Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.      Home login  
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 201
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.Page 9 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

Best on Jobs, or Worst?

The Romney ad claims that as governor of Massachusetts, “Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.” Well, best or the worst, depending on how you want to measure it.

The Romney campaign bases its claim on the fact that during Romney’s four years in office, Massachusetts added a net 49,100 jobs (an increase of about 1.5 percent). In the four years under Romney’s predecessor, Republican Jane Swift, the state added 19,000 jobs (an increase of 0.59 percent). In the next four years under Romney’s successor, Democrat Deval Patrick, Massachusetts lost a net 66,400 jobs (a decrease of 2.03 percent).

But that ignores national employment trends that largely drive state employment. In particular, it ignores the national recessions both before and after Romney was in office.

So how did Massachusetts do compared with other states? As the Obama campaign has repeatedly noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states over the entirety of Romney’s four years as governor in terms of job creation. By comparison, Massachusetts ranked 37th in job growth under Swift, and it ranked 10th in Patrick’s first term.

By that measure, Romney had the worst record in a decade.

The Romney campaign has pushed back against that statistic, noting that Massachusetts’ job growth ranking improved year to year under Romney. As we wrote in an item this week when an Obama ad claimed Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney, in the 12 months before he took office, the state ranked 50th in job creation. That ranking remained 50th during Romney’s first year in office, but by his final year, it had improved to 28th.


Unemployment Tracks National Rate

The ad claims Romney “reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.” It’s true, according to unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that the unemployment rate in Massachusetts was 5.6 percent when Romney took office in January 2003, and it was 4.6 percent when he left office in January 2007.

But again, that’s not nearly as impressive when viewed against the nation’s unemployment record at the time. Massachusetts’ unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national unemployment rate of 5.8 percent when Romney took office and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.

About Those Fees …

Finally, the ad claims Romney “balanced every budget, without raising taxes.” Massachusetts’ Constitution requires a yearly balanced budget, so the boast isn’t — or shouldn’t be — that Romney balanced the budget every year. Rather, it’s that he did it without raising taxes.

It’s true that Romney never raised personal income taxes as governor. But as we have noted repeatedly, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars, and he also closed loopholes on some corporate taxes (a fact we have noted whenever Romney has claimed he did not raise taxes as governor).

As we wrote in 2007 when Romney was making his first presidential bid, Romney in 2003 doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses.

Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline.

All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year. Romney also “closed loopholes” in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue.

In addition, Romney cut aid to local cities and counties.

In 2004, Romney cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget.

The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state’s cities and towns, saidRomney’s cut “forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees.”
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 202
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/30/2012 11:50:16 AM
On OCTOBER 30, 2012 contrary to the lies of Mitt Romney.

Chrysler Chairman & CEO, Sergio Marchionne in an open letter to the Detroit News Oct 30, 2012

Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand.
It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.

'Nuff said.
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 203
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/30/2012 11:54:01 AM

So how did Massachusetts do compared with other states? As the Obama campaign has repeatedly noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states over the entirety of Romney’s four years as governor in terms of job creation. By comparison, Massachusetts ranked 37th in job growth under Swift, and it ranked 10th in Patrick’s first term.

By that measure, Romney had the worst record in a decade.

OK..Ill bite. By THAT cherry-picked measure.

But by this measure, he had the BEST record:

~The Romney campaign bases its claim on the fact that during Romney’s four years in office, Massachusetts added a net 49,100 jobs (an increase of about 1.5 percent).
~In the four years under Romney’s predecessor, Republican Jane Swift, the state added 19,000 jobs (an increase of 0.59 percent).
~In the next four years under Romney’s successor, Democrat Deval Patrick, Massachusetts lost a net 66,400 jobs (a decrease of 2.03 percent).


Or, to put it another way, Republican Romney had a better net jobs record than the Republican governor who preceeded him, & he also had a better record than the Democratic governor who replaced him.

Joined: 8/25/2011
Msg: 204
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/30/2012 3:47:39 PM
Romney was right....let them go bankrupt & restructure. A simple bankruptcy & restructuring would have accomplished the same thing - for free.

Any idea why Romney didn't feel the same about the banks?Too many big shot investors would lose?
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 205
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/30/2012 3:55:03 PM
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.

With the recent hurricane to hit the East-coast some are wondering what Romney's track record with such things:

As governor, Mitt Romney failed Massachusetts when disaster struck
Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 08:53 AM PDT
by Laura ClawsonFollow

...In 2004, Romney vetoed funding for flood prevention in recently flooded Peabody, Massachusetts. Romney claimed he didn't have enough information about the project, though local officials said they had given him lots of information. In 2006, Peabody flooded again. Romney was there for a photo op after the flood, but Peabody probably would have preferred to have had the funding to prevent flooding in the first place.

