The 2012 Republican Conventiion

[JDzBrain]

.....New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, the first female Hispanic governor. Her entire story is incredible, but the line about carrying a Smith & Wesson 357 magnum as she guarded a bingo game parking lot as an 18 year old, working for her father was BRILLIANT! And they DID build that! ;~).....

Unless you missed her, you left out Susana Martinez, our home grown risking star and who has already made a tremendous difference in our troubled state,.

LOL...nope, didn't miss her. Actually Foxy, you missed what I wrote about her. But it's ok, I know I have a tendency to get wordy. SO...I guess I can't blame ya for just skimming over. ;~)

I paired away everything but the part about her in the quote.

I did put her in the first part cause it was kind of just the way the impressions came to me. There really wasn't any real ranking or order intended. Just kind of the impressions I got from or about their appearances that was notable. And Susana was right at the top of my ramblings.

Probably some reason I recalled her near the top, huh? LOL

Another of her lines that was hilarious was the, "I'll be DAMNED...we're republicans!?!?" when she talked about her conversion.

I almost fell out!

Impressive lady!

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you guys talking about this RNC? I think this thing went really poorly. I think Rubio was the most exciting of the night. Romney seemed very, very fake to me.

Well, we'll put you down as one who wouldn't have voted for Mitt anyway?

I don't have a party affiliation, but really think that Romney is a good primary choice for the GOP. I was expecting to have to wait until the campaign for some of what I want to see him say, but I thought his speech missed my interests.

The rest of us seem to have appreciated all the presentations. To me he was absolutely authentic, and vintage Mitt--understated, non braggadocious, humble, but self assured.

He didn't try to be a rock star, because that's not who he is, and he didn't use a lot of meaningless platitudes just to get applause lines. He was who he is.

I just know that he is a very, very aware businessman, and at portions of the speech he was dumbed down to an extent that he did not seem authentic. I expected him to comment substantively on some of the platform rather than the cruder line-up which he'd opted for as well.

Have you seen his CPAC speeches the last few years? All were better. That stuff about him being some kind of stiff was generated by the dems and Mitt's campaign is being too poll-reactive. He is very confidence-inspiring when he's natural.

What I took away from this convention was that my hope that Mitt Romney would be up to the job have been replaced with a growing certainty that he absolutely is the man we need at this point in history.

What I took away from the convention is that Ryan is not a weak point, that Ann Romney and her endorsements of her man are a strong point, that the GOP has a 'bench' of promising talent. I am sad to see the hold neocons still have in the GOP. I don't like the pessimistic message about the country being in some kind of shambles.

I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

I'd like you to give that vote a lot of thought, Antagon. I really wish that we WEREN'T close to that fiscal cliff but the truth is...we are. We really need to get our spending under control and I don't think anyone can make the case that Barack Obama is the guy who's going to accomplish that.

 

[JDzBrain]

...I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

Well then, that kinda puts ya in the camp with neocons/RINOs/liberals/progressives, ant. Cause that's what they believe.

Truth is though, our national debt is OVER 100% of our GDP for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. It has historically run at 20% or LESS of our GDP. Even during the worst of times. Paul Ryan called for a return to that standard in his speech Wednesday.

Our credit rating as a COUNTRY was downgraded by one of the major ratings agencies for the FIRST IN HISTORY last year.

The Federal Reserve has been amortizing our debt. That's for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY and for over a year now. Which is the same thing that happened to England, Germany, Japan...and every major economy in the last 60 years just before it's total collapse. The ONLY reason they recovered...is because WE, the United States bailed them out. Just WHO is going to bail us out...China? Is China who you want to OWN our future?

Republicans and conservatives are optimist, ant. We BELIEVE in American's and their ability to overcome. Our worry is NOT that we won't SURVIVE this fiscal insanity. Our worry is how much PAIN are Americans going to have to endure just to overcome when it CAN be avoided IF we ACT NOW!

Just to put the urgency into perspective, if you spent 1 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, every day, 365 days a year, it would take you nearly 3,000 YEARS to spend 1 trillion dollars. We are 16 trillion in debt. THAT will only take you 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend at 1 million per day.

Or put another way, every single baby that is born in this country owes with the first breath it draws on this earth, 51,600 dollars. That's a 51 THOUSAND dollar BIRTH TAX! Hell, you, me...EVERYONE owes 51,600 bucks and according to the CBO, if Obama gets another 4 years, that debt will be at LEAST 20 TRILLION dollars and that birth tax will be a nearly 65 thousand dollars.

And people in this country pitch a fit when they find out people in China have to pay 20 grad for every kid they have after the first one!?!? Sounds CHEAP by our standard!

So...while there are many who feel the way you do ant, conservatives and all realist KNOW we are in trouble. Even leaving out the issue of whether or not we're on the verge of collapse, we KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt that this crushing debt and deficit spending is holding tens of millions in poverty and saddling future generations with a lifetime of indebtedness. It is IMMORAL and we CAN do better!!!

Hey...where have I heard that? ;~)

 

[copsnrobbers]

Listen folks, when you start hearing one side call the other side central planners you should be really worried. Fact of the matter is...... The Far-Far Left's plan is in high gear. Obama's bosses are calling the shots. You vote for Obama you vote for poverty and chaos.
These people, The New higher up Dems are way beyond Liberal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you guys talking about this RNC? I think this thing went really poorly. I think Rubio was the most exciting of the night. Romney seemed very, very fake to me.

Well, we'll put you down as one who wouldn't have voted for Mitt anyway?

I don't have a party affiliation, but really think that Romney is a good primary choice for the GOP. I was expecting to have to wait until the campaign for some of what I want to see him say, but I thought his speech missed my interests.

The rest of us seem to have appreciated all the presentations. To me he was absolutely authentic, and vintage Mitt--understated, non braggadocious, humble, but self assured.

He didn't try to be a rock star, because that's not who he is, and he didn't use a lot of meaningless platitudes just to get applause lines. He was who he is.

I just know that he is a very, very aware businessman, and at portions of the speech he was dumbed down to an extent that he did not seem authentic. I expected him to comment substantively on some of the platform rather than the cruder line-up which he'd opted for as well.

Have you seen his CPAC speeches the last few years? All were better. That stuff about him being some kind of stiff was generated by the dems and Mitt's campaign is being too poll-reactive. He is very confidence-inspiring when he's natural.

