Archived Story
Leaders can save us from ‘fiscal cliff’
Published 9:52am Friday, August 24, 2012Amid all the political bluster and campaign rhetoric that almost always comes during a presidential election year, a very important message was sent to Congress: Do something or our nation will likely face a recession in 2013.
While much of America is focused on the individuals who will be in office, we must not forget about those who are there right now. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group of financial analysts, released a report earlier this week that warned of more than 2 million potential job losses and another deep recession if a variety of pending fiscal policies are left unchanged.
“Without an agreement between President Barack Obama and Congress by January, tax reductions on virtually all taxpayers are scheduled to expire and spending cuts will be imposed on hundreds of popular domestic and defense programs. That would plunge the nation off a so-called ‘fiscal cliff,’ which each side is eager to blame on the other,” according to Associated Press reports.
Unfortunately our current Congress — Republicans and Democrats alike — essentially refuse to do anything at all out of fear that it will help the other party. The president must be willing to compromise as well.
It is time for the American people to stand up and take note of the partisan tactics and selfish actions that do nothing but stifle the growth of our country.
Everyone wants to talk about who will be the next president, but it will not make much of a difference if American voters cannot seat a Congress willing to work for the betterment of our country instead of the betterment of their party.
The Bush’s were great. Especially like the story of their dog biting a reporter.
(Report comment)
“Leaders can save us from ‘fiscal cliff’”
Thank goodness we’re looking at our new leaders at the republican convention in Tampa; come november!!
(Report comment)
Indie: Apparently there’s a black lady named Mia Love who’s running for congress from the great state of Utah. She’s also a Mormon and she’s married to a white guy. I guess they closed the gap now.
You can’t make this stuff up…lol
—————————-
Yeah, you can’t make this stuff up! Who would believe that a republican would be married to African-American?
How far behind the times are you Indie?
(Report comment)
Like the coverage on KET/pbs.
(Report comment)
Looks like the republicans found a minority to speak at their convention. Apparently there’s a black lady named Mia Love who’s running for congress from the great state of Utah. She’s also a Mormon and she’s married to a white guy. I guess they closed the gap now.
You can’t make this stuff up…lol
(Report comment)
You must have been watching MSNBC:
MSNBC abandons GOP convention during every speech by a minority
One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.
If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities.
In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.
——-
So Indy are you saying that since Mia married a white guy and became a Mormon, that she is no longer an African-American?
(Report comment)
So I guess we’re going to hear from Chris Christie tonight. Is he going to share the success story behind his New Jersey unemployment rate of 9.8%?
That’s much higher than the national average by the way.
(Report comment)
Maybe they should check with the Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin. Maybe they should convince the democrats in the state Congress to allow Christie to lower the states income tax – one of the highest in the nation.. Sort of describes the failing states of California and Illinois doesn’t it?
(Report comment)
Yeah, maybe they should do a lot of things but it’s a moot point because they’re not. Chris Christie is the one they put out front and he’s managed to do a terrible job as governor.
I would ask how many actual jobs he created in NJ but I know that doesn’t matter to you republicans this year…just the rate.
By the way, why don’t you define the unemployment rate for us now Noesis. More specifically, I’d love to hear a detailed breakdown from you on all the variables that go into defining the equation.
The unemployment rate is a measure of the prevalence of unemployment and it is calculated as a percentage by dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals currently in the labor force. It’s not as simple as just going out and seeing who has a job and who doesn’t. People fall into and out of these categories and I’d like to hear you explain that in detail since you bring up the rate so often.
(Report comment)
You mean like the “Jobs created” number you always use… like if you hire 10,000 census workers, fire them at the end of the day, rehire them the next morning and continue this for 2 weeks you’ve created 140,000 jobs?
(Report comment)
If you want to give any consideration at all to someone who think Bush “did a great job” then go ahead. Maybe we can even get 8 more years like Bush gave us and, this time, maybe we won’t have someone like Obama to come in afterwards and clean up the mess he left our economy.
Maybe next time we will have a full-blown second Great Depression.
(Report comment)
It was democrats that caused the housing bubble and it was Clinton who signed the law allowing banks to bet on derivatives.
Bush had nothing to do with it.
(Report comment)
Like I said, the Bush economic policy could be summed up with two words:
“deregulation”
and
“lower taxes for the rich”
That’s what Noesis wants. He wants to go back to the Bush era because he still thinks Bush was a great president.
