Yes, I see it now. It's deja vu. Didn't we see this picture twelve
years ago? The plot is the same for this narrative. Only the names have
Employment is up, stock market is on a 5 year high. We can't afford more of
that....Wouldn't it be great if Romney could just slide into a
recovering economy and take credit for it? It must be confusing to be
"Romney has given us his vision for the future in enough detail."Enough detail for any thinking person to recognize that his
"plan" will not work. Second-grade arithmetic is "enough" to
prove that. And those "studies" he keeps citing to support his bad math?
Opinion pieces written by conservative consultants and commentators. Those are
OK, let me get this straight. The President is not a dictator, therefore he
cannot effect change in the national economy by himself without Congress. But
Barack Obama is a failure for not single handedly turning the economy around?
Congress certainly wasn't willing to work with him; their only goal was to
get their man in the White House, regardless of how much they had to hurt the
country to do it. And Mitt Romney has made plenty of statements about how he
himself will put America back to work and on the road to prosperity. Romney and the Republican Congress will never get the deficit to zero. They
want to increase military spending by at least a trillion and believe that
cutting nondiscretionary spending can somehow close the gap when it is the cost
of Medicare, Social Security, and Defense that are the primary source of the
debt. You can lay off every federal employee, gut all minor federal programs,
cease all funding to NPR & PBS, cancel all the government not involved in
Medicare, SS, and defense, and you won't get the deficit to zero. But sure,
elect him and see what happens.
Which Romney? The one who panders to the far right? The one who tries to
pretend to be a moderate? The one who doesn't give a fig about women and
women's rights, or the one who tries to pretend that he does? The one who
disparages close to half the people in the country or the one who, when
he's caught doing so, says he really ddn't mean what he clearly said
in an unguarded moment? There is a different Mitt Romney pretty much every time
he turns around; a guy who tries to etch-a-sketch away what he said and did
before. Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop. That is NOT what we need for President. NO
The real truth is that the President is the only part of the government that
best represents people, all people.State governments and their
“elected” representatives are owned and operated by private interest
groups and not the people who live there. It has been that way since the very
beginning of this nation. It will not change unless the people find a way to
overcome the roadblocks placed in the way of democracy. So, when
the candidate says "I will consult with the Congress and draw on their
cooperation to decide the specifics", he is really saying he will choose the
private interests over the will of the people.
Funniest line in this letter: "he has given us enough detail. . . ."
And I love the 'vision for the future' stuff too. Hilarious.
Romney has proven that he knows how to hire people. This country needs tax
paying workers. Obama has put millions on welfare and then opened the public
treasury to pay their welfare checks. Since he had no money to back those
checks, he borrowed it from China. Now China is holding him hostage. They
demand that more businesses more to China. They demand that no restrictions be
placed on them. Romney has addressed China. Obama has looked the other way.
Romney has addressed taxes and the necessity of creating more jobs and getting
people off welfare. Obama has looked the other way. Romney pointed out that
Obama has stopped oil companies from drilling and that all "new"
production is on private lands. Obama refused to answer the question. It's clear that those who want higher taxes are on the public payroll.
It's clear that they have never owned a business and never hired another
American to work for them. It's clear that they do not have to deal with
the uncertainty of Obamacare and of the regulations Obama's administration
have put on us.
J ThompsonWhat a marvelous fantasy world. More people are on
welfare because of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Romney has 'addressed taxes'? Yes, with a five trillion dollar tax
cut, apparently paid for by some kind of spell he learned at Hogwarts, since
he's described no plausible alternative.As for 'those who want
higher taxes are on the public payroll,' or 'have never hired another
American to work for them,' I would point out that two enthusiastic
supporters of and advisors to Obama include Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Oh, and the Obama administration has reduced federal regulations over those
imposed by Bush. See, isn't it refreshing to deal with facts?
Mr. Obama agrees, it is a one-term proposition.
Each position statement is later clarified...by romney and/or the campaign
and/or the rnc.Vision of the future?
If children could vote, Romney would be against broccoli and for free
puppies.His adult campain isn't any more complicated than that.
To "Mad Hatter" actually what you are seeing is a repeat of the 1980
elections. The Democrats are again running Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan.
Lets not forget how that turned out not only for the Democrats, but for the
nation.To "freedomingood" actually, unemployment is still
growing. They are now able to mask it better. The U6 unemployment number
(those that gave up looking, but would like to work plus the current
unemployment rate) is at 15%. We have the lowest labor participation rate since
@redshirtAnd romney will have the unemployment rate down to 3.7% by
4/15/13 as reported by romney on hannity.
I think Dal meant 'clamor', not 'clamber'. Look 'em up.
To J Thompson: The annual federal budget for TANF, which is the program that
people refer to as "welfare" is 16.6 billion dollars. That budget has
not increased since Obama became president. It represents less than 1/2 of 1% of
federal spending. I'm sure you won't believe me, so look it up.
If you look at GDP trends the US took a sizable dip in 2009. But since then it
is following a similar rate as in years past, in fact, this year the projected
growth is at $800 billion for 2012. You can also add the fact the markets have
doubled in a three year period. Both these economic indicators are at near
record paces. The recovery is not immediate but what can you expect following
the biggest recession in 80 years. The economy is becoming less and less a
political leverage for Romney and team.
I had a good comment that didn't make it into this one.
He has? Oh, cool, so I assume someone tell me what his plan is (with arithmetic)
forA: paying for his 5 trillion tax cut (if he only slashed rates 20%
across the board), specifically which loopholes would he like to closeB:
balancing the budget, or at least cutting the deficit in half.
I vote J Thompson for the Joseph Goebbels memorial chair of propaganda in the
Romney's clear vision for the future is: "Trust Me, I'm just
@ RedShirt 6:47 p.m. Oct. 21, 2012Comparing Willard to Reagan?
Really? If Romney were at one time a "Hollywood Democrat" then
you'd want NOTHING to do w/ him IMO.If you compare Willard to
Reagan's VP then you'd be spot on.Further, Romney &
every President since Reagan has had one thing in common and we all know how the
country has just blossomed. I plan to vote for a Former Gov who was
a legitimate businessman & job creator.... Gary Johnson
One thing to remember is that the main issues are the economy and jobs. Would
you want to bet the next 4 years on a president who has yet to deliver on his
promises regarding the economy or bet on a guy who has made things happen not
only in the private sector but also in the public sector. That is our choice in
November. I will be betting on the guy who has balanced budgets and made
companies successful. This is what we need now, experience.
Contrary to what the author claims, Romney has not given his "vision" of
the future in detail. In fact, he's refused to provide details of how
he'll implement the changes he says he wants. For example, he won't
say what departments or budgets in the fed government he'll cut. He simply
says he'll cut them. Even Ryan, who actually did previously put forth
specifics on cuts he'd like to see went silent on the issue once he became
Romney's running mate. Both men have stated that talking too much about
details will only provide critics with "ammo" to use against them.
Well, how are we supposed to decide if the plan is a good one when they
won't tell us what it is?
To The Deuce 10:47 p.m. Oct. 22, 2012 I will be betting on the guy
who has balanced budgets and made companies successful. --------------------------That lets Romney out of consideration --
the only people he benefitted were the Bain Capital executives who got to rake
in obscene amounts of money from the companies they pillaged. So who are you
going to vote for? Huntsman? Gary Johnson?