What I took away from this convention was that my hope that Mitt Romney would be up to the job have been replaced with a growing certainty that he absolutely is the man we need at this point in history.

What I took away from the convention is that Ryan is not a weak point, that Ann Romney and her endorsements of her man are a strong point, that the GOP has a 'bench' of promising talent. I am sad to see the hold neocons still have in the GOP. I don't like the pessimistic message about the country being in some kind of shambles.

I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

One thing I AM appreciating about Mitt is that he isn't making a lot of promises he can't keep. The closest thing to a risky statement that he is making is that he will create 12 million new jobs, but with 20+ million Americans looking for work, what he intends to do re the economy makes that promises much less risky. He also is shooting for energy indpedence in eight years, but you get the sense he can pull that off.

As to the specifics of HOW he would do it, he isn't in a position to say that. Years ago I was drafted to take over a large troubled social organization that was so in deficit that it was on the brink of having to close. If I had had to say HOW I would turn that around before I went to work, I would have sounded like an idiot. I had no way of knowing what the problems were, what could be improved, what needed to be eliminated, what staff to keep, what staff to cut etc. UNTIL I got in there to assess that. Mitt will have to do that also.

What I am encouraged about though is that Mitt knows HOW to assess the problems and HOW to turn things around. And I do believe he is 100% sincere that he wants to help America and Americans in very real and practical ways and will be able to see how best to do that. And no, it won't be with a handout but rather by creating an environment that encourages opportunity.

As to what inerests of yours he didn't address, could you be more specific? But of course, if you think the problems the rest of us see don't exist, then electing somebody who is a problem solver probably isn't as appealing to you.

 

[antagon]

Well, we'll put you down as one who wouldn't have voted for Mitt anyway?

I don't have a party affiliation, but really think that Romney is a good primary choice for the GOP. I was expecting to have to wait until the campaign for some of what I want to see him say, but I thought his speech missed my interests.


I just know that he is a very, very aware businessman, and at portions of the speech he was dumbed down to an extent that he did not seem authentic. I expected him to comment substantively on some of the platform rather than the cruder line-up which he'd opted for as well.

Have you seen his CPAC speeches the last few years? All were better. That stuff about him being some kind of stiff was generated by the dems and Mitt's campaign is being too poll-reactive. He is very confidence-inspiring when he's natural.

What I took away from this convention was that my hope that Mitt Romney would be up to the job have been replaced with a growing certainty that he absolutely is the man we need at this point in history.

What I took away from the convention is that Ryan is not a weak point, that Ann Romney and her endorsements of her man are a strong point, that the GOP has a 'bench' of promising talent. I am sad to see the hold neocons still have in the GOP. I don't like the pessimistic message about the country being in some kind of shambles.

I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

I'd like you to give that vote a lot of thought, Antagon. I really wish that we WEREN'T close to that fiscal cliff but the truth is...we are. We really need to get our spending under control and I don't think anyone can make the case that Barack Obama is the guy who's going to accomplish that.

I'm giving this vote thought. I rush home to see the RNC for goodness sake.

Two things will happen whether Obama or Romney are in the office: The ratios against GDP (like debt or deficit to GDP), which permit the arguments about a fiscal crisis, will improve along with the economy. The government will raise tax revenue in ratio to GDP.

Whichever of these guys can stay farther from the "would have been worse" or "should have been better" argument, the more intelligent and credible their campaign will be. Having watched the conventions and followed politics since I was a little kid, I know that the conventions are not the place to get the more pragmatic vibes that I'm looking for.

Still, Mitt should have walked through energy and small business in waaay more depth. Do you know how many times you can say 'jobs' and 'women' talking about our economy and these two platform pieces? He needs to ignore the poles about personality and run on being comfortable with business.

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't have a party affiliation, but really think that Romney is a good primary choice for the GOP. I was expecting to have to wait until the campaign for some of what I want to see him say, but I thought his speech missed my interests.


I just know that he is a very, very aware businessman, and at portions of the speech he was dumbed down to an extent that he did not seem authentic. I expected him to comment substantively on some of the platform rather than the cruder line-up which he'd opted for as well.

Have you seen his CPAC speeches the last few years? All were better. That stuff about him being some kind of stiff was generated by the dems and Mitt's campaign is being too poll-reactive. He is very confidence-inspiring when he's natural.


What I took away from the convention is that Ryan is not a weak point, that Ann Romney and her endorsements of her man are a strong point, that the GOP has a 'bench' of promising talent. I am sad to see the hold neocons still have in the GOP. I don't like the pessimistic message about the country being in some kind of shambles.

I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

I'd like you to give that vote a lot of thought, Antagon. I really wish that we WEREN'T close to that fiscal cliff but the truth is...we are. We really need to get our spending under control and I don't think anyone can make the case that Barack Obama is the guy who's going to accomplish that.

I'm giving this vote thought. I rush home to see the RNC for goodness sake.

Two things will happen whether Obama or Romney are in the office: The ratios against GDP (like debt or deficit to GDP), which permit the arguments about a fiscal crisis, will improve along with the economy. The government will raise tax revenue in ratio to GDP.

Whichever of these guys can stay farther from the "would have been worse" or "should have been better" argument, the more intelligent and credible their campaign will be. Having watched the conventions and followed politics since I was a little kid, I know that the conventions are not the place to get the more pragmatic vibes that I'm looking for.

Still, Mitt should have walked through energy and small business in waaay more depth. Do you know how many times you can say 'jobs' and 'women' talking about our economy and these two platform pieces? He needs to ignore the poles about personality and run on being comfortable with business.

Since you have watched politics then you have to know that this convention had two main goals for the GOP...they wanted to get the conversation back on the economy...and they wanted to counter the Democratic "narrative" that Mitt Romney and the Republicans "hate" women and minorities.

The literal stampede of minority and women speakers that went across that stage did wonders for the second goal.

You probably didn't get the full exposure to the GOP message about Romney's business background because much of it was given by people that weren't "big names" and thus the networks had a bad habit of cutting away so that their talking heads could discuss what they had seen so far. The picture those people painted of Mitt Romney was that he is a man who is not only very business savvy but also very compassionate. Time after time in Romney's life he's given of his time and his money to help not only the people who worked with him but the people in his community. I think that the Democratic narrative of Romney being a "heartless corporate raider" is going to be hard to sell after all the evidence to the contrary. Say what you will about Mitt Romney...he has walked the walk, not just talked the talk and done it in a very private way.

