The Next Administration

[Full-Auto]

A whole lot of chicken counting here. And all I see are unhatched eggs. The election is a year away. That is an eternity in Presidential politics. Much can and probably will happen.

"The U.S. Department of Energy is defending its $529 million loan to a startup electric car company that will be building its first line of vehicles in Finland.

ABC News reported Thursday that Fisker Automotive had decided to outsource the job of assembling its new electric Karma sports car in the Nordic nation. Its reason for choosing Finland, the company's CEO said, was that the U.S. lacked facilities capable of doing the work."



US Loan Goes To Company Building Cars in Finland


Wadda guy!

Love the attention he's giving to US jobs?

Bundlers must get rewarded!

Even if the rewards don't benefit Americans.

President Obama effectively declaring: 'I said I'd create jobs. And I am creating jobs. I did not say where!'

 

[Full-Auto]

are you testing the waters showing how stupid you are?

He's swimming in the ocean that demonstrates how far over your head you have always been and will always be.

i see your man had to change his 9-9-9 plan because it was nothing more than an attack on the poor....how does it feel to back a loser?

Why dont you fill us in on that. Being you are an obama man.

 

[The T]

are you testing the waters showing how stupid you are?

He's swimming in the ocean that demonstrates how far over your head you have always been and will always be.

i see your man had to change his 9-9-9 plan because it was nothing more than an attack on the poor....how does it feel to back a loser?

At least Herman Cain is man enough to acknowledge flaws...and not arrogant as the current occupant is.

Obama could learn a lesson from Cain...it's called humility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. It has become a waste of time to discuss whether or not Obama can/will win.
He is more burned than Edgar Winter on an Ecuadoran beach.

Wishful thinking. Actually, I think Obama has a pretty good chance of winning re-election, because almost all of the GOP choices suck. I've voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, and frankly, the only one I would even consider voting for is Perry.

If you look at the five presidents who have been voted out in the last century (Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter and Bush-41) you have a lot of elements that are missing this time. Obama will face no internal party challenger and if there is a third party challenge, it will be splitting the GOP, not his base. not to mention he'll have a billion dollars to bank and the power of the incumbancy.

2. Oscar Wilde: “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.”

a. There is a very good chance the Republicans will controll the Executive, and the Legislative. Good? Are you happy with the current results of such a monopoly?

b. The two periods of fiscal responsibility in six decades were the Eisenhower and the Clinton administrations, periods during which the presidency and Congress were controlled by different parties. William A. Niskanen, “A Case For Divided Government,” A Case for Divided Government | William A. Niskanen | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

The flaw in that thinking is giving credit to the political situation for the economic one. In Ike's case, he benefited from the political advantage of the huge post WWII boom where the US had the only standing industrial infrastructure. We were raking it in because we were exporting to rebuild the rest of the world. We still had huge government spending- the largest domestic building program of the Interstate highway system and huge cold war spending. But we also had a vibrant middle class (mostly unionized) making good wages and the FDR taxes on the wealthy were in place.

Same deal with Clinton. Had little to do with the Bickersons of Bill and Newt. We had a boom based on a tech bubble and a housing bubble, both of which eventually burst, with the horrific results we saw in the "Oughts".




Yet despite the Great Society, the Vietnam War and the Space Program, LBJ still managed to post surpluses. Again, the US Economy was a powerful enough engine to do all those things.

3. The good news? If the Republicans keep their promises, they should have at least eight years....and a couple of supreme court justices.

Again, I don't think Romney can beat Obama. But even if he does, he'll probably lose one or both houses of Congress in 2014. More to the point, would you trust any Supreme Court justice Romney appoints? Mr. "I'll be better for gays than Ted Kennedy" Romney? Yeah, maybe Scalia or Thomas might feel like retiring because there's a Republican in, but I don't see him appointing anyone that conservative.

a. "The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

4. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.

You lose credibility when you quote a bomb-thrower like Coulter.

I have no real expectations, because I think a choice between Romney and Obama is like a choice between a stick in the eye... and a stick in the eye.

1. "Obama has a pretty good chance of winning re-election." With which constituent groups have his poll numbers increased?
Waiting....
What are the domestic policies that have widespread approval?
Is that crickets I hear?

Strike one.