If you believe deregulation for banks, for example, and letting them run wild is a good thing…if you think Bush was a great president…and if you want to return to the Bush era then vote for Romney.
(Report comment)
Concervatives could survive without liberals. Liberals could not survive without the conservatives they feed off of.
(Report comment)
If you want to equate George W. Bush to Jimmy Carter, that’s fine by me. What I think on this one isn’t the point. I know you believe Carter was a huge failure so to mention Bush in the same breath is the closest thing we’ll get to an admission of truth that you also recognize that Bush was a huge failure. That much I agree with.
Now I just hope we don’t see Romney promising to run on the same ideas that Bush used to run the country into the ground. For example, the Bush economic policy was essentially just “deregulation” and “lower taxes.”
If we hear Romney talking about lowering taxes and eliminating regulations for business, that’s a red flag for concern.
(Report comment)
Again with putting words in my mouth? Have you checked with a head doctor about your condition? I actually think both Bush’s did a great job.
And real wages have gone down since Obambi’s “recovery”. I’ll take the Bush economy any day…
And so will plenty of democrats… that’s why everybody is leaving him…
(Report comment)
Well, this doesn’t look good for your streak Indie…
…Frank Luntz put a focus group of 23 “swing voters” through the paces…
If Luntz picks his swing-voter focus groups as carefully as he claims, Romney/Ryan has this whole thing sewn up. When asked to describe Romney in one word, they said things like “stiff,” “experienced,” “educated,” “accomplished,” “articulate,” “untrustworthy,” “a leader,” “successful,” “privileged,” “question-mark,” and “ethical.” A mixed bag, right? Sure, but look at what they call Obama: “narcissist,” “polarizing,” “trying,” “having hope,” “incapable,” “lost,” “polarizing,” “socialist” (!), and most d*mning of all, “disappointing.”
Starker still: Almost all of them voted for Obama in 2008. Almost none of them are committed to doing it again.
…But easily the most effective ad overall is the AFP spot featuring testimonials from disappointed Obama voters. As it airs, Luntz enters the press room and starts narrating the modulating “DEM” and “GOP” lines we see superimposed on our monitors. “If you’re Romney, you need numbers over 70 for GOP leaners and numbers over 50 for Democrat leaners.” The lines spike past that benchmark for GOP leaners, and hover in the neighborhood of 50 for the Democrat-ish.
Luntz goes back to the group and interrogates them about the ad. Folks like the first-person testimonial aspect and the emotional content. “They said exactly what I was thinking,” says one. Luntz later says he is hearing this in most of his focus groups. People really like President Obama, and what they are looking for is permission to vote for Romney and this ad delivers it. On the flipside, they don’t buy the infamous Granny off a cliff” spot. They call it “sick,” “disturbed,” “offensive,” “funny,” “counterproductive,” “terrible,” and “tragically hilarious.”
(Report comment)
“If Luntz picks his swing-voter focus groups as carefully as he claims…”
Yeah, I don’t believe he does. We’ll see on November the 6th though so there’s no need to debate it now.
(Report comment)
Hey, I posted this earlier but it got pushed down the page. Anyone know what night George W. Bush will be speaking at the GOP convention? Bush Sr??
(Report comment)
Thursday night I believe. What night is Jimmy Carter giving his speech?
(Report comment)
My computers smokin!!
Anyway, as I said before, ol Mitt can do just about anything he wants to do once as president.
Business trusts Romney and will begin to turn loose of their money to invest.
Business and the american taxpayer DO NOT TRUST OBAMA.
(Report comment)
Really? You know, I actually think you do believe that right now since you just want Obama gone so badly…no reason needed at this point…but I think that’ll change if Romney ever did take office.
I mean, let Romney come in and support raising taxes or compromises on Obamacare and you guys will be feeling a little bit different. There’s no need for us to debate the likelihood of Romney waffling for his own political gain once elected since it’s been so hard to even predict what he’s going to stand for this Thursday, based on the non-response to my question about what he stands for or what he’d do if elected.
I think business does trust Obama and here are a couple of reasons why…
…first let me say, Noesis, the predictable thing would be for you to go google something that would seem to contradict what I say next, even if it’s out of context…
…but one reason I say business trusts Obama is that the stock market has gone up a ton since he has taken office. I’m not even looking up the exact numbers right now because it’s such a given, at this point, that I don’t even think any of you will contest this point.