When the city of Greenfield flooded, in 2005, Romney was too busy traveling the nation positioning himself for a presidential run to find out the extent of the flooding or declare an emergency. The most senior person in his administration, the city's mayor, could get in touch with was the lieutenant governor's chief of staff...

Read more about how Romney would screw you over in case of an emergency at:

Timeline of Romney dealing with the Flood:


April 1-2, 2004: A massive storm drops 8 inches of rain in 24 hours, flooding downtown Peabody for the fourth time in eight years. Gov. Mitt Romney declares a state of emergency.

April 9, 2004: Romney asks President Bush to declare Essex County a federal disaster area.

April 21, 2004: President Bush declares Essex County a “major disaster area.”

May 8, 2004: Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency official suggests trying to get state funding to address flooding problems.

May 20, 2004: Sen. Fred Berry requests state funding for flood mitigation as part of supplemental state budget.

Sept. 9, 2004: State Legislature passes supplemental budget, including $5.7 million for Peabody flood control.

Sept. 17, 2004: Romney vetoes Peabody flood aid. Romney spokeswoman later claims governor was unable to reach city officials. An angry Mayor Michael Bonfanti notes that City Hall was closed for former Mayor Peter Torigian’s funeral.

Sept. 30, 2004: Bonfanti and other city officials visit the Statehouse; Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey promises to look for “creative solutions.”

January 2005: Romney unveils budget that includes $2 million for flood aid, but money is later cut by House Ways and Means Committee.

November 2005: State Senate passes economic stimulus package, including $2 million for Peabody flood aid, but bill remains stuck in House-Senate Conference Committee.

May 12-14, 2006: Torrential rains again flood Peabody. Romney visits and pledges state help.

Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 206
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/30/2012 6:08:33 PM

Some days, it really is troubling what some people BELIEVE passes for information to share. Can all of you not do your own research, BEFORE posting something?

You're not exactly one who should be chastising others on this matter.
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 207
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/30/2012 6:37:28 PM

Republican Party (U.S.): What is the future of the Republican Party?

I will begin by noting a little-known fact about me around here: I'm a registered Republican, I donate (or rather, used to) sometimes to politicians including Republicans, I've helped run fundraisers for Republican candidates, and there was a time when my views on things tended to be considered by most people moderate to conservative. My views on most of those things haven't changed, mind you, it's just that the definition of "small government" and "conservative" has changed over time until the terms barely have any legitimate relationship to their original concepts.

I will not be voting for the GOP again in most any elections, and I'll be ending my registration as a Republican. The party has abandoned any pretense of being rational or caring about the average voter. The party has become dominated by fringe elements, and has come to represent extremist views at the expense of all else. Fanaticism governs perception, causing rejection of even the most obvious and undeniable truths and facts about our world. I will even go so far as to say that the party is making delusion a central component to most every major policy position.

A party with any kind of future as a legitimate, rational, valued part of governance doesn't attempt widespread voter disenfranchisement by blocking black people from voting. The GOP's public attempt to restrict voting by poor people, black people, and even by likely Democratic Party voters in general, was as shocking as it was shameless. A party abusing its power to such an outrageous extent as to literally attempt to subvert democracy and stop voting in order to rig elections heavily in their own favor is not a party that deserves serious consideration as an acceptable participant in electoral politics.

The GOP wants to restrict abortion so much, they are even willing to enact laws forcing women to undergo what amounts to sexual assault in order to get abortions. That may sound like an extreme statement, but it's a reaction to the extreme position of the GOP regarding forcible transvaginal ultrasounds for women who want abortions. And they want women seeking abortions to be shamed and pressured into reconsidering. And they call women who want health insurance to subsidize birth control "sluts" and "prostitutes." And they say women who have deformed or mentally retard children are being punished by God for having had abortions. And they think women who get pregnant by rape are not really raped. And they think a child impregnated by her father should still have to get the incestuous rapist's consent to have an abortion -- or in fact they overall don't think abortion should even be allowed in the case of rape and incest.

Which is all a representation of attitudes that regard women as second-class citizens to be used and abused by men, degraded and treated like property or chattel. I know many defenders of the GOP will object, but they need to first more loudly and publicly object to the GOP's position on such issues and denounce those in their midst who engage in such disgusting behavior, and change the party platform so it doesn't directly embody these kinds of inhumane positions, before they complain to me for just frankly assessing the reality of GOP policy toward women and reproductive health. Because the truth is these ARE widespread attitudes among the GOP leadership and elected officials, these ARE bills and laws enacted and supported by GOP officials and voters, these ARE things found in GOP sentiments and party planks and laws. When it's not true, I won't have to say it, so get mad at the people who make it true, not me.