2. "The flaw in that thinking is giving credit to the political situation for the economic one...."
What you neglect to consider is the nature of the beast known as 'the politician.'
They yearn for re-election...and the way to that is via the coin of the realm...which is the realm's coin.
The resistance of opposite party's contending is a plus for parsimony.

3. "Yet despite the Great Society, the Vietnam War and the Space Program, LBJ still managed to post surpluses."

You don't have a clue, do you???

Well...that does it.
Any possibility that you knew what you were talking about just went out the window.

a. LBJ fit the progressive mold perfectly, and he wanted to continue FDR’s advances toward a cradle-to-grave European style government. The theater of endeavor was not as much economic equality, but racial, but still aimed at undoing the attempts of Truman and Eisenhower to return America to its tradition of fiscal responsibility (between 1946 and 1960, the national debt had fallen from 122% of GDP to less than 56% of GDP; over that period, America’s total deficit was some $740 million versus FDR’s deficit of $15.6 billion in 1946 alone. Historical Tables | The White House).

b. 1964 5.9 Billion Dollar Deficit 42.14 Billion Deficit D D D

1965 1.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 9.86 Billion Deficit D D D

1966 3.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 25.34 Billion Deficit D D D

1967 8.6 Billion Dollar Deficit 56.95 Billion Deficit D D D

1968 25.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 160.51 Billion Deficit D D D

1969 3.2 Billion Dollar Surplus 19.28 Billion Surplus R D D
History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

That last three columns? WH- Senate- HR

LBJ never had a surplus.

Strike two.


4. "...he'll probably lose one or both houses of Congress in 2014."
I don't think I'll put a lot of faith in your prognostications.

5. "You lose credibility when you quote a bomb-thrower like Coulter."
Didn't anyone ever tell you that it's substance that determines credibility, rather than who the message came from.

Did you stop using Arabic numerals after 9/11??

Any credibility I have is a function of the proof that I can provide.
And that's why you have none.

Strike three....take a seat on the bench. The back bench.

 

[JoeB131]

1. "Obama has a pretty good chance of winning re-election." With which constituent groups has his poll numbers increased?
Waiting....
What are the domestic policies that have widespread approval?
Is that crickets I hear?

Strike one.

Wow, you are an incredibly silly person. Obama doesn't have to INCREASE his constituents. Just keep about 90% of what he had last time. that he'll probably do easily because none of his base is going to line up behind the Weird Mormon Robot.

Meanwhile, Evangelicals, Hispanics, women, - none of them are going to be thrilled with Romney. Enthusiasm wins elections, and frankly, other than his co-religionists, I haven't seen anyone get excited over him.

While I've talked to a lot of Obama voters who aren't happy with the economy, not a one of them has told me that they are ready to get behind Romney.

2. What you neglect to consider is the nature of the beast known as 'the politician.'
They yearn for re-election...and the way to that is via the coin of the realm...which is the realm's coin.
The resistance of opposite party's contending is a plus for parsimony.

Don't try to use big words, you'll hurt yourself.

3. "Yet despite the Great Society, the Vietnam War and the Space Program, LBJ still managed to post surpluses."

You don't have a clue, do you???

Well...that does it.
Any possibility that you knew what you were talking about just went out the window1969 3.2 Billion Dollar Surplus 19.28 Billion Surplus R D D

LBJ never had a surplus.
.

Fiscal Year 1969 actually began in October 1968. So it started and was budgeted under LBJ's watch. Again, the engine of trade and full employment made it possible to post surprluses WHILE doing all the things that were hard, as JFK said.

Point being, our problem is with trade and manufacturing. Everything else springs from that. Cutting or taxing are besides the point. If your economy bleeds half a trillion a year every year, you are going to have problems.

4. "...he'll probably lose one or both houses of Congress in 2014."
I don't think I'll put a lot of faith in your prognostications.

Yeah, because it's not like it hasn't happened in nearly EVERY midterm. Oh. Wait. It has. Party in power usually loses at least one house of Congress- 2010, 2006, 1994, 1986.

5. "You lose credibility when you quote a bomb-thrower like Coulter."
Didn't anyone ever tell you that it's substance that determines credibility, rather than who the message came from.

Did you stop using Arabic numerals after 9/11??

Any credibility I have is a function of the proof that I can provide.
And that's why you have none.
.

Coulter has no credibility. She is a loud mouthed demagouge who usually has no clue as to what she is talking about, and she doesn't even get invited on cable shows anymore because she's become such an embarrassment... So I'm really not sure why you cite her as an authority....