The stock market is an indicator of business and the economy.
Another reason I say business trusts Obama is the success story with the Big 3 American auto makers…the auto bailout, if you will. Say what you want they were in very bad shape and they’re back now…simple enough.
Obama has signed a number of pro-business bills, including some to specifically help small businesses.
The fact is that Obama has done a lot to help business and those are just a few I cited for now. Remember, nobody could really say anything definitive about what Romney would do to help business or the economy.
If you’re a person who’ll vote for a candidate without having to know anything about what they stand for or what they would do, I strongly disagree with that but it’s your right to have it that way.
I also don’t really expect anyone who’ll vote for a candidate with those non-existent standards to get into an intelligent discussion of any issues. It’s not that you couldn’t, but you won’t. If anyone else out there wants to, though, we still have some time left before election day.
(Report comment)
the predictable thing would be for you to go google something that would seem to contradict what I say next, even if it’s out of context…
———-
Of course it’s predictable because the majority of the time, you don’t know what you are talking about.
“the success story with the Big 3 American auto makers”
First of all, Ford didn’t take a dime of the Auto Bailout money. Obviously they had a good business plan.
Then, lets see what politics were in play:
Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of 20,000 salaried retirees at the Delphi auto parts manufacturing company.
The move, made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan, appears to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions.
The internal government emails contradict sworn testimony, in federal court and before Congress, given by several Obama administration figures. They also indicate that the administration misled lawmakers and the courts about the sequence of events surrounding the termination of those non-union pensions, and that administration figures violated federal law.
Delphi, a 13-year old company that is independent of General Motors, is one of the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. Twenty thousand of its workers lost nearly their entire pensions when the government bailed out GM. At the same time, Delphi employees who were members of the United Auto Workers union saw their pensions topped off and made whole.
And finally…. you thought the auto bailout worked fine? Obviously you haven’t been reading the news:
Forbes:
General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy — Again
(Report comment)
You can stick with that argument but it’s just not going to fly in the national debate. Do you really think Romney is going to try to run on the idea that the Big 3 failed? I don’t. I think Obama will make a very strong case on this point and the others.
(Report comment)
No, it’s about ideas Noesis. I don’t need you to define Romney. You made yourself clear and I’m fine with where you’re at on this.
(Report comment)
Indie: So once again my attempt to start a civil discussion has been both ignored and pushed down the page.
—————-
OMG, it’s all about you! LMAO!!!
What I object to is you trying to make me define what Romney’s policies are and… I don’t care! I have trust in the man that he will do the right thing… just like I have trust that Obambi will do the wrong thing for America. It’s like Batman and the Joker… You just know that the Joker is going to attack the rich and Batman will save the day. Obambi was raised by radicals, hung out with radicals and has ruled radically. This evil that is Obama must be stopped. I don’t need to read Batman’s policies to be able to cheer for him.
Even democrats are waking up and have figured out that they were following the wrong guy.
(Report comment)
So once again my attempt to start a civil discussion has been both ignored and pushed down the page. I still have faith that there are those among us who are interested, though, so I don’t feel bad about bringing it back to the top.
Can I propose something new? I mean, this room reads like a propaganda forum these days and it would be nice to change it up a little. If Mick’s not around anymore there may not be much support for this, but I’ll try anyway.
First let me take this opportunity to step back a little from some of the recent discussions here in this forum. It get’s a little partisan, a little unfriendly and sometimes downright a little rude sometimes. Of course, there is no winning with this setup…for either side. That’s what I want to step back from and propose that we challenge ourselves to talk about ideas, policies, facts…real things…and do it in a way where the focus is on the idea and not the zinger thrown at the other guy.
Here’s an example.
There’s a lot of back and forth about tax rates, soaking the rich, cutting spending on social programs and things of that nature. Usually it’s pretty general talk, criticizing the other party’s way, vagueries and so forth. Let’s see if we can start something new here and get a little more specific on this one point. Here’s what I mean.
If you were to look at all these issues I mentioned, you could take one thing…the top income tax rate, the one paid by the highest income people…and boil it down to just 2 options.
One option is to keep the top rate where Bush dropped it down to at 35%. I only mention Bush because this specific rate cut of his is still an issue of contention, more specifically whether or not congress should make that cut permanent.
