Its The Economy, Stupid
Thread Rating:
June 1st, 2012 at 4:13:38 PM
permalink
The job numbers today were appalling. And the stock market
is now in negative territory for the year. Its official, Barry O
cannot run on his record. His record is one of embarrassing
failure. Bain is out, even Clinton is defending Romney on Bain.
The war on women fizzled. Endorsing Gay marriage has come
back to bite them big time. The Supreme Ct will probably rule
against the health care bill later this month.
So whats left? Whats Barry got left to run on? There are
those here who say he just can't lose, he's as good as
elected. I'm not seeing that, exactly. On June 1st 1980
Jimma Carter was in far better shape than Obummer is
now, and Jimma lost in a landslide.
Maybe some of you here can wise me up, whats Barry's
strengths here. Whats going to get him elected?
is now in negative territory for the year. Its official, Barry O
cannot run on his record. His record is one of embarrassing
failure. Bain is out, even Clinton is defending Romney on Bain.
The war on women fizzled. Endorsing Gay marriage has come
back to bite them big time. The Supreme Ct will probably rule
against the health care bill later this month.
So whats left? Whats Barry got left to run on? There are
those here who say he just can't lose, he's as good as
elected. I'm not seeing that, exactly. On June 1st 1980
Jimma Carter was in far better shape than Obummer is
now, and Jimma lost in a landslide.
Maybe some of you here can wise me up, whats Barry's
strengths here. Whats going to get him elected?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 1st, 2012 at 4:19:28 PM
permalink
I am completely with you. I actually don't see a way Obama can win. Just based upon people I talk too the only people voting for Obama are people who voted for him in 2008. There are many, many people who regret voting for him in 2008 and will switch in 2012, and I don't see that same crossover for people who voted for McCain, as a matter of fact, I know nobody who voted for McCain in 2008 with will vote Obama in 2012. And just wait until the latest job numbers get lowered next week as has been happening every week as of late.
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
June 1st, 2012 at 4:24:39 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob
Maybe some of you here can wise me up, whats Barry's
strengths here. Whats going to get him elected?
I don't know why, but he's still up in the polls. And not even just the national horserace polls. He'd have to lose the vast majority of "toss-up" states to lose the electoral college.
I guess one strength that Obama does have is his speaking ability. The consensus position seems to be that he'll "win" the debates pretty easily against Romney, especially if Romney chooses to talk about jobs or healthcare where his own record isn't exactly good.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
June 1st, 2012 at 4:29:27 PM
permalink
I think the lack of expectations on Romney in the debates will help him. If he holds his own, he wins.
A flute with no holes is not a flute, a donut with no holes is a danish
June 1st, 2012 at 4:36:57 PM
permalink
I know the economy is frustrating, I feel it too, completely. But a vote for Romney isn't a vote for jobs, it's a vote for big business interests. Which means more jobs will leave the country as CEOs are forced to continue chasing after the cheapest labor and production overseas to appease fund managers who demand incremental profits every quarter, or else the CEO risks having their stock dumped and tanked, which in turns means the CEO loses his job. Romney will only too happily facilitate the continuing exodus, along with a Republican house. No level playing field provided by tariffs. Just more bottom line for the top 1%. I'll take my chances with the Dems again, thank you. They may be incompetent buffoons, but at least they mean well.
June 1st, 2012 at 4:47:40 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusI don't know why, but he's still up in the polls.
The only polls I look at are Gallup and Rasmussen because they're the
best. They both have Romney at +1. Polls will drive you nuts if you
look at all of them. The site that averages them all together is ridiculous,
it proves nothing. Talk about mixing apples and oranges and trying to
be accurate..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 1st, 2012 at 6:43:31 PM
permalink
Quote: Gabes22I am completely with you. I actually don't see a way Obama can win. Just based upon people I talk too the only people voting for Obama are people who voted for him in 2008. There are many, many people who regret voting for him in 2008 and will switch in 2012, and I don't see that same crossover for people who voted for McCain, as a matter of fact, I know nobody who voted for McCain in 2008 with will vote Obama in 2012. And just wait until the latest job numbers get lowered next week as has been happening every week as of late.
