[Excelsior]

(10-04-2012 04:57 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

I get that you don't like the generalization or the inaccuracy of the numbers involved. But don't you think there's credibility in the theme of his comment? "Most poor people are poor because of poor decisions and when they're dependent on gov't entitlements they're not going to vote for the guy that makes it hard for them to get"

That isn't what he actually said so no, there is no credibility in his statements. He spoke about non-income tax payers and mischaracterized them as lazy, entitled individuals with no concern for the betterment of their lives. This is wrong.

Do there exist individuals in America who are in fact poor because of their own laziness, weakness and/or entitlement? Sure.
Do they constitute 47% of the population? No. Such individuals are much rarer than conservatives are willing to admit. Most of the poor do in fact deal regularly with factors out of their control that negatively impact them, most are willing to work for success (they don't sit on their ass all day expecting a check) and most are not the entitled, lazy good for nothings they're portrayed as in statements like that.

I'm not asking for folks to start a "love the poor" campaign, but these people deserve more credit than folks like Romney and his supporters want to give them.

Quote:

Also, Athlone, I wish you would use the same amount of scrutiny you put towards Romney on Obama.

1. I'll take that as an affirmation that I'm hitting some of the right buttons here with regards to Romney and his BS.
2. There's a reason I'm not a Democrat.

[painter]

They've spent a year demonizing Romney as a gaffe prone, aloof rich guy. Unfortunately Obama had to debate the real person and got completely blown away. Romney made a very convincing case for his election and why we need to get rid of Obama. The guy is not getting the job done so he's gotta go. Americans saw the real Romney last night and liked him, not the caricature liberals have portrayed him as.

I can't wait for the Ryan/Biden debate, talk about a mismatch!

Edit: I love all this crying today, "Oh, Romney just lied, that's how he won the debate." Not quite!

[gringochileno]

Romney had better game last night, pure and simple. Sure, he straight up made shit up a whole bunch of times, but he did it confidently and aggressively while Obama was passive, disengaged, and didn't take advantage of nearly any of the openings Romney gave him. It just goes to show that game (i.e. charisma) makes all the difference. If Romney hadn't put on such a good performance or if Obama had been more forceful, the media narrative would be about Romney's lying, promising to voucherize Medicare, and so on. Instead it's about how Obama got his ass handed to him. Just like in game, in these debates what you say isn't nearly as important as how you say it. Romney clearly understands that and I have no idea why Obama came out so flat because I'm sure he knows it too.

[gringochileno]

(10-04-2012 05:39 PM)painter Wrote:  

Edit: I love all this crying today, "Oh, Romney just lied, that's how he won the debate." Not quite!

Yeah that's true, it wasn't the lying that won the debate (although it may have contributed--it's easier to come up with good-sounding material on the spot when you aren't constrained by the need to only say things that are true). He won because he came off as more forceful, energetic, and dominant, i.e. he had better game. Even his body language was noticeably better than Obama's. That allowed him to say whatever the hell he wanted and get away with it. It's just like when you get a bitch to come back to your place "for this new drink I just learned how to make." Even obvious bullshit sounds convincing when you say it the right way.

[speakeasy]

(10-04-2012 05:39 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Romney had better game last night, pure and simple. Sure, he straight up made shit up a whole bunch of times, but he did it confidently and aggressively while Obama was passive, disengaged, and didn't take advantage of nearly any of the openings Romney gave him. It just goes to show that game (i.e. charisma) makes all the difference. If Romney hadn't put on such a good performance or if Obama had been more forceful, the media narrative would be about Romney's lying, promising to voucherize Medicare, and so on. Instead it's about how Obama got his ass handed to him. Just like in game, in these debates what you say isn't nearly as important as how you say it. Romney clearly understands that and I have no idea why Obama came out so flat because I'm sure he knows it too.

Romney won hands down on presentation. On substance, certainly not. If you were to read just the transcript of the debate without seeing or hearing it, it would not sound very lopsided a debate at all.

The fact checkers are already coming down harder on Romney, as expected.

Obama had plenty of opportunities to even out the debate. He did not even bring up rescuing the auto industry even once. Something that would have gone over well in rust belt swing states. Why he didn't do this I'll never know. Romney flat out lied about half of his green energy subsidiaries going to companies that failed. Obama just let him get away with it. It's not that Obama did bad per se as a debater, it's that he didn't live up to his expectations while Romney far surpassed expectations.

I hate to say it since I like Obama but he's pretty beta.

