Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, April 26, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
In response to a recent letter suggesting Mitt Romney was not able to relate to the less fortunate, I don’t recall that John or Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry were ever judged on how wealthy they were. They weren’t deemed incapable of relating to the public.
The major concern we share now is whether the candidate we elect can get us out of this deep hold of debt. The sitting president got us there, and he hasn’t the foggiest notion how to fix this economy and bring back jobs.
I agree!Also we are sitting on another crisis that will wipe out another round of our assets--the government debt bubble and the money in circulation bubble, which will make the last bust look like a cake walk! We must get these under control or go through another round of asset depreciation of major proportions.
Don't forget FDR was well off financially as well.
Romney relates to me
Obama calls me the enemy and unAmerican. Obama does not relate to me
Obama calls me stupid, redneck, gue toting, religious and racist. Obama does not relate to me.
Romney for America in 2012. Obama, start packing.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Mitt Romny shouldn't be judged solely for his wealth but has no real world experience with middle class issues. He is fond of telling folks that he is unemployed too. But when you have a quarter billion in the bank, it's not the same.
"Mitt Romny shouldn't be judged solely for his wealth but has no real world experience with middle class issues."
Governor of Massachusetts. H-E-L-L-O.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Mitt Romnery is qualified to deal with this economy and the job of president. He is an executive, running for the leader of the Executive Branch. He's demonstrated that he's a successful executive at Bain, at the 2002 Olympics and as governor of Mass from 2003-2007. His joint law/MBA degrees from Harvard are useful. Think about the misfit that is now in the WH who was elected by the sheep. What a colossal inexperienced failure. It is time to make a change in the White House. The incumbent Obama has a tired and failed array of policies which continue to set America back. Incredible debt, high and stubborn unemployment, the promotion of racial and class division, encumbered regulations which burden our businesses, a healthcare program which is unpopular and ill founded, a weak foreign relations policy which frequently casts the nation in the role of apologizing for who it is, and an anemic energy policy which fails to take advantage of the nation's massive hydrocarbon resources as the nation is punished by high gas prices. The incumbent president lacks a cohesive vision for the nation and his policies continue to push it further away from its traditional core values of individual accountability, free enterprise, and private solutions to national needs instead of massive central government involvement in the life of the nation.
FACTS...
Former President Bush and Congress spent money on the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, DHS, Income Tax Cuts and many other things and did not balance spending for them with cuts in other government spending or higher taxes elsewhere. That created a large debt.
When the recession arrived, both former President Bush and then President Obama spent more money trying to lessen the effects of recession and still did not cut spending and did not raise taxes to balance spending. This caused the debt to get even larger.
Somebody, as President, and the Congress is going to have to re-write the income tax code, raise taxes on 'all' Americans, change Medicare and SS security for future recipients, exit Iraq and Afghanistan and stay out of other conflicts unless we are attacked, and cut government spending.
All this and more should have been done in the last 4 years of the Bush administration but wasn't. Then it should have been done in the first 3 1/2 years of the Obama administration, but it hasn't been done... and neither side shows any sign of doing it in the future either.
Those are the FACTS and this country is in big trouble. Vote as you will and cross your fingers because right now, we have a ton of political leaders who see the iceberg ahead but keep going full speed ahead right toward it.
I know I'll hear the same tired rheteroic from both sides but none of it is relevant unless we demand that whoever is elected President and members of Congress start taking the tough and painful steps required to reach fiscal solvency.
Michael
Ted Kennedy couldn't relate to the less fortunate. Not even bothering a rescue attempt after he drove off a bridge with a young campaign worker in the car.
John Kerry used to date from the proletariat class when he was in-between heiresses.
Again, all sensible 10 year budget plans proposed take on the issue of getting jobless Americans back to work first then tax reform second and finally trimming deficit spending once we achieve the first objective. All plans rein in the growth of spending while the Ryan plan reforms entitlements. I certainly respect Michael Casler but I see no benefit in cutting spending until we get the jobless back working again. A thriving economy helps the unemployed, helps the employed with upward mobility and it increases tax revenue. Address our three issues in priority: job growth, tax reform and a plan that reins in deficit spending with a 10-year budget plan. This will reduce our economic uncertainty. The debt, due to our demography, cannot be trimmed until 2040.