The GOP hates homosexuals. I don't care about the excuse-makers who will insist the GOP doesn't hate anybody, because they know and I know the truth. The GOP opposes marriage equality for homosexuals, opposes any protections against housing and job discrimination for homosexuals, opposes adoption for homosexual couples, opposes any teaching that homosexuality is acceptable or normal, supports criminalization of "sodomy" to target homosexuals, supports group prohibition of homosexual membership (such as the Boy Scouts), supports church condemnation of homosexuality, regularly condemns a so-called "gay agenda," has many elected officials and members who use slurs against homosexuals constantly, and overall promotes a very clear and prejudiced attitude against gay rights and gay people.

To deny this is simply disingenuous and irrational, and looks foolish. It's a fact, the GOP only "likes" gay people's money and votes if it can manage to get them, but the party is otherwise against homosexuality and seeks to deny equal protection and basic civil liberties and human dignity to gay people. It's hatred, and if supporters of the GOP don't like me using that word, then they need to go focus their attention on denouncing the fact of the party's behavior and platform and laws and speech in this matter, not complain to me for speaking the truth about it.

The GOP's answer to every economic situation is: cut taxes for the wealthy; cut taxes for corporations; do away with as many taxes as possible; privatize every public sector resource and service; deregulate industries; hand over natural resources, lands, and property to corporations for exploitation; cut social services and use taxpayer money to subsidize private sectors instead; subsidize corporate contracts and pay and exploration with taxpayer money (less and less of which will come from wealthy people and corporations).

That's it, that's the GOP blueprint for EVERY ECONOMIC ISSUE EVER, ALWAYS. It's the same economic platform they've had for going on 32 years now, and they act like it's somehow some brilliant new concept that nobody's tried before.

Well, we have tried it -- from 1981 through 1992, and again from 2001 through 2008. It led to massive deficits; recessions; massive expansion of wealth for the richest people and worsening conditions for the poor and working classes; a shrinking of the middle class; collapses in banking and investment institutions that required massive tax payer bailouts while the people responsible got richer; gutting of social services for the elderly, the poor, and children; and redirection of spending to wars and corporate contracts, and away from education and other priorities. I'm not even going to engage in debate with disingenuous claims that these things are the reality of GOP economic policies in the modern era. This is what happened, this is the truth, and most people can see it. The denials are empty, so save them, please.

But the GOP has managed to convince a significant number of people to simply vote against their own economic self-interests anyway. How? God, race, and fear of the unknown, that's how. People will go along and pretend to believe the simplistic attempts to claim trickle-down b.s. works, because they don't care as much about that as about religious fanaticism, racial prejudice, and fear that someone's going to take their guns or turn the U.S. over to Muslims/Marxists/Mexicans/other boogeymen.

The GOP realizes that the combination of people who are benefiting from the extreme economic policies, the people who are religious fanatics, the people who are racially prejudiced enough, who are paranoid about guns/commies/immigrants adds up to just barely enough of the likely voters that the party only has to sway a tiny fraction of "undecided" voters and disenfranchise or demotivate a small fraction of Democrat Party supporters in order to secure a victory margin.

That's all a generalization, of course. I'm talking overall, most, etc. There are a few people here and there who fit into other categories with other reasons for their votes for the GOP, obviously. But broadly speaking, it's about money, God, race, and fear. Fear includes guns, immigrants (which cross-pollinates with race), commies/socialists, and nowadays terrorism (which cross-pollinates with God and race).

Conservative principles about limited government and responsible models of lifestyle expectations (including a strong middle class, economic stability and opportunity, and responsible budgeting), about defending the early principles of freedom in this Republic as conceived by the founders of our government, and a TRULY "free market" don't even exist anymore.

Anyone still supporting such principles doesn't frankly have a real place in a GOP that seeks to expand government to historic levels in terms of scope of government power over citizens' lives and choices; interference in and subsidization of the economic market to the point of erasing real competition; extreme expansion of deficit spending amid out of control government expenses; constant resort to war and conflict around the world (after almost a century of the Democrats starting wars and the GOP ending them eventually); and the undermining of some of the most important basic concepts of liberty and freedom, via modern attempts to turn the government into a near theocracy while seeking to literally directly outlaw and restrict voting by their opponents to extreme degrees, alongside singling out racial minorities to try and block their likelihood and ability to vote.

What I'm describing is an accurate portrayal of the modern Republican Party. And it's not a party with a bright future, if that future is to remain a democracy and a leading global power. It's not a party that is truly mainstream, it's a party that's becoming a fringe grouping of the most extreme ideas and paranoia, coupled with the most flagrant violations of individual liberties and concepts of democratic rule. The GOP needs a civil war within its ranks and leadership, to wrestle control away from the fanatics at the wheel now and in office now, to return the party to its best principles and origins, and to moderate the rapid slide into rightwing irrelevance that is now clearly the future of the party in coming years. Moderate Republicans and conservatives should already be jumping ship to go to the Libertarian Party, but so far a lot of them have hesitated making the jump -- well, if the GOP doesn't change course soon, then in another four to eight years those moderates will have to either make the leap from the party or just resign themselves to being part of a lunatic fringe that's going to sink this country further down a hole from which, eventually, there just won't be any return.

