Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?

[Kulindahr]

Nate Silver and several other models show that Obama is going to win. How on earth will Romney get 330 electoral votes? That's just not going to happen. That model is wrong.

That model relies on nothing but economic data and a comparison to the past. Thus it misses two big points:

1. People do not rely entirely on economic data.

2. This is not the past.

[Benvolio]

Romney only needs 270 electoral votes. Heres how, from Real Clear Politics Com Romney now has 181. FL 29, most recent 2 for R.
MO average R +5.2.
NC average R + .8
OH most recent tie, will go R
VA most recent O + .3. Will go R
Then one of the following IA 6, NV, NH, or CO (now O +.2)
I don't expect you to accept this but it does show that Romney is much closer than you think. He will get MO, and the other four are essentially tied.
I continue to predict a Romney landslide.

[GiancarloC]

Romney isn't getting 270 electoral votes. Obama has the greater chance of getting that and probably exceeding 300 electoral votes. Ohio will go to Obama that's my projection. Romney isn't close as you want to think, and you predicting a landslide? Pretty much a ridiculous projection. It isn't going to happen.

And let me say... close or a landslide? The statement keeps on changing. Predict all you want, but Nate Silver's model is far better. And stop making so much assumptions about how states are going to go.

I look at Nate Silver's model... and I ask... has Romney ever had more then a 30% chance of winning? I think not.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

ReadyWithReadyWit - What I think Chance is asking you -- what is Obama's vision for the USA in the next four years. You responded pretty much the same as the Obama Campaign has been doing - criticizing Romney.

Let's here what you have to say about the next four years with Obama at the helm.

Chance is more than capable of framing his own points/questions. However, for your benefit , here is what I think Obama offers for the next four years:

Continued steady, responsible, more equitable growth (admittedly, hopefully at a slightly faster rate) with the unemployment figure continuing to drop, the DOW continuing to rise, consumer confidence continuing to rise, the housing market continuing to bounce back, etc.... That is... a safe economic recovery to continue. I expect the election to create more certainty in the nation, the president to learn from his bargaining mistakes in the past, and likely actually move to the right (unfortunately, for many on this forum) on some of his economic compromising... as history shows presidents tend to move to the center in a second term. I think business will start to embrace Obamacare (they won't have a choice) once the uncertainty over its future is lifted and, if implemented correctly, the program will prove to be a success. I think changing direction (what direction that is btw... who knows) is risky with little actual upside potential and, based only on the shreds of a plan Romney now denounces, not politically feasible especially in the long run. Oh, and as a bonus, Obama will do so while creating a atmosphere conducive to opening dialogue about and extending gay rights...

As with every knee-jerk "I'm rubber, your glue" reaction by the Romney campaign... (you know... the... We're not out of touch... Obama is... We're not waging a war on women... Obama is.... etc...), this too is an entirely false equivalency instigated to muddy the water. What is Obama going to do to bridge the gap in the deficit? You know very damn well what he intends to do... he hasn't changed his position for political convenience. He is going to ask the rich/ big business to pay 3-4% more in taxes... when you maintain a semblance of reasonability and accept that revenues are a part of the balanced solution... you don't have to answer questions about filling a $4.8 trillion dollar void... it doesn't exist. Thus, the Obama administration wants to focus on demand/ small business-driven growth... you know those individuals that actually have to spend to survive and those businesses that actually have to reinvest capital into their businesses (instead of sitting on profits while the country crumbles around them)... and, because of this, 98% of small business would likely not even be subject to to the higher income tax rate.

And, to reiiterate my point, you can criticize Obama's record because he actually has one. If you want to know where he stands on the issues, look back at the last four years. All I'm asking is for Romney to suggest what he will do differently from Obama and, more importantly the failed administration before him. Is this really asking too much?

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Romney only needs 270 electoral votes. Heres how, from Real Clear Politics Com Romney now has 181. FL 29, most recent 2 for R.
MO average R +5.2.
NC average R + .8
OH most recent tie, will go R
VA most recent O + .3. Will go R
Then one of the following IA 6, NV, NH, or CO (now O +.2)
I don't expect you to accept this but it does show that Romney is much closer than you think. He will get MO, and the other four are essentially tied.
I continue to predict a Romney landslide.

