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

j-mac said:

Why is it that Romney must come up with every single metric in his campaign, when Obama won't even articulate what his own record is, much less what he plans to do?

Click to expand...

Because Romney is supposed to be better than Obama? I dunno, are you saying he's no better than Obama in regards to details in his campaign? The man has promised massive tax cuts and huge increases to defense spending, with no indication of how any of it is going to be paid for leaving the only option of increase the debt to cover the cost. This is an issue to me, and pointing out something Obama has done does not address the issue it only avoids it

Top Romney Aide Can't Explain How Romney Will Pay For His Plan To Increase Military Spending | ThinkProgress

Romney Will Increase Military Spending By $2.1 Trillion With No Plan To Pay For It | ThinkProgress

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

Wiseone said:

Because Romney is supposed to be better than Obama? I dunno, are you saying he's no better than Obama in regards to details in his campaign? The man has promised massive tax cuts and huge increases to defense spending, with no indication of how any of it is going to be paid for leaving the only option of increase the debt to cover the cost. This is an issue to me, and pointing out something Obama has done does not address the issue it only avoids it

Top Romney Aide Can't Explain How Romney Will Pay For His Plan To Increase Military Spending | ThinkProgress

Romney Will Increase Military Spending By $2.1 Trillion With No Plan To Pay For It | ThinkProgress

Click to expand...

If the American people fail to pick a proven winner like Romney over a proven loser like Obama then they have only themselves to blame. If sufficient numbers of Americans feel 'charisma' is necessary to be the leader of the country then it's clear they will get the government they deserve.

The 'dumbing down' and under-education of too many Americans over the last generation has led to where it finds itself today, and it's unlikely to improve.

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

Wiseone said:

Because Romney is supposed to be better than Obama? I dunno, are you saying he's no better than Obama in regards to details in his campaign? The man has promised massive tax cuts and huge increases to defense spending, with no indication of how any of it is going to be paid for leaving the only option of increase the debt to cover the cost. This is an issue to me, and pointing out something Obama has done does not address the issue it only avoids it

Top Romney Aide Can't Explain How Romney Will Pay For His Plan To Increase Military Spending | ThinkProgress

Romney Will Increase Military Spending By $2.1 Trillion With No Plan To Pay For It | ThinkProgress

Click to expand...

What ThinkProgress doesn't "think" of...or mention...is that Presidents rarely get everything they want (any Obama supporter should know this, though) and there is no reason to think that Congress will give him such an increase in military spending. I'm just happy that Romney doesn't want to gut the military like Obama wants to do.

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

What is Romney offering other than he's not Obama? The guy has been running for president for 5 years now he should have some ideas about what he wants to do. Also, blaming the press comes off as extremely weak. Specifically, if he can handle the simpletons in the media how the hell can he handle complex problems? If you aren't offering an alternative then why not stick with the guy that gives a good speech?

A small percentage of people are probably looking at his foregin policy advisers and saying "oh hell no we've seen this show before". Most folks don't pay attention to such things but the ones that do aren't likely swoon for the ideas of Bolton and friends.

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

John.NoseTip said:

What is Romney offering other than he's not Obama?

Click to expand...

Romney has a history of success, Obama does not.

The guy has been running for president for 5 years now he should have some ideas about what he wants to do.

Click to expand...

Then you should have a good idea as to who he is, as well as his successes.

Al

so, blaming the press comes off as extremely weak. Specifically, if he can handle the simpletons in the media how the hell can he handle complex problems? If you aren't offering an alternative then why not stick with the guy that gives a good speech?

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to where Romney was blaming the press and the explanation behind it?

A small percentage of people are probably looking at his foregin policy advisers and saying "oh hell no we've seen this show before".

Click to expand...

Who are these people and what have they seen before?

Most folks don't pay attention to such things but the ones that do aren't likely swoon for the ideas of Bolton and friends.

Click to expand...

How did Bolton become involved?