Snookums, I've been around a while. This is my ninth presidential election I've been able to vote in. Have been a Republican most of that time.

I have never seen a weaker group of candidates than this lot. Simply awful, every last one of them. To unseat an incumbant, you need someone of incredible caliber- like a Reagan or a Clinton. These guys ain't it.

 

[Full-Auto]

i see your man had to change his 9-9-9 plan because it was nothing more than an attack on the poor....how does it feel to back a loser?

Why dont you fill us in on that. Being you are an obama man.

fill you in on what? which part?

The change in plan. I havent heard.

With the Obama economic plan I am finding I need to work more to make less. Time is becoming a factor.

 

[nroberts98]

1) good catch, thnx.
3) I think the GOP serving the house and senate have been doing a decent job....I'm not happy with the status quo, but I would welcome a strong GOP majority, despite the GOP letting us down in the past, when we did have majorities.

On January 16, 2009, days before President Obama took office, Rush Limbaugh addressed his radio audience, wishing for Obama to fail. Later he softened his words by saying it was Obama's policies that he wanted to fail. And thus was born the Republican strategy to insure Obama would become a one-term president, which was later given voice to by the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, shortly after the Republican victory in the 2010 midterm election when his party retook control of the lower house of congress. Implausible as this might sound, it is my contention that from the very beginning of the Obama presidency, the Republican Party did everything in their power to prevent Obama from rescuing the failing American economy, and more specifically their effort to keep the unemployment rate above 8%. They realized that if Obama succeeded in rescuing the economy, the Republican Party would, not only be terribly weakened for at least a generation, but that it might actually cease to exist as a viable party. In order to accomplish their nefarious goal they first fought against and, consequently, reduced the requested amount of Obama’s initial stimulus request from 1.2 trillion dollars to 787 billion dollars. Then with Senator Richard Shelby at point, they strenuously fought against Obama’s bailout of the American auto industry, which had they succeeded would have cost Americans directly involved in that industry at least a million jobs, with an additional untold number of jobs lost in sectors of our economy both directly and indirectly supported by our auto industry. Most egregious and cynically harmful, the Republicans, emulating Chicken Licken, fought against Obama’s attempts to rescue the economy by continually and remorselessly frightening the already shaken American public, exclaiming that his policies, especially the stimulus and tarp programs were abject failures. In fact, to this day, Romney, the leading Republican presidential contender, proclaims that the stimulus was an abject failure producing no job growth, disregarding the fact that the month Obama took office we were losing over 750,000 jobs per month, which turned into a net positive the following year. Had we been in a shooting war with the nation’s fate at risk as we were in 1942, the year following the disastrous Pearl Harbor attack, it would most certainly had been considered treasonous for an individual or party to continually and publicly disparage our war efforts. Yet, at the outset of Obama’s presidency, when we were most certainly in the economic battle for the very life of our nation’s economy, and a heartbeat away from a second great depression, the Republicans, did just that. And because our economy is basically, and unfortunately, 70% consumer driven, Americans, further frightened by the Republican ongoing diatribe, drastically reined in their spending and investing, which further depressed our failing economy, and it is my contention, has delayed and stalled the recovery. This is further evidenced by the actions of the lower house since the Republicans regained control. Not only have no bills been presented or passed promoting job growth, but because of spending cuts initiated in the lower house, we are experiencing a marked reduction of public sector jobs, which has served to negatively affect the unemployment rate in spite of the gains from job growth in the private sector. Historically, no president has been reelected when the unemployment rate has been above 8%, the magic number, above which the Republicans plan to recapture the White House without destroying their brand in the process. Fortunately for them, a major segment of the American public, for a variety of reasons, is not paying attention, at least as of yet, and another segment is so set in their ideology that they simply refuse to accept what should be clearly obvious. Bottom line, at the time of this writing, the global economy, primarily because of Europe's sovereign debt crisis, and ours, primarily due to our political gridlock, is on the verge of sliding back into recession. And the Jury's out about whether or not we'll fall back into recession, and if so, how deep it might be.

 

[nroberts98]

Why dont you fill us in on that. Being you are an obama man.

fill you in on what? which part?

The change in plan. I havent heard.

With the Obama economic plan I am finding I need to work more to make less. Time is becoming a factor.

