cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2012 01:44 pm
@DrewDad,
The irony of it all! The republicans are blaming Obama for the 14-trillion federal debt, but they don't mention anything about GW Bush's doubling of the debt in his eight years in office.

There are names for such attacks, but that name escapes me! Smile
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2012 01:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Not to put too fine a point on it, the debt is $16T. Maybe when you posted the note, it was only $14T.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2012 09:31 pm
@Ragman,
16T? But most of that money Obama spent was to give tax breaks to the middle class and extend unemployment insurance - both actions that I wholeheartedly agree with!
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 12:06 am
@Ragman,
If we cut 1t per year from the military budget we would have the debt paid off in 16 years.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 12:13 am
@RABEL222,
Nothing that drastic will ever happen during our lifetimes, so it would have to be a gradual spending decline over some years. Our country is already spending too much on borrowed money which must be paid back to the bond holders, and that will be the biggest hurdle for our economy.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 12:37 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Nothing that drastic will ever happen during our lifetimes,


that is what the Greeks were saying up till about a year ago. Now look at them!
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 06:40 am
Why the line that sunk Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush might not work for Republicans

Quote:
Martin O’Malley, Maryland’s very ambitious Democratic governor, stepped in it a bit on Sunday when he said that Americans aren’t better off today than they were four years ago.

It was a dream sound bite for Republicans, who seem convinced that swing voters will ultimately turn on President Obama if they feel the same way. Not surprisingly, Obama’s team moved quickly to provide a different answer, and O’Malley has since said that he thinks Americans are “clearly better off” now.

This illustrates the tricky spot Obama is in. He obviously can’t run the kind of feel good reelection campaign that every incumbent president dreams of, and he risks seeming like he’s trying to spin away the very real anxiety millions of Americans still feel whenever he claims his policies are working or highlights an encouraging economic statistic. But staying mute is hardly an option; doing so would concede the point and make it that much easier for Romney’s team to argue that Obama is a failed president.

And so, O’Malley’s comment aside, Democrats have settled on a message similar to what Brad Woodhouse, the DNC’s communications director, said on CNN this morning:


The truth is though is that the American people know. I mean, we were literally a plane that was heading — the trajectory was towards the ground when the president took over. He got the stick, he’s pulled us up out of that decline.

We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Lost 3.5 millions, Americans I know have not forgotten, we lost 3.5 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush administration. We gained 4.5 million jobs over the past two and a half years.

So if you just put those side by side, clearly we’re better off. However, we have a long way to go.

Context isn’t an easy sell in politics, especially since there’s usually little room for collective memory or foresight in mass opinion. But Obama’s argument may be an exception, because polls consistently show that Americans do remember what happened four years ago – who was president when the economy melted down, how severe and terrifying the fallout was, and how impossible the situation that Obama inherited was. There is evidence that memories of George W. Bush have translated into a benefit-of-the-doubt effect for Obama, leaving him in better political shape than in incumbent president in this economic climate should be.

This is why, as Greg Sargent argued Sunday, Romney’s team may be miscalculating in depending so much on economic anxiety to push swing voters into their camp. They have the examples of 1992 and 1980, the last two times incumbent presidents were defeated for reelection, in mind, but those situations were different. The “Are you better off?” question, in fact, was basically invented in ’80, when Ronald Reagan employed it to devastating effect in his debate with Jimmy Carter. He line worked so well because inflation had nearly tripled on Carter’s watch, and unemployment had climbed nearly two points in the 18 months before the election. To the casual voter, the answer to Reagan’s question was simple and obvious. There was no room for context.

It was the same in 1992. The unemployment rate had been around 5 percent when George H.W. Bush took office, but by the summer of his reelection year it had spiked to nearly 8 percent. The fall brought some signs of improvement, but it was too late for the incumbent. It sure seemed like something had happened on Bush’s watch to hurt an economy that had been working pretty well when he came to power.

This is a much different election. The economy was in a freefall that hadn’t been seen since FDR’s days as Obama was taking the oath of office. If the Wall Street meltdown had played out in September 2009, Obama probably wouldn’t be getting much benefit of the doubt now. But it played out in September 2008, at the end of a presidency that the overwhelming majority of voters had decided was a disaster. This doesn’t mean Obama is in the clear; the polls are close, and even if he wins, it will probably be by a narrow margin. But “Are you better off?” doesn’t automatically undermine him the way it did with Carter and Bush 41.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 08:13 am
Quote:
Saying that things are better off is an insult,” added Romney campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. But if it’s an insult to say that the economy is better off, then Mitt Romney has been slinging some insults of his own, considering how he answered a question from conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham back in January:


INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. […]

INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.

When President Obama took office, the economy was shedding 800,000 jobs per month and contracting at a rate of 8.9 percent. As Time’s Michael Grunwald noted, at that pace, “we would have shed the entire Canadian economy in 2009.” Literally four years ago, in September 2008, the U.S. was gripped by financial panic. Investment banks were failing, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into conservatorship, and the groundwork was being laid for the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout of the financial system.

Now, a slow recovery has taken hold, which is undoubtedly an improvement. And not that long ago, Romney himself was willing to concede as much.


links at the source
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 11:06 am
@revelette,
We all know by now that Romney flip-flops on issues when he believes it'll help him win the white house. He's a damn liar, and everybody knows it except conservatives (they lie to themselves).

0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 11:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
Dident think it will. Just pointing out the politicians mind set. No money for the poor but trillions for the military and the rich. Why do we need to police the world? I will vote dem because they are slightly less militaristic than the republicans. They also seem to be for self determination rather than the republicans believe as I do or go to hell, as in religion.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 01:14 pm
@RABEL222,
Isn't that the irony of ironies when middle class (republican) voters want to give more tax breaks to the rich so that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with the ever increasing national debt.

Is there an adjective that fits better than stupid?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2012 04:41 pm
Paul Ryan: "I didn't lie, I just said things that were deliberately misleading."
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 05:46 am
Mitt Romney's comments about the events in Libya and Egypt are embarrassing and pathetic. Conservatives love to keep repeating that liberals apologize for America. Like most things conservatives believe, it is not true but that doesn't matter to people stupid enough to elect George W. Bush twice and who support people like Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 06:38 am
@jcboy,
What I find most interesting about Romney's comments is how many conservatives disagreed with his opinion.

It proves to many that Romney is not ready to become president, but I wonder how many will overlook this to vote for him anywhose.
jcboy
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 06:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
Agreed, but they will vote for anyone but Obama.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg207/scaled.php?server=207&filename=18186043.jpg&res=landing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 10:04 am
Romney this morning, when asked, defined the 'middle class' as 'anyone making 200-250k or less.'

Riiiiiiight

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 10:05 am
@Cycloptichorn,
The guy is totally out of touch with "reality."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 04:21 pm
@jcboy,
How does it feel to be a puppet for the Obama Campaign?
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 04:27 pm
I'd say probably a lot like being a Romney pawn.
MMarciano
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2012 04:43 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
He doesn't see what you post, he put you on ignore a while ago. Said you were a waste of time.
 

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 71
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:36:27