So Mr. Casler after reading your post, which I agree with, who do you think would best be able to address the debt issues. Obama or Romney?
Seems to me that come November the choice for President is very easy.
--------)
Dippy said "you ARE the enemy and unamerican. dummies wrap an american flag around their shoulders, dont have the guts to serve in the military and consider themselves patriots...."
---------)
Once again Democrats do not want to talk about the economy and jobs and Obama's failure
Why do Democrats spend all their time and energy tearing down and belittling the Conservatives.
Why because they can not win on Democrats failed policy on the economy and jobs
--------)
You gotta wonder just what flag the guy from Crook County, IL, drapes himself in? Certainly not the one with the Stars & Stripes on it. As for Romney making money by being succesful; we now have a cretin in the Oval Office who knew nothing about business or economics and where has that gotten us? I guess the "politics of envy" demands that one should strive to be a failure and unsuccessful in life. In the case of the guy from Crook County, that worked out pretty well, didn't it?
Comparing Etch-a-Sketch Mitt to John F. Kennedy is like comparing a Little League baseball player to Babe Ruth. Forget their personal wealth. JFK was a decorated member of the US military. Etch a Sketch, on the other hand, skipped out on going to Vietnam for his country to serve the Mormon church on a two-year mission to Paris France.
Wikipedia:
"PT-109 (Patrol Torpedo boat)was commanded by Lieutenant, junior grade (LTJG) John F. Kennedy in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Kennedy's actions to save his surviving crew after the sinking of the PT-109 made him a war hero ..."
Get that? JFK was wealthy, yes, but was also a "war hero". Mitt is a former corporate raider who has five pampered sons, none of whom, like their father, have served their country in the military.
Well Jerry Fink, My wife and I own our home outright , are successfully invested, have gone green on our home so the utilities average around ~$25 per month, drive a car we only have to fill up ~ every thirteen days, take trips, and aren't envious of selfish and short sighted people who regularly make factually wrong claims. So who is the real cretin? President Obama is a far better educated and intelligent man than you have ever been so keep posting to the Sun and trying to convince readers your pathetic arguments have merit and you are "...succesful...". (Sic)
Jerry, Illinois is being run so well that the parents are forced to pay for their children to ride school busses. And keep reminding me how eduacted Obama is, so hard to tell otherwise. He does enjoy lecturing the supremes though, LMAO!
7 out of the top 10 richest people in congress are Democrats, I guess if you use Democrat party logic they can't relate to the average American either.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/15/sev...
Hmm, I wonder if Brian Greenspun can relate to the average American?
Now that Etch-a-Sketch Mitt has the nomination locked up it's time to shake him and make the severe conservative, far-right, primary campaign Mitt disappear.
No matter. Which ever one one takes shape next, it'll still have the gaffe glitch to contend with.
Willard's "not concerned about the very poor," and "has good friends who own Nascar teams." LOL! Looks like the next few months are going to be a barrel of laughs!
We now see where liberals want to take our country. Yesterday, JeffFromVegas referenced in a post Nancy Pelosi's budget plan. It has a $2.9 trillion union giveaway at tax payer's expense. Long-term, it doesn't reduce the deficit because it takes money away from the private sector economy via higher, even more progressive taxes on those who already pay all the taxes which will not stimulate business investment. The plan has a "financial crisis responsibility fee",an unlimited tax mechanism to ask for even more money from Americans to pay for their liberal spending. The big $2.9 trillion is just another stimulus which was already attempted and it failed to grow our economy or create jobs. More failed economic policies from liberals who are more interested in padding union wallets than creating jobs and boosting our economy. Spend baby spend.
Screw the deficit and lets have some jobs which are not likely under a republican't.
Romney bumper sticker:
"Mitt campaigned for seven years and all he got for it is the GOP nomination."
