office, the 9/11 attacks occurred while Bush was president and after he had ignored repeated warnings that a terrorist attack was imminent. The success of those attacks were in part attributable to Bush's incompetence, and yet he managed to milk political benefits for himself from the fear the attacks generated.
Hey, Feisty,
Does that make the 'bus' Romney rides in on the Spruce Goose? Either way it's laying some pretty rotten eggs!
Hey Clara!
No... Willard flies on his private
aircraftSpruce Goose to catch up to the Willard-Wagon ala the Palin way!Oh Puken, right off the start you want to LIMIT my discussion to the last year ? How very considerate of you ...... considering Obama has been President for 3.5 years and during that time he rammed through Congress the most breath-taking and massive government takeover of our health care system !
Obama's failed Stimulus was also over a year ago .... you know.... all those "shovel-ready" jobs that were nothing but bailouts for his union buddies. How about his desired Cap and Trade program that would raise the costs of living and of doing business here in the U.S. ? Obama had to shelve that extremist ideology but it had a chilling effect on business. Also, Obama has frequently blathered that CORPORATIONS NEED TO "PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE" .... thus threatening higher corporate taxes at a time when the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
Need more ?
Obama campaigned in 2008 that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead he more then doubled it. Obama came into office with the Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate, and they passed everything Obama claimed was needed to keep employment under 8% and get the economy moving. The Obama policies failed miserably, and he has already added more then 5 trillion to our national debt. More then Bush added in eight years.
So how Obama can say this is an election about our economic future, one of paying down our long term debt with a straight face proves how deceitful he is willing to be. Obama has spent this country into oblivion in just 3.5 years. Even the Obama budget proposal couldn't get one single vote in the senate. All Obama can do is talk a good game, but then again we have heard it all before and he failed to deliver. If Obama had a record to run on, he would. Yes we can is now why we couldn't, and the blame and the excuses just keep coming.
IF Romney actually appears on Sunday, the questions will have been submitted to his handlers far enough in advance they can give him the answers. It's another "Palin" moment. He can't talk off script.
Cannot WAIT for the debates! Obama will wipe the floor with old Mitts!
Obama/Biden 2012
I asked in another thread and I'll ask here. How will more tax breaks and less regulation cause more private sector jobs if there is no money in the system? The additional profits will go in to the pockets of the corporations without having to hire anyone. What incentive will there to be for hiring?
“At stake is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two paths for our country.”
We shouldn't have to choose between just two candidates from two political parties. This is a false choice logical fallacy. I encourage everyone to vote for someone besides Romney and Obama this election. Lets send a strong message that we are sick of both parties antics.
Well now, vwterry ...... according to some posters here on this site, big corporations are "just sitting on piles of cash". So, if that were true, then there certainly would be money available to be put "into the system".
The main thing our country needs to do is lower corporate tax rates so they are not the highest in the world .... particularly for the small and medium-sized businesses which represent the vast part of our corporate tax base. Wall Street is what libbies fixate upon, but the small and medium sized businesses are where the numbers are strongest.
A significant reduction in the corporate tax rate for manufacturing enterprises would also help stem the flow of jobs overseas where labor rates are less. Renewal of a Jobs Tax Credit has also had some success in the past... Federal Form 5884, I believe.
1 trillion and counting lost revenue due to Bush tax cuts...so borrow 1 trillion and pay interest on that, what do you expect?
Millions of jobs lost on Bush's watch, still not regained, so no income tax + money being paid out in unemployment benefits and welfare (borrow more, pay interest)...what do you expect?
I'm not surprised he blames Bush...He has not done anything for this country, so it must be Bush's fault...
Houston-
Yeah, and what about Obama and the economy in his first 8 months? Oh that right, the unemployment rate went up in his first year...
Are you sure that it was the incompetence of Bush, or the incompetence of Clinton that this all happened?
There were two speeches in Ohio today. How come everyone here wants to talk about the one and not the other. Could it be because Romney had nothing to say? Other than to bash Obama?
How is it OK to for Romney to bash Obama but it's not OK for Obama to bash Bush? How hypocritical of Conservatives.
The "Bush Tax Cuts" were originally enacted over 10 years ago. Obama signed an extension.
So how would a loss of $1 trillion in revenues, if correct, lead to $5.1 trillion of Obama deficits in 3.5 years ?
I think our country is addicted to spending and that the "government can solve any and every problem if enough money is thrown at it" seems to be the mindset in D.C.
Jim#######,
There is, as you say, "money available to be put into the system" now, but it's not being put into the system. Why would it change? Profits are already record breaking without the risk of investment. And there is always risk in investment, regardless who resides in the White House.
You talk about tax rates in the US as static and absolute when in fact the rates are starting points where deductions can then be taken resulting in many major corporations paying no taxes at all. It is the difference between statutory rates and effective rates. Tax rates in most other countries are fixed and absolute. Tax rates for small business have been cut 18 time during this administration.
Tax incentives have been offered to businesses that bring work back to this country and some have taken advantage of those incentives.
I still want to hear why would they hire more? There is nothing to compel corporations to hire if through lowering taxes and deregulating they will add to their profits without hiring even 1 more person. The question remains.
The only thing that ever effected the hiring I did while a small business owner was demand. Without money in the system and not in the pockets of CEO's there will be no increase in demand and therefore no hiring to meet that non-existent demand.
TO: geo-1957883 who wrote:
It's not what President Obama is "doing", it's what Republicans are NOT doing, and Republicans BELIEVE that the GOP could make gains by stalling our Recovery and blaming others for not getting the economy moving again when the GOP knows it's doing everything in their power to STOP the American People from making ANY gains in employment, and Republicans are intentionally putting a stop to anything and everything that could possibly get the country moving again.
Everyone who has NOT been in a coma for the past 3-1/2 years knows that Republicans are intentionally doing everything in their power to force failure on America and the American People.
I can't possibly forget Mitch McConnell's promise to force failure on America, and I wouldn't even think about awarding bad behavior.
I feel we have suffered enough under Republican rule! When Republicans had the White House we suffered everything from Terrorist Attacks on American Soil on 9/11, to be LIED into War.
Not a chance Republicans -- Fool us once, shame on YOU, fool us twice -- You can't fool us twice!!!
Obama/Biden 2012
The President needs to explain to the nation how the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars as he Promised when he was running for office. He also needs to explain in detail how we are going to pay back all of this money that we have been borrowing and how much it is going to end up costing the tax payers. His White House is predicting huge deficits for the nation for at least the next ten years. That is unacceptable and he needs to deal with that too.
Actually, according to the nonpartisan CBO, the stimulus created or saved (and by saved I mean saving state and local jobs) anywhere from 1.8 million to 3.3 million jobs. It also reversed the recession and helped encourage 27 consecutive months of private sector job growth. I do believe that cap and trade was a conservative free market idea to reduce carbon emissions. And frankly, corporations need to stop taking unnecessary subsidies and pay more in taxes. And by the way, saying that companies to pay higher taxes doesn't mean that we should raise marginal rates; rather, we could simply do away with many loopholes and still lower the rate, as Obama would, to 28%.
I support lowering the corporate tax rate to around 25%, but 28% is good enough. We liberals like fixating on Wall Street because it is the symbol of Big Business; if you have a better symbol (that incorporates both small businesses and larger ones), bring it forward.
I believe that the Bush tax cuts cost roughly $2.8 trillion with another $700 billion for added interest to service the debts it caused. It will cost between $3.8 trillion and $5.4 trillion over the next decade, if we decide to extend it.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
"The speech was firmly ensconced in a kind of “Blame Bush” strategy"
Why are we not surprised?
With Bush, it was "The buck stops here".
With Obama, it's always "It's somebody else's fault".
Obama is simply "In over his head".
The most accurate pollster in the 2008 Presidential election (Rasmussen) has Romney with 48% vs Obama with 44%, a dramatic increase for Romney and a big drop for Obama.
The trend looks bad for Obama, and all he can do is 'give another speech and blame someone else'.
It's interesting that President Reagan accomplished all of his goals with a Congress that was controlled by Democrats for all of his 8 years, but all Obama can do is blame Republicans - even for his failures in his first 2 years when he had a Democratic Congress.
A true leader LEADS. A weak leader MAKES EXCUSES.
You got that right, Mr. Obama. And, YOU are not the person for the job.
(1), (2), and (3) have all been failures under your administration. What makes you think that you can do something about each in another FOUR YEARS ?
In one term, you have divided the American people and have continually failed to get anything done to foster economic growth. Maybe you should have spent more time on your "laser beam" for jobs instead of about TWO years defending your unconstitutional Mandated Universal Health Care legislation.
Pretty sad when a President has to run around the country an entire term in office to try and get public support for his FAILED agenda legislation.
