cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 06:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here's my prediction under a Romney administration. He's going to reduce taxes for the rich before he "creates" 3 million jobs.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 06:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bernanke talked about helping to spur our economy, and Romney threatened to replace him if he does.

Quote:
“It is important to achieve further progress, particularly in the labor market,” Mr. Bernanke said. “Taking due account of the uncertainties and limits of its policy tools, the Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.”

In setting the stage for action when the Fed’s policy-making committee meets in two weeks, Mr. Bernanke appeared to defy political pressure from Republicans to refrain from new measures. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, has said such action would be counterproductive, and has pledged to replace Mr. Bernanke at the earliest opportunity.


People can't see the threats made by a presidential candidate, Romney, when he isn't even the known winner of the coming election.

He's afraid that Obama will get the credit for increasing jobs.


0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 06:55 pm
A line from this editorial in the NY Times written the day after Romney's big convention speech is something all Obama supporters need to remember going into this coming November...


The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/the-hidden-subject-in-tampa.html?_r=1&hpw
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 06:59 pm
@snood,
The sad thing is , it will work. Few voters consider any analysis, instead rely on rhetoric and feel good emotions. It easy to see that here also.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 07:15 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

The sad thing is , it will work. Few voters consider any analysis, instead rely on rhetoric and feel good emotions. It easy to see that here also.


If the GOP/bagger base turns out and some of their dirty polling place tricks keep Dem numbers down, I can see them getting in office.

If the Dems respond and fight back against the massive GOP assault on voting rights by pushing registration and voting and if they don't back down under the onslaught of lies, we still have a good chance.

Everyone needs to do their part. I will be out this weekend canvassing door-to door with a re-elect Obama group here in Durham.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 07:24 pm
@snood,
Sad and true. Look at all that emotional outburst at the convention whether the candidates were talking about their families or telling lies.

Even Clint was confused - talking to an empty chair.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 11:07 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

A line from this editorial in the NY Times written the day after Romney's big convention speech is something all Obama supporters need to remember going into this coming November...


The truth, rarely heard this week in Tampa, Fla., is that the Republicans charted a course of denial and obstruction from the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated, determined to deny him a second term by denying him any achievement, no matter the cost to the economy or American security — even if it meant holding the nation’s credit rating hostage to a narrow partisan agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/the-hidden-subject-in-tampa.html?_r=1&hpw
\
Sounds like nonsense to me. The fact is President Obama and the Democrats were very successful in pushing their legislative agenda during his first two years when they enjoyed large majorities in both houses of Congress and passed Obama/Pelosi care - an unusually strong position in the two branches of government compared to recent President, s most of whom governed with the opposing party in control of one branch of the Congress or the other. It wasn't until the 2010 Congressionsl election that the Republicans took majority control of the house while the Democrats still control the Senate. Here it is noteworthy that under Democrat control the Senate hasn't bothered to even vote on any annual budget proposals for the past three years - not even the budget submitted by the President. This has never happened before in our history.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 08:02 am
@georgeob1,
We have had this discussion before, the democrats only enjoyed a super majority for a short time during those first two years, but yes they did manage to get through some bills. The stimulus was successful in gaining some jobs, facts checkers have confirmed it. Obamacare is good bill and I am glad it passed and it will prolong the life of medicare by eight years not to mention giving health insurance to people who didn't have it before and giving coverage for people with pre-exsiting conditions. Republicans on the other hand have carried out their stated goal of blocking everything they possibly can.

Gridlock in Congress? Blame the GOP
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 08:06 am
Mitt Romney To Flood Victim: 'Go Home And Call 211'

Quote:
He just told me to, um, there's assistance out there," Chiarello said of her conversation with Romney. "He said, go home and call 211." That's a public service number offered in many states.

Chiarello said she will likely seek some other shelter because her home was submerged in the flooding. She expressed frustration about the town's lack of flood protection.

0 Replies
 
snood
 
  7  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 08:23 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob 1 wrote:

Quote:
Sounds like nonsense to me


What’s nonsense? Is it nonsense that a group of 15 Republicans – including Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor and Gingrich and strategist Frank Luntz – met the day Obama was inaugurated to conspire about how they would deny him any victory at all, especially victories that could be construed as bipartisan?

Is it nonsense to say that Republicans have opposed Obama initiatives that they used to support as good ideas (like the individual mandate in healthcare, or the fact that 300 million of the stimulus was tax cuts, or the offer of 10 to 1 cut/spending ratio that was unanimously turned down), simply because it is Obama who is initiating?

georgeob 1 wrote:

Quote:
The fact is President Obama and the Democrats were very successful in pushing their legislative agenda during his first two years when they enjoyed large majorities in both houses of Congress and passed Obama/Pelosi care - an unusually strong position in the two branches of government compared to recent President, s most of whom governed with the opposing party in control of one branch of the Congress or the other.

It wasn't until the 2010 Congressionsl election that the Republicans took majority control of the house while the Democrats still control the Senate. Here it is noteworthy that under Democrat control the Senate hasn't bothered to even vote on any annual budget proposals for the past three years - not even the budget submitted by the President. This has never happened before in our history.


You conveniently ignore that your vaunted 2010 takeover of congress netted little but obstruction to any progress in any area and a refusal to bring to vote any budget or job bill or anything except proposals about women’s healthcare and abortion.