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

John.NoseTip said:

What is Romney offering other than he's not Obama? The guy has been running for president for 5 years now he should have some ideas about what he wants to do. Also, blaming the press comes off as extremely weak. Specifically, if he can handle the simpletons in the media how the hell can he handle complex problems? If you aren't offering an alternative then why not stick with the guy that gives a good speech?

A small percentage of people are probably looking at his foregin policy advisers and saying "oh hell no we've seen this show before". Most folks don't pay attention to such things but the ones that do aren't likely swoon for the ideas of Bolton and friends.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, because the ME on fire, and 4 American's dead in a terrorist attack, as well as telling the PM of Israel that JayZ, and Letterman are more important than him is just great I tell ya...:lamo

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

j-mac said:

Oh yeah, because the ME on fire, and 4 American's dead in a terrorist attack, as well as telling the PM of Israel that JayZ, and Letterman are more important than him is just great I tell ya...:lamo

Click to expand...

Once again the Romney line I'm not Obama. No alternative solutions. Tell me how Romney is different than Obama other than Romney now claims to be against abortion.. I'm not talking about Obama's rhetoric but the laws he actually enacted. They're are not identical but they are both corporatists and authortarians which makes for a really s****y choice in my opinion.

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

John.NoseTip said:

Once again the Romney line I'm not Obama. No alternative solutions. Tell me how Romney is different than Obama other than Romney now claims to be against abortion.. I'm not talking about Obama's rhetoric but the laws he actually enacted. They're are not identical but they are both corporatists and authortarians which makes for a really s****y choice in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The differences are there, and listed not only in the candidates platforms, but in speeches themselves. The choice is clear. So, I have to ask since you think that Obama is a "Corporatist, and an authoritarian" does that mean that you will not be voting for him?

What I do know is that Romney is an experienced turn around artist, with a proven track record of success, and when comparing apples to apples, Romney at this point in his career has more experience going into the job, than Obama ever had in '08.

Like it or not, an election for a 2nd term as President is always a referendum on the sitting Presidents performance in his first term, and based on that, if Obama is re elected, then America deserves to slide. Which IMHO, is exactly what Obama wants for the country.

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

j-mac said:

if Obama is re elected, then America deserves to slide. Which IMHO, is exactly what Obama wants for the country.

Click to expand...

Why in hell's bells do you "think" Obama wants the country to "slide"?

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

Dragonfly said:

Why in hell's bells do you "think" Obama wants the country to "slide"?

Click to expand...

Well, my opinion is that he sees the success that Americans enjoy in standard of living, and super power status in the world is unfair. IOW, it isn't fair that Americans enjoy AC, Cars, TVs, and other things that people in other less fortunate countries do not. In that respect I think his aim is to see America decline.

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

j-mac said:

Well, my opinion is that he sees the success that Americans enjoy in standard of living, and super power status in the world is unfair. IOW, it isn't fair that Americans enjoy AC, Cars, TVs, and other things that people in other less fortunate countries do not. In that respect I think his aim is to see America decline.

Click to expand...

How do you come up with stuff like that?

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

Dragonfly said:

How do you come up with stuff like that?

Click to expand...

That's from Obama himself!

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

Mycroft said:

Yes, I do.

The reason Romney is struggling is because the Democrats, with the help of the media, have been very effective with their campaign of distraction.

Click to expand...

Don't blame Romney's struggles on the media. The thread calls for a real, objective answer to the question of why Mitt Romney hasn't gained traction in this presidential campaign. Provide one other than the "blame the media" response which is just as ridiculous is many respects as "blame Bush".

Point to concrete reasons for his strugges and if you're honest about them you'll see what so many others see...

Romney's not very genuine.

Romney hasn't articulated a plan that addressed the immediate or long-term needs of those households that are struggling the most.

Romney's economic plan mirrors nearly identical to the economic plan this country has followed at least for the last 10 years if not longer - a plan that got our economy where it is today.

Romney's foreign policy (if you can call his recent gaffs such) aren't conducive to bridging the gap on global coalitions on a wide range of issues.