Obama IS a true leader. Any idiot can see what he has done against such unhonorable politics. The list is long. Truly. Imagine what more could have been done. Jobs maybe? We do not need the NEW GOP in order to get what rights done. Precisely why they act as desperate and unhonorable as they do. Obvious. Obama leads with honor and always has. Obvious to even a child. The unhonorable agenda of dividing is obviously working going by the lame right wing posts here. Even if the republicans should win the white house, the senate, and keep the house ... honor still will not reside within them.
fielden....."How is it OK to for Romney to bash Obama but it's not OK for Obama to bash Bush? How hypocritical of Conservatives."
Newsflash fielden:
The two people running for President of the United States of America in 2012 is Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney.
BUSH IS NOT IN THE RACE.
How typical of a Liberal....still under a mushroom.
I remember back in '04 when bush was running against Kerry. Kerry was a very lackluster candidate (sound familiar?).
I spent a lot more time on boards like this one. All the right wingers back then would jump on any liberal comment about the economy or bush's wars and start sputtering about how liberals were rooting against America, just so bush would lose the election.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, tea baggers aren't only rooting for America to fail, the ones in Congress proudly state that they're keeping Obama from doing anything, intentionally causing America to fail.
Can anyone say "hypocisy"?
What a comical mental image! Romney and his gang of "tax evading" cohorts riding around the country in His "hustle express" looking for easy marks, all, as stupidly happy as "Al Capone" during His heyday. I can just hear Mittens squealing to "Karl Rove"; "by God Karl, we're gonna win this thing"! Keep the pressure on McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor. We'll run that black bastard back to Chicago and the till will be ours! This is an example of "leadership"? This is really what the country is calling for? Elect this purveyor of capitalistic syphilis and all will be well? Any self respecting dog, given to chasing cars, would turn Its ass to this vehicle in disgust. This man knows how to get the country out of its economic doldrums? He continually extols the virtues of bush's afterbirth economic meltdown as the only true way to economic rebirth. Contradiction? Regarding leadership, this man doesn't know His ass from a whorehouse door knob.
Mac-
I'm not sure what you're saying, but I think I agree with you!
You certainly know how to paint a vivid picture. Capitalistic syphillis? I love it.
Addendum to post # 1.48: In my first line I meant to say "tax avoiding" cohorts. Damn program wouldn't allow me to correct it. Excuse me.
@Mike from AZ #1.49: I meant what you think I meant. There's a huge rolling ball of rancid bullsh^t, both leading Romneys way, and bringing up His rear. He's dependent on both for sustenance. Regards
Alright Ido, how come it is OK for Romney and the Republicans to bash Jimmy Carter for his policies??? Like how Romney said that this was the toughest time for small businesses since the Carter days, or his reference to Carter about the bin Laden raid??? If they can do that, than Obama can bash Bush all he want.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
American Girl-724855:
Please provide a few examples.
The Republicans took control of Congress in January 1995 for the first time in over 40 years. This resulted in a robust economic growth for the USA. Plus, the House of Reps produced projected annual budget surpluses. It was NOT W J Clinton, but Congress. At least Clinton was smart enough to go along with the Republicans.
Interesting piece written by Mr. O'Brien, I really must visit his parallel universe someday, it must be fascinating there! but, meanwhile, back on Our planet,he,(and everyone else who works at MSNBC), really should take a look at the tweets other journalist sent expressing what They thought of Mr. Obama's speech,(to be kind ,let's just say They were not as smitten with the warmed over same-o, and such a review might bring Them back to the reality of the here and now).
Romney talks allot of shi,t but he really has nothing to say. Ive been asking for about a year now just what would his plan be and there has never been a response from any of his supporters, Personally i think he is waiting for Karl Rove and his big money donors to tell him what to do next.
Why would people like Adelson give 10s of millions of dollars and not expect something in return? just what are his donors looking for a rubber stamp?
REBEL; go back to the swamp we will let you know when the coast is clear
From January 2001 through December 2006 the republicans were in total control of government, and from 2007 through 2010 the democrats were in total control of Congress and/or government. Let's see what the numbers suggest.
At the end of 2006 unemployment was 4.4% at the end of 2008 it was 7.4%, an increase of 3% in two years compared to a 4/10's of 1 percent increase from 2001 to 2006, the first six years of Bush's term; today it's 8.2%. The debt at the end of 2006 was $8.4 trillion at the end of 2008 it was $9.6 trillion, an increase of $1.2 trillion in two years compared to a $2.8 trillion increase in the first six years of Bush's term; today it's $15.7 trillion. The annual deficit was $434 billion for 2006 and $642 billion for 2008, an increase of $208 billion in two years; today it's $1.4 trillion.
It's obvious the republicans did damage to the economy in the six years they had control of the government and the democrats did damage in the four years they controlled Congress and/or the government. Who did the most damage? That's a hard, if not impossible, question to answer. Would things have remained as they were at the end of 2006, gotten worse or improved had the democrats not implemented their policies and ideologies beginning in January 2007? Again, that question is virtually impossible to accurately answer. Likewise it's difficult to accurately declare the democrats were correct in asserting they had to increase spending and the related annual deficit and national debt to undo the damage the republicans did while in control of the government because it is just as plausible to offer the assertion that the economy would not have gotten worse, and may have improved, if the deficit and debt had not been increased or had been reduced.
Just a wild guess, but is it likely many would argue that a 4.4% unemployment rate, a $8.4 trillion debt and an annual deficit of $434 billion would be preferable compared to what those numbers actually are today. It also is probably safe to speculate the elections on November 6th will be about which candidates for President and Congress voters believe can get us back to those, or much better, numbers post November 6th.
From January 2001 through December 2006 the republicans were in total control of government, and from 2007 through 2010 the democrats were in total control of Congress and/or government. Let's see what the numbers suggest.
At the end of 2006 unemployment was 4.4% at the end of 2008 it was 7.4%, an increase of 3% in two years compared to a 4/10's of 1 percent increase from 2001 to 2006, the first six years of Bush's term; today it's 8.2%. The debt at the end of 2006 was $8.4 trillion at the end of 2008 it was $9.6 trillion, an increase of $1.2 trillion in two years compared to a $2.8 trillion increase in the first six years of Bush's term; today it's $15.7 trillion. The annual deficit was $434 billion for 2006 and $642 billion for 2008, an increase of $208 billion in two years; today it's $1.4 trillion.
It's obvious the republicans did damage to the economy in the six years they had control of the government and the democrats did damage in the four years they controlled Congress and/or the government. Who did the most damage? That's a hard, if not impossible, question to answer. Would things have remained as they were at the end of 2006, gotten worse or improved had the democrats not implemented their policies and ideologies beginning in January 2007? Again, that question is virtually impossible to accurately answer. Likewise it's difficult to accurately declare the democrats were correct in asserting they had to increase spending and the related annual deficit and national debt to undo the damage the republicans did while in control of the government because it is just as plausible to offer the assertion that the economy would not have gotten worse, and may have improved, if the deficit and debt had not been increased or had been reduced.
Just a wild guess, but is it likely many would argue that a 4.4% unemployment rate, a $8.4 trillion debt and an annual deficit of $434 billion would be preferable compared to what those numbers actually are today? It also is probably safe to speculate the elections on November 6th will be about which candidates for President and Congress voters believe can get us back to those, or much better, numbers post November 6th.
So what did Obama do with all this money? Where did it go? Is he paying his kids a million dollars a day or something? The Government is smaller now than it was when Bush was in office, so where's the money going?
We have 1 less war than we did when Bush was in office, so where is the money going?
Maybe a HUGE part of it is that we're NOT GETTING ANY MONEY!? And the other part is that we're paying out a lot of money that we're not getting to people we'd normally be getting money from. And that is Bush's legacy. We've added 4 million plus jobs on Obama's watch while we were losing hundreds of thousands per month on Bush.
will live in a Urban hole with my 85 K a year pension and look down my nose at you Rednecks that are to damn dumb to get the most you can from your miserable life
Yep, Obama is indeed still blaming Bush for his own failures and hoping people will buy into his constant whining. However, let us, for a moment, depart reality and enter Obama's economic fantasy land where up is down, black is white, and 2 plus 2 equals anything but 4. Ready?
OK, bush caused all the ills of the land but Obama fast approaching four years in office has clearly demonstrated he is totally incapable of fixing anything, and in fact, has only succeeded in making things much worse.
You see? Even in Obama's fantasy world it is clear he needs to step aside and let someone who is demonstrably more capable take over, except now that person has to fix Obama's mess as well.
25 years isn't enough to fix the damage that has been caused by the Republicans
Clinton was FORCED, I repeat, FORCED, to go along with the Republicans. He compromised like hell, and still managed to get results. He essentially had to sell himself out to them to get things done. By the way, Clinton's tax increases helped close the budget deficit. Just saying...
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Actually Freshiee, you've pretty much got that backwards. Clinton's ramming anti-gun legislation down the throats of the American people caused him to lose control of congress. Accordingly, and yes, you're correct that Clinton had no other choice and was FORCED to go along with the Republicans who were the ones that got things done, not Clinton, as all he could do was meekly sign pretty much anything he was presented with.
Clinton always lamented the mid-term blood bath the Democrats suffered as a result of that ill conceived anti-gun legislation, especially since that legislation eventually died anyway.