But if the future of this country is inevitable decline, if we're at the cusp of a new age when the U.S. will turn away from economic prosperity forever and toward increasing isolation, anger, confusion, and a spiral toward less democracy and more need for hardline national security state measures to control a population without jobs and without hope of seeing the U.S. regain its place among the brightest, most prosperous, and freest states in the world, then that's a future in which the current GOP will almost surely have a very secure future, because their recipe for governance fits it perfectly.

*Added notes: Richard Nixon couldn't even get nominated in today's GOP, he's be considered too leftwing. There's a very strong argument, in fact, that Nixon was overall more "liberal" -- or at least, less "conservative" -- than Obama. Look at their domestic policy, their tax policy, their health care reform ideas (Nixon had one of the best single-payer universal health care plans ever conceived by a politician), their jobs and monetary policies, their support for regulations, then compare their wiretapping and privacy violations. Nixon was impeached for lying and eavesdropping on dozens of people -- how quaint does that seem NOW?

The ugliness of the GOP has reached a level that makes it impossible for me to justify remaining a registered Republican. The party has abandoned me and people like me, by abandoning rational positions and embracing hatred and extremism. This year has seen things I'd never have honestly imagined possible, things that seem like a bad, hyperbolic satire rather than the actual behavior and positions of a major political party. Things have gone too far, and any claim that it's a few bad apples or doesn't really represent most of the party or the true GOP etc are false -- these aren't exceptions, these are the RULE now. There was a time when much of the GOP's modern policies and attitudes were the stuff of the far-right fringe, the "militia movement" types and the somewhat crazy followers of Pat Buchanan. Not anymore, now there seems to be no "fringe" for the GOP anymore, it's all front and center as the governing mentality of a party that has lost its way.

Quora – Mark Hughes, Forbes Contributor – September 2012
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 208
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/30/2012 8:17:23 PM

@message 255: Great post. The GOP is a mess, that's for sure. Loaded with a lot of very crazy ideas which are detrimental to the country in general. The last Republican administration ran this country into the ground; another one would do just as badly. Look at this guy Romney: he changes his 'position' on everything depending on who he is talking to--he'll say anything to get elected. He's a phony, a bag of hot air.

The Democrats are a mess, that's for sure. Loaded with a lot of very crasy ideas which are detrimental to the gounty in general. The last democratic administration created the credit nightmare that collapsed the economy (,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html) He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation.) and the current one is as bad as Wile E. Coyote as he runs off a cliff without even knowing he has nothing under him. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth constantly telling whoever whatever they want to hear as long as it sounds like he will be providing them something that. He'll say anything to get electyed. He's a phony, and actually, his image has been so overblown by the liberal left and the media that in the end it's finally obvious that he is literally an empty suit.
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 209
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/31/2012 6:46:49 AM
^^^The bank bailouts are slowly turning a profit for taxpayers.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- September 11, 2012. The federal government is slowly closing the books on its bailouts of 2008, many of which have actually turned a profit. But taxpayers are still owed more than $200 billion from some of the highest-profile bailouts.

On Tuesday, Treasury announced that it sold $20.7 billion worth of American International Group (AFF) stock. That brought payments to Treasury from the AIG bailout to $66.3 billion, plus another $930 million in dividends and interest. Treasury also cut its stake in the company to 15.9% from 53%.

When it sells off its remaining stake, Treasury should turn a profit on the $69.8 billion portion of the AIG bailout. that came out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The New York Federal Reserve recently reported a $17.7 billion profit on its portion of the AIG rescue. Treasury's statement Tuesday pointed out that counting the TARP and Fed bailouts together, the AIG bailout has already turned a $15.1 billion profit for taxpayers.

"Taking action to stabilize AIG during the financial crisis was something the government should never have had to do, but we had no better option at the time to protect the American economy from the damage that would have been caused by the company's collapse," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who was the head of the New York Fed when it started the AIG bailout. "To stabilize and then restructure the company with a very substantial positive gain for the American taxpayer is a significant accomplishment."

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- September 6, 2012. The U.S. auto industry's recovery is one of the biggest success stories of the last four years.

American automakers are reporting improving sales and record profits and hiring additional workers to meet surging demand.

Romney released a highly misleading ad in Ohio this week that criticizes President Obama’s handling of the bailout and touts his own apparently unreleased plan to help the auto industry.

Romney’s actual plan was to oppose federal financing of the auto companies’ bankruptcy; instead, he wanted the private sector to finance the rescue while the government guaranteed post-bankruptcy loans. But private sector financing was “pure fantasy” at the time, according to industry insiders, because credit markets were “bone-dry” in the middle of the financial crisis.