[Duke Castile]

(10-04-2012 05:06 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 04:57 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

I get that you don't like the generalization or the inaccuracy of the numbers involved. But don't you think there's credibility in the theme of his comment? "Most poor people are poor because of poor decisions and when they're dependent on gov't entitlements they're not going to vote for the guy that makes it hard for them to get"

That isn't what he actually said so no, there is no credibility in his statements. He spoke about non-income tax payers and mischaracterized them as lazy, entitled individuals with no concern for the betterment of their lives. This is wrong.

Do there exist individuals in America who are in fact poor because of their own laziness, weakness and/or entitlement? Sure.
Do they constitute 47% of the population? No. Such individuals are much rarer than conservatives are willing to admit. Most of the poor do in fact deal regularly with factors out of their control that negatively impact them, most are willing to work for success (they don't sit on their ass all day expecting a check) and most are not the entitled, lazy good for nothings they're portrayed as in statements like that.

I'm not asking for folks to start a "love the poor" campaign, but these people deserve more credit than folks like Romney and his supporters want to give them.

Quote:

Also, Athlone, I wish you would use the same amount of scrutiny you put towards Romney on Obama.

1. I'll take that as an affirmation that I'm hitting some of the right buttons here with regards to Romney and his BS.
2. There's a reason I'm not a Democrat.

1. No, I think that if you did put the scrutiny on the democratic party in general, you would be voting republican. You seem too smart and analytical to be able to support a guy like Obama. The guy has accomplished nothing in 4 years (besides Osama being killed and honestly that's a symbolic victory and hardly of any consequence). Say what you will about Romney being out of touch, but at least the man understands business. Obama has flip flopped, lied, and has enjoyed all of the perks of a privileged lifestyle etc (so the criticism of Romney is hypocritical in my estimation) he's a community organizer with ZERO professional experience. The results of the last 4 years of his administration are STARING you in the face and are things ANY better than when he took office? No, they're worse. I'm sure you can appreciate the idea that doing more of the same is not what some people would call a great idea and personally what I refer to as the definition of insanity.

[painter]

(10-04-2012 05:52 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 05:39 PM)painter Wrote:  

Edit: I love all this crying today, "Oh, Romney just lied, that's how he won the debate." Not quite!

Yeah that's true, it wasn't the lying that won the debate (although it may have contributed--it's easier to come up with good-sounding material on the spot when you aren't constrained by the need to only say things that are true). He won because he came off as more forceful, energetic, and dominant, i.e. he had better game. Even his body language was noticeably better than Obama's. That allowed him to say whatever the hell he wanted and get away with it. It's just like when you get a bitch to come back to your place "for this new drink I just learned how to make." Even obvious bullshit sounds convincing when you say it the right way.

Obama was definitely his bitch last night. Romney's a successful businessman, former Governor, squeaky clean Mormon background, his credentials are very impressive, especially for a poliitician. Of course he knows how to dominate any room when he needs to. Unfortunately for liberals he isn't the Mr Magoo they portray him as.

[Tbone]

(10-04-2012 05:39 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Just like in game, in these debates what you say isn't nearly as important as how you say it.

100% correct. Debates are great theater, but I listen more closely to fact checkers than any democrat or republican.

[Tbone]

(10-04-2012 06:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I hate to say it since I like Obama but he's pretty beta.

I feel what you're saying, but it's hard for me to put Obama and beta in the same sentence. Remember, this is an African American with a name that rhymes with one of our most notorious terrorists ever.

What happened to many of our black leaders throughout history? They were murdered.

By running for the presidency, he knew that there would be a huge target on his back, and he still ran for the office. That takes some balls.

I wouldn't call him an alpha, but beta? I don't know any betas (or alphas) that are willing to put themselves in a such a dangerous position to potentially take a bullet for something that they believe in.

[Duke Castile]

(10-04-2012 06:27 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 06:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I hate to say it since I like Obama but he's pretty beta.

I feel what you're saying, but it's hard for me to put Obama and beta in the same sentence. Remember, this is an African American with a name that rhymes with one of our most notorious terrorists ever.

What happened to many of our black leaders throughout history? They were murdered.

By running for the presidency, he knew that there would be a huge target on his back, and he still ran for the office. That takes some balls.

I wouldn't call him an alpha, but beta? I don't know any betas (or alphas) that are willing to put themselves in a such a dangerous position to potentially take a bullet for something that they believe in.

And the race card just got played.

Has is occurred to you that Obama won the popular vote because white Americans voted for him?