President Obama did a fine job speaking to a huge crowd. While the pundits slice and dice and critique it claiming it lacked whatever....my take away is this speech clearly defined Obama's plan versus Romney's plan. It was the prelude, the outline of the shorter economics model to come.
"a fine job speaking to a huge crowd". is that the measure of a President of the United States?
"it was the prelude". what was the previous 3 years? we've heard this prelude for quite a while now.
"the shorter economics model to come". Really? why not present it NOW? (hint: because he HAS no model to present).
glowing platitudes and feel-good warmth while presenting NOTHING new. yawn.
I'd say it's a little more important that he spoke to a huge crowd of socio-economically diverse AMERICANS,...
you know, rather than just the 1% ers that are Romney's 'base'.
But I like a President fighting for ALL Americans and not just the wealthy - who seem to be doing just fine funding the 'best' candidate their money can buy. Or is it really just the best rubber stamp?
Waldo, why don't you tell us what new things Romney had to say?
That isn't an "O", it is a zero which stands for what we have gotten out of his 3-1/2 years of stimulus.
Whatever happened to crowds of "tens of thousands"? 1,500 is a far cry from the "huge" crowds of yesteryear (2008).
Living in L.A. - Let's see - middle of the day when people are working - weekday. 1500 is still a hell of a lot more than Mitt got!
Clara, greetings from a KC native in (voluntary) exile. Can't anybody do something about those Royals?
Waldo-
Please point out 1 single new thing that Romney has uttered.
I think you missed Jody's point- that President Obama is unveiling his plan for the next four years. Hopefully, we'll vote out enough of the loser obstructionists that snuck in in 2010 so he'll have a chance to finish what he's started.
BTW- did anyone else hear the news today that AIG paid back their stimulus money with interest? Sounds like maybe it did work, huh?
Mike from AZ:
What have the Republicans in Congress obstructed? Please provide some facts.
more campaign rhetoric from obama...he cant run on his record so now he has got to come up with something new...oh wait we heard this speech already...america will rebound when him and his crooked administration gets booted out in nov...for the last 2 yrs the dems have been getting the crap beat out of them at the polls yet obama beleves he is leading us to the promised land...but hey whatever goes wrong is not his fault..its time to put a real leader in the white house not some childish finger pointer !!!!!
bc + 3 = moron!
Why insult posters? I understand disagreeing with someone's position, but why stoop to personal attacks?
The ironic thing is that this entire post was nothing but regurgitated rhetoric.
It may not come to November, leaking damaging intelligence reports is treasonous, and can lead to punishment by death. Just sayin....
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Looks like a self-evident mathematical theorem, even though collapse clowns didn't appreciate it.
It was an inflammatory personal attack, that is why it was collapsed. Your support for venom is predictable.
I don't know about you Houston - but I feel a whole lot safer knowing FR's very own Barney Fife is policing the board! lmao!
Thank God he's got that magic bullet in his pocket!
Even funnier is, this coming from a stalker troll who only attacks others...
YUP! Hypocrisy - his name is Jimmy-Boy!
I'm always amazed to see how many contradictions these idiots can cram into one comment!
Jim, how would you characterize "some childish finger pointer?" Not personal? Not venom? OK because it came from a conservative? Give me a break.
Venom is when you directly call someone an "idiot" or a "moron" or a "nut-job" or declare they have no sanity. Look at the last sentence of #3.7 and you have your answer. Ron in #3.2 is on target.
fielden - how quickly little jimmy forget Puken - one of his posts. And, that's just one of many.
Is Feisty at it again. Name calling, here he goes again. Msnbc is going the way of CNN if they don't start getting intelligent comments from the masses.
Fisting Redhead in Roselle...how about you enlighten us on what "new" ideas that Hussein put forth in his speech...he was just filling time before he went to his $40K a plate dinner with checks in the City croud. You know those same middle class people you keep relating to. You think he cares about a $20K/year secretary like you?
Yeah, he can't run on his record except he can and is. And he's going to make R-Money eat @!$%# all the way to November.
You _do— know who controls Congress right now, right? Bonus points: What does the legislative branch of the government do? This isn't the Clinton era where the Cons were willing to see reason--the Tea Party led, obstructionist Congress is the travesty here--not that I'm too big on Obama, mind you. He's far too conservative for my tastes.
And yeah, approval ratings and popular vote polls are all well and good, but what matters, what elects presidents, is the electoral map. And if you go by the polling for all the individual battleground states, Romney hasn't a prayer. Yes, he'll probably win Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina, but it still doesn't matter. Virginia is beyond his ability to flip(thank you, surging Latino population!), and the sins of Bain Capital still ring too deep in my home state of Ohio for him to claim. Fox News feeds you flawed Rasmussen polls--Rasmussen only calls landlines for their polls--I wouldn't put too much stock in that.
I saw both speeches today and of course the President's speech was the best. He knows how to talk to the middle class people. He knows how to relate to the middle class people. I will vote for him again. His plans are for the middle class, not the rich.
What a difference in the two speeches. For Willard the crowd was a little quiet. While for President Obama they were fired up.
I don't think the fans of Willard love him like we the fans of the President love him.
What a difference!
@Donna, he is an expert at PANDERING to the middle class.
he is an expert at PANDERING to the middle class.
Temp - Beats pandering to the 1%er's! Nit-Mitten's is definitely an expert when pandering to that bunch....
Obama/Biden 2012
Obama/Biden 2012 = Dumb/Dumber 2012.
Never confuse "activity" with "results". We are still high in unemployment, the Stimulus failed and $5.1 trillion or more has been added to the National Debt while the U.S. has no budget ! That's not leadership !!
And yet Obama has proposed one every single year.
Please try again.
And how many votes did his FY2012 and FY2013 budget proposals receive from democrats?
Why have the Senate Democrats not passed a budget in 1,151 days?
Ruken,
His budget and my budget both received the same number of votes.
Budgets do NOT control spending
If used properly, budgets can be very useful in controlling spending. Of course, it would take someone with business acumen to understand its benefits so that would leave Obama OUT !!
jim-1455434
Repeating that lie won't make it true. Economists overwhelmingly agree that the stimulus succeeded. The jobless rate started falling almost immediately after it was enacted.
In one of the few bipartisan votes of the year, Pres Obama's budget received absolutely 0 votes. Zip from the Republicans. Zero from the Democrats. Nada.
That "lie" as you called it was actually a quote from a CEO of IBM and I really should have used quotes more adequately. So, I am presuming you are calling Leo Gerstener a liar ?
NH Shellback, how many Republicans voted for the budget? What? None? What kind of legislators are they? Why are they holding up progress? Give me a break.
fielden, As usual, you are disingenuos. The House has passed a budget and Democrat Harry Reid is sitting on it in the Senate ..... same as he is doing with Obama's proposal which was grossly unrealistic !
Jim###,
I'll call your CEO and raise you 5 economist studies.
Study: ”Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”
Who did it: James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth College.
What it says: The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. The effects varied by type of spending. Aid to states for education and law enforcement didn’t have a significant effect, but aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts. The multiplier was between 1.96 to 2.31 for low-income spending, 1.85 for infrastructure spending, and between 0.47 and 1.06 for the stimulus overall.
Study: “Does State Fiscal Relief During Recessions Increase Employment? Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”
Who did it: Gabriel Chodorow-Reich (Berkeley), Laura Feiveson (MIT), Zachary Liscow (Berkeley), and William Gui Woolston (Stanford).
What it says: The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2.
Study: ”Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”
Who did it: Daniel J. Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
What it says: The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011. The jobs multiplier varies widely based on whether one studies stimulus spending that has been announced to go to certain recipients, is obligated to those recipients, or has actually been paid out to those recipients. Estimates vary from 4.8, for one measure based on announced spending, to 25.2, for another measure based on actual payments. Private sector, state and local government and construction sectors all showed consistently significant positive effects, whereas whether the effect on manufacturing, education and health was positive depends on whether one looks at announcements, obligations or payments.
Study: ”Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2011 Through March 2011.” (and studies of previous periods)
Who did it: Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling of the Congressional Budget Office.
What it says: Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points.
Study: ”How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End.”
Who did it: Mark Zandi (Moody’s) and Alan Blinder (Princeton).
What it says: The stimulus raised real GDP in 2010 by 3.4 percent, reduced unemployment by 1.5 percentage points, and created almost 2.7 million jobs.
The Republican led House of Representatives passed a Budgets for both FY2012 (Passed 235-193) and FY2013 (Passed 228-191).
The Democrat led Senate has not passed a budget in 1,151 days - Obstructionists!
First of all, jim, the stimulus is proven to have been successful. Ask any economist. Or, better yet, take a look at the jobs situation chart and see how jobs were created after the stimulus.
As for the deficit, it would much smaller had we not passed the Bush tax cuts or invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, we would have roughly $1.2 trillion less debt. Not to mention that Obama technically added only $1.44 trillion to the debt, as the rest was either because of the recession or a continuation of the Bush policies.