Obama bumper sticker:
"I should have focused on the economy and I am stupid"
RefNV,
Yes. Liberals want to take the country in a direction that helps people to become better educated so they don't fall for the kind of propaganda RefNV either believes or is manipulating others into believing.
RefNV,
Please put that bumper sticker on your beater so people will know to stay out of your way to avoid the inevitable collision. Oh and get off the cell phone.
Meanwhile, back in reality regarding the success of the stimulus plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-li...
"...Now maybe it was just pure coincidence that the turnaround began at almost the exact same moment that the stimulus started. It could be possible that that the economy began to grow again, job losses began to slow and layoffs started coming back down to earth all at nearly the same time -- right after the president signed the Recovery Act -- and it had nothing at all to do with the stimulus.
More likely, of course, is that the myriad independent economists -- from the Congressional Budget Office to Moody's.com to Macro Economic Advisors -- are right.
The stimulus worked."
So, who to believe? The experts or RefNV...?
Anyone can reach back in history and draw differences/similes. Don't much help with the here and now though.
The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Romney is of the rich, for the rich and will always be for the rich. And no one else.
If you don't believe me, look back at the primaries. Every single State he ran, he won HANDS DOWN the electorate of Tea/Republicans who were in the category of making $100,000.00 and up. Every single State.
The rich have their candidate. And if you don't fall in love with this guy, you damn sure better fall in line. Because this whole Presidential race in 2012 is shaping up to be along the same lines as the Angle/Reid Senate race of 2010. Hatred of a candidate is not going to get your guy in office. No matter how much you want it to be like that, it don't work like that. Mr. Romney appears to be falling into that trap though. Because he figures he can just say anything and ride the hate, hoping that will carry him into office. Chhhrrrtt-chooka-chooka-chooooka-chhrrt (That's the sound of him turning the etch-a-sketch over, shaking vigorously, turning back over...voila! erased and start over)
Most Tea/Republicans want everyone to forget common sense. Mr. Romney wants to be President and will first and foremost crush the middle class of this great country to dust. And the leftovers of all that's left will be given to the filthy rich.
Make no mistake. I absolutely detest the entire composition of this bastardized conservatism that the Tea/Republican Party cloaks themselves in nowadays. And I intend to seek their utter destruction on November 6, 2012.
President Obama for another four years. And a Democratic Party majority in the Senate and the House too. To Heck with Heller and to Heller with Heck.
This is the ONLY way the Tea/Republicans will ever come back down to sanity and stop their neverending search to get further and further and further and furthest and furthest to the right of each other. They are at non-stop war not with the Democrats, but themselves.
I say to put an end to it by voting all of them numbskulls out of office.
If you don't believe me, just look at the Nevada Tea/Republicans. They are so rabid in their hatred that they hire an almost ex-con to run the Nevada Republican Party. I anticipate he'll carry on in the great traditions of Sharron Angle and invoke 2nd Amendment remedies if they don't get their way.
Enough. We take them all out at the voting booths. We are their only hope to fix their stupid political party and bring them back to reality.
They can either grasp the truth of things or just continue on and howl in rage and frustration on Fox PORNO (Political Organization-Republican News Only) News for the next four years.
They can make the choice.
John Edwards who said he was "For the little guy" can now relate to the little guy behind bars.
To carry on with that bumper sticker thing, mine reads:
"I may be a Democrat, but I drive like a Republican."
"the success of the stimulus plan"
Yes, Mark Schaffer, the stimulus didn't "stimulate" job growth:
Employment-Population Ratio
2002 = 62.7%
2003 = 62.5%
2004 = 62.3%
2005 = 62.4%
2006 = 62.9%
2007 = 63.3%
2008 = 62.9%
2009 = 60.6% (Stimulus signed by Obama in 2009)
2010 = 58.5% (Down from 2009)
2011 = 58.4% (No net increase)
2012 = 58.5% (No net increase)
Last month, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 31% of Americans believe his "economic program" made things better, compared with 67% who said it had "no real effect" or even made conditions worse.