I can't imagine why RealClearPolitics is still counting MO as a swing state. Romney has a comfortable 7 point lead and Obama has NEVER taken the lead there in any poll. I think it's safe to assume that MO's 10 electoral votes can be put in the Romney column.

That being said, all President Obama has to do is pick up NV, CO and IA (he has consistently led in all three, with more than a 5 point lead in IA and NV) and he gets to 272 electoral votes. Even if we give ALL of the "big money" swing states (OH, FL, VA, NC) to Romney (and OH still isn't very likely) Romney only gets to 266.

For anyone interested in playing, the CNN map allows you to choose scenarios to see how they play out with an interactive clickable model:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/eca...#?battleground

[Jack Springer]

^^^

The trouble with your argument is that the economy sucks. It's hard to spin the lie that things are getting better when the GNP is extremely low -- close to recession low. The reason the unemployment rate went down is that there are so many people with part time jobs now -- not full time jobs.

Yes, Obama does have a record and it sucks. It's time for change.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

^^^

The trouble with your argument is that the economy sucks. It's hard to spin the lie that things are getting better when the GNP is extremely low -- close to recession low. The reason the unemployment rate went down is that there are so many people with part time jobs now -- not full time jobs.

Yes, Obama does have a record and it sucks. It's time for change.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I don't have to "spin" the truth... and I realized going into my post that it was falling on deaf ears... noone is claiming the economy is great... but I challenge you to find me any respectable economist who would argue that things are not "getting better" compared to what they were when Obama took office... thinking otherwise is delusional. Likewise, I challenge you to explain to me what Mitt is offering that is different from the Bush administration and that tackles the the enormity (as in trillions of dollars) of the budget problem the right is so concerned about. And, just for the record, you do think the Bush administation's economic policy was a disaster, right?

I showed you mine... now it's your turn, big boy...

[GiancarloC]

^^^

The trouble with your argument is that the economy sucks. It's hard to spin the lie that things are getting better when the GNP is extremely low -- close to recession low. The reason the unemployment rate went down is that there are so many people with part time jobs now -- not full time jobs.

Yes, Obama does have a record and it sucks. It's time for change.

Actually...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct...omies-20121003

The economy in swing states is actually very good... so that could be Mitten's undoing. Sorry to say it.

The reason the unemployment rate went down is mostly because of full time jobs, not part time. Keep trying to spin it.

[Jack Springer]

^^^
Yeah, and the USA just experienced it's biggest hiring month in 30 years!

Who would would buy that crap?

[GiancarloC]

^^^
Yeah, and the USA just experienced it's biggest hiring month in 30 years!

Who would would buy that crap?

Okay for one, the figures are from an agency that can have no feedback with the White House. If one is going to make an accusation as serious as that, there should be serious proof.

What crap? These are the facts.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

The BLS cannot have any interaction with the White House or the Congress. The figures are under extreme scrutiny. It can be accurate to say it's factual.

http://news.yahoo.com/officials-reje...--finance.html

"To think that these numbers could be manipulated. ... It's impossible to do it and get away with it," said Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that calculates the unemployment rate.

"These numbers are very trustworthy," said Hall, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and whose four-year term ended in January.

IF these guys were influenced by the White House they could lose their jobs and possibly face a serious investigation. Now where is the proof the numbers were doctored?

[Benvolio]

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I don't have to "spin" the truth... and I realized going into my post that it was falling on deaf ears... noone is claiming the economy is great... but I challenge you to find me any respectable economist who would argue that things are not "getting better" compared to what they were when Obama took office... thinking otherwise is delusional. Likewise, I challenge you to explain to me what Mitt is offering that is different from the Bush administration and that tackles the the enormity (as in trillions of dollars) of the budget problem the right is so concerned about. And, just for the record, you do think the Bush administation's economic policy was a disaster, right?

I showed you mine... now it's your turn, big boy...

I think that what's in Obama's favor is that while things may not be improving for everyone, everyone knows someone for whom they are getting better. That tells people things are looking up, however slowly.

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

So wait, are you attempting to deny the rights of an individual to contribute to a political campaign (all of $2,000 by the way) at the same time you want to defend major corporations spending unlimited funds to buy elections? Since a guy donates to the guy who isn't your candidate, he's automatically lying?

One shred, just one single SHRED of proof is all anyone is asking for to back up these outrageous claims from the right.