Bottom Line: A Romney/Ryan White House would be disasterous to the nation and people are starting to see that.

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

jmac said:

Well, my opinion is that he sees the success that Americans enjoy in standard of living, and super power status in the world is unfair. IOW, it isn't fair that Americans enjoy AC, Cars, TVs, and other things that people in other less fortunate countries do not. In that respect I think his aim is to see America decline.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

That's from Obama himself!

Click to expand...

Really? Show where he said such a thing. Inquiring minds would really like to know. Link please...we'll wait...:coffeepap

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

Wiseone said:

You're right lets stick to straight forward questions. For example Romney proposes increasing and maintaining defense spending at 4% of GDP, it is certainly at 3.5% of GDP just for comparison, I'd like to ask Mr. Romney where he'll find the extra money to increase defense spending without increasing the debt, I'm assuming this will mean cut backs in government as he won't raise taxes. So what programs will he cut to come up with this extra money?

Click to expand...

And let's get it straight, folks. No one whether they are Democrats and support Pres. Obama or Republicans and support Romney want our national defense to be weakened. Having served my country for nearly 16 years in the Navy (active duty), I certainly understand the concept of broad-based, international power projection and what that means to our nation's security. But to ignore the fact that we spend BILLIONS on defense even at times when we really don't have to (because we the most modern national defense apparatous and more devasting weaponry than any other nation on Earth) with no way to actually pay for it other than to borrow the money which goes contrary to Congress' stated responsiblity to appropriate based soley on Treasury receipts (U.S. Constitution, Art I., Sect. 9, Clause 7) is to do nothing more than continue adding to the debt which goes contrary to the "balanced budget argument" conservatives claim they support.

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

Objective Voice said:

Really? Show where he said such a thing. Inquiring minds would really like to know. Link please...we'll wait...:coffeepap

Click to expand...

Well, if you'll notice my first sentence of the quote that you saw fit to use says and I quote....

"Well, my opinion is ..."

Surely you know the meaning of that opening do you not? It means that is my opinion, based on listening to the man's speeches, watching his actions, and listening to his rhetoric. To ask for a quote of a specific instance is foolish, but you know that, and that is the tactic....Don't believe your lyin' ears, and eyes, only believe what you progressives say is the message. No thanks....

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

Objective Voice said:

And let's get it straight, folks. No one whether they are Democrats and support Pres. Obama or Republicans and support Romney want our national defense to be weakened. Having served my country for nearly 16 years in the Navy (active duty), I certainly understand the concept of broad-based, international power projection and what that means to our nation's security. But to ignore the fact that we spend BILLIONS on defense even at times when we really don't have to (because we the most modern national defense apparatous and more devasting weaponry than any other nation on Earth) with no way to actually pay for it other than to borrow the money which goes contrary to Congress' stated responsiblity to appropriate based soley on Treasury receipts (U.S. Constitution, Art I., Sect. 9, Clause 7) is to do nothing more than continue adding to the debt which goes contrary to the "balanced budget argument" conservatives claim they support.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, there are plenty of ways to come up with the money rather than your 'either/or' fallacy.

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

Mycroft said:

I don't present excuses and I base my opinions on the facts I see. Such as the fact that Obama's whole campaign has been based on deflecting from his record toward all the inconsequential or false issues he can concoct about Romney and such as the media's tendency to splash these bogus issues that Obama comes up with all over the news while hardly mentioning any attempt by Romney to address Obama's record or the issues that are really of interest to the People.

Anyway, before you start making predictions about what I'll do in the future, you should get to know me without letting your bias get in the way.

Click to expand...

Whenever I read comments like the above, I have to wonder if the poster has really paid attention to the movements of Congress instead of just listening to political talking points or rhetoric.

The President's record is actually better than those on the Right would give him credit. It's not stellar only because of actions from Congress. Let me provide an example...

