[Spydeputy]

Oboma-rea

Originally Posted by gary88

#romnesia

[incantana]

If Obama wins and the economy gets worse, can he say he inherited a terrible mess?

If Obama wins and the economy gets better, he will take credit.
If Obama loses and the economy gets better, he will also take credit
If Obama wins and the economy tanks, he will blame congress
If Obama loses and the economy tanks, he will blame Mitt

[AndyR83]

I dont consider myself to be a hard-line Republican or ultra conservative. I don't agree with the conservative view on gays or birth control, for instance.

I do, however, believe very strongly that more government is a bad thing. I can't justify spending $1T establishing a bloated government system to oversee healthcare. The insurance companies need some regulation to prevent them from excluding people with preexisting conditions, no doubt. Private enterprise is the foundation of our economy. Competition is a good thing for the consumer. Handing over healthcare to the government is a bad idea, even if it didn't cost an astronomical amount.

I also don't agree with pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into failing social policies. Are there people with real disabilities that want to work but can't? Hell yes! People that work and make an effort but still can't make ends meet? Absolutely! They deserve our help. Are there people that pop out babies and sit on their butts watching TV for a living because they would rather sit back and take handouts than go make something of themselves? Damn right there are, and they're a cancer eating away at our society that don't deserve one penny of the money I work hard to earn.

Not to be rude, but I fail to understand how an educated person that has a job and earns their own living could ever vote for a candidate that will allow these things to go on without intervening.

[Sam335ix]

Originally Posted by incantana

If Romney wins and the economy gets worse, can he say he inherited a terrible mess?

If Romney wins and the economy gets better, he will take credit.
If Romney loses and the economy gets better, he will also take credit
If Romney wins and the economy tanks, he will blame congress
If Romney loses and the economy tanks, he will blame Obama

There, I fixed it for you. We too can play that game, heck all republicans do is change the name in front of everything obama says. Romney pretty much agrees to everything Obama wants to do with a twist, yeah that is orginal.

[MrDummy]

Originally Posted by Amini77

Mitt..we need jobs, not more spending.

This says it all!

[lem144]

Originally Posted by MrDummy

This says it all!

So what about the proposed $2T in increased pentagon spending? Where's that $$ coming from? Last time I heard fairy dust doesn't print dollar bills.

[lem144]

Originally Posted by Eric335

And that went so well....

Obama has absolutely zero job experience. He has never held down a job outside of politics, which is a completely different animal from the real world. A man who can take a small business to an empire has 10,000x the experience of someone who is a professional at speechs and swaying votes.

That's funny. He worked at a law firm (job). He taught law (another job). I fail to see your point.

Furthermore. The country is NOT a business. If it were a business, we'd CUT all the things that cost us money and only keep the things we'd make money on. So, we'd CUT all elderly people (DIE!). We'd CUT all poor people (DIE!). We'd CUT the military because blowing shit up is NOT making us money. We'd SPEND on research and innovation and infrastructure, because those things lay the foundation for MAKING money.

Instead, RR wants to CUT the latter, increase the military (to blow things up and fatten their friends' wallets) and sit back and watch people (poor, old, etc.) SUFFER.

The USA is NOT a business and should NOT be run like a business. We are a society, and we should be governed by people who understand that FACT and are compassionate towards those less fortunate. We should SPEND money on laying the foundation of growing the economy (infrastructure, education, research/innovation).

[lem144]

Originally Posted by mkiv808

I can't get behind either party these days. The party line policies have gotten ridiculous. No such thing as governing moderately and being flexible on issues. It's either far right or far left, and has turned into a ridiculous reality series.

If you'd paid attention to the last four years everything O has done has been to drive toward the middle. Hell, the healthcare bill was developed by the GOP, they just opposed it because ... they can't stand seeing Obama sign a bill.

[ZaraGSPBMW]

From an Independent point of view (someone who has voted for both R and D since 1982 here’s my two cents. Didn’t vote for O the first time around:

• I thought it was actually important to have a record of accomplishments to stand behind.
• Fantastic campaign theme, “Hope and Change”. Where has any of that gone? Nobody in the Democratic camp even mentions that anymore.
• Ran against an unappealing and uncharismatic politician. War hero, great American Senator, but couldn’t see him as the POTUS. Nonetheless, voted for him.