Mark- How will you convince voters that more government spending will help the economy? You realize, congress has about an 8% approval rate, don't you? And the liberals want to put more money in the government's hands? Good luck with that idea.
Ada R. Lloyed - "The sitting president got us there, and he hasn't the foggiest notion how to fix this economy and bring back jobs."
Another clueless Fox viewer who ignores reality. When Obama was sworn in the DOW was at 7900, it is now over 13,000. Obama has created more jobs than Bush, why do people keep ignoring these facts?
Future - "Obama calls me stupid, redneck, gue toting, religious and racist. Obama does not relate to me."
The last person I know of who heard things that weren't said or voices had an unusual name, the Son of Sam.
Vernos,
We need GDP growth of 3.2% each year just to employ new entrants from our growing population and that hasn't happened. Our GDP growth has been 3% in 2011, 1.7% in 2011 and is estimated to be 2.0% this year. It's simply not enough to get the 12 to 14 million jobless Americans back to work. What does Obama say to these jobless Americans? Are these Americans better off? What about the recent college graduates with a nearly 50% unemployment/under-employment rate? Face the facts, Obama's anti-business approach hasn't worked for these folks.
RefNV,
Would that population include the elderly and those too young to work as well as the disabled? Please reference the original report and any weaknesses.
Houstonjac - "He's demonstrated that he's a successful executive at Bain, at the 2002 Olympics and as governor of Mass from 2003-2007."
You've already forgotten socialized Romneycare and Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation during his term.
Romney used government funds to support the Olympics.
Rick Perry - "There's a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism," "I don't believe that capitalism is making a buck under any circumstances. Look what happened between Washington D.C. and Wall Street over the last few years: $7.7 trillion were transferred from our Federal accounts into Wall Street."
Here is Clueless Obumma job-creatin plan:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA's "philosophy" is to "crucify" and "make examples" of oil and gas companies - just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.
Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA's "general philosophy" is to "crucify" and "make examples" of oil and gas companies.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/...
The last GOP president was an expert at clearing brush and nothing else. But unlike Bush, Willard never gets his hands dirty. In fact, his slimy fingerprints can't even be found at the shuttered businesses he raided and sold for scrap.
"" Pick any other republican in the country. He ( romney) is the worst republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama!" ---------- republican rick santorum"
Despite being the come back politician of the decade, maybe even of this generation, the GOP pick for president won't be Santorum. And the way Rubio and Romney have been talking, it won't be Santorum for VP either. Sad. Santorum blew his shot at the second place spot on the party ticket. I would from this time on take anything that Santorum says with a grain of salt. Conversely, if Rubio says it, listen.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Hear John Edwards is available to replace Joe Biden, if he gets acquitted. He wouldn't be much of an improvement though.
I agree with the letter, The ones bashing the "rich' Romney seem to think money is evil yet they all want part of his cash. John F. Kennedy never "worked" a day in his life because he did not have to his family was super wealthy yet he did serve proudly in the Armed Forces and was a Catholic President, very rare. John Kerry had all kinds of money yet the same who criticize Romney never bring that up. Jimmy Carter was one of worst presidents on record yet went on to be a great humanitarian, something he was really good at. President Obama is a terrible leader yet I am sure will follow President Carters' path next year and become a great at some humanitarian cause and will be remembered for that good he does in the future. He is a trained community organizer so he has a very bright future in that type of social work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-...
Employment to population ratio. Switzerland, Iceland and Denmark lead the world. Real bastions of super capitalism.
All the people mentioned by the letter writer were born with silver spoons in their mouths. None could ever relate to someone suffering with cancer and not being able to pay the bill. Or some kid trying to come up with $50,000 a year to go to a good school.
"Employment to population ratio. Switzerland, Iceland and Denmark lead the world. Real bastions of super capitalism."
These three countries are tiny. The state of Texas has more people than all these three countries combined. The U.S. has nearly 300 million more people than the combined population of these countries. Poor comparison.
Romney attempting to connect with common people:
"Corporations are people, my friend" of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."
"I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed."