Another option is to put it back at 36.9% where it was at from 1993 through 2000.
Instead of now going on to say what my preference is, I’ll pause to just ask you which one of those two options you like better and why you think it would be the best one for America.
(Report comment)
The Republicans tried to get Reagan but he was busy helping God.
And why Clinton? Isn’t Carter a more comparable figure to Obambi? They are both failures. Both will be known as the worst Presidents ever.
(Report comment)
Indie: OK, clearly you’re not for new taxes.
——————-
I thought the question was:
“Specifically what is it you think Romney should do to “show he is not an enemy of business”"
What Should Romeny Do
I answered and now you say: “OK, clearly you’re not for new taxes”
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(Report comment)
Your response was “no new taxes on business.” Forget it, though. You’re protesting way too much when there’s absolutely no need. Whether you’re for no new taxes, lower taxes or higher taxes (and I mean anyone) you should have no problem owning up to exactly what you want. You should also be able to say exactly why you see it that way. I’m not interested in this back-and-forth mincing of words.
(Report comment)
Hey, I have a general question. As an Obama supporter, I know that former president Bill Clinton will be speaking at the democratic convention on the night before Obama.
Can anyone tell me on what nights at the gop convention George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush will be speaking?
(Report comment)
One of the examples you gave was “no new taxes on business.” OK, clearly you’re not for new taxes. There’s no question of that. Are you saying that you are NOT for lower taxes then?
Another of your examples was “roll back Obama requlations.” Now I don’t see how me calling that “deregulation” constitutes putting words in your mouth. In both of these two cases I was paraphrasing what you said and then asking you if the paraphrase is fair. Seems to me the only point of contention in these two points is whether you’re for lower taxes or just leaving them all where they’re at now.
Now I was asking Mike Haney what he wanted to see Romney run on when you stepped in and gave those examples. That’s fine. You wanted to interject your thoughts on the topic so don’t be offended that I follow up on that.
I’d also still like your response, Noesis, to my point…that we challenge ourselves to talk about ideas, policies, facts…real things…and do it in a way where the focus is on the idea and not the zinger thrown at the other guy.
(Report comment)
Indie please quit trying to put words in my mouth. You asked:
“Specifically what is it you think Romney should do to “show he is not an enemy of business and put a check on big goverment” Mike? What policy is it you’re looking for?”
I gave examples and then you state:
“…that what you’re really saying is that the two big new ideas Romney should run on are “deregulation” and “lower taxes.” ‘
The:
“what you’re really saying ”
is putting words in my mouth.
(Report comment)
Let me reiterate the point I’ve made on two other articles but which has not been addressed yet…that we challenge ourselves to talk about ideas, policies, facts…real things…and do it in a way where the focus is on the idea and not the zinger thrown at the other guy.
So let me start at the bottom of your 2 new comments Noesis. You made the observation:
“LOL, trying to put words in my mouth indie? You asked what Romney could do for business. I told you. I never said that’s what he’s running on.”
No, Noesis, I was definitely not putting words into your mouth. I did not make any claim you said that’s what he’s running on. I said:
‘And now that I look at it, the thought occurs to me that what you’re really saying is that the two big new ideas Romney should run on are “deregulation” and “lower taxes.” ‘
That was my observation based on your comment from August 27, 2012 at 11:18 am and I even asked if that’s a fair assessment.
As for the offshore drilling, why the hostility Noesis. Is it really necessary to make claims like “you have no idea what you’re talking about” instead of just making your point in facts.
Now I’ll admit offshore drilling isn’t my number one issue so I had to go back and check the facts. You pointed out that:
” Pointing to the BP blowout and risks of a new environmental disaster, the Obama administration reversed itself Wednesday and promised not to pursue offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or anywhere else along the nation’s East Coast…”
…but you didn’t disclose that’s only through 2017. Prior to the Offshore Horizon spill Obama was ready to expand offshore drilling and the temporary hold is in the interest of ensuring future drilling is done more safely than was the case with the Offshore Horizon.
As for the Bush Sr. tax increase, the fact is that we were going into a big recession and Bush was trying to avert it so he could save his political hide and get re-elected. Just blaming everything, every time, on the democrats makes it look very doubtful that you’re actually trying to get at the truth on any of this. Let’s change that.
I know this comment is running long but you threw out several things. You also asked me “Why don’t you wait like everybody else and see what he says?” in regards to Romney’s platform.