Who cares. Obama,Romney, they are both the same. Obama ran on "change we can believe in." What changes? I will cast my vote this election this year. Last time, I voted for the constitutional party canidate. This year, I vote for neither. BTW, this was the first year that I bought bullets.
Sheeples, wake up!
Edward Snowden is not the criminal, the government is for violating the constitution!
June 1st, 2012 at 6:50:34 PM
permalink
Blame it all on Kennedy.
He blew the whole thing wide open, being the first non-Protestant elected President.
Now, we have to make what would have been an unthinkable choice 50 years ago: do we elect a black or a Mormon?
Change ... there is that ...
He blew the whole thing wide open, being the first non-Protestant elected President.
Now, we have to make what would have been an unthinkable choice 50 years ago: do we elect a black or a Mormon?
Change ... there is that ...
"What, me worry?"
June 2nd, 2012 at 4:57:05 AM
permalink
Its not "It's the economy, stupid", rather, "Its the stupid economy".
Lets hear it for Al Greenspan. And a round of applause for the elected officials that drank the kool-aid.
Lets hear it for Al Greenspan. And a round of applause for the elected officials that drank the kool-aid.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
June 2nd, 2012 at 5:29:13 AM
permalink
Quote: AceCrAAckersWho cares. Obama,Romney, they are both the same. Sheeples, wake up!
Many people believe this- but I just don't understand the thinking behind it. For example, If Obama did not win the last election, we would not have Obamacare.
Obamacare is huge for the economy and for the future of the country. It will personally affect every American.
That's one prime example and it's a huge, huge, HUGE difference between the election of one versus another.
Given the above evidence, how can the argument be made they are both the same?
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
June 2nd, 2012 at 6:11:51 AM
permalink
I voted for McCain last time but I was not totally put off by Obama for some reason--perhaps his polished speeches and all the hype made me less critical of him as the election wore on. The reality of the past 3 1/2 years has changed my opinion of him for the worse. It isn't so much that he has failed to change the economy; it is his blaming of Bush for his not getting the job done ("it was much worse than we thought"). It doesn't matter as much who it can be blamed on as it does what you are doing to fix it. What he has done has not worked very well. The economy has recovered some but it isn't a very good recovery for a whole lot of folks.
Why don't I like the blame thing? He ASKED to be President; he requested our votes so that he could get in office and fix things. We didn't seek him out to be President. It is your job for better or worse, sir!!
Then there is the campaign mentioning a "lack of experience" on Romney's part. What? The guy we elected with only a couple of years as a U. S. Senator (of which a year or more was spent campaigning for President) is now suddenly Mr. Experience and we can't do without his experience? Yes, we can!!
The racial crap bugs the heck out of me. It seems if the race-baiters are trying to trap people into thinking that not liking President Obama is a racial issue. I don't think he is a person I would like to hang out with, but his skin color has nothing to do with that. I just don't think I'd like him if I met him. Could be wrong... His race has nothing to do with why I don't want him to be elected to another term just as it had nothing to do with why I voted for McCain. I just don't like his politics. Are there some who will vote against him because he is not the same skin tone as them? Yes, just as there are some who will vote for him because he is the same skin tone as them. using that as a sole reason for your vote is STUPID no matter what your skin tone!!
I think the President is very vulnerable if the campaign is focused on the results of his Presidency. He will do his best to stay far from the results and to smear Romney in any way possible. Romney will do best if he keeps the focus on the President's record. The President will speak better and come off as more polished at the debates but substance will beat that if Romney has his ducks in a row.
I like election years!!
Why don't I like the blame thing? He ASKED to be President; he requested our votes so that he could get in office and fix things. We didn't seek him out to be President. It is your job for better or worse, sir!!
Then there is the campaign mentioning a "lack of experience" on Romney's part. What? The guy we elected with only a couple of years as a U. S. Senator (of which a year or more was spent campaigning for President) is now suddenly Mr. Experience and we can't do without his experience? Yes, we can!!