As I've said on here before...I think the true test of someone's character is what they do when they think nobody is around. I used to manage a large club right across from Fenway Park. Mo Vaughn, one of the Boston Red Sox stars bought a block of game tickets for kids from poor neighborhoods for each home game and then had them over to our place for pizza and sodas afterwards. It cost him a lot of money but what always impressed me about what he did was that he was adamant about keeping it private. He didn't want the press to know about it. He didn't care if he didn't get public recognition for what he was doing. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Romney is THAT kind of a guy. He did things in his life because he thought they were the right thing to do...not because doing them would make him "look good".

 

[antagon]

Well, we'll put you down as one who wouldn't have voted for Mitt anyway?

I don't have a party affiliation, but really think that Romney is a good primary choice for the GOP. I was expecting to have to wait until the campaign for some of what I want to see him say, but I thought his speech missed my interests.


I just know that he is a very, very aware businessman, and at portions of the speech he was dumbed down to an extent that he did not seem authentic. I expected him to comment substantively on some of the platform rather than the cruder line-up which he'd opted for as well.

Have you seen his CPAC speeches the last few years? All were better. That stuff about him being some kind of stiff was generated by the dems and Mitt's campaign is being too poll-reactive. He is very confidence-inspiring when he's natural.

What I took away from this convention was that my hope that Mitt Romney would be up to the job have been replaced with a growing certainty that he absolutely is the man we need at this point in history.

What I took away from the convention is that Ryan is not a weak point, that Ann Romney and her endorsements of her man are a strong point, that the GOP has a 'bench' of promising talent. I am sad to see the hold neocons still have in the GOP. I don't like the pessimistic message about the country being in some kind of shambles.

I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

One thing I AM appreciating about Mitt is that he isn't making a lot of promises he can't keep. The closest thing to a risky statement that he is making is that he will create 12 million new jobs, but with 20+ million Americans looking for work, what he intends to do re the economy makes that promises much less risky. He also is shooting for energy indpedence in eight years, but you get the sense he can pull that off.

And he should rightly stay to big themes rather than promises... certainly this early. The 12 million jobs is coming no matter what. That was really safe. With the 23M Americans backdrop, it sounds impressive. The 23 mil include 'under-' employed too.

I think the GOP should abandon that neocon term 'energy independence'. They should pitch that as 'driving down energy costs through our own resources'. The US would never institute real energy independence anyhow, nor would firms actually build, produce and refine at the government's will. The Army Corps and BLM would have to get (further) into the oil business, or... subsidy, or... Chinese (gov't) firms, among other multinationals, will have to be invited more openly, or... the Fed can shift it's investment strategy further in favor of above-ground oil reserves... but that's not gas or heating oil... That's why Mitt spoke so briefly about the 'independence' thing... 5 seconds maybe. I think he'd be more comfortable saying drill, baby, drill. DBD is more like real life.

As to the specifics of HOW he would do it, he isn't in a position to say that. Years ago I was drafted to take over a large troubled social organization that was so in deficit that it was on the brink of having to close. If I had had to say HOW I would turn that around before I went to work, I would have sounded like an idiot. I had no way of knowing what the problems were, what could be improved, what needed to be eliminated, what staff to keep, what staff to cut etc. UNTIL I got in there to assess that. Mitt will have to do that also.

What I am encouraged about though is that Mitt knows HOW to assess the problems and HOW to turn things around. And I do believe he is 100% sincere that he wants to help America and Americans in very real and practical ways and will be able to see how best to do that. And no, it won't be with a handout but rather by creating an environment that encourages opportunity.

Point taken there. I would never expect a convention speech to be a Ross Perot seminar.

The rabble-rousing portion ahead of the platform talking points became tedious for me, and I was sad to see him go back to that so quickly, without any nuts and bolts on small business and energy..

As to what inerests of yours he didn't address, could you be more specific? But of course, if you think the problems the rest of us see don't exist, then electing somebody who is a problem solver probably isn't as appealing to you.

I think he said something about some people working two $9/hr jobs just to get by in these hard times. I know those people are out there, etc, but that's not me. I'm into the old-school republican values of getting paid more than the average and being the reason why there are $9/hr jobs in the first place.

I understand why he reached out to that person in the speech. We're all Americans. I am disappointed that Mitt, who is an archetypal capitalist, didn't let that character roar in his speech. That's the can of whoop-ass I hope he'll crack open on the campaign.

 

[antagon]

I'd like you to give that vote a lot of thought, Antagon. I really wish that we WEREN'T close to that fiscal cliff but the truth is...we are. We really need to get our spending under control and I don't think anyone can make the case that Barack Obama is the guy who's going to accomplish that.

I'm giving this vote thought. I rush home to see the RNC for goodness sake.

Two things will happen whether Obama or Romney are in the office: The ratios against GDP (like debt or deficit to GDP), which permit the arguments about a fiscal crisis, will improve along with the economy. The government will raise tax revenue in ratio to GDP.

Whichever of these guys can stay farther from the "would have been worse" or "should have been better" argument, the more intelligent and credible their campaign will be. Having watched the conventions and followed politics since I was a little kid, I know that the conventions are not the place to get the more pragmatic vibes that I'm looking for.

Still, Mitt should have walked through energy and small business in waaay more depth. Do you know how many times you can say 'jobs' and 'women' talking about our economy and these two platform pieces? He needs to ignore the poles about personality and run on being comfortable with business.

Since you have watched politics then you have to know that this convention had two main goals for the GOP...they wanted to get the conversation back on the economy...and they wanted to counter the Democratic "narrative" that Mitt Romney and the Republicans "hate" women and minorities.

The literal stampede of minority and women speakers that went across that stage did wonders for the second goal.

You probably didn't get the full exposure to the GOP message about Romney's business background because much of it was given by people that weren't "big names" and thus the networks had a bad habit of cutting away so that their talking heads could discuss what they had seen so far. The picture those people painted of Mitt Romney was that he is a man who is not only very business savvy but also very compassionate. Time after time in Romney's life he's given of his time and his money to help not only the people who worked with him but the people in his community. I think that the Democratic narrative of Romney being a "heartless corporate raider" is going to be hard to sell after all the evidence to the contrary. Say what you will about Mitt Romney...he has walked the walk, not just talked the talk and done it in a very private way.