Well, in one sense I am. I’ll be tuning in to see what he says and will move forward from that point. However, you’re kind of missing the point in why I asked.
I want to know what you and some of the others here WANT him to run on. Why ask now? You’ve already said that you really don’t care what he runs on. This gives me reason to believe that, after Romney speaks at the convention, you will take whatever he says and say “Yes, that’s what I’ve been for all along.”
So I want you to go on the record now and say what you want, just so we’re clear.
Based on your comments below what you’re looking for, aside from just beating Obama, are “deregulation” and “lower taxes.” That’s in your comment below. Do you dispute this?
As for my original point…that we challenge ourselves to talk about ideas, policies, facts…real things…and do it in a way where the focus is on the idea and not the zinger thrown at the other guy…what is your response to that Noesis?
(Report comment)
Indie: As for off-coast drilling, didn’t we give each state the power to make that decision for themselves here in the last couple of years?
———————-
See, that’s why I hate debating you guys/gals. You have no idea what you are talking about:
Obama: No offshore drilling in East Coast waters
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON AND MATTHEW DALY
updated 12/1/2010 4:43:06 PM ET
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Pointing to the BP blowout and risks of a new environmental disaster, the Obama administration reversed itself Wednesday and promised not to pursue offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or anywhere else along the nation’s East Coast.
Ah Indie… Bush renigged on his “no new taxes” because democrats demanded a balanced budget promising spending cuts if he raised taxes. Bush kept his side of the deal. Democrats incresed spending.
But let me guess….
You didn’t know that either…
(Report comment)
OK, Noesis. I’m counting that as 2 “new” ideas since the other two are just to undo what Obama’s done. I know there are plenty on your side of the political scene who want that so I’m not critiquing you expressing that. Let’s look at the other two points.
As for off-coast drilling, didn’t we give each state the power to make that decision for themselves here in the last couple of years?
As for promising no new taxes on business, what if things change in the economy and it becomes necessary to go back on that. I’m not trying to take a cheap shot here but that’s kind of what happened under Bush Sr. when he was president.
Besides, don’t you think business will remember that “read my lips…no new taxes” and see that as just something said on the campaign trail to help the candidate get elected? Do you really think that’s the big idea to change the playing field in America?
(Report comment)
And now that I look at it, the thought occurs to me that what you’re really saying is that the two big new ideas Romney should run on are “deregulation” and “lower taxes.”
Is that a fair assessment of what you’re saying, Noesis?
(Report comment)
LOL, trying to put words in my mouth indie? You asked what Romney could do for business. I told you. I never said that’s what he’s running on.
Why don’t you wait like everybody else and see what he says?
(Report comment)
That’s easy:
Promise no new taxes on business.
Repeal ObambiCare
Roll back Obama requlations
Tell states that they can allow private firms to drill on any land in their state and off the coast.
(Report comment)
Specifically what is it you think Romney should do to “show he is not an enemy of business and put a check on big goverment” Mike? What policy is it you’re looking for?
(Report comment)
Agree with Cashmere. All Mitt Romney has to do first month in office is to do nothing but show he is not an enemy of business and put a check on big goverment.
(Report comment)
Personally, I think just the election of Romney is going to help the economy, because getting Obama out will reassure the business community. I know it’s popular in some circles to want to soak the rich to solve our problems, but as a teacher, my salary is reliant on a “trickle down” scenario. If businesses locate here, they pay property taxes, and hopefully so will their employees. They buy from the community keeping them in business, again paying taxes. Grants from the dept. of education are trumpeted, but a solid cash flow is needed to keep me in my job.
In the private sector, the cute positioning of Obamacare after the election has caused problems. I have friends in small businesses who, besides their own concerns, have had the larger businesses they make money on cut back due to their concerns over what the healthcare might do. That “trickle down” doesn’t have to trickle far. My friends have to lay off people because of this.
These are the reasons I am voting for Romney. I don’t need to see his tax returns, and I don’t consider Bain Capital as evil personified, anymore than I consider the President a foreigner or unqualified. I have dear friends and relatives in bad economic situations, and I don’t know how they will get through four more years of Obama’s inability to deal with the economy more than attack Republicans and Bush. Policies of both parties caused the mess in 2008, but my feeling on Election Day of 2008 that Obama wasn’t big enough has not been disproved.