JUST

ONE

SINGLE

SHRED

anyone? anyone?

I'll wait.....

[Benvolio]

You realy mean that you want evidence from a Democrat source saying that the Democrat figures are bogus. You will brush aside any other evidence as being from a forbidden source. The BLS donations prove that they are biased and have that motive to to help Obama.

[Kulindahr]

This is priceless:

Posted by Benvolio:

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

Which, he says, means they can't be trusted.

So, Ben, you just proved to us, by your own reasoning, that we shouldn't believe a single word you say: you post supporting Romney, which means you want to help him, which means nothing you say about him can be trusted.

Bravo.

[GiancarloC]

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

Prove it.

The BLS isn't biased. They are prohibited by law to do so. The statistics are sound and reliable. When I post sources to prove my argument, I expect some in return.

I'll trust BLS over the words of one who hates Obama with no rational reason.

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

You realy mean that you want evidence from a Democrat source saying that the Democrat figures are bogus. You will brush aside any other evidence as being from a forbidden source.

You know what ben? Just this once and in the spirit of fair play, I'm happy to take ANY source, any source at all of your choosing that helps make this case. How's that?

The ONLY condition is that the source lists ACTUAL EVIDENCE that those numbers were cooked to help the president. I'm not talking about innuendo or "a gut feeling" or any of the other crap that's being put out there in the form of a whispering campaign, but an actual morsel of evidence or proof to back up this otherwise outrageous claim.

How's that? Completely your choice and the ball is in your court.

The logical problem of your assertion reminds me of an algebra exercise. Let's say we know that a + b = c. In this case, "a" represents the fact that certain members of BLS made individual contributions to Obama's campaign and let's say "b" represents something like a demonstrable irregularity in the math of the numbers or a cloud of doubt is cast over the numbers by something measurable. "C" would then represent the outcome that the numbers should not be trusted and that the BLS members cooked them to help the president. What you're doing is starting with "a" and assuming that "c" is the only possible outcome.

We know that isn't true.

It doesn't work in algebra and it doesn't work in life.

I'm sure everyone here will be anxiously awaiting the proof of your claim and, remember, ANY source is good so long as it contains evidence.

[Benvolio]

The figures themselves are internally inconsistent and don't make sense.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...mployment-drop
This combined with the strong motive of Hussein's underlings to help him are strong circumstantial evidence that the figures are phoney.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

What a surprise - instead of actual facts, Benny just posts some regurgitated talking points from Breitbart.

I guess i'll have to post data from two separate reputable sources:





Well, look at that...they both match up with minimal variations. Unless that sneaky gay atheist Muslim socialist manipulated the data of both Gallup and the Bureau of Labor without anyone knowing...

Oh, and Benny: "Hussein" means "good" and "handsome" in Arabic. It's so nice that you think that Obama is good and handsome!

[rareboy]

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

{text removed by moderator}

We demolished this nonsense in the other thread.

One guy gave $270.00 and the other economist who has been working under administrations since 1993 gave Obama $2000.00;
neither of them is even involved with the unemployment numbers if you look at what they write papers on.

As I also said...you are telling us that there are no contributors to Romney working for BLS?

Prove it.

[Kulindahr]

It is interesting that Joe Scarborough has a problem with the numbers, too.

[BostonPirate]

The numbers make sense and to attack the agency that gave Obama a plagued presidency with 8 or above unemplyment for years is par for the course here with the GOP.

If Obama could fix the numbers it would have happened a while back.

This nonsense is what makes these threads boring and tedious. Look, this is the election we all expected, close up to the last. It's too late for Romney to pivot to the center for a win. The hand job Romney is getting from the media is all about ratings, but Romney has to have all four of the next weeks run PERFECTLY to get to where a win is within his grasp.

The internals of the polls and the dynamics of the economy are not in Romney's favor.

Obama will win, but it will be hard up until the last.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

It's funny that Republicans had no problem before with the BLS's numbers or the way they gathered and analyzed the data. Now that GOP's "OVER 8%!" talking point is nullified, all of a sudden it turns out that Obama was manipulating the numbers the whole time! AND THE PHONE CALL ALSO CAME FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!