The racial crap bugs the heck out of me. It seems if the race-baiters are trying to trap people into thinking that not liking President Obama is a racial issue. I don't think he is a person I would like to hang out with, but his skin color has nothing to do with that. I just don't think I'd like him if I met him. Could be wrong... His race has nothing to do with why I don't want him to be elected to another term just as it had nothing to do with why I voted for McCain. I just don't like his politics. Are there some who will vote against him because he is not the same skin tone as them? Yes, just as there are some who will vote for him because he is the same skin tone as them. using that as a sole reason for your vote is STUPID no matter what your skin tone!!
I think the President is very vulnerable if the campaign is focused on the results of his Presidency. He will do his best to stay far from the results and to smear Romney in any way possible. Romney will do best if he keeps the focus on the President's record. The President will speak better and come off as more polished at the debates but substance will beat that if Romney has his ducks in a row.
I like election years!!
June 2nd, 2012 at 6:35:01 AM
permalink
Anyone who thinks the current system of health insurance for profit is sustainable is in for a rude awakening.
Obamacare may not be the solution but the current model is not going to be workable for more than a few more years.
Why is there no republican plan?
Obamacare may not be the solution but the current model is not going to be workable for more than a few more years.
Why is there no republican plan?
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
June 2nd, 2012 at 6:44:39 AM
permalink
Quote: RonCI voted for McCain last time but I was not totally put off by Obama for some reason--perhaps his polished speeches and all the hype made me less critical of him as the election wore on. The reality of the past 3 1/2 years has changed my opinion of him for the worse. It isn't so much that he has failed to change the economy; it is his blaming of Bush for his not getting the job done ("it was much worse than we thought"). It doesn't matter as much who it can be blamed on as it does what you are doing to fix it. What he has done has not worked very well. The economy has recovered some but it isn't a very good recovery for a whole lot of folks.
I seriously wonder why no polling firm has ever punblished a "caputure index" of people who voted for Obama (or any POTUS) who will be switching away vs how many voted against him and will now vote for. Subtract x form y and get a positive or negative number for the press to report daily. Given how our news caters to short attention-span folks does anybody else think this would be a good product for a news outfit to differentiate themselves with?
Lots of people voted for Obama because he "spoke well" and seemed just packaged so well. McCain was no help, as I keep saying the guy wanted to run, he didn't want to win. This combination drove people like myself nuts in 2008. We pointed out what we knew Obama would become and what we knew would happen. We wer called either racists of wing-nuts.
To me what happened here happens all the time with different things. Fads come in the USA and people do not look at the obvious. When the obvious becomes obvious, those of us who saw it from the start (mostly MAWGs) shake our heads and say, "Duh--we told you this before!"
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
June 2nd, 2012 at 7:22:38 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanI seriously wonder why no polling firm has ever published a "capture index" of people who voted for Obama (or any POTUS) who will be switching away vs how many voted against him and will now vote for. Subtract x form y and get a positive or negative number for the press to report daily. Given how our news caters to short attention-span folks does anybody else think this would be a good product for a news outfit to differentiate themselves with?
I'd be interested in such a number to show which way the tide is moving...
Quote: AZDuffmanLots of people voted for Obama because he "spoke well" and seemed just packaged so well. McCain was no help, as I keep saying the guy wanted to run, he didn't want to win.
The Republican primaries this year featured Gingrich, who also seemed to want to run but not win. To gain attention maybe? Sell more books? I wish both McCain in 2008 and Gingrich in 2012 had stayed away. There would be a bit of a different look to the results in both cases.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis combination drove people like myself nuts in 2008. We pointed out what we knew Obama would become and what we knew would happen. We were called either racists of wing-nuts.
I actually get the feeling more people have been labeled "racist wing-nuts" as President Obama's term has gone along than were called those things at the time of the last election. I think it will be even worse as this year moves along because the President's supporters can't defend his record; it is easier to holler "racist" in a crowded building than defend a poor record.
Quote: AZDuffmanTo me what happened here happens all the time with different things. Fads come in the USA and people do not look at the obvious. When the obvious becomes obvious, those of us who saw it from the start (mostly MAWGs) shake our heads and say, "Duh--we told you this before!"
