Romney vs. Obama-Romney winning Independent Voters

[pbrauer]

No because you left out "for the good of the party" which is the published reason for dropping out. Romney vs. Obama? Hmmm, not a difficult choice because it will be Romney vs. the Obama results and the Obama results suck

Yeah, he dishonestly added that and country.





:mrgreen:

 

[Conservative]

why do you care what my union would do?

Really don't care but understand why you would. Obama has been the biggest friend the unions have had. He is going to be a big loss to the unions.

 

[Conservative]

Yeah, he dishonestly added that and country.





:mrgreen:

Oh, the irony of ignoring the Obama record and his class warfare. Is Obama going to take Caddell and Shoen's advice?

 

[randel]

Really don't care but understand why you would. Obama has been the biggest friend the unions have had. He is going to be a big loss to the unions.

not seeing how he will be a big loss when he will be serving a second 4 year term....

 

[pbrauer]

Oh, the irony of ignoring the Obama record and his class warfare. Is Obama going to take Caddell and Shoen's advice?

What do you think, Conservative? Did you just watch Obama, he's playing hardball?

 

[Conservative]

What do you think, Conservative? Did you just watch Obama, he's playing hardball?

LOL, yeah, he is playing hardball, promoting class warfare and making the issue about tax increases. The passion you and others have for tax increases is quite incredible. I didn't watch Obama because I don't like lies and rhetoric, I prefer results and he doesn't have any positive results.

 

[Dittohead not!]

He's not Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, et al. Romney and a few others have a valid case but they are fare too level-headed for the conservative base to get behind.

Which shouldn't matter.

The conservative base wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he were running against Lucifer himself.

 

[AdamT]

If you add 4.4 trillion to the debt shouldn't there be an improving economy? Please cite for me data to support what you perceive as an improving economy?

Not necessarily (though the economy is improving slowly). Not when you consider the strain that the economy was, and is, under.

"The financial crisis that broke out in the United States around the summer of 2007 and crested around the autumn of 2008 had destroyed US$34.4 trillion of wealth globally by March 2009, when the equity markets hit their lowest points.

On October 31, 2007, the total market value of publicly traded companies around the world reached a high of $63 trillion. A year and four months later, by early March 2009, the value had dropped more than half to $28.6 trillion. The lost $34.4 trillion in wealth is more than the 2008 annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the US, the European Union and Japan combined. This wealth deficit effect would take at least a decade to replenish even if these advanced economies were to grow at mid-single digit rate after inflation and only if no double-dip materialized in the markets. At an optimistic compounded annual growth rate of 5%, it would take more than 10 years to replenish the lost wealth in the US economy.

In the US, where the crisis originated after two decades of monetary excess that encouraged serial debt bubbles, the NYSE Euronext (US) market capitalization was $16.6 trillion in June 2007, more than concurrent US GDP of $13.8 trillion. The market capitalization fell by almost half to $7.9 trillion by March 2009. US households lost almost $8 trillion of wealth in the stock market on top of the $6 trillion loss in the market value of their homes. The total wealth loss of $14 trillion by US households in 2009 was equal to the entire 2008 US GDP." Asia Times Online :: Asian news and current affairs

See, it's very easy to downplay the success of Obama's efforts when you ignore and/or misrepresent the severity of the challenge he faces.

 

[Conservative]

Not necessarily (though the economy is improving slowly). Not when you consider the strain that the economy was, and is, under.

"The financial crisis that broke out in the United States around the summer of 2007 and crested around the autumn of 2008 had destroyed US$34.4 trillion of wealth globally by March 2009, when the equity markets hit their lowest points.

On October 31, 2007, the total market value of publicly traded companies around the world reached a high of $63 trillion. A year and four months later, by early March 2009, the value had dropped more than half to $28.6 trillion. The lost $34.4 trillion in wealth is more than the 2008 annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the US, the European Union and Japan combined. This wealth deficit effect would take at least a decade to replenish even if these advanced economies were to grow at mid-single digit rate after inflation and only if no double-dip materialized in the markets. At an optimistic compounded annual growth rate of 5%, it would take more than 10 years to replenish the lost wealth in the US economy.