"There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip"
"I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much." ($374,000)
"I'm running for office for Pete's sake, we can't have illegals."
"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there."
Teddy Roosevelt August 1910 - "No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered not gambling in stocks, but service rendered."
"If our political institutions were perfect, they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. We need to make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. More direct action by the people in their own affairs under proper safeguards is vitally necessary. The direct primary is a step in this direction, if it is associated with a corrupt-practices act effective to prevent the advantage of the man willing recklessly and unscrupulously to spend money over his more honest competitor."
The TEA nuts that post here are SO COMICAL!!!
Trying to prop up Willard is tricky business...
NO ONE BUT YOU likes the guy.
NO ONE.
He's toast, and the election cycle has BARELY BEGUN.
Bashing Barack Obama and blaming his admin for Bush's buffoonery is A TYPICAL TEAPUBLICAN TACTIC...
Since the Repub's DROVE THIS BUS OFF THE CLIFF, they must use diversionary tactics to deflect their own culpability in this whole mess...
The American electorate is SICK AND TIRED of Tea Party rhetoric that is NOT FACTUAL and has NO BASIS IN REALITY.
"I, ME, MINE!"
Romney/??? 2012
"Rich, & Lovin' it!"
Thurston & Lovey Howell/Romney
Vernos,
Getting the economy going and job growth will please Americans at this point. Obama is likable and seems to enjoy going on the late night comedy shows and playing golf. Good for him.
"Romney attempting to connect with common people:
Their connection, which has nothing to do with money, will be with their votes.
Carmine A. DiFazio
I don't think Teddy had any trouble at all relating to the "common person", at least in Las Vegas. After all, we probably have the highest number of drunk drivers per capita of all major cities in America.
Re Jim Reid. "Romney has been married to the same wonderful woman for nearly 50 years". Check your math. I'm not going to bother looking up Romney's birth date, but if he married at 20 years old, that would make him 70. Keep throwing sh*t against the wall and sooner or later, some of it may stick.
To whom it may concern:
Vernos Brancos only has one favorite Republican, that would be Bram Lincoln. The only reason VB likes Bram is because he freed all of VB's predecessors. I of course revere Bram Lincoln myself, but for different reasons. Bram smacked them testy rebels in the right place for defying the power of the Presidency. They installed their own President and he turnrd out to be a Democrat.
I certainly admire over achieving African-Americans. I've always been a fan of Larry Elder. He is a straight talking person of color and I also like Michael Steele. I always watch Hard Bull on MSNBC. Chris Matthews referred to Mitt Romney as the Grand Wizard. What a swell fellow he is huh? In keeping with Pres. Obama's get nice and stay nice policy that he proposed after that congresswoman got shot all to pieces in Arizona and that cute little girl got killed. Ah Yes VB, keep on keepin' on with your Democratic hate speech. Romney will win by a 2 to 1 vote in November. If he don't I'll buy you a white blackbird.
Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling
Brancos wrote on this page once that A. Lincoln was really a Democrat.
I don't know why he said that but I remember reading it.
I too heard Chris Matthews refer to Gov. Romney as tha Grand Wizard. he later apologized for saying it but you can't unring the bell.
I find MSNBC full of haters. They even gave the Race hustler Al Sharpton his own show. Rachel Maddow is certainly a Republican hater and now they even have Andrea Mitchell spouting their hate speech.
I purposely avoid Sean Hannity, although his guests are more civil than he is usually. It is a rare day that I watch him. Rush Windbag is another hater.
My personal opinion of the President's job thus far is that he started on the wrong track. He ignored the economy in lieu of health care. Nobody that is working and contributing to the economy cares about healthcare first. Jobs and job security are always first and then all else follows. The permanently rich Barack Obama didn't realize that. It will cost him dearly this time at the polls.
Lmao, reading the liberal responses to the article.
People for the most part vote on the lesser of evils, Romney is the lesser of the two. If Romney does not win then Obama succeeded with the direction he's doing, continued success brainwashing his trolls into loving their preferred lifestyle sucking off of welfare and other government subsidies where they're told what do and when to do it.