(Report comment)
Hiiiiissssssss! HERETIC!!!
(Report comment)
So what you’re saying is that our hopes rest on the whims of the rich? What we need to do, in your book, is give the rich everything they want so they will feel a little better about things and maybe…just maybe… (after they are fully reassured) they will swoop down and save the day?
The reasons you cite are all absolutely vague and, obviously, I disagree with your thought process. Our economy was off the road and in a ditch on the day Barack Obama took office. We’re out of the ditch now and on the way back. Don’t forget just how bad the situation was.
Personally, I believe what we need is to restore a democratic majority to the house and to make it clear that Obama has a mandate from the American people. If, in that scenario, the republicans in congress try to filibuster everything again Obama should look into using congressional rules to circumvent them.
(Report comment)
I’m thinking these life-long democrats are feeling the same sort of hate that I do:
The Sunday breakfast conversation is always lively and usually about sports at the counter of the Highland’s Cafe at 85th Street and Third Avenue, in New York City. However, this week’s talk was all about politics and also extremely animated. The guy to my right had already struck up a conversation with another counter dweller and said: “I’ve always voted Democrat, but I’m worried about my business and Obama’s not showing me anything so I’m gonna give the other guy a chance.”
Like many disgruntled Democrats, he couldn’t utter the name Mitt Romney in public, but it was obvious who he was talking about. The consensus at the counter was clear: forget about social issues and other Republican agendas – we are scared to death about the economy.
The discussion focused on the fact that no one believed the federal government runs efficiently or effectively, so the idea of paying more in taxes to wasteful government agencies is like throwing gasoline on the fire instead of water.
I have conducted my own straw polls in various U.S. cities and I’ve yet to find anyone who believes our government is well run, except for President Obama
I’ve been a registered voter for 38 years and I’ve always voted Democrat, straight down the line, but I’m unhappy with out of control spending and incompetent bureaucrats who seem to have no concern or regard about how they spend my hard-earned money.
There are many others like me on the fence – a socially liberal but fiscally concerned silent minority, who are close to or have already abandoned President Obama.
So far, rather than running on issues, President Obama has disappointed me by mounting a Karl Rove-style negative campaign.
I never thought it would happen, but for the second time in a week, I’m out in public talking about giving the other guy a chance.
Robb Taub
(Report comment)
She doesn’t even know what Romney would do
———–
As long as he does the opposite of what Obambi does he will do fine.
Is there any way we can just replace Obambi with a bobblehead doll until Romney wins and takes over?
(Report comment)
Now that the economy is wonderful and the national debt has been paid off I feel wonderful.
(Report comment)
Noesis – “And as far as what would Romney do? I don’t know, nor do I care.”
Wow!!!!
She doesn’t even know what Romney would do.
As I’ve said already, this is all about hate for Obama as a person and has nothing to do with the job he’s doing. Some folks hated him from before day one and that’s all you’re seeing from them here.
Personally, I’m just supporting the candidate who’s got the best ideas for America and who’s done a good job for the last 3 1/2 years.
He’ll make that case at his convention week after next. I don’t need to. Stay tuned folks.
(Report comment)
Like I said before, I don’t care what they are. Anything he does will be better than anything Obama came up with.
(Report comment)
Now how about you answering mine? What are Romney’s 3 best new, original ideas for America?
Why are you so afraid of this question?
(Report comment)
Those democrats in New York City who are voting for Romney didn’t need to hear his ideas. They already know he knows how to run things: Bain, Olympics, Massachusetts.
Obambi however has been a failure at getting us out of the ditch.
That’s why democrats are willing to give Romney a chance.
(Report comment)
Oh and Indie… Are you sure that Obambi wants to run on the auto bailout?
Forbes:
General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy — President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.
Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion….
(Report comment)
“If you let his just be a referendum, I don’t think the president can win because the truth of the matter is he may have created over 4.3 million jobs, he may have saved General Motors, but the country is still not back to where it needs to be,” Shrum said on the CBS’s Face the Nation.
But even Shrum can’t get the record straight. The number of jobs created in Obama’s first term so far is 172,000, counting from February 2009′s overall non-farm jobs number at the BLS (table B-1 from the Current Employment Survey). For the private sector, it’s 780,000 in the same period. If we count from the first month of recovery — which would have been June 2009, four months after signing the $800 billion stimulus bill, the numbers are 2.506 million overall and 3.107 million in the private sector, neither of which is anywhere close to 4.3 million.