In the US, where the crisis originated after two decades of monetary excess that encouraged serial debt bubbles, the NYSE Euronext (US) market capitalization was $16.6 trillion in June 2007, more than concurrent US GDP of $13.8 trillion. The market capitalization fell by almost half to $7.9 trillion by March 2009. US households lost almost $8 trillion of wealth in the stock market on top of the $6 trillion loss in the market value of their homes. The total wealth loss of $14 trillion by US households in 2009 was equal to the entire 2008 US GDP." Asia Times Online :: Asian news and current affairs

See, it's very easy to downplay the success of Obama's efforts when you ignore and/or misrepresent the severity of the challenge he faces.

Look, you want to believe what you are told, nothing is going to change your mind. The results however show that Obama doesn't deserve another 4 years and my bet is that 25 plus million Americans that are unemployed/under employed agree with me.

Do you really think that anything you posted has any affect on the average American? Where are the jobs? Where is the economic growth? Where is the leadership? What economic policy has Obama implemented that has helped the average American? Why are his poll numbers so low if he has accomplished what you claim?

I am waiting for any Obama supporter to refute any of the data that I have posted showing his results? I am waiting for any reason to support Obama for another four years?

 

[AdamT]

Look, you want to believe what you are told, nothing is going to change your mind. The results however show that Obama doesn't deserve another 4 years and my bet is that 25 plus million Americans that are unemployed/under employed agree with me.

Do you really think that anything you posted has any affect on the average American? Where are the jobs? Where is the economic growth? Where is the leadership? What economic policy has Obama implemented that has helped the average American? Why are his poll numbers so low if he has accomplished what you claim?

I am waiting for any Obama supporter to refute any of the data that I have posted showing his results? I am waiting for any reason to support Obama for another four years?

What I posted are the facts, which you are immune to. Whether you like it or not, you can't judge the President's performance if you ignore the challenges he's facing. At least not in any rational way.

 

[Conservative]

What I posted are the facts, which you are immune to. Whether you like it or not, you can't judge the President's performance if you ignore the challenges he's facing. At least not in any rational way.

What you posted shows that you are out of touch with reality and what you also show that you ignore that Obama cannot inherit what he helped create. I posted this before and you ignored it just like you ignore the Obama record. why? What is it about Obama that generates this kind of support? Every leader faces challenges, the good ones accept the challenge and solve the problems, the others blame someone else and run from the challenges. Which one do you believe Obama is part of?

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.


The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie &Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).Barneyblocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 &2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi &Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

 

[AdamT]

No, again, what I posted was simply a description of the vast scope of the problem created by the financial crisis. If you don't understand that tens of trillions of dollars were sucked out of the economy, it's easy to be overly impressed with a figure like $800 billion for a stimulus program. "Ugh!! $800 billion ... big money! BAD!! Obama BAD!! GRRR!!"

But if you understand that Obama was trying to fill a $16 trillion hole with $800 billion, then you begin to understand why the economy hasn't climbed much above ground level.

Your attempt to pin the crisis on Democrats is so ridiculous it really doesn't merit a response (though it's been slapped down at least a dozen times before).

 

[Conservative]

No, again, what I posted was simply a description of the vast scope of the problem created by the financial crisis. If you don't understand that tens of trillions of dollars were sucked out of the economy, it's easy to be overly impressed with a figure like $800 billion for a stimulus program. "Ugh!! $800 billion ... big money! BAD!! Obama BAD!! GRRR!!"

But if you understand that Obama was trying to fill a $16 trillion hole with $800 billion, then you begin to understand why the economy hasn't climbed much above ground level.

Your attempt to pin the crisis on Democrats is so ridiculous it really doesn't merit a response (though it's been slapped down at least a dozen times before).