After the debt celing deal fell apart, the President presented congressional leaders with the American Jobs Act (AJA). In doing so, President Obama gave Congress a choice to either: a) pass his bill in its entirety, or 2) pass it in parts. Congress choose to pass his jobs bill in parts which in some ways was unfortunate. For example, the bill provided for a way to halt the sequestations on defense spending, but Republicans balked! Another example is how long it took Congress to pass the Temporary Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012 signed into law on June 30, 2012. Not only were many of the provisions taken directly from the AJA, but appropriations were only extended through July 6, 2012. Clearly, such short-term measures will not spur economic growth long-term, but that's the kind of ineptness of Congress we're left with, and yet pundits will frame the lackluster jobs and economics numbers as the President's failed policies or "a failure of leadership" instead of placing blame squarely on themselves. How about a failure of Congress to put the needs of the country first ahead of their own political aspirations? That's the true failure coming out of Washington, DC these days.

Process, ladies and gentlemen...learn it, understand it.

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

Krhazy said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's still a tight race, but in addition to this problem, which you do a good job of explaining, there is the matter of partisanship. It is a pretty irreducible fact that both liberals and conservatives have engaged in the heated political discussions stemming from the mid-term elections, and what was a financial crisis and a dialogue about wars has once more turned into an extensive debate about the proper role of government at every level of the country. The local debates have become the national debates once more and people have chosen their side.

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

j-mac said:

Well, if you'll notice my first sentence of the quote that you saw fit to use says and I quote....

"Well, my opinion is ..."

Surely you know the meaning of that opening do you not? It means that is my opinion, based on listening to the man's speeches, watching his actions, and listening to his rhetoric. To ask for a quote of a specific instance is foolish, but you know that, and that is the tactic....Don't believe your lyin' ears, and eyes, only believe what you progressives say is the message. No thanks....

Click to expand...

Then your opinion (or assessment) of what the President wants for this country would be incorrect. And if you'd have really listened to him you'd know this. So, I would suggest that you go back and listen to or re-read each of his speeches on WhiteHouse.gov where he speaks of person empowerment and the role of government particularly in these hard economic times, and what I believe you'll find him espousing are initiatives through government involvement that forges public-private partnerships that can get the country working again. Right now, it's just too difficult for many people to get a leg up on their own. So, of course you have federal spending on social programs as a means to keep more people from falling into poverty. And even if some do find their standard of living to be less than what it was 3-4 years ago, atleast they have a way to keep a roof overhead, food on the table, clothes on their backs and pay most of their bills to stave off poverty. That's what so many people - mostly those on the Right - fail to see or completely ignore.

This is in no way saying that the government will take care of them for life! This is a total mischaracterization of what the extension of unemployment compensation was intended to do; what the extension of the Bush tax cuts were intended to do; what the extension of the payroll tax cut was intended to do; what the expansion of Medicaid benefits were intended to do; what removing some "limitations" on welfare to work requirements were intended to do. All of these measures were intended to help keep people afloat until the economy recovered. They in no way were inteded to be permanent measures anymore than the Bush tax cuts were meant to be permanent. Only the rhetoric has clouded the judgement of folks. Filter through the white noise of politics and things begin to become clearer.

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

j-mac said:

Nonsense, there are plenty of ways to come up with the money rather than your 'either/or' fallacy.

Click to expand...

Such as...? Because clearly that's not how we're paying for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. Off balance sheet accounting measures (borrowed money OR fiat money) is how we funded both wars. Are you saying you're completely in favor of that OR would you rather have seen other ways to fund these war efforts? If so, how would you have done it differently that what both GWB or Mitt Romney propose?

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

Objective Voice said:

Whenever I read comments like the above, I have to wonder if the poster has really paid attention to the movements of Congress instead of just listening to political talking points or rhetoric.

The President's record is actually better than those on the Right would give him credit. It's not stellar only because of actions from Congress. Let me provide an example...

