• 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

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...
~snipped the blather~

LOL!!!

Typical of you...you key in on one point in my post..."the media"...miss the meat of my post..."the Democrats have been very effective with their campaign of distraction"...and then ask me for reasons for his struggles.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

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.



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.

To the current crop of Democrats, compromise means do it our way or we will blame it all on you.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

LOL!!!

Typical of you...you key in on one point in my post..."the media"...miss the meat of my post..."the Democrats have been very effective with their campaign of distraction"...and then ask me for reasons for his struggles.

Seems to me that the Media has totally failed to discuss how the GOP from day one was committed to blocking everything.

Apparently it's all Obama's fault but a Republican House committed to stopping everything isn't at fault at all. If you are want get rid of Obama for the economy, that's fine. But you're a massive raging hypocrite if you don't want to boot the party that made it a committed goal to sabotage the economy.

To the current crop of Democrats Republicans, compromise means do it our way or we will blame it all on you.

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

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.



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.

Now you are confusing me...

On the one hand you say we need to raise taxes to pay down the deficit and debt. On the other hand, you say the debt is a good thing because the economy will do better with it.

I have a better idea: stop spending...the deficit magically reduces...the growth in debt reduces. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd say THAT'S a good thing. And, guess what...with less deficit spending and reduced debt, there's no need for the government to suck money out of the economy so they can put it back into the economy. It'll already be there.

Of course...the only problem is that the liberals won't be able to spend the people's money. Well, I say to them: Too bad.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Actually, I'll double-fix for the both of you.

"To the politicians of a party, compromise means do it our way or we will blame it all on you."

It's about power and perception. Use the pulpit to smash down the other guy and make him look unreasonable.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

LOL!!!

Typical of you...you key in on one point in my post..."the media"...miss the meat of my post..."the Democrats have been very effective with their campaign of distraction"...and then ask me for reasons for his struggles.

You call what Team Obama has done as "a campaign of distraction(s)". I don't think outlining how Romney/Ryan would privatize Medicare as a distraction. I don't see a return to the economic policies that got this country into its current financial state as a distraction. I don't see out-sourcing of jobs as a distraction. I don't see hard working middle-class Americans paying less of a percentage in taxes as a wealthy Republican presidential candidate as a distraction.

I view these as worthwhile issues for the American people to discuss, but to do so honestly without all the political rancor that has so far poisened our American political process especially in Congress.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Seems to me that the Media has totally failed to discuss how the GOP from day one was committed to blocking everything.

Apparently it's all Obama's fault but a Republican House committed to stopping everything isn't at fault at all. If you are want get rid of Obama for the economy, that's fine. But you're a massive raging hypocrite if you don't want to boot the party that made it a committed goal to sabotage the economy.



Fixed.

Nope.

The Republicans have made it a committed goal of sabotaging the Party that wants to increase government spending, taxes, size, scope and power.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

V

Do you know why?

Because Romney isn't a good alternative to Obama. Romney is too much of an elistist to be able to identify with the average American. People don't think he has their best interests at heart. Ryan scares people. He worships Ayn Rand and wants to dismantle our safty net.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

If you are want get rid of Obama for the economy, that's fine.

44 Days my friend, and that is exactly what I think you'll see happen.


Weak move...Some would even say FAIL.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Because Romney isn't a good alternative to Obama. Romney is too much of an elistist to be able to identify with the average American. People don't think he has their best interests at heart. Ryan scares people. He worships Ayn Rand and wants to dismantle our safty net.

No, that is the progressive characterization of him, and of Ryan....But please go right on believing that.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

V

Do you know why?

Because of who the polls focus on and who does the polls. People are struggling, there is no doubt there. But republican refusal to work with democrats to get the economy going is what hurt people. And Americans know this. They are not willing to have the rich control the government anymore; nor republicans for that matter.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Actually, I'll double-fix for the both of you.

"To the politicians of a party, compromise means do it our way or we will blame it all on you."

It's about power and perception. Use the pulpit to smash down the other guy and make him look unreasonable.

Well, that is what it has become as of late...I'd say over the past 30 years or so... So tell me, are you one of those that will abstain from this election?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

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.

The above is a classic example of blaming one side of the political divide for the failure of the entire legislative body (or rather blaming one person for the misteps or inactions of Congress). Moreover, you miss the point of much of the spending that has taken place to date. Prior to the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Stimulus and extension of unemployment compensation, payroll taxes, the Bush tax cuts, etc., were all done to help keep people from falling into poverty and for those who are in poverty to not find themselves living on the streets. Granted, our country is still in dire straights, but for people to suggest that the Presidnet is purposely promoting an environment of government dependency is just ridiculous!