Over the past four years:
• Quit blaming everything on Bush! Sure you had a hard task ahead of you, and the campaign rhetoric against Bush is was what you do to get into the office. However, after taking the oath of office get to work and set conditions for prosperity…none of that happened.
• Unemployment continues to rise and we are getting more into debt by diverting OUR tax money to bail out Wall Street. I wholeheartedly believe and embrace free-market capitalism, but crony capitalism and bailout makes me sick. Let GM, Fannie and Freddie fail. As a FORMER GM shareholder I got nothing in the bailout…lost thousands of dollars, but I knew my investment wasn’t guaranteed. However, as a consumer I have choice—I’ll never invest or purchase a GM product.
• Oh, regarding GM, O did take the company into bankruptcy! In fact most likely few would have lost their jobs under if they would have executed a Chapter 11 Federal Bankruptcy—restructuring—unlike Chapter 7, which is total liquidation. Would have been nice to see a “true” Chapter 11 because the few who really needed to lose their jobs would have been the CEO, CFO, and COO who obviously couldn’t lead and forecast GM to profits. O kept these guys in place. As I self-discover, I realize I have more in common with the “Occupy Wall Street” clowns than I thought.
• Don’t blame the R’s in congress. Great Presidents transcend partisan politics and unite us as Americans. O has done nothing to unite us, but continues to develop the schism between the “Haves and Have nots”. He has led many to believe that one person’s gain is another’s loss. What BS! Sure, this isn’t a perfect world, but I want to be inspired by my leaders, not made to believe that success comes at another’s misfortune.
• No Mr. President, I am not my brother’s keeper! I am responsible for my own actions and those of my family’s actions.
• I believe that a woman has the right to all reproductive decisions she is entitled to. But, why the hell does the taxpayer need to foot the bill.
• Absolutely believe we should help the poor and disadvantage, but how much is too much. Over the past four years, more people are on food stamps, poverty has increased, and wealth has shrunk. These are facts…so are O’s policies really working. This links to the GM bankruptcy, why keep the CEO when he couldn’t do the job.

Key points made by POTUS on the trail I dispute:
•“UBL is dead and GM is alive”. What BS! GM is on taxpayer life support and fading fast. We had been on the hunt for UBL nearly ten years, it just happened to occur while you win in the Oval Office. In fact, I’ve heard that POTUS was indecisive and that the SECDEF gave the green light. I tend to believe this. Look at the “famous” picture of the moment ST-6 executes actions on the objective. Does O’s face look like that of a decisive figure…not to me.
• “The stimulus worked and would have worked better if we spent more”. Again, what BS! This is a typical Keynesian approach. Turns out O is the first to take a purely Keynesian approach to recessions by boosting aggregate demand. Well, from what I gather, the economic verdict is that it didn’t work. Neil Barofsky, Special IG for TARP, admits that all the effort to remove of the program have failed…at nearly a Trillion dollars of taxpayer money. Yet, he continues to try failed policies.
• Admittedly, if the economy was in good shape the evidence would be clear and I would probably vote for O. Reality is, American’s vote their pocketbook, it’s largely fact. Look at Presidents past: Reagan took office in 1981 amid the “stagflation” and recession of the late 1970s (most of you younger folks have no idea what that was like) and resided over one of the biggest economic booms in American history—great book about this, The Seven Fat Years, by Robert L. Bartley (1992). Another President to preside over great economic prosperity, Bill Clinton in the mid to late 1990s. Common to both these Presidents, the ability to work with a divided congress and get the job done. That is what O has failed to do for the American people.

Lastly, some of you guys need go beyond the reports provided in regular broadcast news. Quit regurgitating party talking points, read about the issues, understand, and formulate your own opinions. For the OP, hope your taking economics. Don’t be one of those students that take out $80k in student loans, majors in Art History or Liberal Arts, graduates and then can’t find a job. If this happens, you have nobody to blame but yourself and your parents. Sorry for sounding so parental, but it took me four years to convince my only child not to major in graphic design. She graduates in the Spring with a BS degree in Environmental Engineering and has great opportunities…none of this was provided by the government my wife and saved and invested for 18 years to get her ready for the world. It will be a brighter world if O gets out of the way.

[BMW_Belgier]

Originally Posted by BMW_Belgier

This is really exciting for a person like me who isn't american...