You really think he has a "huge" target on his back? If anyone even farted in his direction the liberal media would make it a sensational story of his heroism. No one has done anything except question/criticize his failed policies and they get called racist for not agreeing with him. The guy acted beta.

[Tbone]

(10-04-2012 06:06 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

The results of the last 4 years of his administration are STARING you in the face and are things ANY better than when he took office? No, they're worse.

What I don't like is that Obama spent so much energy on healthcare early on. He should have shown that jobs were at the very top of his agenda, although I can somewhat understand his thinking since the guys mom died because of fighting with insurance companies. Thousands of other Americans are dealing with similar issues.

What bothers me about republicans is that jobs were not at the front of their agenda either. It was to get rid of Obama. How can there be a spirit of cooperation under those circumstances?

To say that our slow recovery is ALL on Obama is too simplistic. The fact is that there has been a massive failure of leadership in the entire government.

I know what people say... Leadership starts with the president.

Question is, if Romney is elected but democrats collectively agree to not work with him, which I hope would not be the case, he is not going to magically cast a spell and make them change their minds. Little will get done, much like the last 4 years.

It doesn't matter if Obama or Romney is in the office. It won't make a big difference if there is not a change in the mentality of Washington as a whole.

[Tbone]

(10-04-2012 06:52 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 06:27 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 06:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I hate to say it since I like Obama but he's pretty beta.

I feel what you're saying, but it's hard for me to put Obama and beta in the same sentence. Remember, this is an African American with a name that rhymes with one of our most notorious terrorists ever.

What happened to many of our black leaders throughout history? They were murdered.

By running for the presidency, he knew that there would be a huge target on his back, and he still ran for the office. That takes some balls.

I wouldn't call him an alpha, but beta? I don't know any betas (or alphas) that are willing to put themselves in a such a dangerous position to potentially take a bullet for something that they believe in.

And the race card just got played.

Has is occurred to you that Obama won the popular vote because white Americans voted for him?

You really think he has a "huge" target on his back? If anyone even farted in his direction the liberal media would make it a sensational story of his heroism. No one has done anything except question/criticize his failed policies and they get called racist for not agreeing with him. The guy acted beta.

LOL. Relax Fisto, I'm not playing any cards. What I mentioned was off the topic of politics and more about our American history. I'm not accusing anyone of rejecting Obama because of his race.

[painter]

Fisto has a good point about Obama's experience. It's very thin compared to Romney. He wasn't even a US Senator for one full term. His record before that isn't even discussed by the media while they dissect everything Romney's ever said or done. He has no executive experience at all and it's painful watching the guy try to learn on the job.

Obama is just as privileged as Romney is, only Romney went out and actually worked his ass off, made fortunes and ran huge executive branches of business and government while Obama was voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate. Never introduced a single piece of legislation there or in the US Senate. It's a resume for disaster and we are living it.

[Duke Castile]

(10-04-2012 06:57 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 06:52 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 06:27 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 06:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I hate to say it since I like Obama but he's pretty beta.

I feel what you're saying, but it's hard for me to put Obama and beta in the same sentence. Remember, this is an African American with a name that rhymes with one of our most notorious terrorists ever.

What happened to many of our black leaders throughout history? They were murdered.

By running for the presidency, he knew that there would be a huge target on his back, and he still ran for the office. That takes some balls.

I wouldn't call him an alpha, but beta? I don't know any betas (or alphas) that are willing to put themselves in a such a dangerous position to potentially take a bullet for something that they believe in.

And the race card just got played.

Has is occurred to you that Obama won the popular vote because white Americans voted for him?

You really think he has a "huge" target on his back? If anyone even farted in his direction the liberal media would make it a sensational story of his heroism. No one has done anything except question/criticize his failed policies and they get called racist for not agreeing with him. The guy acted beta.

LOL. Relax Fisto, I'm not playing any cards. What I mentioned was off the topic of politics and more about our American history. I'm not accusing anyone of rejecting Obama because of his race.

It sounds like you're making it an issue of race when you start talking about former murdered black leaders (because they were black leaders presumably) and then say Obama has a "huge" target on his back in the same post.

I agree things have to change in Washington. But there are 2 very big philosophical differences in what the two parties claim is the role of gov't.

[Aliblahba]

(10-04-2012 06:58 PM)painter Wrote:  

Fisto has a good point about Obama's experience. It's very thin compared to Romney. He wasn't even a US Senator for one full term. His record before that isn't even discussed by the media while they dissect everything Romney's ever said or done. He has no executive experience at all and it's painful watching the guy try to learn on the job.