Thirdly, unemployment would be 1 percentage point lower had the feds given the states money to keep the 600,000 people that they laid off. Plus Obama's Jobs Bill and the stalled infrastructure repair bill would create at least 2.4 million jobs over the next 2 to 6 years. Had the Republicans shown a little guts and a little bipartisan support, the economy would be a lot better. But, apparently the goal that Mitch McConnell said about making Obama a one term president is much more beneficial to the country.....
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
These are all temporary measures. The states would have had to layoff 600k people next year or the government would have to give them another $24 billion, this does not solve the states' budget problems.
Infrastructure repair is important; however, the way Obama wants to do it is wrong and again it is temporary job creator. We are better providing tax cuts to the private sector where 70% of the economy orginates.
We can address the infrastructure with other plans to spend money on capital projects.
Feisty I see you post all the time on here and just wanted some context. Can you tell me your situation? Do you have a job? Are you retired? Do you receive govt assistance in any way? These answers will tell me little more about where you are coming from. Up to now I don't understand. I try to walk in others shoes when I can. You have some very strong opinions on the POTUS. What is your background? Thanks
my2centsworth-4076520
Feisty I see you post all the time on here and just wanted some context. Can you tell me your situation? Do you have a job? Are you retired? Do you receive govt assistance in any way? These answers will tell me little more about where you are coming from. Up to now I don't understand. I try to walk in others shoes when I can. You have some very strong opinions on the POTUS. What is your background? Thanks
my2centsworth-4076520
What business is it to you? What difference does it make?
One thing you've just proved is how condescendingly, ignorant and nosy you are. My girl friend is not running for President. The person's income you should be question is NitMitt Romney. Like when is he going to release his "TAX RETURNS"?
Keep own being a fool and mind your own damn business!
Obama/Biden 2012
Feisty is a left wing drone for MSNBC. Last year she met with other liberals who comment in here and with some MSNBC people, in St. Louis. She explained it away as a "vacation" where somehow it was just a "coincidence" that she was meeting with other left wingers and the staff of MSNBC.
Ever notice that she is nearly always the first to comment? I guess that's just a "coincidence" too.
Oh, brother, another re-reg Feisty stalker heard from this afternoon. Let's see Albany Joe, Bill Fairfax, Damaged, No Joe, JAS1, WCA and a host of other conservatives post here every day--why aren't you asking them that same question, my2centsworth?
Still jealous, hey CherylLM?
Thanks for saving me the trouble GF!
In the words of the infamous "Dick"... SO?
You can't blame me sweet-heart... if you go through life slow AND stupid!
Thanks for speaking for Feisty. I am not trying to be condescending. My questions were simple. I am just trying to understand what makes her tick. What difference does it make? Is this just an anonymous bitch board or is there an attempt at understanding and solutions? One thing you've just proved is that you think it's OK to speak for others, assume you know my intentions, and have absolutely no idea or desire to learn the truth. Be careful about throwing that "ignorant" word around. How bout it Feisty?
Hey 2cents - Why don't you tell us a little about yourself. I think it would be interesting to hear....
I guess Feisty isn't answering. In the course of a little over 15 minutes, I have been called a stalker, condescending, ignorant, nosy, slow AND stupid. I have not called anyone names - just asking a question or two. Your responses or lack thereof are a clear indication to me you have no desire to advance understanding, but call names and denounce anyone who doesn't agree with you. Kinda what we did in 3rd grade, eh?
Why does it matter to you GT? Do you really give a damn or are you just trying to be cute?
Sorry buddy - you got all the answer you're going to get in my comment above!
I don't know why you think, I'm going to answer your nosy questions on a public comment board!
You're dismissed!
Looks like Cheryl hit it on the head - you are always the first one to post. I didn't ask for your real name and address - duh. So Feisty, you and all your friends are content to let the rest of the world know what you think and anyone else gets called some name for making an attempt at discourse. I learned in school a long time ago that calling others names is just a sign of your own inadequacies. That you like to make yourself feel better by attempting to make others look bad. That's ok - that dog don't hunt with me anyway. You seem to get a lot of satisfaction from it - have a good time. I'm sorry to say though that your posts don't seem to indicate the level of intelligence you wish to purport.
to PatHuntingtonNY: Being from Huntington and moving to califarcia wasteland 7 years ago. All I can say is: I am leaving this La-La Land and moving back home AND please!! Is it necessary to use such strong language?? use a little finesse..........OK?? Your observations ARE accurate.
My2cents--its really simple--whether Fiesty and the regulars are paid bloggers or just die hard supporters of Obama and everything democrat, their sole purpose is to campaign and not discuss or debate issues and policy. Their sole purpose on here is too curtail debate and campaign on behalf of Obama regardless of the actual policy substantive outcomes. They dont truly want to discuss the advantages/disadvantages and do any real cost/benefit analysis, its all about pandering for votes. You couldnt get Fiesty to admit any corruption or wrong doing or even bad political decisions by the democrats in her home state which by itself tells you her purpose. If any of these guys were truly objective but thought that Obama was the best person for the office based on substantive debate on issues, they would admit failures and bad choices and be able to substantively discuss why Obama or any democrat running for office is the best candidate rather than spewing the same personal attacks and tired occupy wall street or Obama campaign effort talking points. To test this, just go back in time over the last year and watch how the various themes from Fiesty and the gang change to mirror the campaign talking points including how to attack Romney. Try to ask any of them to have a substantive discussion on any topic pick tax policy for example and ask them to agree to not mention a political party or candidate and then see if the only then they set forth are the tired old rich are stealing from the middle class themes. By the way 2cents--not all are like that as there are plenty of good progressives on here in which you can have plenty of great discussions on various topics in respectful civil discourse. Just watch out for the campaigners.
In keeping with that theme "I <3 my2centsworth!"
Thanks Kirk - that's one of the most informative comments I've read. You will notice that I never indicated a party affiliation whatsoever. Amazing how people are stereotyped isn't it. "Feisty and Friends" seem to know all the problems but none of the answers!
Kirk - very well put. It is actually fun to get some debate, you won't see it from that group of party line groupies.
Whenever a good question arises, more of the "Blame Bush" or rhetoric of the day spews out, drowning out any sense of intelligence.
Just curious my2centsworth ... what answers are you looking for? Your questions seem quite personal and while I only comment from time to time, I do try and stay on topic. I'd suggest you do the same and maybe you'd enjoy the interactions here a wee bit more.
Please remember, 2cents, that name calling, obfustication, rhetoric, etc, is the mainstay of campaigning. If Feisty and her other liberal buddies would go to Romney's website and look at his economic proposal, I think they would honestly see how the community organizer in chief has failed the American people. But, it is cheaper and less time-consuming as well as less thoughtful to just whale away at anyone who disagrees with their narrow-minded opinions and hero-worship of their messiah. It's just that we are still trapped in the wilderness and I don't think we can last another 36 & 1/2 years to get to the promised land of federal doles.
Thanks Layton - wasn't trying to get personal at all- just wanted some background. I'll use having a job or not as an example: If you are employed, you may be tired of paying for those that aren't. Feisty indicates she lives in Illinois, is that why she is an Obama fan? If you are unemployed, you may look quite differently at any assistance you may be getting from Gov't and are scared to death if anything jeopardizes that.......etc, etc. I've got a pretty thick skin myself, but find it offensive, and rude when people like "Feisty and Friends" come across as they do. I'm not trying to start anything at all, I just find it curious how posters like her think her level of discourse edifies anyone or anything. The easy thing to do is just ignore it from her or me but I was just curious to see if she had it in her. Apparently not.
my2cents, I live in Utah (total Red state), have a job, pay way too much in taxes as I am single. I'm one of the few registered Democrats in my state and I will vote for my President, again. I enjoy reading both the liberal comments and those of the right wingers WHEN they don't get personal. Gains can be made in this country if people will stop the fighting. By the way Bob, your comment intrigued me so I did go to Romney's website to look at his so-called economic "plan." There really isn't anything there that is specific enough to be called a "plan."
my2cents, seriously, give us some background on you. Please answer the same questions you asked Feisty.
I am employed, pay taxes, live in Chicago am single but have been dating the same guy for about 18 months. Registered Independent but definitely voted Democrat last election and will the next.
And, Layton you're absolutely correct - on Romney's website there are broad points - no actual plan.
My2cents - still waiting on an answer.
I see my2cents is another of Kirk's personalities. I suspected as much. Not that it matters. But the writing style and condescending tone were right there.
Seeking Sanity--once you get My2cents answer, are you going to stop with the name calling? Are you going to call him an idiot and make definitive derogatory statements regarding him if he disagrees? How about substantive debate? Are you willing to discuss a topic without campaigning and mentioning a political candidate or party and also refrain from any talking points currently being used by the Obama campaign? I know the answer is no so why should he reply to you because if you arent willing to have substantive discussions over policy without campaigning?