———
And as far as what would Romney do? I don’t know, nor do I care. I’m sure that whatever it is, will be the best for he country unlike what Obambi is doing.
(Report comment)
Noesis, your question presupposes that he will not run on it. Obama will talk about the economy. He will talk about the auto bailout. He will talk about the stimulus. He will talk about where we were on January 20, 2009 and contrast where we are with that. So, Noesis, I guess that’s your answer friend.
Now how about you answering mine? What are Romney’s 3 best new, original ideas for America?
(Report comment)
Indie, you never got around to answering my question.
If Obambi’s record on the economy is so great, why isn’t he running on it?
Oh and Indie, the AARP is liberal. That’s why the conservatives have their own:
Looking for an alternative to AARP? You’ve come to the right place. The Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) is a conservative, nonpartisan organization looking out for the interests of Americans 50 years of age and older. We believe in the traditional values of Faith – Family – Freedom that have made the United States of America the greatest of nations. We believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not empty words, but the fulfillment of the American dream.
AMAC will endeavor to be your advocate to promote commonsense government and to let you keep your hard-earned money in your pocket – not the government’s.
Our new organization continues to grow. If you’re tired of the other senior organization’s liberal way of thinking, please join AMAC today. If you like what we are trying to do to protect our way of life, refer your family, friends, and neighbors. The more people who join AMAC, the more positive impact we can have, and the more discount products and services we’ll be able to negotiate for you. Remember, there is strength in numbers.
(Report comment)
That’s what you call a rhetorical reply folks. Noesis knows that it’s true that Obama reversed the job losses in 9 months. He knows over 3.5 million jobs have been created since. He can’t deny that. That’s why he always answers in a rhetorical way like “If he did / then he would…” Of course, as always, he deals in things that can neither be proved nor disproved.
The fact that he always goes out of his way to say obambi illustrates the raw hatred he has for the man. Make no mistake people, this isn’t about policies. No, people like this hate Obama the man and they hated him before he ever stepped foot into the White House.
He could have chosen to make a relevant statement. He could have, for example, responded to the comment where I asked for any of his crew to share with us Romney’s 3 most exciting new ideas for America and how they’d make things better.
He won’t do that. The only idea any of his people have is just to get rid of Obama. The only issue that really addresses is their hatred of the man…
And America would pay the bill for their jollies by inaugurating Richard Nixon II which, I assure you, is a very apt description of what Mitt Romney would be like as President.
(Report comment)
Indie, if Obambi did such a great job on the recession, he would be bragging about it. There’s a reason why he doesn’t run on his record… Because everybody would laugh at his dismal record.
(Report comment)
Let me see if I can do justice to what’s going on here.
After Haney accused me of getting my info from a liberal blog, I informed him that it was actually from the AARP.
His response???
Easy. Just cut and paste a blurb (below) from Phil Kerpen who is the president of a right-wing super pac.
So you accuse me of giving bad info from a liberal blog, then you try to rebut me with propaganda from a right-wing super pac?
So typical of you guys, Mike.
(Report comment)
AARP gets federal money, gets a cut from United Health
care who in turn is looking at increased sales due to Obamacare.
I dropped them in 08 because of their politics and support of Obama.
———————
An investigative report from the House Ways and Means Committee found: “The Democrats’ health care law, which AARP strongly endorsed, could result in a windfall for AARP that exceeds over $1 billion during the next 10 years.”
———————–
What is so hard to understand about AARP? AARP is in it for the money now, not a retired persons organization.
(Report comment)
“There you go again. What liberal blog did you read that from? ”
That’s what the AARP said on this issue, Mike. Sorry it’s not so easy to refute me by making some idiotic claim like “he read it in a liberal blog.”
So, Mike, I asked this elsewhere but let’s see if you’ve got something to say on this topic (not from a right-wing blog, that is).
What are Mitt Romney’s top 3 new ideas for America and how will they make things better??
Does Romney even have ANY new ideas?
(Report comment)
AARP? Hilarious!!
——————–
AARP is in the business of selling insurance, and their offerings were uniquely well-positioned to benefit from the bill, because the steep cuts to Medicare Advantage would force beneficiaries into traditional fee-for-service Medicare, making them potential customers for AARP’s Medigap policies.