Reporters and auto insiders aren’t alone in their criticism of Romney’s stance on the auto rescue, though. Here are six Romney supporters who have also contradicted his view of the auto bailout or criticized his plan:

1. Michigan Rep. Fred Upton: In February, Upton told Western Michigan University’s WMUK radio that only the government could have saved the auto industry. “There was no one that was willing to come up not only with the cash to keep them afloat but also to serve the warranties of everyone, you and I that drive all these cars,” Upton said. “There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government.” He also contradicted Romney’s claim that the rescue was a bailout of auto unions, saying it was “bi-partisan from the get-go.” Without the bailout, Upton said, Michigan “would have hit 40 percent unemployment rates.”

2. Michigan Rep. Thad McCotter: “There was no choice” but to use government funds to save the auto industry, McCotter told MSNBC in February. “So to my fellow Republicans I’ll simply remind them, if you were in Congress at the point in time or if you were President Bush, you could leave all $700 billion of taxpayers hard-earned money with the Wall Street people, or you could take some back to Main Street to keep America a balanced, vibrant economy,” McCotter said. “To me there was no choice.”

3. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder: In November 2011, Snyder urged Republicans to stop second-guessing the auto rescue, even if they disagreed with how it was done, because it had delivered incredible results for Michigan and the auto industry. “I would have had some differences on how they did it, but I’m not going to second-guess it,” Snyder told the New York Times. “The more important thing is the results. And the auto industry is doing very well today.”

4. Auto Industry Task Force member Harry Wilson: Wilson, a member of Obama’s Auto Industry Task Force who has run for office as a Republican in New York, criticized Romney’s view of the bailout last week. “I’m, as you know, a Republican who supports the governor. But I think on this issue, I think he’s really mishandled it,” /b[]Wilson told Bloomberg. “He came out both in 2008 and earlier in 2012, in a piece in one of the Detroit newspapers, and said he wouldn’t have supported any government capital because private capital was available. That’s simply not true.”

5. The Detroit News editorial board: A self-described “conservative newspaper,” the Detroit News endorsed Romney for president last week. But in its endorsement editorial, the paper blasted Romney for his “wrong-headedness on the auto bailout.” Romney “was wrong in suggesting the automakers could have found operating capital in the private markets,” the editors wrote. “Romney suggested government-backed loans to keep the companies afloat post bankruptcy. But what GM and Chrysler needed were bridge loans to get them through the process, and the private credit markets were unwilling to provide them.”

6. Ex-Chrysler CEO Lee Iaccoca: Iaccoca has endorsed Romney, but he also has praised the auto bailout for its rescue of the industry. “Two years ago, it looked like Detroit and Michigan and the car business was in the toilet,” Iacocca told the Detroit News this month. But after the bailout, he said, “things have turned out pretty well.” And even if Iaccoca has criticisms of pieces of the bailout, the paper said he “praised the government actions over the past two years that gave two of Detroit’s Big Three automakers another chance.”

Think Progress - October 30, 2012

^^^Mitt Romney self-proclaimed 'car guy' always on the wrong side of ‘any’ issue....Last week Mourdock. This week Chrysler, GM, and the big guy Republican Governor Chris Christie and FEMA.
^^^With the series of weeks and news stories like this….where exactly is that ‘win’ going to come from?

The Christian Science Monitor Mitt Romney misleads in Ohio auto bailout ad
The Macomb Daily Chrysler success makes Mitt Romney's phony claims look foolish
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 210
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/31/2012 8:48:21 AM

Many PPP election polls were commissioned by the liberal web-site DailyKos, although the company states that most of its revenue comes from other sources.
Polls Shmolls..
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 211
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/31/2012 10:07:12 PM
"This country runs on credit "
You make it sound like this wonderful man Obama snapped his fingers and got a bunch of people free health coverage. That's nice, but young people as a group have very low disease rates, and regardless, "someone" has to pick up the tab for those millions of 19 to 26 year-olds who now get put on their
parents plan. I have a daughter in that group too, but there is no free ride here, somebody has to pay, and will.
Yes, we have been accruing a national debt for a long time, but again, there is no free ride. we are increasing the debt at an alarming rate
and it looks so tempting, because rates are so low. But what happens when this changes? We have saddled our kids with a heavy load and not so much
opportunity to pay it back, given our sluggish economy. Is this really a kind thing to do to future generations?
I think that if Obama is re-elected, when people see what happens to their paychecks come the New Year(those who are getting paychecks, that is), we are going to see some heavy-duty unhappiness. When you borrow money, there is the expectation that the money will be paid back. if we cannot pay
back, we should be VERY careful what we borrow.
Below- Jenny, you're spot on. The "fed" is injecting America with 40 billion per month of new money. Where do they get it? At the mint !! They make as much as they want to. Only one hitch,,,, the numbers look good, but actually takes away value. Like diluting Coke with water to get more. You get more, but it's not Coke, it's water !!
Joined: 12/27/2011
Msg: 212
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 10/31/2012 10:12:35 PM
How many of these followers of Obama are aware of QE3? Our country cannot continue this path were on. It's FORTY BILLION dollars a month spent on QE3 alone !!
Part of article below.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Federal Reserve announced plans to unleash more stimulus Thursday, in its third attempt at a controversial program to rev up the U.S. economy.