Did it ever dawn on you that your sorry plight is largely a result of the Republican war against the middle class? The rich got considerably richer under W. Obama was left with an incredible mess not easily cleaned up.

 

[Liability]

are you testing the waters showing how stupid you are?

He's swimming in the ocean that demonstrates how far over your head you have always been and will always be.

i see your man had to change his 9-9-9 plan because it was nothing more than an attack on the poor....how does it feel to back a loser?

I see you still can't comprehend facts.

How does it feel to BE a loser?

What follows is less for you -- since you are a complete hack and thus not educable -- but just to stake out a position.

If the 9-9-9 plan is imperfect (and I think it is), that doesn't mean we cannot consider it. It doesn't mean we cannot extract from it those parts that we find to be of value. That doesn't mean we cannot take the good but dispense with the rest.

Yet, even AS a flawed plan, it is still vastly superior to what we presently have. If we could magically and instantaneously eradicate all vestiges of the current tax code and structure, including the IRS and all the unGodly hours spent by individuals and companies in trying to figure out how to best cope with that mess, and instead instantaneously implement the 9-9-9 plan even without any of the changes which might be desirable, the overall IMMEDIATE improvement to our plight would be crystal clear.

Industry would prosper starting that very hour. Jobs would surge. With higher wages, nationally, due to the increased productivity and hiring, the government would still get a shitload of money! Toss in some expenditure cutting and VIOLA. We could start paying down the debt. We could live within our means.

But since you are a statist and a defender of the Redistribute the Wealth Plot, you oppose all that progress.

Why do you hate the American people, stupid?

 

[midcan5]

Obama will win, right now there is no doubt. Republicans have always been a odd coalition and today with the dependence on this coalition hanging together, forget it. The far right religious republican, the tea party, and the few sane republicans left will never come back together. I have to redo my old Martian visitor assessment, but it works even today. A slight improvement in the economy and it will be a landslide as well. http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/63125-a-martian-votes-on-tuesday.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

fill you in on what? which part?

The change in plan. I havent heard.

With the Obama economic plan I am finding I need to work more to make less. Time is 1. becoming a factor.

Did it ever dawn on you that your sorry plight is largely a result of the Republican war against the middle class? The rich got considerably richer under W. Obama was left with an incredible mess not easily cleaned up.

Did it ever occur to you that your fact are....not facts?
You see, Obama is "the incredible mess."

" The rich got considerably richer..."
Not any moreso than any other group.

1. Aside from this downturn in the economy...which will be corrected once the nation throws out this miserable imitation of leadership known as the Obama administration, the populace will continue along the upward economic trend.

2. Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy: one must understand that any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

3. Similarly, changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.
The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!

4. Now, don't you wish you listened to your folks and graduated from high school rather than running off to join that commune in Montana??

Understanding math might have helped you understand how you were being manipulated by Leftist propaganda!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama will win, right now there is no doubt. Republicans have always been a odd coalition and today with the dependence on this coalition hanging together, forget it. The far right religious republican, the tea party, and the few sane republicans left will never come back together. I have to redo my old Martian visitor assessment, but it works even today. A slight improvement in the economy and it will be a landslide as well. http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/63125-a-martian-votes-on-tuesday.html

"Obama will win, right now there is no doubt."

A dedication to Middy:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI]Wizard of Oz-- If I Only Had A Brain - YouTube[/ame]


(Did you recognize the two of us in that scene?)

 

[PoliticalChic]

He's swimming in the ocean that demonstrates how far over your head you have always been and will always be.

i see your man had to change his 9-9-9 plan because it was nothing more than an attack on the poor....how does it feel to back a loser?

I see you still can't comprehend facts.

How does it feel to BE a loser?

What follows is less for you -- since you are a complete hack and thus not educable -- but just to stake out a position.

If the 9-9-9 plan is imperfect (and I think it is), that doesn't mean we cannot consider it. It doesn't mean we cannot extract from it those parts that we find to be of value. That doesn't mean we cannot take the good but dispense with the rest.

Yet, even AS a flawed plan, it is still vastly superior to what we presently have. If we could magically and instantaneously eradicate all vestiges of the current tax code and structure, including the IRS and all the unGodly hours spent by individuals and companies in trying to figure out how to best cope with that mess, and instead instantaneously implement the 9-9-9 plan even without any of the changes which might be desirable, the overall IMMEDIATE improvement to our plight would be crystal clear.

