• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?

Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Just a question, this spending you speak of, is there any reason to believe that if the government cuts off the faucet, that the private sector won't correspondingly pick it up in some areas?
Like what areas? Road and bridge building? How about Police and firemen or teachers? I can't think of any major Govt. expense that would be simply "picked up" by private enterprise.
Govt. is unique in that there is no profit motive, not something that sits too well in the private sector.
There is "profit" to Govt. spending it just comes later and to all of us not just the Govt.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Most Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll



By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:21pm EDT

(Reuters) - Economic fears are weighing heavily on Americans, with a large majority saying the United States is on the wrong track and nearly half believing the worst is yet to come, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said on Wednesday.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 73 percent of Americans believe the United States is "off on the wrong track," and just one in five, 21 percent, think the country is headed in the right direction.

Most Americans say U.S. on wrong track: poll | Reuters

If it's wrong tracks, that's Obama's track. Why do voters still go for him - the wrong tracks? It doesn't make sense.

When the Feds want to select their own candidate for their own purpose, they don't care even to make it a contradictary case.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Like what areas? Road and bridge building? How about Police and firemen or teachers? I can't think of any major Govt. expense that would be simply "picked up" by private enterprise.
Govt. is unique in that there is no profit motive, not something that sits too well in the private sector.

Perhaps there should be a 'profit motive' but in the US of today profit seems to be a bad word.

Nonetheless, all those millions of government employees are profiting by just showing up for work. And they are profiting far more than those working in the private sector and with greater job security.
There is "profit" to Govt. spending it just comes later and to all of us not just the Govt.

Thre is no profit motive in government but later they make a profit anyway. Just when is this later?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Perhaps there should be a 'profit motive' but in the US of today profit seems to be a bad word.

Nonetheless, all those millions of government employees are profiting by just showing up for work. And they are profiting far more than those working in the private sector and with greater job security.


Thre is no profit motive in government but later they make a profit anyway. Just when is this later?


Many companies are experiencing record profits so why would you tihnk profit is a bad word now?

The profit from education comes from people getting better jobs because of their skills and paying txes on their higher income. The profit from infrastucture should be obvious.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Many companies are experiencing record profits so why would you tihnk profit is a bad word now?
Oh, i think profit is a very good thing but you said "Govt. is unique in that there is no profit motive, not something that sits too well in the private sector". Of course the privatre sector is very keen on profit in order to make a living for themselves and their employees. They can fail but the surest way for a government can fail is to spend more than it brings in. And when the government fails, everyone fails.
The profit from education comes from people getting better jobs because of their skills and paying txes on their higher income. The profit from infrastucture should be obvious.

The government needn't be the sole provider of education and in fact it seems clear that the taxpayer is not getting good value for the dollar in this area. Where does the government make a profit from infrastructure?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

To answer the question posed by the title "Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?" I think it might have something do with people aren't convinced that he'd be that much better. Maybe he needs to do a better sales job.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

To answer the question posed by the title "Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?" I think it might have something do with people aren't convinced that he'd be that much better. Maybe he needs to do a better sales job.

If people cannot spot the differences between the candidates after last night's debate, and are not familiar with their individual records, then the future of the United States is in serious difficulty.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

If people cannot spot the differences between the candidates after last night's debate, and are not familiar with their individual records, then the future of the United States is in serious difficulty.

On one hand we have a man that has turned around an economy that was losing 700,00 jobs a month, with a GDP in recession into 31 straight months of job growth and an ecnomy that is the fastest growing in the free world.
On the other hand we have a man who says whatever he needs to get votes no matter whether it is the truth or not. Someone who made the exact same lie as Bush did in his 2000 debate. That he was not going to cut the taxes of the wealthy. We all know what happened when Bush made that promise. How could any sane person believe a man that has shown no ability to tell the truth if it will hurt his chances of winnng?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

On one hand we have a man that has turned around an economy that was losing 700,00 jobs a month, with a GDP in recession into 31 straight months of job growth and an ecnomy that is the fastest growing in the free world.

