Your stats only confirm my belief that both presidents were irresponsible spenders, at some point you have to compensate for lack of revenue with some substantial cuts in discretionary spending.fiscal responsibility is making sure that what comes into the pocket of government is the same as what goes out. With the war and the economic downturn in 2008 it is not strange that some more money needs to go into the economy. With the lack of revenue coming in that has lead to problems.
2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
Last year of Bush the mandatory expenditures were $1.89 trillion and the discretionary spending was $1.21 trillion
2013 for Obama has mandatory expenditures is $2.293 trillion the discretionary spending is $1.261 trillion
That proves that Obama has not been spending wildly, mandatory spending is set by existing laws, discretionary spending has just went by not that much so I don't know where you get the spend happy Obama from but I don't see that in the budgets.
Your stats only confirm my belief that both presidents were irresponsible spenders, at some point you have to compensate for lack of revenue with some substantial cuts in discretionary spending.
That proves that Obama has not been spending wildly
Since the OP does not know the unemployment rate, inflation rate and gasoline costs, predicting the outcome of the election really is just a partisan statement based upon reciting what the media is currently saying as things are now. The rating of W. Bush ranged from 71% to 27%. Obama's has ranged from 31% to 67%. Guessing the situation in November is not a lot more than a guess.
....GOPers staying home if Romney is the nominee.
Yep, Obama is terrible at spending, but I have no doubt he will win. Previously, Republican contenders have had an approval rate that is around 55%, right now Mitt Romney is at 35%. Also, Obama is approaching a approval rating of over 50%. 55% is what you really need to be reelected in a normal reelection.
My expectation is that Obama is going to win Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire easily. If he does, then he has already won, and there are plently of states he can contend in such as North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and even in Arizona
Republicans are spread out with their support right now.
WHich trump card would those be? Killing jobs? Out of control spending? Obamacare, the most hated piece of legislation in history? More rounds of golf than any other prez? Cutting veterans bennies?
Get real, Obama isn't going to run on his record. I think we all know that.
I personally will say no.
Not just because it is difficult to win against a sitting president that is not very unpopular. And not just because the economic situation has started on it's way upward. No, it is much more basic than that.
1. Let's begin with the simple mathmetics of the race, last presidential campaign bank on McCain to bring his home state to the GOP. Romney does not stand any chance of personally bringing any states to which he is connected. He will not win his birth state of Michigan. He was barely able to fend off Santorum there and in a state that has gone Democratic in the last 5 elections, one must conclude that this state will almost certainly go to Obama.
The same can be said for the state he was governor of, Massachusetts, in the past 4 elections no democratic presidential candidate scored under 60% of the vote (average was 61.5%) compared to the highest for a GOP candidate of 37%. On average, the democratic presidential candidate wins there with a 28% lead (in the past 4 elections that is). So in Massachusetts Romney is also not going to carry that state.
2. Next is his public image, he is a rich, white, a guy and a mormon. And when I say rich, I mean proper filthy rich. He is proper fithly rich In a country where most people are not. In a lot of polls about Obama people are asked ""He understands the problems of ordinary Americans", think about when that question is asked about Romney, the man of slip ups like:
- My wife drives a couple of cadillacs
- “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
- I too, had feared the “pink slip” during my life.
- “I’ll tell you what. Ten thousand bucks. A $10,000 bet.”
- “I’m also unemployed.”
- “Corporations are people, my friend.”
- “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
- says he 370,000$ fee was "not very much"
He is the perfect sitting duck for shows like the Today show and even a little bit the Colbert Report.
He also seems to put his foot in his mouth and still keep babbling on, like when he spoke in Michigan and he said:
“I was born and raised here. I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height,” he told the crowd. “I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars.”