No Kirk - you have proved over and over who you are. I called no names - just asked for what my2cents (you) were asking. There is no "my2cents."You are constantly condescending yet you want people to treat you better than you treat them. You do circuitous arguments that have no basis and no answers because you constantly change your stance. You have proved to be disingenuous and your arrogance is only overshadowed by your constant use of it. You post the same GOP talking points yet you are offended when anyone counters against you. You are a fraud but you want people to admire you. Hint - no one does.
Sorry Seeking but I only have one personality. I promised Anna Molly and Akeem that I would start refraining from using that tone so even with you I will play nice. But I think it best that you and just agree to disagree until you are interested in real discussion without calling people names and campaiging on behalf of Obama. If you havent noticed, I never campaign for Romney as I only want to discuss substantive policy and I enjoy the intellectual interaction and I feel I actually learn something from others. So until you are ready to engage in those types of discussions and leave the personal attacks at home, lets just agree to disagree.
You are STILL floundering SeekingSanity ! Desperate for a response to your demand from My2cents ? Is it possible that he chooses to ignore you ??
I'll give you a hint ....... Kirk writes rather long paragraphs. He has great substance and is polite. Obviously, he is still in your head that day he "OWNED YOU" in that debate you had. It looks like he is also tired of your attacks.
My2cents is polite also, but I must have missed him asking you for personal information.... different guy !
Seeking Sanity--I am not going to get in a shouting match with you because again I want to stay above the fray. No we arent the same people as there really are more than one person in the US that isnt happy with Obama's economic policies. You didnt call him any names but you have called names all day on other posts and its just your style whether we all like it or not. You are correct, I am going to try and be less condescending so as Akeem indicated because he agrees that I am CORRECT virtually all of the time, I lose the listener with my style. So I am going to try and be less confrontational and preachy. But no my arguments are not circuitous or without basis and I never change my stance but nice try. I dont even know what a GOP talking point is as all I am doing is giving my opinion or using basic financial and economic principles that are well know including those adopted by Clinton in which I highly respect and wish was still President. No I dont want anyone to admire me because if you havent noticed this is anonymous so whether you campaigners agree with me or not is irrelevant. But seriously, if you stop campaigning just for a second and ever want to really discuss policy, reply to my posts I would love to debate but otherwise not so much.
Actually jim and Kirk - I knew there would be no response as my2cents is not anyone different than Kirk. (if there is suddenly a response, we all know where it came from)
Not floundering at all - just laughing at the lengths you two go to for attention. As usual, no substance but lots of blather - oh aren't I great??? And, jimmy boy - no one has owned me - you've confused me with the times people have wiped the floor with you.
And Kirk, if you actually believe you are CORRECT even a small amount of the time you are clearly delusional.
Now boys - game over - go home and play with your toys.
Haven't you heard?
Karl Rove has introduced a new University for the right wing nuts - it's called Condescending 2 U!
From the looks of things, it is has a very high graduation rate... lol
PS: You do have to have at least graduated 8th grade to be accepted! ;o)
Feisty - this one was so obvious a 1st grader could have seen through it. I just posted to see how long it would take Kirk to switch from Kirk back to my2cents. Apparently longer than I thought. Again being condescending and arrogant. I knew it would be the same!
I'm outta here tomorrow night. Will talk with you and Beverly when I get back and we can meet for that drink!
SS--there wont be a response from my but maybe my2cents. Go back and read the posts and look at the different writing styles but I am nto going to take the bait. You cant help yourself I understand it. I wasnt the one that said I am correct it was someone from your team SS. Sorry but I am and I know you guys like to attack me personally but have you noticed that when I debated David, he couldnt reply, when I debated you, you couldnt provide any substantive responses. You both tried to explain Bain in terms you didnt understand and I was correct in my post. The only person who sometimes debates me with good responses is Akeem and Anna Molly says when I am correct, that she just doesnt care about whether I am right or not, thats not her issue. Thats honest. At least Anna said and was honest by saying being successful at Bain or even intelligent doesnt translate into being a good president and I couldnt agree more. If want to attack Romney those are good substantive issues that he needs to address. Is he a good leader etc because his success at Bain doesnt necessarily translate in government success. But thats not what you and David said and you didnt like me correcting you. Sorry but I am not going to get into the name calling because that is where you wipe the floor with me. I cant match your personal venom and never will. You win, but again I noticed both you and Fiesty ignored the most important comment I made--are you willing to stop campaigning and actually have substantive policy discussions without mentioning and candidate or party? If not, then dont bother because what credibility do you really have if you are just a campaigner?
SS--I am in Chicago too--why arent you including me in the drink offer? That could be fun.
Busted.
Kirk - someday we'll have a drink - just for grins. But, this is going to be a girls night. Haven't met them before and I plan to be working with them to get out the vote.
Oh Kirk, just for the record - you might want to reread your posts. You campaign all the time!
You can count me out on that offer - little Kirky is like the dude at the cocktail party you can't get away fast enough...
Talk about clingy?
I see still no my2cents ....
Me either - usually what happens when the trolls are challenged! lol
All barky and NO bitey!
Feisty: There you go again. You're going to bankrupt msnbc. I've been reading about the shake up at MSNBC and they're going the way of CNN soon. Probably sooner than later with people like you posting such hatred.
Whew! Sorry I didn't have a chance to get back to you all sooner. Kirk, sorry everyone thinks you are a clone, I only wish I could express myself as well as Kirk.
I have lived in the same state for all of my life. I was taught hard work paid off. When I did something wrong, I got a belt across the butt. I was taught to take pride in all that I do, and to treat others as I would like to be treated. I am sympathetic to those less fortunate than I but have little patience for someone who feels they are entitled to a portion of the money I work hard for every day. I am self employed with two businesses of my own and know it is foolish to spend money I don't have. If I decided to run my business the way this country is run, I'm outta business. No one is bailing me out, or sending me any kind of subsidy but those same people seem to think it's ok to ask me to pay more so others can get out of trouble. I work long and hard for the things I have and am disgusted to see someone who chooses not to work to expect to have the same things. Where did you get that cell phone, pack of cigarettes, beer, lottery ticket, big screen tv... and on and on.
I value freedom. I define that as having the ability to pursue happiness as I see fit, within the law. When someone or something feels they have the right to take what I have worked for, give it someone else who chose not to work for it - that becomes an encroachment on my freedom. Does anyone else feel the same?
I think JOBS are the #1 thing that needs to be fixed. With jobs, unemployment, home foreclosures, tax base, health care, and debt are less of an issue. I'm tired of seeing our gov't try to fix the symptom instead of the cause, I don't care what party your from. I find it unnecessary to call names - all it does is make you look less intelligent. I'm just tired, literally from all the bitching and for once would like to see someone with the balls to stand up, show some leadership and do what needs to be done instead of blaming it on someone else. They all do it! At what point do you take responsibility for your own actions? And incidentally, if my job performance isn't gettin it done, I will lose it. Don't see how that rule doesn't apply to everyone - don't care what party you're from.
Fisting Redhead...if you had graduated and gone to college, I'm sure you would have been acceptedat Liberal FU.
2 cents, Fisting and Beverly won't answer because they are $20K grunts stuck in some meaningless career. They only get that warm fuzzy feeling when they actually dream that Hussein can support them through government assistance (after all, she is from Ill.) the fact that she is always one of the first to post makes it clear that she is probably stuck in some cubicle filing bills. Hey, Fisty, get me some coffee when you are done please.
2 cents...Fisting and Speaking Insanity also believe jobs are a priority so go easy on them. The problem is they think the same way Hussein-O does that you just expand government with meaningless positions (like they no doubt have) and it is solved. Only problem is that those jobs create no product of value, they are just overhead in the biggest losing company in the world.
Thanks Bob for the vote of confidence! With the current small business climate, you are not too far off from the "meaningless career". If things continue, I might actually get to keep some of what I worked for!
2 cents. they don't understand that creating a job just to fill a chair is not going to grow the economy. Hussein's job creation efforts to date averaged something like $4 million/job. We would have done better just giving them the $4 million. Fisting and Insanity wouldn't object..they think it is governments job to give handouts.
@ Seeking Sanity - I can assure you I exist as my own person. Post 5.30 shows what you think. Sorry you'd be wrong on that one. I personally don't have the time to sit around here all day and night. Sorry if you didn't get your answer as fast as you may have liked. I have enjoyed hearing others thoughts.
Incidentally, SS, IMO the condescension belongs to you.
Well Feisty I was asked to answer the same questions I posed to you from Seeking Sanity. I complied but have yet to hear from you. Have you nothing to offer? Seeking Sanity was upset I didn't answer in her time frame. You haven't answered in over 6 hours except for post 5.9 C'mon Feisty, what gives?
Fielden and SS--sorry I wasnt busted. Having opinionated views that feel that Obama's economic policies and rhetoric are not going to address the countries economic woes is totally different than putting monikers at the bottom of my post or vigorously defending Romney or even asking people to vote for him. Sorry but I am not volunteering or meeting anyone such as you are with Fiesty to get out the vote. That line in of itself says volumes about both of you in terms of willingness to have open and objective debate on policy. Not sure why you interact with us on here if all you want to do is campaign. By now 2cents has provided his info and you can quit thinking we are the same person and if you ever did have that drink--my guess is you would be fairly surprised. I dont think Fiesty's characterization is very accurate. Enjoy your getting out the vote girls night out.