[GiancarloC]

The figures themselves are internally inconsistent and don't make sense.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...mployment-drop
This combined with the strong motive of Hussein's underlings to help him are strong circumstantial evidence that the figures are phoney.

No. Breitbart, again, isn't a valid source. Take a look at the sources I and Fury have provided. There are several sources corroborating the numbers. There was no fuzzy math. The numbers are quite clear. The numbers aren't phony. Present some real evidence. There is no "strong circumstantial evidence".

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I don't have to "spin" the truth... and I realized going into my post that it was falling on deaf ears... noone is claiming the economy is great... but I challenge you to find me any respectable economist who would argue that things are not "getting better" compared to what they were when Obama took office... thinking otherwise is delusional. Likewise, I challenge you to explain to me what Mitt is offering that is different from the Bush administration and that tackles the the enormity (as in trillions of dollars) of the budget problem the right is so concerned about. And, just for the record, you do think the Bush administation's economic policy was a disaster, right?

I showed you mine... now it's your turn, big boy...

Still waiting patiently ... others can jump in too... he might need help...

[rareboy]

^ We'll all be waiting a long, long time.

One hundred bottles of beer on the wall, one hundred bottles of beer..........

[Benvolio]

What Bush policies do you think were a disaster? Be specific and show a causal connection. In fact, of course, his policies where very successful and we had 5 years of prosperity until the Democrats took Congress in Nov 06.
The meltdown occurred because the Democrats forced banks to make doubtful loans to poor and minorities. Banks complied making variable rate mortgages. Then the Fed raised interest rates, many people defaulted, and the FDIC panicked and the downward spiral began.
You cannot point to any Bush policies which caused the problem or which were disasters.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

I don't know why I bother wasting my time doing this, especially since you're either not going to read it or just ignore it completely, but here you go, Benny. (BTW - learn to use Bing or Google)

From History News Network
Author: Robert S. McElvaine http://hnn.us/articles/7286.html:

Taken, in the wake of the terrorist attacks three years ago, the greatest worldwide outpouring of goodwill the United States has enjoyed at least since World War II and squandered it by insisting on pursuing a foolish go-it-almost-alone invasion of Iraq, thereby transforming almost universal support for the United States into worldwide condemnation.

Promoted the extraordinarily dangerous doctrine of preemptive war.

Presided over the loss of more than a million American jobs, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.

Misled the American public about weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al-Qaida in Iraq and so led us into a war that has plainly and predictably made us less secure, caused a boom in the recruitment of terrorists, is killing American military personnel needlessly and is threatening to suck up all our available military forces and be a bottomless pit for the money of American taxpayers for years to come.

Failed to follow through in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al-Qaida are regrouping, once more increasing the threat to our people.
Insulted and ridiculed other nations and international organizations and then found it necessary to go, hat in hand, to those nations and organizations begging for their assistance.

Inherited an annual federal budget surplus of $230 billion and transformed it into a $400-plus billion deficit in less than three years. This negative turnaround of nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars is without precedent in our history.

Perhaps worst of all, wrapped himself in the flag and used the horrors of 9/11 to divert the voters' attention from the disasters that his policies have produced.

There's tons more of course, but If I copy and pasted all of Bush Jr's. policy failures, I might cause JUB's servers to crash.

[Benvolio]

I was responding to Ready Wits complaint about Bush's "disastrous""economic policies", and asked him to point our any. Please limit your discussion to economic policies and any disastrous results, showing a cause and effect. That is, please point out any disasters you think were the result of an "economic" policy of Bush.

[BostonPirate]

I was responding to Ready Wits complaint about Bush's "disastrous""economic policies", and asked him to point our any. Please limit your discussion to economic policies and any disastrous results, showing a cause and effect. That is, please point out any disasters you think were the result of an "economic" policy of Bush.

NO

But thanks for the advice. Obama haters have little to do with Bush. If they had any shame or cognitive abilities, they would see what they are and how unseemly their behavior appears to the rest of the nation.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama would be losing to Gov Christie if the GOP hadn't spent four years destroying its brand with nothing but unbridled hatred, at the nations expense.

Obama will win. If you are a supporter of Romney and you are an Obama hater who supported the GOP obstruction of congress, you will have to personally wear that for four more years.

Repercussions, Gentlemen, are not just for the moochers who are our armed forces, by Mitt's definition. repercussions are for the people that made Mitt Romney's candidacy possible.