You should get some stats to back up these claims of yours.

Here's some to look at. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data



On the other hand we have a man who says whatever he needs to get votes no matter whether it is the truth or not. Someone who made the exact same lie as Bush did in his 2000 debate. That he was not going to cut the taxes of the wealthy. We all know what happened when Bush made that promise. How could any sane person believe a man that has shown no ability to tell the truth if it will hurt his chances of winnng?

George Bush is not in this presidential campaign, nor is Bill Clinton.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

You should get some stats to back up these claims of yours.

Here's some to look at. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


George Bush is not in this presidential campaign, nor is Bill Clinton.

If it quacks like a Bush it's a Bush

0817-biz-EUROweb.jpg


apriljobschart-1024x743.jpg
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

If it quacks like a Bush it's a Bush

You seem convinced that someone called Bush is a Presidential candidate.

You have been misinformed.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

You seem convinced that someone called Bush is a Presidential candidate.

You have been misinformed.

The guy in this clip sounds just like Romney in his debate in 2000
[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/1615571[/video]
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

The real reason is the Feds need Obama's new Health care reform. There is nothing they care if people can benefit from it or not. They just want it to frame a target in their case with which they have created OKC bombing, 911 attack to get the Patriot Act.

You can see it from the surprise turn around of the Chief Justice Roberts.

726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)

On 6/28, Supreme Court issued a pass for Obama's Health care policy. What surprised people was Chief Justice Roberts sided with four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare the law's "individual mandate" constitutional.


Why did John Roberts, a Bush appointee who generally votes with his conservative colleagues, suddenly change his opinion to vote with the liberal? Just three months ago, he still opposed that "individual mandate" law.

Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone? (0:42) - The Washington Post

There are different theories about this mysterious turnaround. Mostly were from disinformation office of the Feds to cover up their puppet Roberts. None could solve the puzzle. I know why - the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision. When the Feds want to put Kat Sung under surveillance, they forced the law makers passing through the Patriot Act. (Through OKC bombing and 911 bombing) When the Feds want to restrict Kat Sung in US, they activate the TSA search, (blocking leaving from air flight) blocking the entering of Canada and Mexico; (by "Operation Fast and Furious") see "697. TSA search, Canada and Mexico (12/11/2011)". Now when they want Kat Sung to have a health insurance, they activate their proxy- John Roberts.

Six years ago when Roberts was selected as Chief Justice, I have written already,
"344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)"
The dark side of the USA in Public Forum Forum
This case proves I was very, very accurate at that judgement.

I'll talk about why the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

CNN story shows economists favor Romney -- but headline stresses they do so 'reluctantly'


Published October 02, 2012

FoxNews.com


Even the good news for Mitt Romney come wrapped in a bad news ribbon.

A recent CNNMoney story reported that the Republican presidential nominee, despite trailing in a number of swing state polls, is the overwhelming choice among economists surveyed. They picked him, according to CNNMoney, by a 3-to-1 margin. However, CNNMoney made sure to stress in the headline that they did so "reluctantly."


Read more: CNN story shows economists favor Romney -- but headline stresses they do so 'reluctantly' | Fox News

You know why? Because they have a mission to push up Obama and suppress Romney.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

742. Help Obama to win the second term (10/24/2012)

The recent Gallup poll shows that Mitt Romney leads over President Barack Obama in president Campaign. That’s just a gimmick to cheat people. The election result is pre-decided. Obama will stay for his second term. It doesn’t relate to any politics. It is for a case of the Feds. They need Obama’s Health Reform that they forced Chief Justice Roberts to change his mind in June to pass the “Health Reform”. (see “ 726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)”)

To keep Obama to stay in his seat, they have to create an economic background that favors him. Two months before voting date, in early September, we saw European bank chief Draghi said the bank would buy the bond with no limit. How could this affect US president election?