Well Kirk, I guess they all took their toys and went home. Kinda reminds me of the Cops and Robbers or Cowboys and Indians games we played as kids. Bang, bang, you're dead, I quit.
Yeah yeah, same old "I inherited" garbage and class warfare filth.
He doesn't point out that he ALSO inherited a super majority in the Congress and for two years could pass any and EVERY piece of legislation that he wanted to. And what did we get?
Why an over 800 Billion dollars stimulus and ObamaCare. TWO YEARS and that's the best they could do? After two years of completely controlling the government he ran out of "blame" room.
You are a filthy liar! AT NO TIME did Obama have a super majority in Congress! Dems did not control 2/3rds of either house at any time! AND at no time did the Dems have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate - they only had, at best, 58 dems at one time with Lieberman caucasing with them, who threatened his own filibusters all the time with the repukes. You are a sick liar!
Yippee Pat - You go girl!!! I couldn't have said it any better...so true...so true. Another Republican lie that becomes folklore.
You are correct Pat! These right wing folks like to make up their own facts.
cheryl, you do know there is this wonderful tool called the internets right. Most people on this list use it repeatedly to learn facts that are not already known. Appearently you need to do some studying as you do not appear to have knowledge of many known facts. Is there some reason you enjoy making a fool of yourself with statements like this one and all the others you post.
Cheryl - why do you insist on posting things that are untrue. Obama had a filibuster proof Congress for 7 months - during which time Ted Kennedy was out ill and there were many recesses. This has been discussed a number of times before yet you continue to post things you know are not true. Why is that?
the Dems had both houses of Congress for over 4 years, 2 with george W and 2 with Owebama. Ironic how the economy tanked when the dems took Congress, and how easy it was for Bush to start the failed bailouts. The Pelosi-Reed Congress even defended Fanny and Fred. " Don't fix it if it ( Freddy and Fanny) ain't boken" California Congress woman 2008.
You know hypocracy is one of the only constants in the GOP universe: Reagan blamed Carter for all his problems, including his hangnails and bumb knee for his two terms, and you betcha that if we had a Pres. Romney, and the unemployment didn't get better under his watch, he'll blame Obama for his one year term. Ugh!
Actually Reagan didn't blame anyone. He just got to WORK and FIXED the problems.
Meanwhile we get to hear in EVERY major speech by Obama about how he "inherited" the problem. Great! He inherited it.
But what has he done to FIX it? Reagan had a Democrat controlled Congress when he took over and yet he was able to pass legislation that HE wanted that allowed millions of NEW jobs to be created, allowed interest rates to go down, and created a period of prosperity for this nation that lasted for almost 2 DECADES.
Meanwhile, Obama gets a Democrat DOMINATED Congress and after three and a half years we are in WORSE shape economically than when he took over. A few million jobs have been "created", but we aren't even at the unemployment levels we were when he took office? The ONLY President since Roosevelt that has a NET job loss at the end of his first (and hopefully only) term. For TWO years Democrats and Obama could do anything they wanted to, anything! And what's he got to show for that complete domination of the Federal Government?
Why record borrowing, record deficits, record spending, record unemployment (the longest period of unemployment over 8% since the depression), record housing foreclosures, record payoffs and paybacks to the unions, and a REAL middle class that is under attack every single day. And by "real" I mean the almost 50 million Americans that are NOT union and getting payoffs from Obama and Democrats.
Not true. In looking at facts and figures, the national debt increase is normal spending that has been in place even before Obama took office. So he is responsible for no increase.
The right wing is selling the big lie. Truth be told, tax cuts we couldn’t afford and two unfunded wars were a main cause of national debt increase.
And if people are silly enough to believe Romney or Ryan on their budget plan, in which more tax cuts and spending cuts are the answer, then they really are fools.
Let’s all think back to September 2008 and the financial storm that had developed and the whole government and the rest of the world that was unraveling in financial markets. The jobs were going down so fast that and the United States had suffered the worst crisis sense the great depression.
Then Obama takes over on January 20, 2009, and suddenly it’s his fault. No way! Obama stepped into this storm on the brink of depression and Obama has done a GREAT job of turning the country around.
I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality, and living in “Rush World.”
Pat, if you only worked a little harder maybe we would have had Hillary.
President Reagan was still blaming Carter when he ran for reelection in1984.
I remember all too well because he came to my company to give one of his campaign speeches.
CherylM - you again are telling lies. Regan repeatedly blamed Carter throughout his entire presidency.
Hello everyone. How do you think President Obama got the Affordable Care Act passed without even one single republican voting for it? In addition, everyone needs to be honest and face the fact that Washington is controlled by the Democrats right now. Democrat President and Democrat Senate. The real reason nothing is getting done is that the Democrats are split not all of them support the President.
Romney's remedy for bringing back jobs and growing the economy....more and deeper tax cuts. Here's the question that Mittens can't answer.....we've had two (count em) two tax cuts in the last 10 years with the majority of the benefits going to the wealthy and corporations. So, candidate Romney with two tax cuts under our belts and no jobs to show for it, what makes you think another tax cut benefiting mostly rich individuals and lowering corporate tax rates is going to miraculously produce a plethora of middle class jobs? He can't answer that question and he won't. He'll just dance around the subject or prance around the subject on his horse.
I"ll gladly take the President who is fighting to protect the middle class over the one fighting for the 1% any day.
Were you the winner of the contest to hang out with Obama and his celebrity 1% friends? For someone that is so anti-1%, Oblame-O sure takes boatloads of their money and spends unbelievable amounts of time with them.
When Romney has a raffle to spend time with him and Hollywood 1%ers let me know.
Fishlore, I think if you look you will find the Romney raffle on Craigs list. Funny thing about Obama 1% they don't seem to have any issue with paying more in taxes, wonder why? Maybe because they can help rather than complain.
I for one would like a President that represents a 100% of us, not 1% nor 99%, not just the middle class but folks in every single economic category. Obama seems to consistently talk up and support so much division...our President comes across as condescending, eliitist, insincere, and inexperienced...(other than his experience of pushing his own socialistic agenda for the last 3 and a half years). I do not need our President thinking that we citizens want him to solve all of our problems...NO THANK YOU.
You post way too much common sense juanita !
juanita - take off the blinders. The condescending, divisive insincere and inexperienced is Mitt Romney. Our President is there to lead the country. Interesting that you don't want him to solve all of our problems since that is what the GOP has been putting him down for not doing.
Maybe you should take a look at your post and see how much it reveals about you. None of it good. It makes no sense at all. I want a President that shows leadership - that is not Mitt.
Obama/Biden 2012
Hiram: Who are you trying to convince? Yourself. This president could careless about the middleclass all one has to do is look at the news today. Foreclosures are on the rise, unemployment is edging up, Americans lost 40% of their wealth and the rich are richer and all the while big banks and big corporations are doing just fine under this administration. Dimon from Chase just lost $2+ billion and is not being held accountable under this administration. The $25 billion deal President Obama made with the big banks on foreclosures let them completely off the hook. Now foreclosures are on the rise again and it's the middleclass and the poor who are losing their homes. President Obama does not care about the middleclass.
“At stake is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two paths for our country.”
That spells trouble for Oblame-O. The polls tell us that never have more people thought this country was on the wrong path than they do today.
Oblame-O wants to move Forward (nice communist motto there Oblame-O). Too bad his policies look exactly like the policies of the 1930's. Big government stealing more and more liberty every day, spending ever more money on "shovel ready" projects. Hey just like his porkulous bill. The problem is that never happened, just like future promises of "shovel ready" jobs. They Keystone pipeline is shovel ready. Oblame-O will be shoveling something come January.
Vote all dem at the all polls.
Fishlore, yes but who put us on this path, who holds us to this path with NO votes, The house has a very low rating of approval 8% and who controls the house? So yes I agree we are on the wrong path and I hold the GOP responsible for it.
NO Congress has a very low rating. Remember we have a Democrat Senate. Republican House.
In a rare moment of candor last week, the third-ranking Republican in the House admitted the failure of the Bush tax cuts. "You know, I think it's fair to say, if the current tax rates were enough to create jobs and generate economic growth we'd have a growing economy," Mike Pence acknowledged, adding, "It's not working now." Given that the Bush years produced the worst economic growth in the past 50 years, Pence is sadly correct. But sadder still is the dismal performance of the Bush economy across almost every indicator that counts. From moribund job creation and sinking household incomes to skyrocketing deficits and record income inequality, Republican economic stewardship over the past decade has been a disaster.
Here, then, are the 10 Epic Failures of the Bush Tax Cuts:
More Bush/Romney economics? No thanks.
I'm afraid you got this list from the Obama White House achievements page.
Obama extended the Bush tax cuts once. Bill Clinton said last week extending them again would be the wise thing to do. As someone who wants Obama to be a one termer, I hope he doesn't extend the tax cuts.