He is the worst candidate for the office of the presidency I have ever witnessed in my life, and he will never sit in the oval office, because americans simply hate the GOP in Congress, and have NO trust for them.

[Benvolio]

Again, I have not heard Republicans use the word hatred against Obama. We dislike his anti business/ pro socialist policies. He does not have America's or Americans best interests at heart. That is proven by his pro immigration policies in a time of massive unemployment. Romney has been very successful at many things, and will make a great President. And, yes he will be elected.

[rareboy]

I was responding to Ready Wits complaint about Bush's "disastrous""economic policies", and asked him to point our any. Please limit your discussion to economic policies and any disastrous results, showing a cause and effect. That is, please point out any disasters you think were the result of an "economic" policy of Bush.

The Iraq war of adventure. That has bankrupted the country.

He was stopped short from dismantling social security...remember that. When he thought that each person should just be able to invest their money in the market. The one that crashed in 2008? that was near thing.

The Bush Tax Cuts? You forget those?

[Benvolio]

What disaster has resulted from the three things you have listed? Iraq was not an economic policy. It raised the debt, as did the tax cuts, but was that a disaster? If that debt was a disaster thenObama's deficit spendibg is also a disaster.
But the debt is only a future disaster with little adverse effect at this time. The Social Secuity thingy did not happen.
You still have not given us a disasterous Bush ecinomic policy.

[BostonPirate]

Again, I have not heard Republicans use the word hatred against Obama. We dislike his anti business/ pro socialist policies. He does not have America's or Americans best interests at heart. That is proven by his pro immigration policies in a time of massive unemployment. Romney has been very successful at many things, and will make a great President. And, yes he will be elected.

give it up, dude.

That kite won't fly. If you can't see your congitive dissonance on all matters Obama and don't see how unnatractive it is, then you deserve to just be who you are in all your glorious ... charm.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

What Bush policies do you think were a disaster? Be specific and show a causal connection. In fact, of course, his policies where very successful and we had 5 years of prosperity until the Democrats took Congress in Nov 06.
The meltdown occurred because the Democrats forced banks to make doubtful loans to poor and minorities. Banks complied making variable rate mortgages. Then the Fed raised interest rates, many people defaulted, and the FDIC panicked and the downward spiral began.
You cannot point to any Bush policies which caused the problem or which were disasters.

Ben- you cannot expect me to have a serious conversation with you if you continue to insist that the Earth is flat... noone, even Republicans, claim that the Bush economic policies were a success. You are ahead of even Romney (and everyone at the RNC) on this pivot...

I will echo another's advice:
1.) Go to this brand new site: www.google.com
2.) Type in "Bush Economic Legacy"
3.) Read articles (this one's important)
4.) For shits and giggles, if you have time, also Google Image search "completely wrong" while you're there

Here are a couple to get you started:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/0...de-of-descent/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-legacy/26402/

A better argument would be, of course, that Bush inherited the dot-com bubble and that there are economic policy "lags" (which is true btw)... this, however, would unfortunately weaken your argument since then Bush would be justly held accountable for the start of the Obama presidency...

A couple of side notes though:
-Of course, starting a pointless, unpaid for war costing uber-conservatively ONE TRILLION dollars is relevant to economic policy...
-Can you explain your distinction between the "poor" and "minorities" above? Since you already covered the "poor", what exactly about minorities, other than being poor, makes them a larger loan risk that you needed to call them out?

At this point, I have supplied plenty and have received nothing in return in terms of my questions... and I am sorting looking for a give and take kind of relationship here...

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Ben- you cannot expect me to have a serious conversation with you if you continue to insist that the Earth is flat... noone, even Republicans, claim that the Bush economic policies were a success. You are ahead of even Romney (and everyone at the RNC) on this pivot...

YOUR problem is you just don't get the mantra.

Republicans = good (ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION)
Democrats = bad (ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION)

Hope this saves you some time and aggravation!

[Benvolio]

What disaster? How did Bush's economic policies cause it? If there is any substance to the claim, you should be able to answer the questions, or leave it to Ready Wit who made the claim.

Don't tell me to google it. i already know the correct answer: Bush's economic policies did not cause a disaster.