As I've said on here before...I think the true test of someone's character is what they do when they think nobody is around. I used to manage a large club right across from Fenway Park. Mo Vaughn, one of the Boston Red Sox stars bought a block of game tickets for kids from poor neighborhoods for each home game and then had them over to our place for pizza and sodas afterwards. It cost him a lot of money but what always impressed me about what he did was that he was adamant about keeping it private. He didn't want the press to know about it. He didn't care if he didn't get public recognition for what he was doing. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Romney is THAT kind of a guy. He did things in his life because he thought they were the right thing to do...not because doing them would make him "look good".

I like Romney's character. I watched on CSPAN which had full coverage, but I get home around 9:15 EST, so I did not catch much of the early stuff. Honestly, I can't watch 4 hrs of TV a day anyhow... definitely not RNC/DNC coverage. I wanted to see Ann Romney, Ryan and some of the shooting stars. I was impressed by those. I was expecting to have a more pumped-up feeling about Mitt, but I'm dont.

 

[Katzndogz]

Someone was pleased because Romney has pulled ahead of obama on Gallup and Rasmussen. The real bounce effect won't be out until Tuesday so this is an indication of how it's going to go.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm giving this vote thought. I rush home to see the RNC for goodness sake.

Two things will happen whether Obama or Romney are in the office: The ratios against GDP (like debt or deficit to GDP), which permit the arguments about a fiscal crisis, will improve along with the economy. The government will raise tax revenue in ratio to GDP.

Whichever of these guys can stay farther from the "would have been worse" or "should have been better" argument, the more intelligent and credible their campaign will be. Having watched the conventions and followed politics since I was a little kid, I know that the conventions are not the place to get the more pragmatic vibes that I'm looking for.

Still, Mitt should have walked through energy and small business in waaay more depth. Do you know how many times you can say 'jobs' and 'women' talking about our economy and these two platform pieces? He needs to ignore the poles about personality and run on being comfortable with business.

Since you have watched politics then you have to know that this convention had two main goals for the GOP...they wanted to get the conversation back on the economy...and they wanted to counter the Democratic "narrative" that Mitt Romney and the Republicans "hate" women and minorities.

The literal stampede of minority and women speakers that went across that stage did wonders for the second goal.

You probably didn't get the full exposure to the GOP message about Romney's business background because much of it was given by people that weren't "big names" and thus the networks had a bad habit of cutting away so that their talking heads could discuss what they had seen so far. The picture those people painted of Mitt Romney was that he is a man who is not only very business savvy but also very compassionate. Time after time in Romney's life he's given of his time and his money to help not only the people who worked with him but the people in his community. I think that the Democratic narrative of Romney being a "heartless corporate raider" is going to be hard to sell after all the evidence to the contrary. Say what you will about Mitt Romney...he has walked the walk, not just talked the talk and done it in a very private way.

As I've said on here before...I think the true test of someone's character is what they do when they think nobody is around. I used to manage a large club right across from Fenway Park. Mo Vaughn, one of the Boston Red Sox stars bought a block of game tickets for kids from poor neighborhoods for each home game and then had them over to our place for pizza and sodas afterwards. It cost him a lot of money but what always impressed me about what he did was that he was adamant about keeping it private. He didn't want the press to know about it. He didn't care if he didn't get public recognition for what he was doing. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Romney is THAT kind of a guy. He did things in his life because he thought they were the right thing to do...not because doing them would make him "look good".

I like Romney's character. I watched on CSPAN which had full coverage, but I get home around 9:15 EST, so I did not catch much of the early stuff. Honestly, I can't watch 4 hrs of TV a day anyhow... definitely not RNC/DNC coverage. I wanted to see Ann Romney, Ryan and some of the shooting stars. I was impressed by those. I was expecting to have a more pumped-up feeling about Mitt, but I'm dont.

Then you missed some very moving testimonials about Mitt Romney. They weren't given by the "shooting stars" they were given by some very ordinary people who related extra-ordinary things that Romney did while he was running things like Bain Capital. People were weeping in the convention audience at some of them...they were that moving.

 

[antagon]

Since you have watched politics then you have to know that this convention had two main goals for the GOP...they wanted to get the conversation back on the economy...and they wanted to counter the Democratic "narrative" that Mitt Romney and the Republicans "hate" women and minorities.

The literal stampede of minority and women speakers that went across that stage did wonders for the second goal.

You probably didn't get the full exposure to the GOP message about Romney's business background because much of it was given by people that weren't "big names" and thus the networks had a bad habit of cutting away so that their talking heads could discuss what they had seen so far. The picture those people painted of Mitt Romney was that he is a man who is not only very business savvy but also very compassionate. Time after time in Romney's life he's given of his time and his money to help not only the people who worked with him but the people in his community. I think that the Democratic narrative of Romney being a "heartless corporate raider" is going to be hard to sell after all the evidence to the contrary. Say what you will about Mitt Romney...he has walked the walk, not just talked the talk and done it in a very private way.

As I've said on here before...I think the true test of someone's character is what they do when they think nobody is around. I used to manage a large club right across from Fenway Park. Mo Vaughn, one of the Boston Red Sox stars bought a block of game tickets for kids from poor neighborhoods for each home game and then had them over to our place for pizza and sodas afterwards. It cost him a lot of money but what always impressed me about what he did was that he was adamant about keeping it private. He didn't want the press to know about it. He didn't care if he didn't get public recognition for what he was doing. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Romney is THAT kind of a guy. He did things in his life because he thought they were the right thing to do...not because doing them would make him "look good".

I like Romney's character. I watched on CSPAN which had full coverage, but I get home around 9:15 EST, so I did not catch much of the early stuff. Honestly, I can't watch 4 hrs of TV a day anyhow... definitely not RNC/DNC coverage. I wanted to see Ann Romney, Ryan and some of the shooting stars. I was impressed by those. I was expecting to have a more pumped-up feeling about Mitt, but I'm dont.