President Obama ran a better campaign than Senator McCain. It doesn't matter how clear it was to you, or anyone else, it is how clear it is made to the majority of the voters in enough states to win the electoral college that matters. The lesson is out there for Governor Romney...we'll see what happens!!
June 2nd, 2012 at 7:33:09 AM
permalink
Quote: RonCI'd be interested in such a number to show which way the tide is moving...
Maybe I should get the job of saving CNN? :-)
Quote:The Republican primaries this year featured Gingrich, who also seemed to want to run but not win. To gain attention maybe? Sell more books? I wish both McCain in 2008 and Gingrich in 2012 had stayed away. There would be a bit of a different look to the results in both cases.
That was hard on be because I seriously like Newt and think he would make a good POTUS. I don't care for Legislative people because they are hardwired to not make decisions and stands unless forced to (see the current POTUS) but Newt was in a leadership position. He also made the "Contract With America" showing a ability to communicate simply. Cw/A was so simple and successful, however, it may be impossible for Newt to duplicate. IIRC, the congress did everything it promised and Clinton eventually signed most or all of the parts that involved POTUS. (some was just about congressional reforms, no POTUS involvement.)
Quote:President Obama ran a better campaign than Senator McCain. It doesn't matter how clear it was to you, or anyone else, it is how clear it is made to the majority of the voters in enough states to win the electoral college that matters. The lesson is out there for Governor Romney...we'll see what happens!!
Sally Higgins at JFK Junior High School ran a better campaign than McCain. Seriously, when Obama said, "I believe woman should be paid the same as men and he doesn't" at the debate and McCain completely ignored the statement! It makes you start to believe there is a Trilateral Commission pulling all of the strings.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
June 2nd, 2012 at 8:52:26 AM
permalink
All what we need is a business friendly administration cum Congress but none of that European style socialist mentality crap. No business would be willing to increase it`s work force as long as we have the current administration running the show ..
June 2nd, 2012 at 8:56:02 AM
permalink
June 2nd, 2012 at 9:14:21 AM
permalink
Quote: only1choice
I read the article. I do understand that the Republicans in Congress don't necessarily want to cooperate with President Obama right now (they have said so) but, if he had an idea that he could sell to the people and really force the issue with the Congress, they would either have to act or look like they don't care. The problem is that none of his ideas are that good and he'd rather just blame everyone else for his inability to lead.
I know the President does not pass bills or even submit them officially...but we've also seen good leaders get things done. This gentleman had a hard time getting things done when his party controlled both the House and Senate. Do you really think he can do anything now? Blame is so much easier...
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:11:30 AM
permalink
Quote: RonCQuote: only1choice
I read the article. I do understand that the Republicans in Congress don't necessarily want to cooperate with President Obama right now (they have said so) but, if he had an idea that he could sell to the people and really force the issue with the Congress, they would either have to act or look like they don't care. The problem is that none of his ideas are that good and he'd rather just blame everyone else for his inability to lead.
I know the President does not pass bills or even submit them officially...but we've also seen good leaders get things done. This gentleman had a hard time getting things done when his party controlled both the House and Senate. Do you really think he can do anything now? Blame is so much easier...
When you tell the other party to give me the keys and go sit in the back of the bus you should not be suprised when they do not want to work with you.
Obama is the college-kid who thinks he knows how to do the job better than the guy who has been doing it longer than the kid has been alive. Then he tells the guy, "drill a hole here" and the guys says, "sir, I can't do that as there is a fuel tank behind that pannel, I would drill right into the tank." "I SAID DRILL THE HOLE, DRILL IT!" So the guy drills it, then diesel leaks all over the floor and the bus or truck is down for the day. The guy goes back to his job, someone has to fix the tank, and the kid-manager has lost the respect of the entire shop.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
June 2nd, 2012 at 11:51:42 AM
permalink
There is no difference between Obamacare and Romneycare. I'm not sure what "evidence" is cited above.Quote: TheBigPaybakMany people believe this- but I just don't understand the thinking behind it. For example, If Obama did not win the last election, we would not have Obamacare.