These are some opinions from the "old continent":

1. Europe is more pro Mr Obama... We can understand his visions more.

2. Mr Ryan is seen as a not apropriate vice... Lacks charisma and does things we find very stupid if you are in such medial focus (his dishwashing episode was a laugh...)

3. Our Swiss Banks would like to see Mr Romney for president... Wonder why...

4. Mr Obama is seen as very intelligent. He also has a very good foreign reputation! Mr Romney is seen as a rude person without interest for other cultures...

5. Mr Romney's religion is not very knowed here... That makes us very sceptical...

6. We hope to see Mr Obama in his second election time as a more fire-filled president...

Just read a opinion count of the biggest swiss newspaper:

88,1 % would like to see Mr Obama win

81 % believe he will win...

[incantana]

The argument that Obama inherited a bad economy is partially true but to use that as an excuse is misleading.

Reagan inherited a far worse economy than obama. Unemployment was higher, gas was literally being rationed. And in 3.5 years he turned it all around. We have 5 million fewer women working now than when obama took office. Minority unemployment has shot through the roof. In September 2012 alone 360,000 people gave up looking for work. Black unemployment has skyrocketed to 15%. He doubled our debt when he said he would cut it in half. Obama had the house and senate controlled for his first 2 years which is a rare advantage. I hate to say it...I really wanted him to succeed. But Obama failed. Miserably. The worst part is that he has never taken responsibility for ANY of it. Not one thing. He blames everyone else. I voted for him in 2008 but cannot vote for him now. He kept very few of his specific promises and the country is decidedly worse off now that it was prior to his election.

If someone is truly an obama supporter based on performance rather than strict loyalty, please try to convince me that my conclusion based on the economic facts is an incorrect one.

[BuraQ]

Originally Posted by incantana

The argument that Obama inherited a bad economy is partially true but to use that as an excuse is misleading.

Reagan inherited a far worse economy than obama. Unemployment was higher, gas was literally being rationed. And in 3.5 years he turned it all around. We have 5 million fewer women working now than when obama took office. Minority unemployment has shot through the roof. In September 2012 alone 360,000 people gave up looking for work. Black unemployment has skyrocketed to 15%. He doubled our debt when he said he would cut it in half. Obama had the house and senate controlled for his first 2 years which is a rare advantage. I hate to say it...I really wanted him to succeed. But Obama failed. Miserably. The worst part is that he has never taken responsibility for ANY of it. Not one thing. He blames everyone else. I voted for him in 2008 but cannot vote for him now. He kept very few of his specific promises and the country is decidedly worse off now that it was prior to his election.

If someone is truly an obama supporter based on performance rather than strict loyalty, please try to convince me that my conclusion based on the economic facts is an incorrect one.

In the time of Reagan most women were house wives and just breaking away from traditional practices, dont forget wars strengthen employment as well.

Reagans times was compeltely different from our era

[incantana]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

In the time of Reagan most women were house wives and just breaking away from traditional practices, dont forget wars strengthen employment as well.

Reagans times was compeltely different from our era

As far as I know, we are in many engagements around the world. One of Obama's most recent was Libya which is still a mess. And just because women were housewives then (which is not exactly true...many worked) doesn't address why 5 million fewer women are working today than when Obama took office. That doesn't address this tragedy at all. And what about the black unemployment rate skyrocketing to 15%? What about doubling the national debt?

And times were different under Reagan in that they were WORSE when he took office. That was my point. And he still managed to turn it around. Under Obama, not only have things not turned around, they have gotten WORSE. What the hell happened to America? Being successful use to be a worthy goal. Now if you make money you're an evil person. True greed is not wanting to keep the millions you have worked for and legally acquired, true greed is demanding that others give you something you did not earn.

[kevinbahnz]

Originally Posted by BMW_Belgier

Just read a opinion count of the biggest swiss newspaper:

88,1 % would like to see Mr Obama win

81 % believe he will win...

Bovada.com money line says Obama is going to win . -375 to +285
That tells you a lot.......

[incantana]

Originally Posted by kevinbahnz

Bovada.com money line says Obama is going to win . -375 to +285
That tells you a lot.......

Id be willing to wager a large sum of 10 bucks that Romney has a decisive victory. I think there are many like me...former Obama voters who feel that he has been a horrible president that will not vote at all or even more devastating, will vote for mitt. Couple this with the massive enthusiasm gap and I believe that Mitt will win in a crushing victory.