Then you missed some very moving testimonials about Mitt Romney. They weren't given by the "shooting stars" they were given by some very ordinary people who related extra-ordinary things that Romney did while he was running things like Bain Capital. People were weeping in the convention audience at some of them...they were that moving.

Nah. I caught some of those. YouTube.

That is not the emotion I will be voting on.

 

[Oldstyle]

I didn't vote on emotion last time either. I voted for McCain because he was a moderate Republican who had a history of working across the aisle. It was amusing to watch the main stream media go along with the Democrat's portrayal of McCain as an "extreme conservative" after he'd been pushed as a running mate for John Kerry by Joe Biden no less. You've got to love the irony of that!

I'll vote for Mitt Romney this time because he also is a moderate Republican with a record of working across the aisle to get things done. I think he's perfect for the job at hand.

 

[antagon]

...I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

Well then, that kinda puts ya in the camp with neocons/RINOs/liberals/progressives, ant. Cause that's what they believe.

Most people from any philosophical background feel that way because this is a mathematical problem with mathematical indicators. Those indicators don't predict a financial collapse.

Truth is though, our national debt is OVER 100% of our GDP for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. It has historically run at 20% or LESS of our GDP. Even during the worst of times. Paul Ryan called for a return to that standard in his speech Wednesday.

This is the math which does not add up: This is not the first time we've crested 100% in our history. Historically, our debt hasn't been 20% of GDP. That 20% statement was the only substantive statement of Ryan's speech, and I heard it loud and clear: annual government spending to equal 20% of GDP... very, very different.

How we understand history and how we hear what is told us will make a difference in what we believe.

Our credit rating as a COUNTRY was downgraded by one of the major ratings agencies for the FIRST IN HISTORY last year.

The Federal Reserve has been amortizing our debt. That's for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY and for over a year now. Which is the same thing that happened to England, Germany, Japan...and every major economy in the last 60 years just before it's total collapse. The ONLY reason they recovered...is because WE, the United States bailed them out. Just WHO is going to bail us out...China? Is China who you want to OWN our future?

Republicans and conservatives are optimist, ant. We BELIEVE in American's and their ability to overcome. Our worry is NOT that we won't SURVIVE this fiscal insanity. Our worry is how much PAIN are Americans going to have to endure just to overcome when it CAN be avoided IF we ACT NOW!

Just to put the urgency into perspective, if you spent 1 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, every day, 365 days a year, it would take you nearly 3,000 YEARS to spend 1 trillion dollars. We are 16 trillion in debt. THAT will only take you 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend at 1 million per day.

Or put another way, every single baby that is born in this country owes with the first breath it draws on this earth, 51,600 dollars. That's a 51 THOUSAND dollar BIRTH TAX! Hell, you, me...EVERYONE owes 51,600 bucks and according to the CBO, if Obama gets another 4 years, that debt will be at LEAST 20 TRILLION dollars and that birth tax will be a nearly 65 thousand dollars.

ok, ok.

What if you understand these matters before a politician brought them to your attention? What happens when you also know it would take 40-some thousand years to spend our annual GDP at a million/year, and that there are all kinds of ways to be hysterical with trillions of dollars? What happens when you know babies aren't born with a lil' share of the debt and that political devices commonly go so far from reality that they just aren't credible?

If I have to look back at my last 4-6 years and feel bad about my life or my country, or blame government in order to support the GOP, I will be a difficult vote to earn.

 

[freedombecki]

...I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

Well then, that kinda puts ya in the camp with neocons/RINOs/liberals/progressives, ant. Cause that's what they believe.

Most people from any philosophical background feel that way because this is a mathematical problem with mathematical indicators. Those indicators don't predict a financial collapse.

Truth is though, our national debt is OVER 100% of our GDP for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. It has historically run at 20% or LESS of our GDP. Even during the worst of times. Paul Ryan called for a return to that standard in his speech Wednesday.

This is the math which does not add up: This is not the first time we've crested 100% in our history. Historically, our debt hasn't been 20% of GDP. That 20% statement was the only substantive statement of Ryan's speech, and I heard it loud and clear: annual government spending to equal 20% of GDP... very, very different.

How we understand history and how we hear what is told us will make a difference in what we believe.

Our credit rating as a COUNTRY was downgraded by one of the major ratings agencies for the FIRST IN HISTORY last year.

The Federal Reserve has been amortizing our debt. That's for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY and for over a year now. Which is the same thing that happened to England, Germany, Japan...and every major economy in the last 60 years just before it's total collapse. The ONLY reason they recovered...is because WE, the United States bailed them out. Just WHO is going to bail us out...China? Is China who you want to OWN our future?

Republicans and conservatives are optimist, ant. We BELIEVE in American's and their ability to overcome. Our worry is NOT that we won't SURVIVE this fiscal insanity. Our worry is how much PAIN are Americans going to have to endure just to overcome when it CAN be avoided IF we ACT NOW!

Just to put the urgency into perspective, if you spent 1 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, every day, 365 days a year, it would take you nearly 3,000 YEARS to spend 1 trillion dollars. We are 16 trillion in debt. THAT will only take you 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend at 1 million per day.

Or put another way, every single baby that is born in this country owes with the first breath it draws on this earth, 51,600 dollars. That's a 51 THOUSAND dollar BIRTH TAX! Hell, you, me...EVERYONE owes 51,600 bucks and according to the CBO, if Obama gets another 4 years, that debt will be at LEAST 20 TRILLION dollars and that birth tax will be a nearly 65 thousand dollars.

ok, ok.

What if you understand these matters before a politician brought them to your attention? What happens when you also know it would take 40-some thousand years to spend our annual GDP at a million/year, and that there are all kinds of ways to be hysterical with trillions of dollars? What happens when you know babies aren't born with a lil' share of the debt and that political devices commonly go so far from reality that they just aren't credible?

If I have to look back at my last 4-6 years and feel bad about my life or my country, or blame government in order to support the GOP, I will be a difficult vote to earn.

Would a graph help turn your mind if you knew middle class salaries fell $4,019 per year on Obama's watch?

"Negative $4,019"

In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real income, a little less than a month's income every year.

