And Team McCain. Honestly the fact taht anybody rolls up to an econobrawl with Kevin "Dow 36,000" Hassett as their backup still, in this day and age, is mind blowing. The case that can't be made is the case that cutting spending will have anything other than negative effects as far as creating jobs/economic growth, which you appear to imply is possible, and which the Bush-McCain-Romney economic team likes to pretend is possible. If you want to cut spending fine. But realize it has consequences, as "your spending is my income, and my spending is your income." See Europe.
It’s impossible to discuss this with Republicans as they do not accept this as a truth. I gather they believe if we only eliminate entitlement programs that will solve the debt issue without reducing the money that goes to large government contractors.
many thousands of economists, decades of actual experience and the results state the very opposite about about what a stimulus does during a recession. supply-side economics, or trickle-down economics, or Reagonomics, or as George H.W. put it, voodoo economics, has never worked. it was tried again during the 2nd Bush administration, for Christ's sake! where are the jobs? anyone who argues that the stimulus didn't work has refused to look at facts.
But the problem with the bolded part is that he refuses to list, in any way, HOW he will do it. He has stated he'll cut loopholes, but refuses to name any. He has stated he will increase defense spending and restore the Medicare "cuts". He has stated he'll lower tax rates, but won't list how he'll make up the revenue. It's just a bunch of empty rhetoric.
Well I thought Obama neither helped or hurt his cause.. It was just very bland.. I guess, Romney who is fighting a uphill battle had more room to work with the first place. I thought he did very well for the most part. One of his main goals was to be more down to earth. I disagree with you on his story of his past. I thought his stories about his wife, his parents, growing up and raising his kids was delivered perfectly. He even choked up a bit when telling the story of his parents and how his dad died. Anyways just my opinion on why I thought Romney had the better convention speech. Again perhaps its cause Romney had more to gain than Obama who just needed to mail it in and not screw up.
B Kardashian is so done. The reason I know is his speech last night mirrored the Peanut man in 1980. I was of voting age in 1980 and I could have sworn I was listening to Peanut man. All of the presidents to emulate, B Kardashian had to to pick the Peanut man who was fired by the American people 32 years ago....unbelievable! I don't have a lot of time but hopefully my talented conservative compadres like Basso, Trader, bigtexxx, Tallanvor..... can pull that speech 32 years ago and do a side by side comparison. I heard stuff like this last night as well as 32 years ago: this election is about the two kinds of future for America...... we have reduced our dependency on foreign oil.... The libtards' playbook is so predictable, all you have to do is just pay attention.
Obama's speech didn't eclipse his 2008 performance, but it was still very solid. The thing about his 2008 speech, he HAD to deliver the goods. He had to heal the divide from the primaries and fire up the Hillary supporters that were still licking their wounds. 2012 is totally different. The Clintons are on-board 100 percent this time. Bill gives possibly the best speech of his political career the night before. The speakers leading up to Obama's had the audience fired up. Biden went long, mostly because he kept pausing for constant applause from the frenetic and energized crowd. The anticipation for Obama's speech was overwhelming, and expectations were very high. I think this gave Obama an interesting challenge. If he gave the audience exactly what they wanted, a repeat performance of 2008, he would have gotten pounded for rehashing empty rhetoric and repeating broken promises. Instead of hope and change, Obama attempted to alter his party's expectations and reframe the issues going forward. Instead of working with the crowd, he had to settle them down, push through their applause, deliver his message in a firm and serious manner. It wasn't a fun, optimistic speech, like Clinton's. It was more serious, more measured, more presidential, and I think it got the job done.
Watch both speeches again and pay attention to Romney's shoulders and expressions. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GMuU-EwcIzs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Romney seems a lot stiffer than Obama and at times it looks like his eyes aren't focusing. Substance wise its a good speech but Romney just doesn't seem to be as good a speaker as Obama, Clinton or Marco Rubio. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ekltAFvycSk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Romney certainly has more to gain while Obama mostly needed to just play D but I just don't see that translating into a better delivery. Just to be clear I think both helped their campaigns with their speeches, I don't think either one won the election with their acceptance speeches either. I just think we are seeing the ceiling with Romney's oration while only the middle of the wall with Obama's.
Thanks. First, I have a hard time with taking politicians at their word, which includes all of the promises. Besides that, your statement makes it sound like the President is the only one on the dance floor. Does the Congress get off the hook? What new ideas has Romney offered? How are his economic policies any different from what we've heard in the past? I'd love to sit here and say he'll move to the middle once elected, but with Ryan and the Tea Party at his back I'm not sure he'll have the ability to do so. I agree with you that we need new ideas, but I just don't hear any from Romney or the Republican Congressional leadership.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm 4.4 million more employed from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 .086 million less(!) employed from Jan 2009 to Aug 2012
So do you believe in expansion of government as the solution to the jobs crisis? I imagine Dems would probably be willing to go along with that.