"The major concern we share now is whether the candidate we elect can get us out of this deep hold of debt. The sitting president got us there..."
Of all the absurd statements I've read by writers and commenters, this one simply takes the cake.
First, we don't share the "major concern" of "whether the candidate we elect can get us out of this deep hold of debt". Why don't we share it? Because since the very beginning of our nation's existence, we've been in debt, and no president is going to get us out of it.
Second, there were 43 presidents before the sitting president, and not one of the 44 presidents "got us there". Presidents don't spend our money. Congress does.
Even if one were to ignore this "technicality", to say the sitting president "got us there" ("there" being the $15.6 trillion debt we have today) is to ignore the nearly $10 trillion in debt that existed on 1/20/09. It is the use of this type of language by politicians, pundits, and the sheep that can't think for themselves, that is the real problem in our country.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.E...
Ref...If you don't like Switzerland and Iceland check China. They have a few people and a much higher ratio than we have....darn commies!!!
Gerry,
China's budget deficit = 2.5% of GDP
U.S. budget deficit = 10.9% of GDP
Deficits above 3% are not sustainable. Too bad Obama can't seem to understand how deficits affect our economy.
Gerry,
Do you want the United States to become a communist country? Is that what you're implying?
TEA - "BTW...U.S. now has the highest corporate tax in the world"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-2012...
Study: Many Fortune 500 cos. paid $0 taxes
Advocates for reducing U.S. corporate tax rates argue that lower corporate rates charged in other countries impede American competitiveness. Yet a new study finds that many of the nation's top companies are already paying less in U.S. taxes on their pretax profits than they do overseas.
In a study comprising more than half of the Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S. corporations, a quarter of those examined paid little or nothing in federal income taxes during the 2008-2010 period, despite registering profits in all three years.
Press - "Brancos wrote on this page once that A. Lincoln was really a Democrat."
If you are going to lie about something I put in print, the least you could do is find it.
abostonboy - "Presidents don't spend our money. Congress does."
Thank you for pointing out how congress works, something that many seem not to know or overlook.
Vernos,
You forgot this section:
"Elements of the U.S. tax code that have allowed companies to defer or reduce their tax burdens include accelerated depreciation of capital investments; research and experimentation tax credits; non-cash goodwill impairments; stock options; tax breaks awarded to specific industries; and offshore tax shelters."
It's erfectly legal to accelerate depreciation and to buy back stock for 401K programs to reduce a company's tax burden.
Vernos- Why didn't democratic senate candidate Elizabeth Warren pay more taxes in her state voluntarily? See the story below. Seems like everyone wants to avoid paying taxes if possible.
"Earlier this week Elizabeth Warren was asked by the Boston Globe a seemingly simple and straightforward question about her taxes: In 2011, did she pay the 5.85% rate (which is voluntary) on her Massachusetts state tax form? Since 2001, as I explained in a previous post, residents of the Commonwealth have had the option -- if they so choose -- to pay a higher tax rate than the 5.3% minimum. And since the former consumer advocate raked in more than $700,000 last year, the Globe believed their inquiry was an appropriate and reasonable one. At the time, however, she refused to answer the question and though I was quick to criticize her silence, I acknowledged that it was still possible she paid the top rate. Unsurprisingly -- according to the Brown campaign -- it's clear she did not.
After avoiding the question all week, Elizabeth Warren finally confirmed today that she did not pay the higher 5.85% rate on her state tax form, a legal option available for Massachusetts taxpayers who believe they should pay more."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...
Ada.....
NOBODY BUT NOBODY is more out of touch with
average Americans than Willard Romney.
And NOBODY wil ever be able to humanize Romney.
Mission impossible.
Romney said that he hasn't worked in ten years.
He needs to stay retired.
At almost 70, he's too old.
Romney wants to take us back to that bush mess.
President Obama is already half way there in
fixing THE HUGE MESS THAT BUSH MADE.
WE'RE NOT GOING BACK TO THAT BUSH MESS.
FOUR MORE YEARS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!!