Inflation at the grocery store has been masked by packaging commodities in smaller containers. Instead of getting a gallon of Welch's grapejuice for $4.98, you now get 3 quarts in a plastic container that seems about the same size, except handles now scrunch a whole quart of juice from the middle of what looks almost like a gallon of Welch's grape juice. Instead of getting 16 servings that would make the gallon last for 4 days with a family of four, you only get 12 servings for 3 days. That increases your number of trips to the store when you assess all these little pilferings from gallons, loaves, packages, and boxes, all of which are roughly containing 25% less product.

Inflation at the pump goes without saying. It's taking triple what it did when Obama stepped into office. He made it happen, but instead of lowering gas usage, it didn't happen. Instead, people are just putting it on credit cards, and they have less money coming in with reduced average wages with which to pay it back.
​

 

[Foxfyre]

I like Romney's character. I watched on CSPAN which had full coverage, but I get home around 9:15 EST, so I did not catch much of the early stuff. Honestly, I can't watch 4 hrs of TV a day anyhow... definitely not RNC/DNC coverage. I wanted to see Ann Romney, Ryan and some of the shooting stars. I was impressed by those. I was expecting to have a more pumped-up feeling about Mitt, but I'm dont.

Then you missed some very moving testimonials about Mitt Romney. They weren't given by the "shooting stars" they were given by some very ordinary people who related extra-ordinary things that Romney did while he was running things like Bain Capital. People were weeping in the convention audience at some of them...they were that moving.

Nah. I caught some of those. YouTube.

That is not the emotion I will be voting on.

The purpose of those testimonials was to show who Mitt Romney is. And who Mitt Romney is is not the heartless, ruthless, conservative evil corporate rich guy as the leftwing media and the Democrats want to portray him. And most of those testimonials were focused on Mitt Romney, the guy who can figure out what the problem is and how best to solve it.

 

[antagon]

Well then, that kinda puts ya in the camp with neocons/RINOs/liberals/progressives, ant. Cause that's what they believe.

Most people from any philosophical background feel that way because this is a mathematical problem with mathematical indicators. Those indicators don't predict a financial collapse.

This is the math which does not add up: This is not the first time we've crested 100% in our history. Historically, our debt hasn't been 20% of GDP. That 20% statement was the only substantive statement of Ryan's speech, and I heard it loud and clear: annual government spending to equal 20% of GDP... very, very different.

How we understand history and how we hear what is told us will make a difference in what we believe.

ok, ok.

What if you understand these matters before a politician brought them to your attention? What happens when you also know it would take 40-some thousand years to spend our annual GDP at a million/year, and that there are all kinds of ways to be hysterical with trillions of dollars? What happens when you know babies aren't born with a lil' share of the debt and that political devices commonly go so far from reality that they just aren't credible?

If I have to look back at my last 4-6 years and feel bad about my life or my country, or blame government in order to support the GOP, I will be a difficult vote to earn.

Would a graph help turn your mind if you knew middle class salaries fell $4,019 per year on Obama's watch?

"Negative $4,019"

In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted for inflation. (See the chart nearby.) That's $4,019 in lost real income, a little less than a month's income every year.

Inflation at the grocery store has been masked by packaging commodities in smaller containers. Instead of getting a gallon of Welch's grapejuice for $4.98, you now get 3 quarts in a plastic container that seems about the same size, except handles now scrunch a whole quart of juice from the middle of what looks almost like a gallon of Welch's grape juice. Instead of getting 16 servings that would make the gallon last for 4 days with a family of four, you only get 12 servings for 3 days. That increases your number of trips to the store when you assess all these little pilferings from gallons, loaves, packages, and boxes, all of which are roughly containing 25% less product.

Inflation at the pump goes without saying. It's taking triple what it did when Obama stepped into office. He made it happen, but instead of lowering gas usage, it didn't happen. Instead, people are just putting it on credit cards, and they have less money coming in with reduced average wages with which to pay it back.
​

Does that chart seem irregular to you? Is this the first or only historical median household income graph which you've taken the time to study?

The 'should have been better' argument here. Has there ever been an economic downturn where median household income has been a leading recovery indicator? If one uses these sort of observations as a campaigning point, doesn't that amount to a less credible or intelligent analysis on the economy?

I know that you're pointing this out, not Romney. Romney can't win just by working with the last 4yrs. The GOP is in an important cycle for their political relevance. I think it would demand a lot of their forward rather than backward vision.

 

[antagon]

Then you missed some very moving testimonials about Mitt Romney. They weren't given by the "shooting stars" they were given by some very ordinary people who related extra-ordinary things that Romney did while he was running things like Bain Capital. People were weeping in the convention audience at some of them...they were that moving.

Nah. I caught some of those. YouTube.

That is not the emotion I will be voting on.

The purpose of those testimonials was to show who Mitt Romney is. And who Mitt Romney is is not the heartless, ruthless, conservative evil corporate rich guy as the leftwing media and the Democrats want to portray him. And most of those testimonials were focused on Mitt Romney, the guy who can figure out what the problem is and how best to solve it.

I don't mean to rock your boat at all with my concerns about that convention. I know there are many political fires to put out and patch up, but no patches covered my bigger concerns.

I know that Mitt is a turn-around artist. He can be president.. but that means he's qualified... eligible. The RR ticket just needs to win my vote, rather than hoping that I will blame all the negatives in my life on Obama and default to the GOP.

 

[JDzBrain]

...I will not vote for Mitt because I think America is on the brink of collapse, because I don't think we're close.

Well then, that kinda puts ya in the camp with neocons/RINOs/liberals/progressives, ant. Cause that's what they believe.

Most people from any philosophical background feel that way because this is a mathematical problem with mathematical indicators. Those indicators don't predict a financial collapse.

Truth is though, our national debt is OVER 100% of our GDP for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. It has historically run at 20% or LESS of our GDP. Even during the worst of times. Paul Ryan called for a return to that standard in his speech Wednesday.

This is the math which does not add up: This is not the first time we've crested 100% in our history. Historically, our debt hasn't been 20% of GDP. That 20% statement was the only substantive statement of Ryan's speech, and I heard it loud and clear: annual government spending to equal 20% of GDP... very, very different.

How we understand history and how we hear what is told us will make a difference in what we believe.

Our credit rating as a COUNTRY was downgraded by one of the major ratings agencies for the FIRST IN HISTORY last year.