What exactly did Obama do as a member of Congress and what exactly did the Democrat controlled Congress do from 2007-2011? The problem with you and other liberals is you believe you can fill that hole by the govt. or taxpayer funds, NO, you fill it by growing the economy and promoting the private sector. What has no merit is discussing a free enteprise, private sector economy with someone who doesn't understand it.

 

[AdamT]

What exactly did Obama do as a member of Congress and what exactly did the Democrat controlled Congress do from 2007-2011? The problem with you and other liberals is you believe you can fill that hole by the govt. or taxpayer funds, NO, you fill it by growing the economy and promoting the private sector. What has no merit is discussing a free enteprise, private sector economy with someone who doesn't understand it.

Seriously, give it up. The financial crisis was baked in by the time Democrats got the majority. In any case, you are simply diverting attention, again. This isn't about who's to blame for the financial crisis -- it's about what Obama actually faced when he took office.

 

[Conservative]

Seriously, give it up. The financial crisis was baked in by the time Democrats got the majority. In any case, you are simply diverting attention, again. This isn't about who's to blame for the financial crisis -- it's about what Obama actually faced when he took office.

Give it up, Democrats have had control of the Congress for 4 years with overwhelming numbers in 2009-2010, more than Bush ever had and yet the results generated are as posted yet you claim Bush and Republicans are still to blame. That doesn't pass the smell test. Obama helped create the mess he claims he inherited and here we are three years into his term and still no concrete economic results. There is a reason Obama's approval ratings aren't very high, reasons you refuse to accept.

 

[AdamT]

Give it up, Democrats have had control of the Congress for 4 years with overwhelming numbers in 2009-2010, more than Bush ever had and yet the results generated are as posted yet you claim Bush and Republicans are still to blame. That doesn't pass the smell test. Obama helped create the mess he claims he inherited and here we are three years into his term and still no concrete economic results. There is a reason Obama's approval ratings aren't very high, reasons you refuse to accept.

Did you just fall off the cabbage cart? The Great Recession officially began in December of 2007, according to the Bureau of Economic Research. Congress was sworn in less than one year earlier. At that point the real estate bubble was already inflated and there was nothing the new Congress could do to make that go away. You're also lying about the Dem majority. After the 2006 mid-terms there were 49 Democratic Senators and 49 Republican Senators. There were two independents: Lieberman (who supported McCain in '08) and Sanders. Thus the Senate was a virtual tie, and because the Republicans filibustered virtually everything the Democrats tried to accomplish, they really did not control the Senate at all.

 

[Conservative]

Did you just fall off the cabbage cart? The Great Recession officially began in December of 2007, according to the Bureau of Economic Research. Congress was sworn in less than one year earlier. At that point the real estate bubble was already inflated and there was nothing the new Congress could do to make that go away. You're also lying about the Dem majority. After the 2006 mid-terms there were 49 Democratic Senators and 49 Republican Senators. There were two independents: Lieberman (who supported McCain in '08) and Sanders. Thus the Senate was a virtual tie, and because the Republicans filibustered virtually everything the Democrats tried to accomplish, they really did not control the Senate at all.

Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Rangel,Schumer, Dodd, etc were in that Congress long before the recession began. Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric all in an attempt to divert from the Obama Record. To claim that Obama has any leadership skills at all is someone totally naive and gullible.

Now all of a sudden the filibuster is important to you but not when Democrats use it. The Democrats could have stopped anything that Bush and the Republicans did but didn't. They are just as much to blame as Republicans.

What does any of that matter now, today. Obama had total control of Congress 2009-2010 in overwhelming numbers and didn't do a thing to make things better. You obviously have never managed anything and don't know how leadership works.

 

[Conservative]

Another reason that independents are fleeing Obama leaving only those who continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. How about that strong economic growth, Adam?