Actually, the Bush tax RATES got unemployment below 5% and created record income taxes collected by the government.
It's only AFTER the travesty of CRA, and the protection of Fannie and Freddie as they committed fraud on the American taxpayers that we even had this recession. And Bush WARNED the entire nation, including Democrats there would be an "ECONOMIC CRISIS" way back in 2003 if they weren't regulated! And Democrats immediately BLOCKED regulation of Fannie and Freddie in 2003!
It wasn't "tax cuts" that caused this mess. It was Democratic policies of "every American has a right to own a home", apparently even if they lie on their applications to banks that can't do credit checks because of CRA, sub-prime loans pushed by Dodd and Frank, fraud and cooking the books by Fannie and Freddie that was protected by Democrats, and the hundreds of billions in toxic "securities" sold to banks all over the world, also protected by Democrats. And that was the major cause of the bubble and cause of it collapsing.
We see now how that "every American has a right to own a home" mindset by Democrats worked out.
Not a tax rate that actually created MORE revenue for the government.
CherylLM - It's very sad to be someone as misinformed as you appear to be. Fortunately, your distorted view of the true catalyst of the economic collapse of 2008 is a minority viewpoint expressed mostly by angry, hair on fire right wingers.......sadly, you would refuse to believe the truth if it walked up and bit you on the behind.
Sadly laurie the truth did bite her and took a big chunk of brain with it, which now explains her halfwit, halfbaked comments.
Tis the Season - LOL!! That was funny.
1. Dismal Economic Growth? Same can be said about Obama...
2. A Decade of Budget Deficits? Obama spent the same amount in less than four years...
3. Red Ink as Far as the Eye Can See? Obama and Pelosi created a bill SO big they didn't even know what was in it and signed it into law anyway saying we will figure it out afterwards...
4. Disastrous Job Creation? Hiring a $h!tload of temporary census workers is NOT the answer...
5. Declining Incomes? I haven't taken a cut in pay in the past 20 years...
6. Increasing Poverty? Have you see Detroit lately? It's gotten worse NOT better...
7. A Massive Windfall for the Wealthy? I cannot see that attributed to Bush or Obama, but when I crack that code, I hope to be one of the wealthy as well...
8. Record Income Inequality? Sure, when you put the poor on the dole, they will not venture to become a productive citizen of this country when others will work their a$$es off to pay more in taxes to assist those that sit on their a$$es...Certainly THAT cannot be fair...
9. A Sagging Stock Market? For the past five months the market has essentially been flat; any gains were lost and it continues to be a roller coaster ride...
10. Jeopardizing Future Economic Growth? Keep spending money you don't have and keep borrowing it from Red China; sooner or later they will want their money back. Who do we get to blame then? Who will have to pay them back?
Before you start slinging arrows, those that are for the current administration to be re-elected need to take off their rose-colored glasses and do a SERIOUS self-assessment of the current administration's performance. If you want to be led like dumb cattle eating your cud, be prepared to find yourselves funneled single-file into a slaughter house. If you are serious about that self-assessment, you will find that THIS administration is not doing a decent job and they can 'say' they are for the middle class or even the poor, but in the end, look at where these politicians personal homes are, what type of lavish lifestyles the live, who they rub elbows with (moviestars, lobbyists, good old boy network, cronyism, etc.), see the lack of 'transparency' in this Administration or Congress and see the lies, deceit, and back door drug-deals that go on all the time.
If you don't hold them accountable they WILL walk all over you and everyone else. The difference is, you have a choice.
Do your research, stop blaming the previous administration for your current woes and for once evaluate the performance of THIS administration for the past three going on four years to see if YOU or this country are better off now than you were four years ago. Then evaluate the performance of THIS administration with the policies and bills signed into law will make YOU or this country better off in the future...
If the answer is no, then why would vote for him a second time?
:-/
"Misinformed" laurie?
Yes, you're absolutely correct Laurie. It was actually as far back as 2001, 2002, and then 2003, and ALL the way up to 2008 that Bush, and even Greenspan in 2002 and 2003, warned of an economic crisis if Fannie and Freddie weren't regulated.
On September 11, 2003 Bush sent Congress a bill regulating Fannie and Freddie. You know what happened to it laurie? Democrats in the Senate blocked it by not allowing the bill to get the 60 votes necessary to pass it.
Why don't you do some RESEARCH before you throw your name calling filth please?
And as for the rest of you that think that somehow throwing out filth makes you look intelligent, as opposed to actually debating with FACTS; you show exactly what you are.
BLIND to the fact that after three and a half years of record spending, record borrowing, record deficits, and record debt, we are NO BETTER off than when this started.
CherylLM - Oh my....did I ruffle a few feathers? I stand by my statement....you are misinformed and spewing right wing talking points. Take a lesson from history and understand the facts before you go running off at the mouth. Your defensive attitude tells me all I need to know.
I can't believe the trash that spews out fo 80% of the libs on here. I'm afraid of the third grade teachers that passed these people on, we really need to get better teachers out there!!
That said, I have seen some good debate come out of the rest of them... that is enlightening and intoxicating!
To gain acceptance into the lefties party, you have to learn how to point fingers. It is easier to blame someone else than to accept responsiblility. Blame the right, blame Bush, blame, blame, blame. The odumbo experiment is over and it didn't work...time to put the country back on the right track.
sirie, unfortunately your candidate doesn't believe in teachers . . . . . (or college for that matter if your parents can't pay for it)
sirie - and yet YOU were passed out of the 3rd grade, weren't you? Obviously a mistake there!
TimeforaChange - and to get into the righties world you have to call the President derogatory names. How adult. Feel better now?
One more hour wasted on a meaningless speech rather than doing his job - what would you expect from a President who doesn't know the meaning of leadership.
Hey now- Get your facts straight: He was the director of the Developing Communities Project...I believe it was a church-based organization. That position alone made him qualified to be the leader of the free world...
(Can you smell the sarcasm?)
;-)
Wasn't that the perfect job for a community organizer (sneer)?
Job approval rating among independents on the economy 35%. I hear the fat lady.
lollllllllllllll
I couldn't quite figure out what all the people were saying at the Obama rally until it hit me, it was baaaahh the sheeple were all repeating.
I thought the pause for applause that was late in coming was kind of funny. I wonder who finally remembered to hold up the APPLAUSE signs.
The speech sounded to me like he really believes that Americans don't know that he has been the POTUS for the last 3.5 years. He is a whiner and a blamer.
and a socialist loser
More rhetoric from the failure in chief. A empty suit with a teleprompter. He couldn't fix what he inherited, blah, blah, blah. He failed at fixing what he inherited, what else is new? He promised he'd fix the failed policies of Bush or be a one term prez, bye bye then. 4 more years of not fixing what he inherited should do it. Did he inherit the debt he created? Is that possible? Did he inherit the 530,000,000 tax dollars he wasted at Solyndra. He can't fix a toaster with his experience. Before you libs say a word, Solyndra was considered by Bush but didn't go through with it but Obonzo did and lost our money.
Reagan fixed what he inherited from Carter 1.0. Romney will do the same with Carter 2.0.
After reading this entire post, it's absolutely nothing but AM radio talking points.
The only point of substance you make is about Solyndra and guess what, our government DOES invest in technology. It's not a matter of investing in a particular company but a particular industry (like oil) or a particular technology like the internet, missile guidance systems, microwaves, going to the moon. And all of these technologies had failures before they had success. Do you realize how the federal government subsidized the railroad industry early on (and still does)?
Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers......guess what we do when it will make the country better.
wrong. Government should be BUYING from established sources, the most economical products and services it can - using OUR money. Investing is the business of the free market.
yes, the government does subsidise rail and agriculture and general aviation and countless other special interests who have purchased such largess via campaign contributions. that doesn't make it right.
Waldo, you need to back up that crack about subsidizing railroads. Amtrak maybe, but the railroads pay ALL their own way. They pay all their maintenence costs, all the right-of-way work, all the buying of new equipment, etc,etc,etc. This is totally unlike any other transportation mode in this country.
To those who support Romney, would you please specifically outline what is different about the approach Romney would take with re: to the economy and what G. Bush did? I'm not asking for flip one sentence answers, this is a genuine question and I would like an honest and complete response. Thanks
1) tax breaks to corporations who have trillions on the sidelines that use that capital to hire long term employees.
next question
JasonInNYC - Really??? Hah!! Did you know that some corporations pay NO taxes at all in the US. You are correct that the corporate tax rate in this country is higher than in Europe but there are so many loop holes that many many corporations pay no income tax at all. Next question.....
Who says the money will be spent on hiring? What trigger does Romney have built in to guarantee that money will create jobs?
Lynn, raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" will NOT create jobs. As a matter of fact, if you took EVERYTHING that "millionaires and billionaires" have, 100%, this present government would not last 6 months on what they could take.
What is needed is something that allows that small business owners, who create something like 75% of the jobs in this country, to start hiring again. New regulations doesn't do it. Threatening to raise taxes on them doesn't to it. Mandating ObamaCare on them doesn't do it.