The Federal Reserve has been amortizing our debt. That's for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY and for over a year now. Which is the same thing that happened to England, Germany, Japan...and every major economy in the last 60 years just before it's total collapse. The ONLY reason they recovered...is because WE, the United States bailed them out. Just WHO is going to bail us out...China? Is China who you want to OWN our future?

Republicans and conservatives are optimist, ant. We BELIEVE in American's and their ability to overcome. Our worry is NOT that we won't SURVIVE this fiscal insanity. Our worry is how much PAIN are Americans going to have to endure just to overcome when it CAN be avoided IF we ACT NOW!

Just to put the urgency into perspective, if you spent 1 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, every day, 365 days a year, it would take you nearly 3,000 YEARS to spend 1 trillion dollars. We are 16 trillion in debt. THAT will only take you 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend at 1 million per day.

Or put another way, every single baby that is born in this country owes with the first breath it draws on this earth, 51,600 dollars. That's a 51 THOUSAND dollar BIRTH TAX! Hell, you, me...EVERYONE owes 51,600 bucks and according to the CBO, if Obama gets another 4 years, that debt will be at LEAST 20 TRILLION dollars and that birth tax will be a nearly 65 thousand dollars.

ok, ok.

What if you understand these matters before a politician brought them to your attention? What happens when you also know it would take 40-some thousand years to spend our annual GDP at a million/year, and that there are all kinds of ways to be hysterical with trillions of dollars? What happens when you know babies aren't born with a lil' share of the debt and that political devices commonly go so far from reality that they just aren't credible?

If I have to look back at my last 4-6 years and feel bad about my life or my country, or blame government in order to support the GOP, I will be a difficult vote to earn.

Actually ant, 64% of ALL Americans...NOT just conservatives, believe that debt and deficit spending is the greatest DANGER this country faces. It beats terrorism by country mile in polling. So the statement that "Most people from any philosophical background feel that way..." is based on a fallacy, cause the 38% remainder is not most.

And as to the experts views. DOZENS of top economist in this country are warning that if we don't get our debt and this insane deficit spending under control, we ARE headed toward a Weimar type of collapse. If you don't know history...look it up.

The REASONS for the conditions are different than they were in 1920's Germany, but the conditions them selves are approaching IDENTICAL!

HUGE debt, about 8 billion was about 100% of their GDP, unemployment that rose from 2% 1921 to 23% by the end in '33, production fell and GDP dropped...WHICH led to huge shortfalls in tax revenue and the Weimar Government amortizing it's debt and printing more and more money to cover it. Sound familiar? It should! Ever hear of QE 1 or QE 2. If not...you had BETTER look it up too!

And WE have a REPORTED unemployment rate above 8% for nearly 4 years for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY in this country. And the ACTUAL unemployment rate is closer to 14%. The only reason inflation isn't approaching 12% is because politicians LIE and changed the way it's reported back in the 80's to cover their asses and jobs.

When the debt was called by the the Europeans and Germany couldn't pay up, the result was hyper inflation where the exchange rate in 1920 went form 14 marks per 1 US dollar to 4.2 BILLION per US dollar just 3 years later. It LITERALLY took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread!

What happens if the Chinese call our debt? What "concessions" will we have to make to avoid bankruptcy? See, the Germans got Hitler and his socialist workers party government out of it. Just WHAT are you willing to risk in an AVOIDABLE future?

As I said, the CAUSES for the conditions the Germans found themselves in were slightly different than ours, but the conditions themselves are FAST approaching the same and there are quite literally dozens of leading economist WARNING JUST THAT!

As to the national debt, you are right. I might more rightly have said, it has reached 103% of our GDP for the first time in our PEACE TIME history and only the SECOND time in modern history. See, it DID go over 100% in the LAST YEAR of WWII and quickly began to fall back down to just about 20% of our GDP after the war ended.

That's UNTIL the big government explosion in the late 70's. And I say in modern history, because until the first progressive president, Woodrow Wilson and his Fabien Socialist associates started showing up in our government, our debt to GDP never exceeded 10%!!!

However, the AVERAGE over our history has been just under 20%. That's just a fact and it no coincidence that when we keep our SPENDING under 20%, our debt stays low as well. THAT is just common sense!

As to my perceptions...uh, I was likely keeping up with this stuff before most of the folks reading this thread were even born. And the HISTORY of our country and our economy was NOT taught to me by sound bites from politicians sprayed out over air waves or the ramblings of blogers on the internet. My perceptions were earned by interest and experience.

And the FACT that it will take 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend 16 trillion dollars, spending 1 million dollars PER DAY...NOT year. You really need to understand the gravity of this to be able to put it into perspective. 1 million a DAY...every day for 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend 16 trillion dollars.

That is the thing progressives don't seem to understand. The magnitude of the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion. Once a number gets so big that it's just expressed as a point, like 22.5 trillion, the amount the CBO ACTUALLY projects our deficit will be if Obama gets another 4 years, progressives just tune out the MAGNITUDE of that number.

But until they do, we are ALWAYS going to struggle educating people to the danger we are in!

 

[antagon]

Well then, that kinda puts ya in the camp with neocons/RINOs/liberals/progressives, ant. Cause that's what they believe.

Most people from any philosophical background feel that way because this is a mathematical problem with mathematical indicators. Those indicators don't predict a financial collapse.



This is the math which does not add up: This is not the first time we've crested 100% in our history. Historically, our debt hasn't been 20% of GDP. That 20% statement was the only substantive statement of Ryan's speech, and I heard it loud and clear: annual government spending to equal 20% of GDP... very, very different.

How we understand history and how we hear what is told us will make a difference in what we believe.

Our credit rating as a COUNTRY was downgraded by one of the major ratings agencies for the FIRST IN HISTORY last year.

The Federal Reserve has been amortizing our debt. That's for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY and for over a year now. Which is the same thing that happened to England, Germany, Japan...and every major economy in the last 60 years just before it's total collapse. The ONLY reason they recovered...is because WE, the United States bailed them out. Just WHO is going to bail us out...China? Is China who you want to OWN our future?

Republicans and conservatives are optimist, ant. We BELIEVE in American's and their ability to overcome. Our worry is NOT that we won't SURVIVE this fiscal insanity. Our worry is how much PAIN are Americans going to have to endure just to overcome when it CAN be avoided IF we ACT NOW!