Industry would prosper starting that very hour. Jobs would surge. With higher wages, nationally, due to the increased productivity and hiring, the government would still get a shitload of money! Toss in some expenditure cutting and VIOLA. We could start paying down the debt. We could live within our means.

But since you are a statist and a defender of the Redistribute the Wealth Plot, you oppose all that progress.

Why do you hate the American people, stupid?

"If the 9-9-9 plan is imperfect (and I think it is),..."

Here is what I think is implicit...and should be made explicit: the plan is based upon the mechanism of the free-market....that is competiton.

a) flat income tax of 9%...but eliminated several other taxes

b) national sales tax of 9%....added to state & city tax, granted

c) now, here is the genius of the plan: 9% corporate tax...instead of the 35% current.
I believe that this would cause a tremendous boom in the economy.
Further, it would be the lowest corporate tax in the industrial world...and would result in a huge rush of businesses- and jobs- back to the United States.

And...with reduced taxes at every level of production, manufacturing, wholesale and retail distribution....prices in every industry should fall precipitously....

OK...there is no guarantee that business wouldn't keep the profits, but here would be a legitimate role for government oversight, i.e., prevent price fixing.

So...in theory, products should be about 25% cheaper than currently.

Well?

 

[Liability]

i see your man had to change his 9-9-9 plan because it was nothing more than an attack on the poor....how does it feel to back a loser?

I see you still can't comprehend facts.

How does it feel to BE a loser?

What follows is less for you -- since you are a complete hack and thus not educable -- but just to stake out a position.

If the 9-9-9 plan is imperfect (and I think it is), that doesn't mean we cannot consider it. It doesn't mean we cannot extract from it those parts that we find to be of value. That doesn't mean we cannot take the good but dispense with the rest.

Yet, even AS a flawed plan, it is still vastly superior to what we presently have. If we could magically and instantaneously eradicate all vestiges of the current tax code and structure, including the IRS and all the unGodly hours spent by individuals and companies in trying to figure out how to best cope with that mess, and instead instantaneously implement the 9-9-9 plan even without any of the changes which might be desirable, the overall IMMEDIATE improvement to our plight would be crystal clear.

Industry would prosper starting that very hour. Jobs would surge. With higher wages, nationally, due to the increased productivity and hiring, the government would still get a shitload of money! Toss in some expenditure cutting and VIOLA. We could start paying down the debt. We could live within our means.

But since you are a statist and a defender of the Redistribute the Wealth Plot, you oppose all that progress.

Why do you hate the American people, stupid?

wow thanks fr posting a lot of nothing....I cant wait for Cain to back out....I am going to enjoy rubbing it in your face.

It could happen, although I doubt it. I haven't said that he's a lock, you dipshit.

So you'd be rubbing nothing in my face except that the guy I prefer has fallen short.

Oh shit. That's never happened to anybody before.

It's a LOT better than rooting FOR that imbecile in Chief we presently have misleading the nation and having that moron getting re-elected.

You still can add nothing whatsoever of ANY value, you poor befuddled dipshit.

 

[Full-Auto]

fill you in on what? which part?

The change in plan. I havent heard.

With the Obama economic plan I am finding I need to work more to make less. Time is becoming a factor.

Did it ever dawn on you that your sorry plight is largely a result of the Republican war against the middle class? The rich got considerably richer under W. Obama was left with an incredible mess not easily cleaned up.

That sorry plight as you put it was caused by democrats and later helped by repubs.

Obumble has made things worse. You can apologize for the policies all you wish the reality is unemployment remains unchanged and will likely grow larger.
I have noticed after 20k additional regulations that you guys decided well... there might be something to it and has cancelled Epa to parts of the new health bill.

When or at what point do you get a clue?

 

[JoeB131]

"If the 9-9-9 plan is imperfect (and I think it is),..."

Here is what I think is implicit...and should be made explicit: the plan is based upon the mechanism of the free-market....that is competiton.

a) flat income tax of 9%...but eliminated several other taxes

b) national sales tax of 9%....added to state & city tax, granted

c) now, here is the genius of the plan: 9% corporate tax...instead of the 35% current.
I believe that this would cause a tremendous boom in the economy.
Further, it would be the lowest corporate tax in the industrial world...and would result in a huge rush of businesses- and jobs- back to the United States.