The policy, known as quantitative easing and often abbreviated as QE3, entails buying $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities each month. The end date remains up in the air, as the Fed will re-evaluate the strength of the economy in coming months.

Ben Swann explains QE3 -4 minute long video
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 213
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 4:09:41 AM

We are not spending another 96 years in Iraq


And speaking of credit. Let's not forget who signed on the credit line to fund those two wars: Bush.

Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits

Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficit over the next ten years — according to this update of our analysis, which is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent ten-year budget projections (from August) and congressional action since we released the previous version of this analysis in May 2011.
The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II.

At $1.3 trillion and nearly 9 percent of GDP, the deficits in 2010 and 2011 were only slightly lower. If current policies remain in place, deficits will likely exceed $1 trillion in 2012 and 2013 before subsiding slightly, and never fall below $700 billion for the remainder of this decade.

The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. [1] The stimulus measures and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.

President Obama, however, still has a responsibility to propose, and put the weight of his office behind, policies that will address our key long-term fiscal challenge — preventing the significant rise in debt as a percentage of GDP that will occur under current policies. Allowing the flagship Bush tax cuts — which initially were slated to end after 2010 and were extended for two years — to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would halt the rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio. In fact, that step — or an equivalent, substitute package of deficit reductions — would reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio and stabilize it at about 70 percent in the second half of the decade. Of course, with the economy still fragile, it is prudent to continue the middle-class portion of the tax cuts for a while longer. But there is no justification for extending the entire set of expiring tax cuts indefinitely. To keep the debt stable over the longer run, when the fiscal impacts of an aging population and rising health care costs will continue to mount, policymakers will need to take large additional steps on both the expenditure and revenue sides of the budget.

Having said that, policymakers should not mistake the causes of the swollen deficits that we face in the decade ahead nor make policy based on mistaken impressions.

Recession Caused Sharp Deterioration in Budget Outlook

Whoever won the presidency in 2008 was going to face a grim fiscal situation, a fact already well known as the presidential campaign got underway. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) presented a sobering outlook in its 2008 summer update,[2] and during the autumn, the news got relentlessly worse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that became embroiled in the housing meltdown, failed in early September; two big financial firms — AIG and Lehman Brothers — collapsed soon thereafter; and others teetered. In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research confirmed that the nation was in recession and pegged the starting date as December 2007. By the time CBO issued its new projections on January 7, 2009 — two weeks before Inauguration Day— it had already put the 2009 deficit at well over $1 trillion.[3]

The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other safety-net programs.[4] Using CBO’s August 2008 projections as a benchmark, we calculate that the changed economic outlook alone accounts for over $400 billion of the deficit in both 2009 and 2010 and declining amounts in subsequent years. Those effects persist; even in 2018, the deterioration in the economy since the summer of 2008 will account for over $100 billion in added deficits, much of it in the form of additional debt-service (that is, interest) costs.
Financial Rescues, Stimulus Added to Deficits in Near Term

The government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in September 2008.[5] In October of that year, the Bush Administration and Congress enacted a rescue package to stabilize the financial system by creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Together, TARP and the GSEs accounted for almost $250 billion (including extra debt-service costs) of fiscal year 2009’s record deficit. Their contribution to deficits then fades quickly, however (see Figure 1).

In February 2009, the new Obama Administration and Congress enacted a major package — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — to arrest the economy’s plunge. Mainstream economic theory holds that to combat the recession, the federal government should loosen its purse strings temporarily to spur demand, which can be achieved through a mix of assistance to the unemployed, aid to strapped state and local governments, tax cuts, spending on infrastructure, and other measures. By design, this package added to the deficit. Since then, policymakers have enacted several other measures — including tax cuts for businesses, modest additional temporary aid to states, a partial payroll-tax holiday for workers, and further extensions of unemployment benefits — to spur recovery and aid the unemployed. By our reckoning, the combination of ARRA and these other measures, including their associated debt-service costs, account for $1.5 trillion of the nearly $11 trillion in deficits over the 2009-2019 period. Their effects are highly concentrated in 2009 through 2012 and fade thereafter, delivering a boost to the economy during its most vulnerable period.[7]

Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted since 2008 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted some years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs.

By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — nearly $9 trillion — of the $18 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.