An investigative report from the House Ways and Means Committee found: “The Democrats’ health care law, which AARP strongly endorsed, could result in a windfall for AARP that exceeds over $1 billion during the next 10 years.”
That’s a billion reasons for AARP to betray seniors and support Obama’s bill.
The report found that while AARP offers a Medicare Advantage plan through United Healthcare, it does so under a flat-fee licensing agreement that would give the company the same revenue even following savage cuts to Medicare Advantage.
Its Medigap policies, on the other hand, are its biggest cash cow and AARP makes money with every policy sold. It was a win-win for AARP’s bottom line, but at a devastating cost to the seniors it pretends to represent.
Sweetening the deal for AARP, the bill created a special, AARP-specific carve-out exempting its Medigap policies from the rate regulations applied to its competitors.
In light of this betrayal, my friend Jim Martin of the 60 Plus Association, a fiscally conservative seniors group, has suggested that AARP ought to once again be an abbreviation: the Association Against Retired Persons.
Sounds right to me.
Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment and author of “Democracy Denied.”
———————
surely you can do better than that.
AARP-Association Against Retired Persons
(Report comment)
indie–There is nothing more full of it than a republican talking———
————————–
Your shoveling so fast I hope no one is standing behind you indie.
(Report comment)
indie-Like the 700 million in waste Obama cut from medicare, with no impact on benefits?
——————-
Most ridiculous statement I’ve seen in a long time, even coming from a liberal.
(Report comment)
No, Noesis. It’s not the congress that gets/takes credit for the direction of the country. It’s the president.
Romney was running for president then and must have had some ideas he shared back then. He’s running now and he must have ideas once again, although I haven’t heard any that make sense.
Here’s the point. Obama did a GREAT job in reversing the Bush recession. Nine months to turn around that mess was tremendous. Adding over 3.5 million jobs since is great too.
Neither Romney, nor Noesis, nor any of the rest of them can tell you ANYTHING they would have / could have / should have done differently to yield a better result than Obama got.
That’s why the ONLY thing they’ve said up till now is that bit from the republican attack-ad about how Obama should have waited to deal with healthcare.
Of course, Obama did address the economy first (see comment below) and when he did get to healthcare he cut 700 million of waste out of Medicare without impacting benefits.
So, yes, Obama did better with the economy than Romney could have and none of Romney’s fans here can refute that.
That’s why they won’t get specific on these issues like I do.
(Report comment)
indie-and when he did get to healthcare he cut 700 million of waste out of Medicare without impacting benefits.
————————-
There you go again. What liberal blog did you read that from?
(Report comment)
Oh and indie, those weren’t Bush’s job losses, they were the democratic Congresses. Jobs and employment were doing fine under the republican congress it wasn’t until democrsts took over that things went bad.
(Report comment)
Wow, stupid question of the year Indie. How do we know what Romney would do, we don’t have Romney’s experiences.
Jeesh!
(Report comment)
Here’s something I’ve been wondering. As I’ve posted before, it took Obama 9 months to reverse the job losses that had begun in Sept of 2008 under Bush. Like Bush lost almost 3 million jobs in his last 6 months in office, we lost another 3 million in those first 9 months. Since then (starting Nov 2009 – first month we started adding jobs) over 3.5 million jobs were created.
And you also know that Obama signed the auto bailout, the stimulus and numerous other economic measures into law before ever starting on health care.
Now Mitt Romney isn’t just a new kid on the block. He ran for president in 2008 too but he was defeated in his own party by McCain and Huckabee. Here comes the question.
Let’s say Romney had won in 2008 instead for the sake of this question. I would like for ANY of you who have been so vocal in your hate of Obama to tell all of us this.
EXACTLY what would Mitt Romney have done differently?
and
HOW would it have provided better results??
(Report comment)
16 Trillion and counting.
Any bill that congress passes looks like a bulletin board with the original bill covered up with sticky notes.
(Report comment)
Let the democrats cut spending and then we can talk tax increases. We have tried it the other way before and got burned. No more Lucy and the football. It’s time for the democrats to go first.
(Report comment)
Like the 700 million in waste Obama cut from medicare, with no impact on benefits?
Oh, wait, Romney used that to mislead seniors and attack Obama.
There is nothing more full of it than a republican talking like Noesis does here. Even he knows better.
(Report comment)