Draghi helps out Obama campaign

By Robin Harding in Washington September 6, 2012


Barack Obama’s chances of re-election as US president rose on Thursday and the words that did it were not his but Mario Draghi’s.

Long before Mr Obama stood up to accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina, the head of the European Central Bank had sketched out a new plan to buy the bonds of troubled eurozone countries.


That will not move the polls; it will not move a single vote. But Mr Draghi has lowered the gravest of risks to Mr Obama: a pre-election meltdown in the eurozone that would have blown up banks, pulverised Wall Street, and routed a fragile US economy back into recession.

If that happened, it would not be Mr Obama’s fault, but he would get the blame. Just as the failure of Lehman Brothers doomed his rival John McCain in 2008, a eurozone implosion would create economic odds too great for Mr Obama to surmount.

Draghi helps out Obama campaign - FT.com

Within days, Federal Reserve Chief Bernanke pushed out another QE which would push up economy temporarily but hurt it in long term with inflation. The Republicans felt it immediately. The timing of issuing QE3 is not a coincidence. It helps Obama.

Fed risks political fallout from QE3

By Robin Harding and James Politi in Washington September 14, 2012

Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, duly opened fire on Friday after the Fed began an open-ended third round of quantitative easing (QE3), under which it will buy $40bn of mortgage-backed securities a month.

Fed risks political fallout from QE3 - FT.com

QE3 will create another housing bubble.

Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption

Source: BI-ME , Author: Constantine Gardner Fri September 14, 2012

"Asset prices will go up and the money will flow to the Mayfair Economy," he said, defining the latter as an "economy of the rich people whose assets prices go up and whose net worth increases" without any trickle down benefit to the real economy.

What you have is a small economy that is booming and the majority of the economy is being damaged by QE, Faber explains.

Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...) leading to the subprime crisis in 2007. "The money printers and the neo-Keynesians interventionists are responsible for the crisis, reckons Faber, and people should know this."

Dr Bernanke's attempt to boost growth and reduce unemployment will end up, according to Dr. Faber, in a fiscal Grand Canyon with never ending deficits, the majority of the economy being damaged, the man in the street facing higher prices and losing his job.

Marc Faber: Fed's QE forever is ludicrous; no country has become rich from consumption - Business Intelligence Middle East - bi-me.com - News, analysis, reports

Faber sees the Fed's monetary policies over the last 15 years as mainly responsible for the various asset bubbles (Nasdaq, real estate etc...), the Nasdaq bubble is the dot.com bubble, I talked about these two bubbles from #733 to #739. And the Federal Reserve now continues to create the third one. At the purpose to help the Feds to remove the hot potatoes in their hands to the ordinary people.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Romney is struggling because he hasn't convinced people that he understands what they are going through or that he has a plan that is actually going to fix their problems. People see him as a very wealthy man who is out-of-touch with average Americans, a little cocky and dismissive of the poor and middle class, and a person who acquired his wealth mostly by cutting jobs or shipping them overseas. Whether any of those views are true or not, that is his problem.

Right on with the forgoing statement.
A man who flip-flops the way Romney does is one reason may people hate the guy. Such flip floppers are NEVER to be trusted. And since he has prostituted himself with the extremist right wing of the Republican Party, does not at help him!
But folks, the economy is improving! It would be an extreme irony if Romney gets elected and with the economy improving. Of course he will take credit for it when it was really Obama's policies that started it all.
Remember, it was that Republican GW Bush who created the mess that Obama has been struggling to fix with no help from the obstructionist Republicans who want to get rid of Obama at all costs.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

It seems like people don't know very much about economics, or they don't care. Obama is going into this election with a huge media edge. It looks bleak. I guess it's possible that the economy could improve in spite of the democrats policies and laws but it would certainly be a better economy with Romney.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

It seems like people don't know very much about economics, or they don't care. Obama is going into this election with a huge media edge. It looks bleak. I guess it's possible that the economy could improve in spite of the democrats policies and laws but it would certainly be a better economy with Romney.