Obamacare is huge for the economy and for the future of the country. It will personally affect every American.
That's one prime example and it's a huge, huge, HUGE difference between the election of one versus another.
Given the above evidence, how can the argument be made they are both the same?
Edit: Sorry, there is a difference
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
June 2nd, 2012 at 11:58:06 AM
permalink
Health care without government involvement is simply health care for a limited number of people. That's the GOP plan. Lying liars lying may want to convince others that it can be somehow done without that, but it won't. The product is too expensive.
When people say, too bad if you can't afford health care, take them at their word. That's their answer. All else is lies or magical thinking.
When people say, too bad if you can't afford health care, take them at their word. That's their answer. All else is lies or magical thinking.
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 2nd, 2012 at 12:02:34 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerThere is no difference between Obamacare and Romneycare. I'm not sure what "evidence" is cited above.
Edit: Sorry, there is a difference
Not withstanding the abortion issue noted here (a huge issue, to be sure), there is a major difference between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare"...one takes place in a state; the other is a federal program. The federal government was not designed to control everything--the idea was to leave many (most???) things in the hands of the state governments. The more power ceded to any level of government, the more it will seek.
June 2nd, 2012 at 12:04:22 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwine... Lying liars lying may want to ....
Sounds to me as if we are rapidly approaching an example of Godwin's law.
June 2nd, 2012 at 12:30:34 PM
permalink
HITLER!!!!!Quote: DocSounds to me as if we are rapidly approaching an example of Godwin's law.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
June 2nd, 2012 at 1:21:16 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineHealth care without government involvement is simply health care for a limited number of people. That's the GOP plan. Lying liars lying may want to convince others that it can be somehow done without that, but it won't. The product is too expensive.
When people say, too bad if you can't afford health care, take them at their word. That's their answer. All else is lies or magical thinking.
Have the Republicans said that? Is it part of the platform? I think that both parties are in favor of some form of health care reform but there are differences. I'm betting the government will be involved in either solution.
Labeling everyone a "lying liar" is not an argument or a position...and it moves the discussion towards the crapper. A well written position may sway my point of view on an issue but slapping labels on people will not do change a thing.
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:44:08 PM
permalink
Barry? Romney? Carter? Kennedy?
Whats the difference?
There is endless debate about Republicans versus Democrats but their spending differs very little.
One city in Columbia counted the votes and found that a majority of the voters had elected a foot powder whose sign was in the middle of the campaign signs. Might as well have happened here.
Once they get into power all they want to do is to stay in power and that means cater to minorities and blather about pablum while spending more money to buy the various special interests.
Whats the difference?
There is endless debate about Republicans versus Democrats but their spending differs very little.
One city in Columbia counted the votes and found that a majority of the voters had elected a foot powder whose sign was in the middle of the campaign signs. Might as well have happened here.
Once they get into power all they want to do is to stay in power and that means cater to minorities and blather about pablum while spending more money to buy the various special interests.
June 2nd, 2012 at 2:45:03 PM
permalink
The problem with Obamacare is that the Democrats didn't take the high road in their discussions about the costs. If Obama would have just told the truth, that is, said something like this.... "Every American deserves health insurance. The lack of insurance impedes many of our citizens from seeking and getting the care all deserve. So I am proposing what will forever be known as Obamacare. It will add countless millions to the government's list of insured, from both massive increases in those covered by Medicaid and equally massive amounts to a new 'government option' type of plan. This is what each and every citizen deserves, so that is why I am proposing this plan. I have no frickin idea how we will pay for this, nor do I care. The paying for will come after I am no longer president, but my legacy will be "Obamacare".
June 2nd, 2012 at 5:08:46 PM
permalink
Quote: RonCHave the Republicans said that? Is it part of the platform? I think that both parties are in favor of some form of health care reform but there are differences. I'm betting the government will be involved in either solution.
Obama's birth certificate is not on the Republican platform either, but sometimes you wouldn't know it.