What’s nonsensical is the reasoning of people like you who deny the obvious acrimonious stubbornness that has characterized all of the GOP’s dealing with this President, and the bizarre and endless appeals in this campaign to ridiculous stereotypes of a lazy somehow foreign man who wants to give the country away to other lazy people.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 08:32 am
@snood,
Go, snood. It's the truth.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 02:47 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

You conveniently ignore that your vaunted 2010 takeover of congress netted little but obstruction to any progress in any area and a refusal to bring to vote any budget or job bill or anything except proposals about women’s healthcare and abortion.

What’s nonsensical is the reasoning of people like you who deny the obvious acrimonious stubbornness that has characterized all of the GOP’s dealing with this President, and the bizarre and endless appeals in this campaign to ridiculous stereotypes of a lazy somehow foreign man who wants to give the country away to other lazy people.


My experience in life has suggested to me that it usually takes two to create a fight or a deadlock. I noted that the Democrat majority in the Senate has refused to bring any budget action to a vote for the past three years - a truly unprecedented thing in our history. You blithely ignored that while blaming the Rerpublican House for not acting on various Obama proposals. The House, by the way did pass a budget and forward it to the Senate.

Who/what exactly are "people like you (me)" ?? Is that a racial slur or a political one? Stubborn pursuit of one's principles and self interest is a fairly consistent feature of democracy, and a number of beneficial things have occurred in our history as a result of it. The President has been very notable and nearly unique in his failure to meet or even deal with his political opposition in the Congress, or to involve himself directly in the creation of a coalition leading to compromise in any of his political initiatives. Instead he has played a "gotcha" game with the opposition and indulged in childish grandstanding with his supporters with proposals that had no chance of passage, sometimes even within his own party. This is not the leadership the office requires.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 04:53 pm
@georgeob1,
Does your experience in life include working in an elected position?

You can't simply walk away or go to your boss or the courts to resolve a dispute.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 08:12 pm
@snood,
Good for you. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2012 08:59 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Does your experience in life include working in an elected position?

You can't simply walk away or go to your boss or the courts to resolve a dispute.


No, I have never held elective office. However I have managed several very large organizations, involving thousands of people.

There's nothing either new or novel in the proposition that it generally takes two to start a fight or create a deadlock.

In the case at hand it is fairly obvious that other Presidents have done a much better job than our current one in governong effectively with less than total control of both the Presidency and the Congress. Indeed divided political control of these branches of government is the rule, not the exception in our government. For his first two years Obama enjoyed a highly unusual same party majority of both houses of the Congress. His poarty has enjoyed comfortable control of the Senate throughout his first term.

That he wasted his first two years in an ineffective and expensive "stimulus" and a very fractuous fight over health care, instead of dealintg effectively with the by far most serious issue before him, namely the recovery of employment following a deep recession was simply a misjudgment on his part of major and lasting proportions. Moreover no one forced that on him - he did it himself, despite the urgings of the Republicans in the Congress.

All of this suggests the President is inept at and probably unsuited for something we generally call leadership.

I also think all the whining about the nasty opposition coming from the White House is a bit contemptable, and bespeaks the fairly shallow character of the man in charge.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 09:54 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
There's nothing either new or novel in the proposition that it generally takes two to start a fight or create a deadlock.

No, there's nothing new or novel about that observation, I just don't think it is applicable to this situation.

Actually, in retrospect, you're correct. With the rules of the Senate being what they are, it takes exactly 41 to create a deadlock. Which is very much what has been happening for the last several years.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  8  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 10:18 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
There's nothing either new or novel in the proposition that it generally takes two to start a fight or create a deadlock.

Well, given that you're wrong, I suppose there really is nothing novel about that. A deadlock is frequently the fault of one party, not both. All it takes is one party's refusal to negotiate -- that happens all the time, whether you're dealing with an intransigent foe or a recalcitrant toddler. And starting a fight is pretty easy to do unilaterally.

To suggest that both parties are equally at fault for the breakdown of the legislative process in Washington is either willfully naive or transparently disingenuous.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 10:48 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
To suggest that both parties are equally at fault for the breakdown of the legislative process in Washington is either willfully naive or transparently disingenuous.

There you go using those big words again; that's hardly fair to georgeob1.

George, he's saying that you're either dumb or a liar. I would agree with that. Do you care to tell us which it is?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 10:57 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

To suggest that both parties are equally at fault for the breakdown of the legislative process in Washington is either willfully naive or transparently disingenuous.


I quite agree with that: exact equality is very unlikely. I place far more fault on the Democrats and a self-absorbed, rather inept President who oddly stood above the legislative fray; didn't absorb himself in the details of the programs he proposed; and failed utterly to forge any links with the opposition or to use the established democratic process to deal with urgent problems. Add to that the fact that he ignored urgent issues with respect to the economic revovery in favor of a preconceived agenda, and appears to have very little understanding of the operation of our economy - and you get unassailable and unredeemable ignorance and failure.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2012 11:04 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

George, he's saying that you're either dumb or a liar. I would agree with that. Do you care to tell us which it is?


Gosh ! What a devastating put-down ! What rhetorical flair !
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 69
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 02:23:12