No one is going to hire until they KNOW that Obama, Democrats, the EPA, the DoE, HHS, and every other liberal mindsetted "genius" out there does not have the power to literally PUNISH them for being successful.
It's not about the "corporations", since most of them have been driven out of this nation when it comes to hiring or even building in this country. Expensive, throttling, overbearing regulations, taxes, and unions have already taken care of that.
and without them you have Greece.
you can't have all your libtard socialist programs without someone paying the bill.
the govt can pick a pimple off my azz from space.
i think they can figure this one out.
How many years have we had tax cuts to create jobs, and just were are those jobs, how many more years do we have to wait for the tax cuts to create jobs.
Let's see now.....Kennedy cut taxes and millions of jobs were created. Reagan cut taxes and we had almost two decades of economic prosperity. Bush cut taxes and unemployment went BELOW 5% (that would mean jobs were created just in case you don't understand "below 5%), and RECORD income taxes were collected.
Jason - "libtard socialist"? You know you show your ignorance with that stupid comment. It tells me your a glassy eyed drone that just repeats what you hear with no real thought process of your own. Having to carry that much anger around with you must be debilitating in itself. Perhaps once you rid yourself of such anger and hatred you can discuss rationally the "facts" of the situation this country finds itself in. Stupid kindergarten name calling just disqualifies you from having a serious conversation that actually helps solve the problems this country faces.
I find it so ironic that so many look back as Cheryl has
and think that this country has somehow stayed the same all these years. Hello people! WAKE UP! We changed the economy! With our technology, jobs have just evaporated! Newspapers are on their way out (I think the whole couponing craze may be their only saving grace.) Print shops, Film processors, just to name a few. What TYPES of jobs do you think big corporations can create? The jobs that need to be done are those that Romney said he doesn't think the government should support, teachers, firemen, police officers, improvement of roads, parks, bridges, etc.
No corporation with big ol' profits is looking to create new jobs - all they care about is how many zeroes will be attached to their next bonus check.
Do you mean the President Kennedy who increased federal deficit spending to go to moon?
Do you mean the President Reagan who had targeted tax cuts AND tax increases aimed at spurring on the economy?
It's very easy to rewrite history for yourself but difficult for those of us who actually care about facts.
CherylM keeps repeating the lie that Regan cut taxes - he raised them 11 times.
And, Obama has proposed giving tax breaks to companies who brought jobs back from overseas. One little problem - the GOP wouldn't bring it up for a vote. They don't give a damn about the country.
Lynn: I think a more important question you might want to ask. Is what has President Obama done for this country in the last 3 1/2 years and if he's re-elected are we going to still be waiting for hope and change for another 4 years. The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again with the same results. Romney has a proven record of successs. He's been successful as a Governor and in business and in turning Winter Olympics around. This is what burns the Liberals so much they can hardly stand it. In fact, Obama campaign has tried to spin this but even Clinton and some of the Democrats broke from Obama on this. My vote is for Romney because I believe he will be successful in turning this economy around. He definitely has the smarts and the desire to make it better for all Americans.
Let us bring up the Winter Olympics. The one Romney saved by getting the Federal Govt to pay for it. Sounds like socialism to me. Romney was so successful as a Gov he did not run again. Record of success, most companies he has had his hand i n bankrupted. Wow, I have heard of low I.Q. voters but you take the cake. Just Saying!
no fiesty...bcplus3 equals me and my family...typical response from your poison tongue...if someone disagrees with the red headed queen they are a moron ? what happened to the civility your precious leader preaches ? you are exactly what is wrong with the left...you are the smartest and most inormed person in the world and everyone else is wrong...i actually feel sorry fot you but glad im not married or related to you...i pity your family and the few friends you have
BCplus3 apparently you don't do much reading on this site. The right wing do more slanderous and racist commenting here than anyone and you want to pick out one person, does not say much about your level of intelligence
I read a lot on here and I would beg to differ.
In the middle of a stalled recovery, an austerity program will cause the nation to spiral into a depression. Instead serious investments in education and infrastructure are needed, which not only increase employment but make the economy more efficient and thus more profitable.
nonsense.
what happens when you run out of tax payer money?
spend to the end is not the answer.
"Investments"? Oh you mean more spending of money that we don't have. That's worked really well the past three years, hasn't it.
And we put out more money per student for education than EVERY other nation in the world except one. How's that working for us?
The "stimulus" was supposed to be for infrastructure, or did you miss the sales pitch by Obama and Democrats? Now you want more?
And by the way, "education and infrastructure" is nothing more than keywords for UNIONS. Teachers and public employees, NEITHER of which create jobs in the private sector.
But wait, I forgot, the private sector is doing fine.
Jason & Cheryl - Doug happens to be right. If you lump austerity onto a sputtering economy you will cash a recession or worse a depression. What spurs economic growth is "demand". Without demand in the economy businesses won't hire. It has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes. If that were so then in the 1950's when the top tax rate was 94% there wouldn't have been any growth. Instead it was one of the most prosperous periods of economic growth. So why don't the two of you go back and do some research as to why? I could explain it to you but you wouldn't believe me because you're ignorant of the facts of history. Go figure it out and then come back and try to convince everyone that lower and lower tax rates in conjunction with government austerity will produce an economic boom. Hah!! The two of you are so misinformed.
say what?
when did we come out of the Great Recession?
which really is mislabeled, it should be the Great Depression.
Jason, when did you see soup lines, shanty towns, when did we reach 25% solid unemployment. Do you even know when the Great Depression took place, your age is showing now.
are you sh$tting me?
you don't think the true numbers are near 25%?
soup lines... i see them... more people on food stamps and welfare than at point in our history.
and i'm sure you going to tell how you walked 5 miles uphill to school both ways?
spare me the lecture old man
Doug and Laurie - you're absolutely right. You have to put money into infrastructure and jobs like teachers - as was always done in the past to boost the economy. The righties on this site don't understand how the economy works - really don't have a clue.
Firefighters, Cops and Teachers are a local issue. Need more raise your local taxes. That is what we do where I live.
What was the last one about bam bam.
This guy is great.
He's more full of sh$t than Clinton.
Yes Jason but you have them both beat hands down,,,,,,,,,,no not your pants
not sure what that post means... looks like libtard drivel
Tis the Season - When Jason can no longer argue his position on the merits he regresses to using pejoratives such as "Libtard Socialist" which I find hilarious. If he and people like him only knew how silly and juvenile sounding they appear, perhaps they would change their debating strategy.
laurie, As much venom as you frequently unleash on those disagreeing with you .... you certainly have no room to talk about the language others use .... unless, of course, you enjoy being a hypocrite.
At the same time, your aggressive use of language seems to suggest you suffer from some kind of self-appointed superiority complex. LOL ! The two do not go together very well.
jim - as usual putting another poster down and telling them how ignorant they are. But not when you do it, right?
Ooohhh, Ooohhh .... Stalker, Stalker ! Posting in the evening from home are we ? Wow' it looks like you just contradicted your prior statements about turning it off when you leave work.
No where in post #20.4 did I use the word "ignorant" nor any variation thereof. That is a word common to YOUR vocabulary. R.I.F. (Reading is Fundamental) Nice try, but again you just failed.
I knew it!!! Another Obama "Blame Bush" speech! So if re-elected we can expect four more years of "Blame Bush".
Now if obama could get the numbers down to what they were when Bush left office (400 billion deficit vice 1.4 trillion deficit, 6,4 percent unemployment vice the nice 9.2 we have now, and 10 trillion in national debt vice 16 trillion) then it would actually look like obama was improving things.
All the stations tuned him out but MSNBC. Thank god he says noting over and over and over and over and over .......again. What a fool of a man.
lolllllllll
misfire
Having not been a big fan of George Bush or Obama (and reserving judgement on Romney), it might actually be useful to point out areas where Romney differs from Bush and Obama:
1) Favors increased domestic drilling
2) Supports spending cuts (at least in theory)
3) Favors lowering the capital gains tax
4) Opposed GM auto bailout (Bush in favor of this, too)
In some ways Obama is actually more similar to Bush than Romney. The reality is that Obama multiplied the problems that arose in the Bush administration instead of making them better.
The "Romney is Bush" argument is lame and it will not get him another four years.
Obamas economic message has been clear. The private sector is doing fine but the government needs to hire more people. To pay for those additional people taxes need to be raised.
Can't hardly wait for Nov the first place I'm comin is to first read and listen to Dumb Fux Nasty wailing cause O got trounced !!! LMFAO
Sweet-cheeks,
Promise me you'll bring your bible & gun!
You'll have to be clinging to something to give you some comfort! ;o)
He might be in jail before then Holly, don't get your hopes up.
Every morning i have to thank Barack Obama. He has singlehandedly dismantled the progressive-liberal movement in America. If you think the 2010 midterms were a disaster wait until November when the House, Senate and the whitehouse swing to Fiscal Conservatives. i will have crying towels ready, with george Bush's face on them for all of you liberals, and Feisty, I have a special one for you!