Obama is just as privileged as Romney is, only Romney went out and actually worked his ass off, made fortunes and ran huge executive branches of business and government while Obama was voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate. Never introduced a single piece of legislation there or in the US Senate. It's a resume for disaster and we are living it.

Bullshit x1450.2459. I smell a big fat noseful of racism in that post! Obama is THE BEST PREZ EVAR!!!!!

[speakeasy]

(10-04-2012 06:58 PM)painter Wrote:  

Fisto has a good point about Obama's experience. It's very thin compared to Romney. He wasn't even a US Senator for one full term. His record before that isn't even discussed by the media while they dissect everything Romney's ever said or done. He has no executive experience at all and it's painful watching the guy try to learn on the job.

Lincoln and JFK had no executive experience at all either. GWB had lots of executive experience and ran the country into the ground. Carter was also seen as a failed president had executive experience. Nixon had experience. Experience alone isn't a deciding factor in a president's job performance. It may not even be a significant one.

Quote:

Obama is just as privileged as Romney is, only Romney went out and actually worked his ass off, made fortunes and ran huge executive branches of business and government while Obama was voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate. Never introduced a single piece of legislation there or in the US Senate. It's a resume for disaster and we are living it.

I'm sick of hearing about Romney's business experience. A country is not run as a business. When you are a CEO, you are essentially an autocrat. What you say goes. The only people you are beholden to are your shareholders. That's not the way government works. If you want something done, you must get it through congress. If the majority of that congress is the opposition party you are going to find that you can't get nearly as much done as you promised and often have to make large concessions or offer watered down versions of your original ambitions. That's the situation Obama found himself in.

Romney can get up there and say he will end Obamacare on day one, but it ain't that simple. He has to get that through the house and senate. These campaign promises are never promises, they're merely statements of intent.

[Duke Castile]

Speakeasy, it's a little late to bring up other presidents experience when in the case of Obama it's plain he is out of his depth.

As far as citing Romney's business experience, that's an invaluable tool when it comes to understanding what makes a strong economy, something Obama has demonstrated he's unfamiliar with. No one is saying he will run the country like a CEO, they're saying he understands what conditions businesses need to thrive.

I'm sure if the Republican candidate had no professional job experience, no governmental leadership experience, no written legislation, and a laundry list of questionable associations, you would bring attention to it, especially after 4 years of what does appear to be ineffective leadership.

Here's a funny video though.

[Zebra_Cakes]

Why are people even mention President Obamas experience? He's been President for nearly 4 years. Regardless of whether you like the job he's done or not, he's now experienced. In fact, being President, he exceeds Mitt Romney in in certain sectors of experience, including having significantly more Foreign Policy experience.

[raliv]

Talking about facts is a waste of time. Nobody cares about facts, studies, or numbers anymore.

The very heart of this election is how people feel - in particularly single white careerist women in swing states). What is being said in the debates is not as important as HOW it is being said. That's how Obama was elected in 2008 against a horrible weak old little dwarf with a high pitched voice called McCain and its why Obama will lose to a tall good looking wealthy confident asshole from Massachusetts.

[Duke Castile]

(10-04-2012 08:11 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

Why are people even mention President Obamas experience? He's been President for nearly 4 years. Regardless of whether you like the job he's done or not, he's now experienced. In fact, being President, he exceeds Mitt Romney in in certain sectors of experience, including having significantly more Foreign Policy experience.

It's hard to call "on the job training" experience.

We're mentioning it because after all the hype, all the rhetoric, all the promises of hope and change, we got exactly what his detractors were saying from the beginning, Nothing.

[Excelsior]

(10-04-2012 06:06 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

1. No, I think that if you did put the scrutiny on the democratic party in general, you would be voting republican.

1. Scrutiny has already been placed, conclusions made.
2. I'm not silly enough to vote with large masses of folks who, for ideological reasons, are generally hostile to me and folks like me. I could have done that as a naive kid, but not as a rational adult.

Quote:

The guy has accomplished nothing in 4 years (besides Osama being killed and honestly that's a symbolic victory and hardly of any consequence).

Except the saving General Motors deal...and the healthcare reform (which thankfully allows me to keep my insurance beyond graduation), drawing down in Iraq...and all of this stuff here.

Obama is not a perfect president (particularly when it comes to the economy), but this notion that he has not done anything is quite frankly BS.
No opinion, no subjectivity-that statement is factually incorrect. He's getting too little credit.

Quote:

Say what you will about Romney being out of touch, but at least the man understands business.