Who has Obama actually helped? Obama care takes away 750 billion from medicare.

50% of college graduates cannot find jobs!

Student debt is becoming INSANE

5 million fewer women are working today than when he took office.

The average family household income has dropped by thousands of dollars a year.

black unemployment has hit 15%!

-Obama ran Chrysler plants to Mexico and 61% is now owned by Italian company Fiat.

-GM is heading towards bankruptcy again and it's widely believe that the auto bailout was an utter failure.

Who has benefitted from obama other than the stakeholders of Green energy companies?

His only supporters are those that blindly follow the party with no regard to reality.

[ZaraGSPBMW]

Originally Posted by BuraQ

In the time of Reagan most women were house wives and just breaking away from traditional practices, dont forget wars strengthen employment as well.

Reagans times was compeltely different from our era

Wars only strengthen employment when there is a draft. Since WWII and Vietnam (last draft wars) this paradigm is no longer valid. The War on Terror has been fought with an all volunteer force and has largely unaffected the aggregate work force in the US. There have been increases in certain sectors as a result of the war (contractors as an example), but nothing as seen on the scale of WWII where the US was at virtually full employment—all going to the war effort.

According to the DoL:
1981 to 1989 (Reagan years) the percentage of women to men in the workforce: 48.0% to 54.3%. A total rise of 6.3% in eight years.
At the end of 2009 the percentage of women to men in the workforce: 54.4%.
So, to conclude, in the aggregate we have only seen a rise of .1% since Reagan left office 24 years ago. I may be wrong (these are not my stats), but I don’t think I misread the data charts.
http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/stats_data.htm

[incantana]

Did I want Obama to do well? YES! I live in this country and love America. I want us to be the best there is and continue to improve.

Has Obama done well? NO! So lets get someone different in there that has a chance to do better. How can anyone argue that, based on economics, Obama deserves another term?

If Obama wins, I hope he fails in everything he tries to do...his "successes" have thus far been America's failures.

[gary88]

Did anyone realistically think he could balance $10 trillion of debt, end two wars, and bring unemployment to 4% in just four years?

It's like blaming him for not cleaning the mess up fast enough and voting back in the party that helped cause it.

[incantana]

Originally Posted by gary88

Did anyone realistically think he could balance $10 trillion of debt, end two wars, and bring unemployment to 4% in just four years?

It's like blaming him for not cleaning the mess up fast enough and voting back in the party that helped cause it.

He SPENT trillions himself! regardless of any previous spending. And since when did ending a war cost MORE than engaging in war? in 4 years Obama matched the spending of 8 years of Bush.

Bring unemployment down? He cant even stop it from increasing! and if you took the total labor force that existed when bush was in office unemployment would be over 12%! So many people have given up looking for work that the unemployment is deceptively low and its still HIGHER than when he took office.

And he PROMISED that he would cut the deficit in half. He doubled it. So now you don't hold him accountable to his own promises and blame bush? You are blind.

And what about the unemployment numbers? what about the 5 million women who NO LONGER HAVE JOBS??

what about 15% black unemployment? Is that Bush's fault too?

Blame anyone but Obama. Typical Blind liberal. Don't you dare try to see the other side or think. Don't even try to admit to yourself that the economy is in the toilet and it didn't need to be this way.

Voting back in the party that caused it? BS. Reagan was a conservative. I don't think anyone would have a problem with the economy returning to the reagan era.

[See5]

Probably gonna go ahead and vote for Obama tomorrow. I think he's done alright given the circumstances.

[incantana]

Originally Posted by See5

Probably gonna go ahead and vote for Obama tomorrow. I think he's done alright given the circumstances.

What circumstances are those? You act as if he hasn't been in power for 4 years.

Just blindly ignore the facts. Unbelievable.

I made the mistake of voting for him in 08. Won't ever make that mistake again.

[See5]

Originally Posted by incantana

-Obama ran Chrysler plants to Mexico and 61% is now owned by Italian company Fiat.

-GM is heading towards bankruptcy again and it's widely believe that the auto bailout was an utter failure.

Chrysler might be doing better now than any time in recent history. They have been on fire on the sales charts. Fiat is tanking in Europe however.

GM is nowhere close to heading towards bankruptcy. Anyone saying otherwise is fear mongering.