Just to put the urgency into perspective, if you spent 1 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, every day, 365 days a year, it would take you nearly 3,000 YEARS to spend 1 trillion dollars. We are 16 trillion in debt. THAT will only take you 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend at 1 million per day.

Or put another way, every single baby that is born in this country owes with the first breath it draws on this earth, 51,600 dollars. That's a 51 THOUSAND dollar BIRTH TAX! Hell, you, me...EVERYONE owes 51,600 bucks and according to the CBO, if Obama gets another 4 years, that debt will be at LEAST 20 TRILLION dollars and that birth tax will be a nearly 65 thousand dollars.

ok, ok.

What if you understand these matters before a politician brought them to your attention? What happens when you also know it would take 40-some thousand years to spend our annual GDP at a million/year, and that there are all kinds of ways to be hysterical with trillions of dollars? What happens when you know babies aren't born with a lil' share of the debt and that political devices commonly go so far from reality that they just aren't credible?

If I have to look back at my last 4-6 years and feel bad about my life or my country, or blame government in order to support the GOP, I will be a difficult vote to earn.

Actually ant, 64% of ALL Americans...NOT just conservatives, believe that debt and deficit spending is the greatest DANGER this country faces. It beats terrorism by country mile in polling. So the statement that "Most people from any philosophical background feel that way..." is based on a fallacy, cause the 38% remainder is not most.

That employs a lot of hyperbole, JD. Debt and deficit danger versus imminent collapse or your Weimer scenario. Where is the poll showing more than 5% of the country predict a monetary crisis? 2%? I'd bet the Euro would tank well ahead of the dollar, and they are well in the clear.

Moreover, where was the banner of fiscal conservatism flown in that acceptance speech? I thought Ryan set that up well, but was disappointed when Romney hadn't followed through himself.

And as to the experts views. DOZENS of top economist in this country are warning that if we don't get our debt and this insane deficit spending under control, we ARE headed toward a Weimar type of collapse. If you don't know history...look it up.

The REASONS for the conditions are different than they were in 1920's Germany, but the conditions them selves are approaching IDENTICAL!

HUGE debt, about 8 billion was about 100% of their GDP, unemployment that rose from 2% 1921 to 23% by the end in '33, production fell and GDP dropped...WHICH led to huge shortfalls in tax revenue and the Weimar Government amortizing it's debt and printing more and more money to cover it. Sound familiar? It should! Ever hear of QE 1 or QE 2. If not...you had BETTER look it up too!

And WE have a REPORTED unemployment rate above 8% for nearly 4 years for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY in this country. And the ACTUAL unemployment rate is closer to 14%. The only reason inflation isn't approaching 12% is because politicians LIE and changed the way it's reported back in the 80's to cover their asses and jobs.

When the debt was called by the the Europeans and Germany couldn't pay up, the result was hyper inflation where the exchange rate in 1920 went form 14 marks per 1 US dollar to 4.2 BILLION per US dollar just 3 years later. It LITERALLY took a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread!

Don't worry, this is not close to happening in the US. Not remotely close. Those dozens of economists either didn't predict your monetary crisis scenario, and you'd heard their warnings with that hyperbolic ear, or those are the least-credible sources for information on the economic state of the union.

What happens if the Chinese call our debt? What "concessions" will we have to make to avoid bankruptcy? See, the Germans got Hitler and his socialist workers party government out of it. Just WHAT are you willing to risk in an AVOIDABLE future?

You really have to look into why China has banked into the USD. They're not in any position to call. That would be quite similar to us coming out with a default statement at random. None of the above will happen.

As I said, the CAUSES for the conditions the Germans found themselves in were slightly different than ours, but the conditions themselves are FAST approaching the same and there are quite literally dozens of leading economist WARNING JUST THAT!

That fast approach is not evidenced. The Fed is gearing up for more QE on the basis that deflationary pressure (chiefly real estate) is a trailing symptom of the last contraction.

Moreover, this is not a political matter. This is a central bank matter.

As to the national debt, you are right. I might more rightly have said, it has reached 103% of our GDP for the first time in our PEACE TIME history and only the SECOND time in modern history. See, it DID go over 100% in the LAST YEAR of WWII and quickly began to fall back down to just about 20% of our GDP after the war ended.

What peace time, JD?

That's UNTIL the big government explosion in the late 70's. And I say in modern history, because until the first progressive president, Woodrow Wilson and his Fabien Socialist associates started showing up in our government, our debt to GDP never exceeded 10%!!!

However, the AVERAGE over our history has been just under 20%. That's just a fact and it no coincidence that when we keep our SPENDING under 20%, our debt stays low as well. THAT is just common sense!

The 20% is not supportable by history. I don't think any country pulls that off (or would opt to) It's hard to tie debt escalation to Wilson, too, man. A close look begs the question of whether fiscal conservatives have the back to reduce spending or whether they only fancy reducing the government's revenue.

As to my perceptions...uh, I was likely keeping up with this stuff before most of the folks reading this thread were even born. And the HISTORY of our country and our economy was NOT taught to me by sound bites from politicians sprayed out over air waves or the ramblings of blogers on the internet. My perceptions were earned by interest and experience.

And the FACT that it will take 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend 16 trillion dollars, spending 1 million dollars PER DAY...NOT year. You really need to understand the gravity of this to be able to put it into perspective. 1 million a DAY...every day for 44 THOUSAND YEARS to spend 16 trillion dollars.

That is the thing progressives don't seem to understand. The magnitude of the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion. Once a number gets so big that it's just expressed as a point, like 22.5 trillion, the amount the CBO ACTUALLY projects our deficit will be if Obama gets another 4 years, progressives just tune out the MAGNITUDE of that number.

But until they do, we are ALWAYS going to struggle educating people to the danger we are in!

If you see tremendous magnitude in counting trillions, you're not set up for looking at GDP or debt figures in a country like ours. The GDP and DEBT being in the same ball park @ the 103% mark you called out, means that either stat can have fantastic machinations about their value. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be gleaned from imagining how much spending cash our debt or GDP amounts to on terms of a million a day.

That said, I would like to hear a candidate with a debt reduction plan. I don't need a hysterical rundown or a debt meter to scare me... Just a candidate with a plan.

I think whoever says 'plan' more before November, wins.