[FuryOfFirestorm]

What disaster? How did Bush's economic policies cause it? If there is any substance to the claim, you should be able to answer the questions, or leave it to Ready Wit who made the claim.

Don't tell me to google it. i already know the correct answer: Bush's economic policies did not cause a disaster.

Of course you're right, Benny. Starting a multi-billion dollar war on based on faulty intelligence and false pretenses was in no way a disaster.

Disaster is too generous. It was an unmitigated fuck up of epic proportions. It lasted 10 years, cost billions of dollars, cost thousands of lives, hurt our goodwill with other nations, failed to get Bin Laden, and ended up lining the coffers of Dick Cheney and his pals via lucrative government contracts with Cheney's Blackwater corporation.

The rotten cherry on the shit sundae is that Bush kept most of the war cost "off the books", so he could end his Presidency smelling like a rose and leave the next guy to deal with the bill. That's the usual GOP way of doing things: "I got mine - everybody else can go suck a big dick!"

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Late edit on my previous statement...replace "Blackwater" with "Haliburton".

I always get my shameless war profiteers mixed up. It's embarrassing, really.

[Rolyo85]

Wait, he's saying that Bush's policies did NOT cause economic meltdown? There are actual non-institutionalized Americans who claim that?

And to think I was surprised when people said the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy...

[GiancarloC]

What disaster? How did Bush's economic policies cause it? If there is any substance to the claim, you should be able to answer the questions, or leave it to Ready Wit who made the claim.

Don't tell me to google it. i already know the correct answer: Bush's economic policies did not cause a disaster.

Bush left the country with a net job loss and the economy in fucking shambles. One of the WORST recessions since 1929. Bush's economic policies led to a disastrous increase in the gap between the rich and poor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1446650.html

This article is from a few months ago, but it highlights how bad Bush left this country. Anyone that defends Bush's economic policies was absent for his second term when the economy tanked.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

What disaster? How did Bush's economic policies cause it? If there is any substance to the claim, you should be able to answer the questions, or leave it to Ready Wit who made the claim.

Don't tell me to google it. i already know the correct answer: Bush's economic policies did not cause a disaster.

Ben... I've given you sources... one even lays out issue by issue... unnecessary/muddled tax cuts, poor job growth, deficit explosion, no energy policy... not to mention a useless TRILLION dollar war and a president that oversaw the 8 years preceding the worst recession since the Great Depression... even 50% of Republicans STILL blame Bush for the economic climate TODAY... that should tell you something...

But it doesn't... because you're proud of your know-nothing mentality... you've even just admitted you refuse to accept knowledge... so what's the point? The Earth is flat because Ben says so...

It's a lost cause... perhaps Mitt Romney was on to something... maybe you just can't help some people... unfortunately, it appears they are ironically voting for him...

Thanks for nothing. You have contributed absolutely nothing worthwhile to this entire thread. You've completely ignored my questions and instead offered nothing but inane, distracting, unscholarly questions of your own...

I offer the following clip as a summary of the plethora of responses to my questions regarding Mitt Romney's big ideas:

It gets particulary enlightening around 27:16...

[GiancarloC]

Bush started his Presidency with this country in a recession and ended it one. No wonder why that asshole can't show his face in public or at a convention. His policies are what sent this country off the financial cliff. And Obama was left with the mess.

[Kulindahr]

^ We'll all be waiting a long, long time.

One hundred Ten thousand bottles of beer on the wall, one hundred ten thousand bottles of beer..........

Altered for reality.

[Kulindahr]

Again, I have not heard Republicans use the word hatred against Obama. We dislike his anti business/ pro socialist policies. He does not have America's or Americans best interests at heart. That is proven by his pro immigration policies in a time of massive unemployment. Romney has been very successful at many things, and will make a great President. And, yes he will be elected.

Not using the word hate doesn't mean you don't hate.

He has introduced pro-business legislation that would have created a million jobs in one instance and nearly that in another -- and both time it was the anti-American Republicans who killed those, thereby proving they are anti-American by denying two million Americans the jobs Obama's policy would have generated.

On immigration, Obama has almost no policy except to allow people who are actually Americans and people who would generate jobs for Americans to stay here. Again, the HGOP shows itself anti-American by opposing those efforts... again, denying Americans jobs.

Romney has been successful at being a huckster gathering funds from every source possible, especially sucking it out of the taxpayers to profit himself and his friends -- as he did with the Olympics and Bain -- and happily taking it from Latin American terrorists and then enriching them.

If he is elected, the projections show that if what little he has said of policy is implemented, over one million jobs will vanish in the first year and over three in the next year, for roughly four and a half million jobs gone in just two years. If he continues according to the ideology spouted by his running mate, they'll be the best friends Marxists have ever had in the White House, because that 47% will become 67% and among them will be radicals ready to stir up revolution.

[Kulindahr]

What disaster has resulted from the three things you have listed? Iraq was not an economic policy. It raised the debt, as did the tax cuts, but was that a disaster? If that debt was a disaster thenObama's deficit spendibg is also a disaster.
But the debt is only a future disaster with little adverse effect at this time. The Social Secuity thingy did not happen.
You still have not given us a disasterous Bush ecinomic policy.

Rubbish. Anything that costs money is economic policy.

You've been given several disastrous policies. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

[Kulindahr]

A better argument would be, of course, that Bush inherited the dot-com bubble and that there are economic policy "lags" (which is true btw)... this, however, would unfortunately weaken your argument since then Bush would be justly held accountable for the start of the Obama presidency...

A couple of side notes though:
-Of course, starting a pointless, unpaid for war costing uber-conservatively ONE TRILLION dollars is relevant to economic policy...
-Can you explain your distinction between the "poor" and "minorities" above? Since you already covered the "poor", what exactly about minorities, other than being poor, makes them a larger loan risk that you needed to call them out?

At this point, I have supplied plenty and have received nothing in return in terms of my questions... and I am sorting looking for a give and take kind of relationship here...

If Benny read the offerings you provided, he'll recognize this:

President George W. Bush presided over the creation of fewer jobs in the U.S. economy in the modern era than any president since President Herbert Hoover

So with his supposed job-stimulating tax cuts for the "job creators", Bush managed to drag down the prosperity built under Clinton and set the nation up for economic disaster.

We'd have been far better off if he'd spent that trillion blown on invading a sovereign country that had done us no harm and rebuilt all the bridges in the highway system and widened side roads suffering from safety concerns due to being built to 1940s or -50s standards. THAT would have boosted the economy... and possibly even brought us back to a surplus within a few years.

The experience of Japan and others show that it doesn't matter who's in charge, a recession like this takes about ten years to get out of -- but the experience in Europe is showing that the policies Romney and Ryan are proposing will prolong it and make it worse.

Benvolio, I used to stand where you do. But the facts don't support it, and as someone who believes in liberty, I have to go with what works for the majority, not what benefits the wealthy minority.

[Jack Springer]

Bush started his Presidency with this country in a recession and ended it one. No wonder why that asshole can't show his face in public or at a convention. His policies are what sent this country off the financial cliff. And Obama was left with the mess.

Calling a President an "asshole" nice ........

[Jack Springer]

If Benny read the offerings you provided, he'll recognize this:



So with his supposed job-stimulating tax cuts for the "job creators", Bush managed to drag down the prosperity built under Clinton and set the nation up for economic disaster.

We'd have been far better off if he'd spent that trillion blown on invading a sovereign country that had done us no harm and rebuilt all the bridges in the highway system and widened side roads suffering from safety concerns due to being built to 1940s or -50s standards. THAT would have boosted the economy... and possibly even brought us back to a surplus within a few years.

The experience of Japan and others show that it doesn't matter who's in charge, a recession like this takes about ten years to get out of -- but the experience in Europe is showing that the policies Romney and Ryan are proposing will prolong it and make it worse.

Benvolio, I used to stand where you do. But the facts don't support it, and as someone who believes in liberty, I have to go with what works for the majority, not what benefits the wealthy minority.

I guess your selective memory doesn't remember that Bush inherited a recession when he took office in 2001, then 9/11 happened that crushed the economy in ways that it will never recover to what it was before.

I guess selective memory goes with being a liberal.

[JayHawk]

Mitt Romney wants to double down on Bush fiscal policy which resulted in the fewest job creations in the modern economy. That alone should open the eyes of these few deluded homos who would vote for the man. Instead they shed a tear because Bush was called an asshole.


And to refer to Kuli as a liberal is hysterical. Evidently reading comprehension is not a strong suit amongst Romney-ites.