3. The man is stiff, he is does not look very inspirational to me and I think to many people might see it that way too.
4. He is not republican/conservative enough on social issues
5. he is a great target the Super Pacs from the democratic side, because the man flip flops on very fundamental issues:
He was pro-choice before he became pro-life:
Romney, Oct. 29, 2002: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose”
Romney, Dec. 16, 2007: “The right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”
he flopped on immigration (big issue for the Latino vote)
he flopped on Reagan
he flopped on embryonic stemcell research
Romney has flip flopped on a lot of issues, which is not strange because he wanted the job in Massachusetts so his he set his moral compass to "not too conservative" with all the opinions that belong to that, now he wants the big job, president of the USA so he needs all the really republican very conservative voters on his side so he is flopping like mad to look as conservative as he could possibly look like.
So we have had electability issues, in he does not bring in any big states to which he was formerly connected and steal them away from Obama. Then we had personality issues with his wealth, the connnection issues he has with normal people, the boring personality, the fact that he likes to put his foot into his mouth and still keep babbling nonsense, the fact that he flip flopps almost as bad as John Kerry did and the fact that he is in no way the best liked candidate for the strong conservate base of the party.
Then there is still one big issue left, number 6 on the list of issues for Romney, that last one is his faith.
6. Mormon. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, a faith that has been connected to cults that allow multiple wives, a faith where some have the nasty habit of performing baptisms on people they have no business in baptising. People like Obama's mother, Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal, Adolf Hitler and many jews who died in concentration camps. En then there are more issues, about the stuffs they ingest (or do not ingest like alcohol, coffee, tea, etc. etc.) and even about them having mormon underwear.
It was hard enough for the first Catholic to be chosen into office and for the first African American to be chosen as a president. I just do not think the US is ready willing and able to welcome a mormon as the next president.
Finallly,what is the upside to Romney? Well, he is a member of the GOP, he is really rich (advertising), has rich buddies (Superpacs), is white and for a lot of voters, he is not Obama.
Please remember, this is my personal observation based on the campaign I have seen so far, my following of US politics for many years and my views as an outsider, I do not hate or dislike mr. Romney but tried (from my point of view) to see what chances are that Romney will/can defeat Obama, and I just don't think it is going to happen.
Obama's debt, the lingering economy and his overall economic record is the best thing Romney can run on.
If Romney is the GOP nominee, he will be the 2012 version of John McCain.
I think it is way too early to call it. If Romney becomes the nominee, his numbers will go up. Republicans are spread out with their support right now.
Here is an interesting map showing possible outcomes:
Freedom's Lighthouse » 2012 Presidential Election Electoral Vote Map & Projection
His best asset is his opponent.
I would strongly disagree with some of the states this website named tossup, states like:
Wisconsin that even Kerry was able to win and Obama took with great ease
Pennsylvania that has voted 5 times for times in a row, 11% lead for Obama last time around
will never go Romney IMHO.
I'm hardly enthused about Romney but my sense is that he has better management skills than Obama.
[ . . . ] I think Romney would be the more likely one to manage the crisis.
RealClearPolitics - Romney's Budget-Balancing for Dummies"Estimated roughly, ignoring interactions and microdynamic effects, we find that without offsets Gov. Romney's plan on the whole would increase the debt by about $2.6 trillion," according to the nonpartisan committee.
RealClearPolitics - Romney's Budget-Balancing for Dummies
That's just one source, first one to come up in a google search, but if you look around, you'll find that every analysis from every non-partisan organization says the same thing: Romney's plans are worse than Obames and Bush's, both.
I still don't see a way clear for Romney to win save some unforeseen drastic event.
Followed by 8 years of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Once again, a candidate's words are 100% irrelevant. Actions in office are determined solely by a candidate's sponsors. If the mormon wins, it'll merely sign off on legislation friendly to Wall$t. The END.
Romney and his super PAC have taken millions from funders with strong green streaks [ . . . ] Julian Robertson, founder of the Tiger Management hedge fund, helped put cap-and-trade legislation on the map with $60 million in contributions over the past decade to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Now, Robertson has given $1.25 million to Romney’s Restore our Future super PAC, plus the maximum $2,500 to the Romney campaign.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?