Updated October 10, 2012 - Centre on Budget Policy Priorities
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 214
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 10:18:59 AM
Hey Karl...another gold star for your bestest little soldier on here! Seems she is not in favor of QE3, because of her "fact based" report from faux news's Ben Swann! If she keeps this up, you may have to send her an autographed picture of yourself!

Now, did you just discover this factoid? I mean citing QE3, which was issued on SEPTEMBER 13TH, is not new news!

Of course you fail to mention how much the money supply was expanded under shrub! Who put 2 wars, 2 tax cuts and who knows what else, on the government credit card as well! The difference? He did it in an OK economy with some, but limited growth...not like the shitstorm Obama walked I said nice try though...

I have been arguing with another poster on a different thread about aircraft carriers, and the mittsters plan to increase defense spending by $2 TRILLION dollars. So where will that come from? Oh I forgot...he will find it from cutting big bird, planned parenthood, NPR, social benefit programs, such as food for kids or single mothers...oh and of course FEMA! Or wait is he now for keeping FEMA? Can't quite get a read on that, since he refused the question 14 TIMES the other day...

Finally of course, let me state for the record...I will not watch anymore inane youtube videos...from EITHER side! Youtube is NOT a legitimate news I think the poster I am referring to should know from her misleading "Obama ad" fisaco a few pages ago...

way to go mitt
Joined: 12/27/2011
Msg: 215
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 12:29:04 PM
I am well aware QE3 started in September, it was to educate others who may not be aware or remind them. It is a current problem. A FORTY BILLION dollars a month problem.

We all know you hate Bush and anyone else who doesn't agree with you.

Bottom line is it's time for Obama to go!
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 216
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 12:34:25 PM
Bottom line is it's time for Obama to go!

So true, as clearly it is time to bring someone in that will increase spending, reduce taxes, because anyone with an economic background knows that is clearly the way out of the mess by bringing back the same policies that caused it.
Joined: 8/25/2011
Msg: 217
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 2:45:59 PM
Thinking about Romney's lack of old saying came to mind....

IIRC."You can't trust a man that doesn't drink".
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 218
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 3:57:24 PM
"We all know you hate Bush and anyone else who doesn't agree with you"

Hmmm, no not quite right! I DO hate shrub! He killed alot of human beings, both our own citizens sent to Iraq, to fight a war that was based on lies! He did give away a truckload of money, on 2 tax cuts, a prescription plan for seniors, that was nothing more than a give away to big pharma...he did, and his lacky Brown, did take 10 days to get water to the Superdome in New Orleans...while congratulating him on a "job well done"...his hands off attitude toward bankers DID run the economy into a ditch! Hell your own party did not have him at their convention, 4 years after leaving office! Finally, where is shrub? He's in the Cayman Islands, home to mittster's money, about investing "OFFSHORE" to avoid taxes...perfect timing there shrubby...I'm sure his mittness is overjoyed!

Now I DO respect others who don't agree with me! There are dozens of posts on here in response to 'reasoned' people who obviously support romney, where I never get ugly or uruly with them, I guve a balanced argument...but for those who try and deceive, or resort to calling names...hey I give as good as I get!

At any rate in answer to your "It is a current problem"...IT IS! Guess what? It will be just as BIG a problem, if romney is elected...sorry "the math doesn't add up"...he can't do all he promises without increasing spending! $2 TRILLION MORE in defense spending ON TOP OF those tax cuts he has promised. Cutting planned parenthood, big bird, and slew of smaller social programs won't butter the biscuit.
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 219
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 5:03:07 PM

We all know you hate Bush and anyone else who doesn't agree with you.
Bottom line is it's time for Obama to go!

Sure, lets go back to how it was 4 yrs ago
when the dowJones was 7000 (or below)
Let my retirement fund depreciate by 35--40% again
while Mitt had his money comfortable STASHED away in the Cayman islands
while all of us REAL working pple were sweating it out
wondering if we would ever see the value of our portfolios go back up
It took 4 years for the dow to rise back up to where it had been
ANY working man & women would have to be outta their minds
to gamble away their retirement & investments under a GOP administration
while they enrich themselves with tax breaks.

Before you pull the lever for MR, take a good look at what in your wallet and be ready to kiss it goodbye.
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 220
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/1/2012 9:22:26 PM

anyone with an economic background knows that is clearly the way out of the mess by bringing back the same policies that caused it.

which would exlcude you, unless professional drivers on a closed course are taught economics now which is news to me.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 221
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/2/2012 4:03:16 AM
unless you have your head in a warm wet and familiar place where you can only hear your own internal murmurings, you will realize that right now, and for some time, Mitt Romney has been promising EVERYONE that he will do whatever they want, so that he can get elected.

He promised EVERYONE who is on medicaid, medicare, etc that he wont touch their situation.

He promised all the rich folks that he wont raise taxes on them in any way shape or form. Like the rest of the GOP, he utterly refuses to ask anyone who makes more than $250000 a year, to contribute a single dime to helping the country recover from the largest abusive scam by the wealthy on the rest of us ever.