Quote:Labeling everyone a "lying liar" is not an argument or a position...and it moves the discussion towards the crapper. A well written position may sway my point of view on an issue but slapping labels on people will not do change a thing.
Labeling is effective actually (see Hitler/propoganda)
But I will try not to crap on the discussion (until the urge becomes overwhelming).
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 2nd, 2012 at 5:17:34 PM
permalink
" Obama's birth certificate is not on the Republican platform either, but sometimes you wouldn't know it. "
Will Donald trump be Romney's VP selection ?
Will Donald trump be Romney's VP selection ?
June 2nd, 2012 at 7:04:46 PM
permalink
Quote: TheBigPaybak
Obamacare is huge for the economy and for the future of the country. It will personally affect every American.
From my vantage point as a Health Underwriter, I can say that I have seen many examples of this impact. Most involve businesses scrambling to remain grandfathered so they don't have to offer coverage to everyone, or dropping health coverage for many of the lower employee classes because they can't afford it anymore. I've also seen companies totally dropping coverage for all employees, and just giving them a couple hundred dollars a month more to find their own coverage with. None of these items are desirable, but they are a direct result of Obamacare.
Another impact it will have is on the profitability of health insurers and health care providers. Insurers have to refund excess profits due to better medical loss experience and management of claims. In the past, managing claims better meant a healthier bottom line and bigger bonuses and salaries to health care employees. Not any more. My company has already told us of lower profit expectations and correspondingly lower year end bonus projections. So I may see my normal $10-12k bonus drop to only $5-6k. That's $5-6k less that I can use to stimulate the economy via vacations, home remodeling, or buying a new car that much sooner. Thanks again, Obamacare. Ugh!
"Bite my Glorious Golden Ass!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
June 2nd, 2012 at 7:32:31 PM
permalink
I haven't seen a bonus in this century. I have little compassion for a person whose bonus depends on me being overcharged for health insurance.Quote: Toes14So I may see my normal $10-12k bonus drop to only $5-6k.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
June 2nd, 2012 at 9:04:28 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerI haven't seen a bonus in this century. I have little compassion for a person whose bonus depends on me being overcharged for health insurance.
It's not overcharging - it's using skill in negotiating network discounts better than the competition. It's using skill in correctly underwriting and pricing business so you avoid taking big losses on high claimants when your competitors don't. It's managing your members' health better so they avoid having a premature baby rack up $500,000 in costs. It's about putting out programs to cut the percentage of members who smoke and doing a better job of it than the other carriers. Why shouldn't a company that does these things better than it's competitors be rewarded for it?
By the way - a company that does these things and makes a better profit because of it will not need to give out rate increases as big as the one that doesn't.
"Bite my Glorious Golden Ass!" - Bender Bending Rodriguez
June 3rd, 2012 at 3:16:13 AM
permalink
President Obama just doesn't get it...here is a quote from a recent speech:
"If he wins the election, “the fever may break,” he said. “My hope, my expectation, is that after the election, now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again.”
He will NEVER get cooperation if he continues the heavy-handed tactics of telling everyone how he wants it done and not listening to the other side. Cooperation requires two sides to participate; his way or the highway will not lead to cooperation. You can agree or disagree with his positions but the way he tries to gain what he calls "cooperation" does not work.
One side has to decide to be smarter than the other and start the ball rolling with small changes that no one can disagree with and push the other side into a position of either looking like they oppose something very popular or having to go along with it. There can't be any "extras"...it has to be a straightforward idea that can't be tossed out because of the other crappy ideas in the bill.
"If he wins the election, “the fever may break,” he said. “My hope, my expectation, is that after the election, now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again.”
He will NEVER get cooperation if he continues the heavy-handed tactics of telling everyone how he wants it done and not listening to the other side. Cooperation requires two sides to participate; his way or the highway will not lead to cooperation. You can agree or disagree with his positions but the way he tries to gain what he calls "cooperation" does not work.
One side has to decide to be smarter than the other and start the ball rolling with small changes that no one can disagree with and push the other side into a position of either looking like they oppose something very popular or having to go along with it. There can't be any "extras"...it has to be a straightforward idea that can't be tossed out because of the other crappy ideas in the bill.