Third-quarter growth cut on weak inventories - Yahoo! News

This makes the GDP Growth for 2011 well under 2% and well below 2010 yet apparently this is still Bush's fault and certainly has nothing to do with Obama's lack of leadership?

 

[AdamT]

Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Rangel,Schumer, Dodd, etc were in that Congress long before the recession began. Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric all in an attempt to divert from the Obama Record. To claim that Obama has any leadership skills at all is someone totally naive and gullible.

Now all of a sudden the filibuster is important to you but not when Democrats use it. The Democrats could have stopped anything that Bush and the Republicans did but didn't. They are just as much to blame as Republicans.

What does any of that matter now, today. Obama had total control of Congress 2009-2010 in overwhelming numbers and didn't do a thing to make things better. You obviously have never managed anything and don't know how leadership works.

In other words, you've got nothing?

To their credit the Democrats did not serially abuse the filibuster the way that Republicans have to undermine the democratic process.

 

[AdamT]

Another reason that independents are fleeing Obama leaving only those who continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the results. How about that strong economic growth, Adam?

Third-quarter growth cut on weak inventories - Yahoo! News

This makes the GDP Growth for 2011 well under 2% and well below 2010 yet apparently this is still Bush's fault and certainly has nothing to do with Obama's lack of leadership?

Actually it makes GDP growth about 2%, which is a hell of a lot better than the -8.5% GDP contraction Obama inheritted. The lower than expected number is a result of problems in Europe, which is a bit out of Obama's wheel house. It should pick up this quarter as inventories are replenished.

 

[Conservative]

In other words, you've got nothing?

To their credit the Democrats did not serially abuse the filibuster the way that Republicans have to undermine the democratic process.

What exactly has Obama proposed that Republicans filibustered that would have helped the U.S. Economy? Obama had overwhelming control of Congress from January 2009-January 2011. Keep buying the Obama rhetoric

 

[Conservative]

Actually it makes GDP growth about 2%, which is a hell of a lot better than the -8.5% GDP contraction Obama inheritted. The lower than expected number is a result of problems in Europe, which is a bit out of Obama's wheel house. It should pick up this quarter as inventories are replenished.

What was the GDP growth in 2010 and is 2011 higher or lower? Amazing how 2% GDP growth is good news to a liberal.

 

[AdamT]

What exactly has Obama proposed that Republicans filibustered that would have helped the U.S. Economy? Obama had overwhelming control of Congress from January 2009-January 2011. Keep buying the Obama rhetoric

Obama *would* have overwhelming control of Congress if Republicans were not serially abusing the rules of the Senate. But as the Republicans are serially abusing the rules of the Senate, Obama in fact has no control of Congress.

This is just through 2010, of course:

What have they filibustered that would have helped the economy. Wow, that's a tough one. How about a debt deal that would have avoided a credit downgrade and cut over $4 trillion from the debt, for starters? How about the vast majority of Obama's appointments? How about the health care public option, which would have cut the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars?

 

[AdamT]

What was the GDP growth in 2010 and is 2011 higher or lower? Amazing how 2% GDP growth is good news to a liberal.

It's amazing that conservatives can't understand how positive GDP growth is a lot better than recession.

 

[Conservative]

Obama *would* have overwhelming control of Congress if Republicans were not serially abusing the rules of the Senate. But as the Republicans are serially abusing the rules of the Senate, Obama in fact has no control of Congress.

This is just through 2010, of course:

What have they filibustered that would have helped the economy. Wow, that's a tough one. How about a debt deal that would have avoided a credit downgrade and cut over $4 trillion from the debt, for starters? How about the vast majority of Obama's appointments? How about the health care public option, which would have cut the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars?

So you don't have an answer as to what the Republicans filibustered that would have made things better? Got it! Amazing how the first two years of the Obama Administration are ignored. Obama never proposed cutting 4 trillion from the budget over 10 years or 400 billion a year. There are no budget cuts proposed by liberals other than to the military.