Let me put it to you this way:

The Bush tax cuts have been in existence since at least 2003 and yet the economy began to tank years before Obama took office, and despite extending them the economy hasn't really improved all that much. Should we continue on this track or change course?

Tea Party Republicans have been in office since January 1, 2011 elected on the promise of "creading jobs" based on the Republican Pledge to America. Has it been their initiatives or President Obama's that have helped to bring about 29 consecutive months of private sector job growth even as Republicans at the state-level has enacted legislation to put more public employees on unemployment?

These are just two of the major questions folks need to really look at WITHOUT the partisan blinders. And yes, I know I've pointed the finger at Republicans here even as I lament taking a non-bias approach to thinking here, but my point is I have tried very hard to see things from both sides. And in my view, Republicans have done more to keep this country from moving forward than the President or Democrats. If people would really look at the issues in their historical context, they'd know this to be true. Instead, what we have is one side blaming "failed leadership" from the top as the reason for the country remaining frozen with 8% unemployment when the truth is Congress simply hasn't acted with the people's best interest at heart. So my question to the readers of this thread would be what concrete ideals or policy changes have Mitt Romney proposed that in your view will move the country forward? If you listen to him...I mean really listen to him...he's either been extremely vauge in what he would do OR he's fell back on ideas either from his VP running mate, Paul Ryan, OR the proposals from Simpson-Bowles. But where are HIS proposals?
 
Last edited:
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

You call what Team Obama has done as "a campaign of distraction(s)". I don't think outlining how Romney/Ryan would privatize Medicare as a distraction. I don't see a return to the economic policies that got this country into its current financial state as a distraction. I don't see out-sourcing of jobs as a distraction. I don't see hard working middle-class Americans paying less of a percentage in taxes as a wealthy Republican presidential candidate as a distraction.

I view these as worthwhile issues for the American people to discuss, but to do so honestly without all the political rancor that has so far poisened our American political process especially in Congress.

I call "Romney is a danger to women", "Romney hasn't paid taxes", "Romney is a rich guy" and "Romney doesn't care about 47%" as being distractions.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

I call "Romney is a danger to women", "Romney hasn't paid taxes", "Romney is a rich guy" and "Romney doesn't care about 47%" as being distractions.

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

No, that is the progressive characterization of him, and of Ryan....But please go right on believing that.

It's not just the progressive view. There are a lot of old style conservatives that see it also. I look at how people act. Romney flip flops more than any politician I have seen in my life time. That is not the sign of a good leader. Ryan has a radical budget plan and represents the views of the radical fringes of the GOP. I am not a Democrat hard liner. I didn't like Clinton, I voted for Bush as governor twice and for president once. I think Bush let Chaney get the better of him. I have never voted along party lines. I usually vote for the person. The GOP has given me no other alternative. They are attacking social freedoms and playing to the eleitists. People who can't see that just don't want to see it.
I also think Ryan's talking about about the makers and takers shows what mentality started the class war.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

The above is a classic example of blaming one side of the political divide for the failure of the entire legislative body (or rather blaming one person for the misteps or inactions of Congress). Moreover, you miss the point of much of the spending that has taken place to date. Prior to the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Stimulus and extension of unemployment compensation, payroll taxes, the Bush tax cuts, etc., were all done to help keep people from falling into poverty and for those who are in poverty to not find themselves living on the streets. Granted, our country is still in dire straights, but for people to suggest that the Presidnet is purposely promoting an environment of government dependency is just ridiculous!

Let me put it to you this way:

The Bush tax cuts have been in existence since at least 2003 and yet the economy began to tank years before Obama took office, and despite extending them the economy hasn't really improved all that much. Should we continue on this track or change course?

Tea Party Republicans have been in office since January 1, 2011 elected on the promise of "creading jobs" based on the Republican Pledge to America. Has it been their initiatives or President Obama's that have helped to bring about 29 consecutive months of private sector job growth even as Republicans at the state-level has enacted legislation to put more public employees on unemployment?

These are just two of the major questions folks need to really look at WITHOUT the partisan blinders. And yes, I know I've pointed the finger at Republicans here even as I lament taking a non-bias approach to thinking here, but my point is I have tried very hard to see things from both sides. And in my view, Republicans have done more to keep this country from moving forward than the President or Democrats. If people would really look at the issues in their historical context, they'd know this to be true. Instead, what we have is one side blaming "failed leadership" from the top as the reason for the country remaining frozen with 8% unemployment when the truth is Congress simply hasn't acted with the people's best interest at heart. So my question to the readers of this thread would be what concreate ideals or policy changes have Mitt Romney proposed that in your view will move the country forward? If you listen to him...I mean really listen to him...he's either been extremely vauge in what he would do OR he's fell back on ideas either from his VP running mate, Paul Ryan, OR the proposals from Simpson-Bowles. But where are HIS proposals?