June 3rd, 2012 at 5:41:40 AM
permalink
If you think Romney is a favorite in the election, you can get a great price right now!
U.S. 2012 Presidential Election: Winning Party
WED 6/6 WINNING PARTY (ALL IN WAGERING)
Maximum Bet: 5000.00 USD
05:00 PM 1351 Democrat -148 Risk To Win
1352 Republican +134
U.S. 2012 Presidential Election: Winning Party
WED 6/6 WINNING PARTY (ALL IN WAGERING)
Maximum Bet: 5000.00 USD
05:00 PM 1351 Democrat -148 Risk To Win
1352 Republican +134
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:26:05 AM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerThere is no difference between Obamacare and Romneycare. I'm not sure what "evidence" is cited above.
Edit: Sorry, there is a difference
1. To be clear, for *this* upcoming election, Romney has stated he would work toward the repeal of Obamacare. Obama does not have that position, obviously.
2. For the 2008 election, if Obama did NOT win, we WOULD NOT have Obamacare now- there is a 0% chance we would have Obamacare or anything like it now.
As another example, if Bush did not win in 2000, it's also certainly likely we would not have invaded Iraq.
So again, I do feel strongly it matters who is elected:
1. Iraq War vs. No Iraq War
2. Obamacare vs. No Obamacare
It's hard to argue that if the opposing candidate won, that these two major items would still be in the history books. So I do feel it matters greatly who we vote for.
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:44:30 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineQuote: RonCHave the Republicans said that? Is it part of the platform? I think that both parties are in favor of some form of health care reform but there are differences. I'm betting the government will be involved in either solution.
Obama's birth certificate is not on the Republican platform either, but sometimes you wouldn't know it.
"Of all the nutty rumors, baseless conspiracy theories and sheer disinformation that we’ve dealt with at FactCheck.org during campaign 2008, perhaps the goofiest is the claim that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” and therefore not eligible to be president under the constitution.
This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls."
(from factcheck.org)
That is a pretty big stretch to try to paint it as a main line Republican position...we know for a fact that the question of President Obama's citizenship is not part of the official Republican strategy just as it wasn't part of the official Democrat strategy when supporters of Hillary Clinton advanced the idea in the first place. The farthest out, in either direction, will hold on to things that are not supported by the main body of the party.
Now...I do find it interesting, but not necessarily controversial, that all the fuss was made over how "smart" all of the candidates in the 2000 and 2004 election cycles were based on college grades yet no one seems too bothered by the lack of the same information about President Obama. It doesn't matter at this point in any real way--he has proven himself to be an ineffective leader over his time as President; the grade for this job is the only one that matters!!
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:53:16 AM
permalink
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:55:35 AM
permalink
Quote: only1choiceNot to question your facts but where is this website?
http://factcheck.com/
He's probably referring to:
http://www.factcheck.org
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:56:27 AM
permalink
Quote: DocQuote: only1choiceNot to question your facts but where is this website?
http://factcheck.com/
He's probably referring to:
http://www.factcheck.org
Thank you...corrected!!
June 4th, 2012 at 3:16:29 PM
permalink
Maybe they are alike:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-04/romney-bashes-solyndra-s-loan-as-solar-company-he-backed-fails.html
Quote:Republican Mitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama last week for backing failed Solyndra LLC, just days before a solar-power company Romney supported when he was governor of Massachusetts went out of business.
Konarka Technologies Inc. filed to liquidate on June 1 after getting state and U.S. aid, a development that may blunt Romney’s case against Obama’s use of tax money to fund clean- energy innovation and muddy his attempts to use Solyndra to show Obama’s broader economic failures, a professor said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-04/romney-bashes-solyndra-s-loan-as-solar-company-he-backed-fails.html
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 4th, 2012 at 3:38:25 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineMaybe they are alike:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-04/romney-bashes-solyndra-s-loan-as-solar-company-he-backed-fails.html
They have more similarities than I would like, but I'll take Governor Romney over President Obama this time around. Neither is even close to my "perfect candidate" but I think President Obama has done poorly enough that he does not deserve a second term.