And...with reduced taxes at every level of production, manufacturing, wholesale and retail distribution....prices in every industry should fall precipitously....

OK...there is no guarantee that business wouldn't keep the profits, but here would be a legitimate role for government oversight, i.e., prevent price fixing.

So...in theory, products should be about 25% cheaper than currently.

Well?

A whole lot of flaws in your thinking.

The first is that the greedy corporate bloodsuckers are going to pass along the savings to us. Really? Have they done this with all the products they've outsourced to China? No.

The second thought is that if you replace an income tax with a sales tax, you are going to increase revenues, when the opposite is true. People will just find other ways to buy things. When Cook County instituted a huge sales tax on cigarettes, people just started going out to nearby Dupage county to buy their smokes.

Replacing 9% in income tax with 9% in sales taxes will just mean people won't buy as much stuff.

The numbers just don't add up.

Let's try this. Let's actually tax high enough to pay for everything AND reduce the debt by at least 100 billion a year. (It'll only take 140 years to pay it off that way!) Then when people are actually paying for the government they get, they can make a decision as to how much of it they actually want. But this borrow and spend BS has to come to an end.

 

[Flopper]

Obama beats Cain in the major polls by 7 points.
Obama beats Romney in the major polls by 1.5 points.

The Republicans are in limelight with all the primaries and debates. Next summer the Democrats will start grabbing the airways.

Don't count your chickens till hatch.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Cain vs. Obama

TODAY's polling numbers don't necessarily reflect what will happen on the day that matters.

Heed your own advice.

In the interim, why should the GOP nominate a candidate (Romney) who is just a pale imitation of the very guy (President Obama) with whom we we are in such basic disagreement. What's the virtue in electing a pale imitation of the guy who we disagree with on the fundamentals?

Because in your unpersuasive way you are claiming that Romney might beat President Obama? That's the selling point?

How do you run a guy who packaged the Massachusetts' version of Obamacare and then run AGAINST Obamacare?

No thanks. It makes far more sense to run against the President's re-election by offering some serious and stark CONTRASTS.

President Obama will not only lose. He's going to lose big time. Therefore, it's best to run a conservative alternative to what President Obama stands for.

Although, I don't care much for Romney, of all the Republican hopefuls, he stands the best chance of actually getting something done. He isn't so far to the right that he can't garner some support from Democrats in Congress while reining in most Republicans. Unless the Republicans sweep both houses of Congress, Cain or Perry will face the same problem Obama faces in dealing with Congress.

 

[JoeB131]

Although, I don't care much for Romney, of all the Republican hopefuls, he stands the best chance of actually getting something done. He isn't so far to the right that he can't garner some support from Democrats in Congress while reining in most Republicans. Unless the Republicans sweep both houses of Congress, Cain or Perry will face the same problem Obama faces in dealing with Congress.

Sigh...

Do you really think the Democrats aren't going to be lock step against ANYTHING Romney proposes? That's pretty much what they were with Bush after the post-9/11 glow faded. That's what the REpublcians were with both Clinton and Obama.

The whole notion of "bipartisanship" is a fallacy. If the opposing party goes along with you, it's because they've realized they'll be slitting their own throats if they don't.

 

[Flopper]

fill you in on what? which part?

The change in plan. I havent heard.

With the Obama economic plan I am finding I need to work more to make less. Time is becoming a factor.

he changed it to 9-0-9 because of the tax increase for the poor.

If he makes it all the way, which I doubt, the plan will be changed to 0-0-0. It would take several years to get his plan through Congress and even longer to implement. It took the Democrats nearly 2 years to get healthcare through and 4 years to implement it and they had control of Congress. Congress would chop this plan up in a thousand ways. If Democrats got control of just one house, the plan would be DOA.

 

[Jackson]

The change in plan. I havent heard.

With the Obama economic plan I am finding I need to work more to make less. Time is becoming a factor.

he changed it to 9-0-9 because of the tax increase for the poor.

If he makes it all the way, which I doubt, the plan will be changed to 0-0-0. It would take several years to get his plan through Congress and even longer to implement. It took the Democrats nearly 2 years to get healthcare through and 4 years to implement it and they had control of Congress. Congress would chop this plan up in a thousand ways. If Democrats got control of just one house, the plan would be DOA.

The plan is the Democrats don't get control of either house or the executive branch. That's the only hope we have.