I wouldn't tout this 29 month thing if I were you. The "job growth" during that period has been pathetic and doesn't even keep up with the new people entering the workforce...let alone the ones who LOST the jobs they used to have. And speaking of the Tea Party: The People put them in Congress for a reason and the Democrats in the Senate and Obama have prevented them of doing what the people wanted.

So...who isn't acting with the people's best interest at heart?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Obama Extends Lead In New Poll - WSJ.com

The OP seems badly flawed in light of recent polling results.


So, NBC hides behind the WSJ moniker as they oversample democrats, and young cell phone users by as much as 13% points in order to come up with the data they want to project to the country....Even if you accept that these polls are anything more than junk plain and simple, take away the shenanigans in arriving at these numbers, and you come up with Romney leading by 5%...You libs are just shameless.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

So, NBC hides behind the WSJ moniker as they oversample democrats, and young cell phone users by as much as 13% points in order to come up with the data they want to project to the country....Even if you accept that these polls are anything more than junk plain and simple, take away the shenanigans in arriving at these numbers, and you come up with Romney leading by 5%...You libs are just shameless.


What poll is Romney leading? Rasmussen? FOX?
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

It's not just the progressive view. There are a lot of old style conservatives that see it also. I look at how people act. Romney flip flops more than any politician I have seen in my life time. That is not the sign of a good leader. Ryan has a radical budget plan and represents the views of the radical fringes of the GOP. I am not a Democrat hard liner. I didn't like Clinton, I voted for Bush as governor twice and for president once. I think Bush let Chaney get the better of him. I have never voted along party lines. I usually vote for the person. The GOP has given me no other alternative. They are attacking social freedoms and playing to the eleitists. People who can't see that just don't want to see it.
I also think Ryan's talking about about the makers and takers shows what mentality started the class war.

Define "Old style conservatives"....
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

I call "Romney is a danger to women", "Romney hasn't paid taxes", "Romney is a rich guy" and "Romney doesn't care about 47%" as being distractions.

Ah! But I don't think President Obama has claimed that Romney is a danger to women. What he has said, however, is the policies many Republicans support on women's health issues don't take women's concerns into consideration. And since Romney won't stand up against many of the more hardline tacts of his party he bares some responsibility in that regard.

People aren't saying that Romney hasn't paid what he owes in federal income taxes. What they are questioning is "why should I work hard 40+ hours a week and pay 20-25% in federal income taxes but a rich man like Mitt Romney is able to take advantage of the tax code (or even manipulate it as some may think) and pay a lower tax rate as he lives off interest dividens whereas WE have to work and still pay a higher federal tax rate? This question speaks to the broader argument of trickle-down economics, and as people begin to better understand how Romney used private equity to amass his wealth, the ethics of such "vulture capitalist" tactics are now being questioned by the public. I find that reasonable considering how private equity has been presented to the general public as a means to save companies from failure as opposed to tearing them down as Romney has been accused of having done.

As for the "47%" issue, I understand that he was saying in part from the perspective of his ability to convince voters within that 47% demographic to vote for him, but the problem with what Romney said was he lumped everyone with that 47% demographic as either "victims" or lazy and that's just not true. As I've said in other threads concerning this particular matter, I'm within that 47% and I'm not on any federal entitlement program nor do I expect to use any of them in the near future, if ever! So, if I can see through the BS, why are so many others having such a hard time seeing what Romney said as just plain dumb!?!
 
Last edited:
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

I wouldn't tout this 29 month thing if I were you. The "job growth" during that period has been pathetic and doesn't even keep up with the new people entering the workforce...let alone the ones who LOST the jobs they used to have. And speaking of the Tea Party: The People put them in Congress for a reason and the Democrats in the Senate and Obama have prevented them of doing what the people wanted.

So...who isn't acting with the people's best interest at heart?

And yet you failed to list one thing that Romney has proposed himself that would move this country forward...
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

Well, I'm sure Mr. Romney would be happy to answer your questions if he were here. But he's not, so why are you asking ME these questions?

He has answered already and his answer is "We will work that out later". In reality he problay won't be able to cut much so that defense increse will go on the credit card like every Republican before him.Just like the trillions in tax cuts he wants. It's called "starving the beast" a tactic that has been quite effective in running up our debt for 30 years.
 
Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

And yet you failed to list one thing that Romney has proposed himself that would move this country forward...

Why should I list anything Romney has proposed? I'm talking about why he is struggling and I've given my reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom