Romney's closing argument: "I promise change" (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2024, 02:35:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Romney's closing argument: "I promise change" (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Romney's closing argument: "I promise change"  (Read 1106 times)
Orion0
Rookie
**
Posts: 221
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 6.06, S: -5.74

« on: November 02, 2012, 01:20:35 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


The economy is moving in the right direction under Obama, so I don't know why Romney wants to change that.

I wonder which direction do you consider the right direction?  The number of middle class Americans has shrunked.  Our inflation has gone up more than 5% (see shadow government statistics).  Gas price has gone up.  Food price has gone up.  Real unemployment remains about 16%.  Our currency is being destroyed by all the QEs and the Federal Reserve.  US is losing its status as the world leader in many areas.  And this is the right direction that we are moving to?

Now, not that Romney would lead us to the right way, but we are definitely going the wrong way!

Don't forget the downgrade of the usa's credit rating! With further downgrades projected. No hope on the horizon with Obama at the helm.
Right direction my a$$.
Logged
Orion0
Rookie
**
Posts: 221
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 6.06, S: -5.74

« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2012, 01:44:06 PM »

My thought is the economy was in such bad shape at the end of the Bush administration that Obama had to try something, even if it was wrong.  That's why you have the stimulus, which turns out was too small.  That's also why you have the healthcare overhaul.  That's also why you had the FHA $8,000 First-Time Home Buyer Tax Credit (of which yours truly was a beneficiary) and the Cash for Clunkers.  If the President hadn't done anything, I fear we would be even worse than we are now.  We were flat on our backs when Obama took office.  We're now starting to be able to sit up, but everybody, including the President, knows we have a long way to go.  The credit rating drop was probably going to happen regardless given our economic state, and I place little blame on either Bush or Obama for that.  There is all this talk about us going over the fiscal cliff in the next few months if we don't get a budget passed.  We were just about ready to fall off the same fiscal cliff in January 2009 and Obama had to do everything he could think of to keep us from falling off the edge.  Not to mention, we were fighting two wars on a credit card.  Things are not much better now, but at least we're not at rock bottom right now.  There's still a LONG way to go, but slowly but surely we'll get there.

All this post amounts to is making excuses for Obama. If he tried something and it was wrong, he needs to be voted out. The downgrade happened q3 2011, long after Obama's stimulus etc came into effect. Can't blame bush for a downgrade 3 years after he left office, since shockingly, it wasn't downgraded during his presidency. Continued "negative outlooks" do not point to a significant improvement in the future under Obama's tried and tired policies.

And p.s. wars still being fought on credit cards, only today the mantra is Seemingly "now with drones!
Logged
Orion0
Rookie
**
Posts: 221
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 6.06, S: -5.74

« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2012, 01:54:14 PM »

It is hilarious how people blame Obama for the credit downgrade, when S&P blamed Republicans for the downgrade for refusing any measure to raise revenue.



Partisan hack, you are.
S&P cited "difficulties in bridging the Gulf between political parties" and "Political brinkmanship" in their review of the downgrade. Last time I checked it takes two to tango.
They mention both parties as being responsible, but I guess when you read the report you don't see the 'democrats' in the phrase "republicans and democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending"
Logged
Orion0
Rookie
**
Posts: 221
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 6.06, S: -5.74

« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2012, 02:06:51 PM »


Meanwhile Obama did nothing in terms of leadership. No proposals, no mediation, no action of any kind. So even if republicans "resist" raising revenues, the flip side of that is reigning in spending. You have to raise revenue or decrease spending, and I don't see either of those things happening with the hatred between the two parties, as each is tied to a political philosophy.
Raising taxes is "democrat" territory, resisted by repubs claiming everyone will be poor due to excessive taxes; while decreasing spending is seen as a "republican" action resisted by democrats claiming everyone will die because of no safety net. It's hackery from both parties and no meaningful solutions will happen without serious leadership and extremely tough decisions on both sides.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 13 queries.