If you're the kind of person who thinks America needs to be run like a private equity firm, then I can see that logic holding water.

I'm not in that camp.

Quote:

Obama has flip flopped,

Dude, of all the criticisms to lay down, you choose flip-flopping? This at a time in which he is facing one of the most notorious flip-floppers we've seen in recent years?

Quote:

lied,

Romney doesn't do this.

Quote:

and has enjoyed all of the perks of a privileged lifestyle etc (so the criticism of Romney is hypocritical in my estimation)

Your estimation needs a bit more research.

1. Obama: Half-black child of a kenyan immigrant who pissed off when he was little and a single white mother from a fairly middle class background. Went to a great school (I know kids from Punahou, Kamehameha and some of the other elite Hawaii preps) on scholarship (he was not financially typical of the student body), lived in a nice apartment, grandparents had good jobs. Lived well in Indonesia, as many educated immigrants do when they return to developing nations.

Has some significant elite WASP ancestry through his grandfather.
Calling him even upper middle class would be generous, and is certainly an upper-limit. Obama came into real wealth quite recently. His grandparents were not millionaires, and likely weren't too close either.

2. Romney: WASP, scion of one of the most prominent families in American politics. Family is also basically mormon royalty, kin to the Smiths, Huntsmans, etc. Mother wasn't well off at all. Unlike Obama, however, he actually had a father. George Romney struggled for a time upon return from Mexico (welfare) and didn't grow up wealthy, but by and large did extremely well in the USA as an adult and for most of Mitt's childhood, while also holding an impeccable pedigree. Mitt grew up the son of a successful millionaire auto executive, presidential cabinet member and state governor, and inherited an unmatched pedigree as member of arguably the most prominent family in the American west not named Smith. He wasn't spoiled rotten as a youth, but was certainly quite privileged. His net worth is many multiples that of Obama's, more so if you include the worth of his family.

The Dunhams did not have anywhere near that kind of money or influence during Obama's childhood. Obama made nowhere near that kind of money as a professional, and he was not nearly as well connected as Mitt Romney. There was no powerful Senator father (and candidate mother) to help him grow into a skilled politician, nor to fund his early home purchases and help put him through college financially. Aside from the fact that they both went to private school (with Obama on scholarship), there is not a ton of comparison to be made between them.

Quote:

he's a community organizer with ZERO professional experience.

I can generally understand claims that Obama had relatively little professional experience. But zero? Now you're making things up.

That, and I do not see how community organization is entirely irrelevant to the practice of politics. It isn't the Governorship, but that isn't an entirely useless thing for a future politician to engage in. In fact, given the nature of politics (ex: relating to voters, getting in touch with communities and their needs, etc), it seems like that experience could come in quite handy at times.

Quote:

The results of the last 4 years of his administration are STARING you in the face and are things ANY better than when he took office?

1. The "Obama hasn't done anything" argument has already been addressed as false.

2. I think it'd be quite difficult to argue that our situation today (late 2012, well past the heart of the recession/major bankruptcies, etc) is worse than it was in late 2008/early 2009. You can argue that Obama has not done enough to improve the economy since many of the worst aspects of the recession still remain, but we were in a much deeper hole back in 2008/2009.

Things could be much better in theory, but that doesn't mean there has not been a mild recovery/improvement since 08/09.

Quote:

No, they're worse.

Factually incorrect. We were in a much more difficult position in late 08/early 09 than we've been recently. That was the heart of the great recession.

Quote:

I'm sure you can appreciate the idea that doing more of the same is not what some people would call a great idea and personally what I refer to as the definition of insanity.

You're right. If things had gotten worse or if nothing had been done at all, it would be insane to do more of the same.
Good thing Obama hasn't actually done nothing in the last four years. Fortunate for me.

(10-04-2012 06:52 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

And the race card just got played.

Has is occurred to you that Obama won the popular vote because white Americans voted for him?

They mostly didn't, actually. Polls indicate that the bulk of whites aren't supporting him this time either. In fact, it is likely that even fewer will back him than in '08.

Quote:

You really think he has a "huge" target on his back?

Yeah.

(10-04-2012 06:58 PM)painter Wrote:  

Obama is just as privileged as Romney is,

No, he is not.

Quote:

only Romney went out and actually worked his ass off,

Obama went to HLS and became the first black editor of the law review there. Doesn't sound so easy.

Oh, let me guess: affirmative action, right? So none of that counts?

Quote:

Never introduced a single piece of legislation there or in the US Senate.