After the debt celing deal fell apart, the President presented congressional leaders with the American Jobs Act (AJA). In doing so, President Obama gave Congress a choice to either: a) pass his bill in its entirety, or 2) pass it in parts. Congress choose to pass his jobs bill in parts which in some ways was unfortunate. For example, the bill provided for a way to halt the sequestations on defense spending, but Republicans balked! Another example is how long it took Congress to pass the Temporary Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012 signed into law on June 30, 2012. Not only were many of the provisions taken directly from the AJA, but appropriations were only extended through July 6, 2012. Clearly, such short-term measures will not spur economic growth long-term, but that's the kind of ineptness of Congress we're left with, and yet pundits will frame the lackluster jobs and economics numbers as the President's failed policies or "a failure of leadership" instead of placing blame squarely on themselves. How about a failure of Congress to put the needs of the country first ahead of their own political aspirations? That's the true failure coming out of Washington, DC these days.

Process, ladies and gentlemen...learn it, understand it.

Click to expand...

The reason...and the failure...of Obama's administration is his insistence on raising taxes and increasing spending. These are unacceptable to the Republicans and the result is the gridlock you speak of. That's Obama's fault...plain and simple...because the Democrats in Congress didn't have the courage to buck their President. Personally, I see this all as a good thing because the result...if the Republicans didn't stand fast...would have been worse than what we have now. Worse, that is, if you think 16 trillion in debt is a bit high already. It could have been worse.

No. The failure out of Washington...and that which isn't spoken of by the Democrats...is the failure of Obama to effectively lead and the Congressional Democrats to work independently of their failed President.

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

Camlon said:

I don't like him, but right now I think Santorum was better choice. He can at least relate to the common man, and he is not potrayed as a rich lying asshole.

Click to expand...

Yeah but Santorum would have easily given the election to Obama.

Social Conservatism has never been for small government. Santorum would bleed independents faster than Palin did for McCain's ticket.

Romney is a rich flip flopping, no ideology asshole. Ryan is a rich compulsive lying asshole.

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

Objective Voice said:

Such as...? Because clearly that's not how we're paying for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. Off balance sheet accounting measures (borrowed money OR fiat money) is how we funded both wars. Are you saying you're completely in favor of that OR would you rather have seen other ways to fund these war efforts? If so, how would you have done it differently that what both GWB or Mitt Romney propose?

Click to expand...

How many troops do we have in Iraq today? Hint....ZERO! But as far as my larger point, Cut waste, get people working again to increase the revenue from tax roles, and at the same time lessening the dependency roles on programs like Food Stamps that have exploded under this President. That's one.

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

Mycroft said:

The reason...and the failure...of Obama's administration is his insistence on raising taxes and increasing spending.

Click to expand...

And what taxes have actually increased in the past 3.5 years? And we do need to increase taxes to pay down the deficit and debt.

These are unacceptable to the Republicans and the result is the gridlock you speak of. That's Obama's fault...plain and simple...because the Democrats in Congress didn't have the courage to buck their President. Personally, I see this all as a good thing because the result...if the Republicans didn't stand fast...would have been worse than what we have now. Worse, that is, if you think 16 trillion in debt is a bit high already. It could have been worse.

Click to expand...

Cute. Apparently it's the Democrats' fault because they didn't bow down to the GOP, but it's not the GOP's fault for saying absolutely no to virtually everything and absolutely refusing to compromise. The Democrats were willing and offered cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. The GOP refused to budge. Cutting entitlements for the Democrats is pretty amazing as it rarely happens. But the GOP still said no.

Tell me this, what makes you think the economy will be better with less aggregate demand. You focus purely on the debt number but seem to completely not understand how increasing the debt increases aggregate demand in the economy via spending. I've asked this question before, and essentially every partisan hack like you runs away: Why would the economy be better off with significantly less aggregate demand?

FYI: The Republicans admitted on day one they were going to do everything to block recovery. Amusingly, one of their own real jobs bill is going to lead to massive wholesale fraud upon the American people. The JOBs bill will clean out the savings of millions of people.