Huge media edge? What a nice little scape-goat the right has tried to build.

Tell me, what's the left's equivalent to:

1) Foxnews channel
2) Rush Limbaugh
3) Sean Hannity
4) Political talk radio in general
5) Rupert Murdoch owned media outlets....

The media is in business to make money, not as a political tool of one party or the other.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Because its easier to vote for a hand ou than a chance to work hard.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Romney looks like exactly who he is; the SOB who bought out businesses and which led to thousands of peeps losing their jobs and all the money is at Bain Capital, who is trying to help Romney win by all of a sudden, matching funds with the Red Cross for Sandy victims, as if to erase all the misery that Romney and Bain capital brought to these United States.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Because its easier to vote for a hand ou than a chance to work hard.

This election isn't between hand outs and the chance to work hard. It's between hand outs for the rich and hand outs for the poor.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

This election isn't between hand outs and the chance to work hard. It's between hand outs for the rich and hand outs for the poor.
Sure it is Obama has increased food stamps and Wellfare more that any president
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

743. Create a hoax of a better off economy (10/29/2012)

Three months before the voting date, the unemployment rate was still high that it made the re-election unlikely for Obama.

What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?

By: Jon King | August 5, 2012

Many pundits (including this one) have made the point that if the unemployment rate is at 8% or higher that the president will have an uphill battle to win the election.

The reason why 8% is such a hurdle is that no modern president has ever won re-election when unemployment was over 8%. Actually, if one wants to take an even more skeptical view, they could say that no president since Roosevelt has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%.

What Does an 8.3 Percent Unemployment Rate Mean for the Election?

It’s hard to convince people the unemployment rate would drop below 7.2% in two months from 8.3%. But they still could manage to get a figure of 7.8% in order to make Obama’s re-election more reasonable.

Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions

by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012

Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls.

The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.

In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers.

Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions

Nobody can verify the figure. It’s all under their control. They could cover up the truth of 911 attack. They could make Bin Laden died twice. So what to maintain a puppet president? If they could have kept a war criminal (who activated a war with a lie) to stay on his second term, what’s the problem for another puppet? All they have to do is to create a hoax of a better off economy for several months then blame everything on the coming financial cliff.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

This election isn't between hand outs and the chance to work hard. It's between hand outs for the rich and hand outs for the poor.

Neither is good. Ideally, there would b eno need for hand-outs except for the few who are severely disabled (among which I don't count myself, though I'm considered multiply-disabled). If Romney truly created th e chance for all Americans to work hard, he'd certainly win, because the lazy make up a minority. Thing is, it's indeed mor eof Romney handing out cash to the rich.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Sure it is Obama has increased food stamps and Wellfare more that any president

And Harry Truman killed more people with Atomic Bombs.

Hey, I'm not an Obama fan by any stretch, but that is conservative pundit hyperbole and bull****. What facts are you aware of that back the claims up? Now I must ask these silly questions. Can you be more specific in your claim?

You know things like: What happened (what are the circumstances that would cause such a problem - be very careful and specific), when did Obama crank out massive amounts of welfare and food stamps? How did he do it without Congressional appropriations? What role did both chambers of Congress have in food stamps and welfare distribution...or did Obama do it all single handedly? At what point in his first term did the amount of welfare and food stamp distribution make history? Who were and are the main recipients of welfare and food stamps? What percentage of disabled and indigent elderly and children, who are totally dependent, and pretty much powerless and certainly political minorities, are recipients of welfare and food stamps.

In other words...how about a breakdown of the facts.

That's like the IRS...they publish a breakdown of the so-called 47% who don't pay taxes. It might surprise you to review the breakdown...the raw facts behind the claims that are used as political propaganda.

And once again...I won't be happy to see Obama reelected, I think he blew it...but also, I won't be happy to see Romney as president as he can't delivery all he claims. Neither can...or will. In my opinion, neither qualify.
 
Back
Top Bottom