He will not only not cut military spending, he will increase it dramatically.

In fact the ONLY, and I do mean the ONLY thing he says he will cut, is the tiny amount still being paid to PBS. Absolutely EVERYTHING ELSE, he has promised one group or another, that he is going to leave it alone.

Naturally, he never says all of his promises in one place, because it would make it too obvious that he was full of crap.

This means that we really have no idea at all, what, if anything, he will do when he wins.

No freaking idea what so ever.
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 222
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/2/2012 4:43:16 AM
Maybe Maybe not but we know what Obama will do guys can tear Romney down all you want but we all know the only reason you have to do that is because you can't build Obama up..his lack of accomplishments speak for themselves...His crowning glories were killing Osama and Obamacare..two things that we are now learning are not nearly as great as advertised..Health care costs rise under Obamacare and Al Qaeda is thriving today...
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 223
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/2/2012 5:19:42 AM
His crowning glories were killing Osama and Obamacare

One might add:

The dow has moved from 6600 to the mid 13's

The US economy has moved steadily forward while the world economy has floundered

The US is ready to takeover the world lead in oil production from the Saudi's

The housing market is turning around after being decimated at the end of the last administration.

The US has had jobs growth while the rest of the world is in economic slow-down

And all this with a non-partisan congress that has done absolutely nothing to forward the interests of the nation.
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 224
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/2/2012 6:14:51 AM

One might add:

I agree with all you wrote, but showing this to a neocon is about as useful to them as flashing a mirror up to a vampire's face, all they see is nothing. They have their heads so far the GOP's proverbial butthole, that all they live and breathe & believe is given to them by the GOP.
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 225
view profile
Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.
Posted: 11/2/2012 6:37:50 AM

Job Gains Stronger Than Expected

With Election Day four days away, the latest jobs report showed the economy added a stronger-than-expected 171,000 jobs in October but the unemployment rate inched higher to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had expected the Labor Department's report to show payroll employment grew by 125,000 jobs and the unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent.

The report, the final major piece of data before voters go to the polls, is unlikely to be a game changer in the presidential race. President Obama is likely to seize on the bigger than expected jobs gain to bolster his argument that the economy is on the mend, while his rival Mitt Romney will press his case that the economic recovery is progressing too slowly.

In another encouraging sign, jobs growth in prior months was revised upwards. In September, payrolls grew 148,000 versus an initial estimate of 114,000. The payroll gain in August was revised up to 192,000 compared to the original estimate of 142,000.
The Labor Department said the latest report does not reflect any effects from Hurricane Sandy.

National Journal - November 2, 2012

---revised report for August and September added another 84K jobs

---jobs numbers ticked up to 7.9% because more people are feeling more positive and starting to re-enter the job market

---Industry sectors: Retail +36k, administrative +33k, health care +30k, hotel/food service +23k. Private sector up 184k, government down 13k

---Upticks in consumer confidence:

(Reuters) - Consumer confidence rose in October to its highest in more than four years as Americans were more upbeat about improvements in the labor market, a private sector report showed on Thursday.

The Conference Board, an industry group, said its index of consumer attitudes gained to 72.2 from a downwardly revised 68.4 in September. It was the highest level since February 2008, though it came in shy of economists' estimates for 72.5.

September was originally reported as 70.3.

The expectations index edged up to 82.9 from 81.5, while the present situation index jumped to 56.2 from 48.7.

Consumers' labor market assessment improved, with the "jobs hard to get" measure slipping to 39.4 percent from 40.7 percent. The "jobs plentiful" gauge gained to 10.3 percent from 8.1 percent.

Reuters - November 1, 2012

---Upticks in housing starts:

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has made another bet on a recovery in the US housing market, agreeing to lend the conglomerate’s trusted brand to a new venture with Brookfield Asset Management.

Mr. Buffett’s optimism has also begun to be backed up by economic indicators. New home construction in the US surged in September to its fastest pace in more than four years, offering further evidence that the housing sector was regaining strength.

Housing starts rose 15 percent in September, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 872,000 units, the fastest pace of growth since July 2008.

CNBC - November 1, 2012

---Upticks in retail sales:

Retail Sales Beating Forecasts Support U.S. Growth

Americans snapped up goods from cars to iPhones in September at a faster pace than forecast by economists, showing consumer demand was heading into the year- end holidays on a high note.

The 1.1 percent advance followed a revised 1.2 percent increase in August, the best back-to-back showing since late 2010, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 77 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.8 percent rise.

“This keeps the economic expansion moving forward,” said Dean Maki, New York-based chief U.S. economist at Barclays Plc. “Consumer spending is continuing to grow solidly.”

Bloomberg - October 15, 2012

Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Obama/Romney...the world is wondering.