LOL

Troll harder, bro.

[painter]

(10-04-2012 08:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-04-2012 08:11 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  

Why are people even mention President Obamas experience? He's been President for nearly 4 years. Regardless of whether you like the job he's done or not, he's now experienced. In fact, being President, he exceeds Mitt Romney in in certain sectors of experience, including having significantly more Foreign Policy experience.

It's hard to call "on the job training" experience.

We're mentioning it because after all the hype, all the rhetoric, all the promises of hope and change, we got exactly what his detractors were saying from the beginning, Nothing.

Yeah, it's worse than nothing. Gas is $4 a gallon, the price of food is going through the roof, everything costs twice as much under Obama and they want higher taxes on top of that? If we don't cut the borrowing to spend now we go broke. That's math Obama can't seem to add up. On the job training? For the biggest job in the world? Not a good experiment.

[Zebra_Cakes]

(10-04-2012 08:17 PM)raliv Wrote:  

Talking about facts is a waste of time. Nobody cares about facts, studies, or numbers anymore.

The very heart of this election is how people feel - in particularly single white careerist women in swing states). What is being said in the debates is not as important as HOW it is being said. That's how Obama was elected in 2008 against a horrible weak old little dwarf with a high pitched voice called McCain and its why Obama will lose to a tall good looking wealthy confident asshole from Massachusetts.

He's from Detroit, actually. He won't win. He's behind in all the polls. And traditionally, no matter how someone does in a debate, it doesn't give them that much of a bounce. At this point, people have made up their mind who they're going to vote for. He pretty much HAS TO win Ohio to have a shot at winning, and last I checked, he was down about 10 points in the state. Obama will win, but it will be close.

[speakeasy]

(10-04-2012 08:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Speakeasy, it's a little late to bring up other presidents experience when in the case of Obama it's plain he is out of his depth.

As far as citing Romney's business experience, that's an invaluable tool when it comes to understanding what makes a strong economy, something Obama has demonstrated he's unfamiliar with. No one is saying he will run the country like a CEO, they're saying he understands what conditions businesses need to thrive.

I'm sure if the Republican candidate had no professional job experience, no governmental leadership experience, no written legislation, and a laundry list of questionable associations, you would bring attention to it, especially after 4 years of what does appear to be ineffective leadership.

Fisto, nobody votes for a candidate because of their experience. Experience helps of course in instilling confidence in that person's abilities, but at the end of the day you vote for someone who shares your political vision. I'm sure you'd rather vote for an inexperienced Republican who stood for everything you do than a Democrat with a long track record.

Personally, I don't give a damn about Romney's experience. Any man that is so ideological that he would not raise taxes by one dollar if promised 10 dollars in cuts is a fucking moron and driven more by ideology than pragmatism. I've said it before, we need both spending cuts AND tax increases. Most non-partisan economists have come to this conclusion. This is the position of the Obama administration. Republicans are on this voodoo economics shit for 30 years now even though there's not a shred of evidence that its ever worked.

Republicans have successfully portrayed him as a reckless spender, even though it's a lie. I guess if you say something for long enough it eventually sticks.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-...ken-sailor

Quote:

lmost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

What's happened is that the debt has ballooned under Obama. Now to Joe average, when debt balloons, he thinks it's due to spending, since that's the way Joe average gets in debt, he spends too much. But debt doesn't happen necessarily from spending too much. It's also due to the lack of revenue from the Bush tax cuts which the Republicans forced him to extend, the recession which cut tax revenue across the board and the stimulus spending and the wars(started by the previous administration).

[Zebra_Cakes]

(10-04-2012 08:41 PM)painter Wrote:  

Yeah, it's worse than nothing. Gas is $4 a gallon, the price of food is going through the roof, everything costs twice as much under Obama and they want higher taxes on top of that? If we don't cut the borrowing to spend now we go broke. That's math Obama can't seem to add up. On the job training? For the biggest job in the world? Not a good experiment.

Gas prices are not under the Presidents control. Plus, we have some of the cheapest gas in the world. Food prices are also not under the Presidents control. You're placing needless blame.

What we need to do is cut spending. I like Gary Johnsons stance on cutting 43% out of each of these: Entitlements and Military. Just as Obama doesn't get it, neither does Romney. For god sake, he mentioned cutting PBS funding as a cost saver (it's 0.012% of federal budget), which Neil Degrasse Tyson mentioned as being the equivalent of deleting text message files from a 500GB HD. We need REAL cuts. Especially in Military and Entitlements, and none of these two are talking about it.