This article does show some government support from Romney by following the recommendations of a board and using $9 million dollars to support green energy. One company that got $1.5 million failed almost a decade later and somehow that is comparable to a company getting $535 million in loan support that failed some 2 years after the loans (grants, cash, whatever it was). Sorry, this doesn't really pass the smell test as a valid comparison. The article also does not show Romney giving the money to supporters while it does mention that that money that President Obama handed out went to supporters ("A foundation run by George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire and Obama fundraiser, was a leading investor in Solyndra.").
June 4th, 2012 at 3:44:34 PM
permalink
Krugman seems to think we've already had a Republican strategy.
here
Quote:Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years.
here
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 4th, 2012 at 3:50:37 PM
permalink
I heard a pundit who has covered every POTUS election
since Reagan/Carter say something interesting. The
press corps has a saying in June and July that 'the cake
is in the oven' and in August its 'the cake is done'. Which
means what happenes in June and July is crucial to any
campaign. They feel that the awful employment numbers
last week and the slowdown in factory orders is deadly
to the Obama camp, because it happened in June. And
if things don't improve drastically in the next 8 weeks,
its almost a done deal that Obama is toast.
since Reagan/Carter say something interesting. The
press corps has a saying in June and July that 'the cake
is in the oven' and in August its 'the cake is done'. Which
means what happenes in June and July is crucial to any
campaign. They feel that the awful employment numbers
last week and the slowdown in factory orders is deadly
to the Obama camp, because it happened in June. And
if things don't improve drastically in the next 8 weeks,
its almost a done deal that Obama is toast.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
June 4th, 2012 at 3:53:27 PM
permalink
Quote: Gabes22I am completely with you. I actually don't see a way Obama can win. Just based upon people I talk too the only people voting for Obama are people who voted for him in 2008. There are many, many people who regret voting for him in 2008 and will switch in 2012, and I don't see that same crossover for people who voted for McCain, as a matter of fact, I know nobody who voted for McCain in 2008 with will vote Obama in 2012. And just wait until the latest job numbers get lowered next week as has been happening every week as of late.
"I actually don't see a way Obama can win" >>> As much as I DON'T want him to win....I have an early guess of YES, another 4 years.
Ken
June 4th, 2012 at 4:13:19 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineKrugman seems to think we've already had a Republican strategy.
here
It is pretty hard to argue that this is a Republican economy when the Democrats controlled everything once President Obama was elected and did so until the next election with a little of erosion of power upon Senator Kennedy's death. They seem to be able to say the Republicans are the only reason things are the way the are. Really? The Democrats have nothing to do with it?
The economy isn't in the control of the President, of course, but it is good leadership that helps us do what we can to get the economy back on track. Blaming Bush is not an economic policy. It is the sign of a leader who wants all the credit and none of the blame for things as we move along. Everyone pretty much understands the decisions of other Presidents lead to some issues moving forward...and they ask for the job knowing full well they will have to take care of those issues.
Why is it so hard for everyone to see that the Blame Bush policy is not the leadership our country needs?
June 4th, 2012 at 4:17:55 PM
permalink
Quote: RonCQuote: rxwineKrugman seems to think we've already had a Republican strategy.
here
It is pretty hard to argue that this is a Republican economy when the Democrats controlled everything once President Obama was elected and did so until the next election with a little of erosion of power upon Senator Kennedy's death. They seem to be able to say the Republicans are the only reason things are the way the are. Really? The Democrats have nothing to do with it?
The economy isn't in the control of the President, of course, but it is good leadership that helps us do what we can to get the economy back on track. Blaming Bush is not an economic policy. It is the sign of a leader who wants all the credit and none of the blame for things as we move along. Everyone pretty much understands the decisions of other Presidents lead to some issues moving forward...and they ask for the job knowing full well they will have to take care of those issues.
Why is it so hard for everyone to see that the Blame Bush policy is not the leadership our country needs?
Whats funny is......in the last year or so, its no longer BLAMING Bush.....its now referred to as, blaming the previous administration.
Ken