AND if Abraham Lincoln were here today,
he'd be a DEMOCRAT.
No teamster, if Lincoln were here today he would be a Whig just like he started as and always thought of himself as. (That is well documented.)
Interesting that Romney is out of touch because he is rich, but Buffet appears in tune with the struggles of the middle class.
I really enjoy what a teamster has to say, it's no wonder Hindus have excelled in truck driving 101 and are taking over their driver jobs as owner operators. By reading posts, the teamsters obviously have self inflicted pain upon themselves...
I would have said over 40 years instead of nearly 50, but that is a valid point. Say what you want about Mitt, it seems he can truly run on family values.
Ref...the labor to population ratio is meaningless. It varies from nation to nation and says nothing. The deficit will either be paid down or written down. Asia, Latin America and Russia have all had massive write downs over the last 20 years. The deficit is as meaningless as the labor to population ratio.
"Ref...the labor to population ratio is meaningless. It varies from nation to nation and says nothing. The deficit will either be paid down or written down. Asia, Latin America and Russia have all had massive write downs over the last 20 years. The deficit is as meaningless as the labor to population ratio."
Gerry, the deficit negatively impacts private investment. The employment to population ratio shows we have 12 to 14 million fewer Americans working compared to pre-recession. 63% before and 58.5% now. Nice try Gerry. Are we to assume Gerry that you don't care about our fellow Americans who are jobless?
I applaud the stability and success of Mitt Romney's family. But, no, he can't truly run on family values. He's not even trying to. What he can run on, and is running on, is HIS family values.
There are, always have been, and always will be, families in this country whose values differ from his. There should be. But I don't want our president to denigrate those families and their values. I don't want our president to proactively attempt to de-legitimize those families. I don't want our president to proactively prevent legitimization of those families.
So, sorry, but I disagree. He can't "truly" run on family values.
the jobless rate rises and falls as part of an economic cycle. Over the last hundred years we have had a low of about 1% in 1944 to 20% plus during the Great Depression. The natural or frictional unemployment rate has been about 5% over that period of time. People have very little money. Demand for consumer goods is lax and there is no reason for businesses to hire millions of people.
Wanting 5% unemployment again and getting it are two different things.
If you think Romney will be our Savior name one business that has agreed to hire one worker if Romney gets elected. I asked you this yesterday without response.
I think we have entered an era of above trend unemployment. That's just the way it is. In many countries 7% to 8% unemployment is a natural rate.
How I feel about the unemployed is irrelevant. I don't have the ability to hire millions of people.
In terms of the deficits negatively impacting private investment. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. Apple alone has more money than the entire federal government. There is plenty of money available for private investment if the demand for goods and services picks up.
prior to the recession the net worth of this country was just shy of $71 trillion. Today it is sitting at about $57 trillion. Those losses are due primarily to the collapse of the real estate market. People used to use equity and real estate to fund consumer purchases like cars, furniture and vacation homes. That source of money largely dried up and it has affected our GDP which is consumption driven.
The period From 1968 until 1982 was somewhat similar to what we are going through now excluding the entitlement bubble caused by the aging population. Sometimes it takes many years to get back to the historical norm.
After the financial blow up in 1929 it took until 1954 for financial markets to completely recover.
Gerry,
Unfortunately, Obama chose an $861 billion stimulus in 2009 that did not stimulate job growth. In fact, fewer people are working today compared to 2009, the year the stimulus passed the democratic congress. We went from an employment to population ratio of 60.6% in 2009 to 58.5% now. Obama is cool and likable but just couldn't get our economy going after 3 1/2 years in office. It's time for a change at the white house. The employed and unemployed need a thriving economy. Romney has plans to grow our economy and he understands business. Obama, unions and occupiers are not in a position to hire, businesses are. Romney understands businesses and the certainty they need to invest long-term which is a major reason why we lack job growth today.
Employment-Population Ratio
2002 = 62.7%
2003 = 62.5%
2004 = 62.3%
2005 = 62.4%
2006 = 62.9%
2007 = 63.3%
2008 = 62.9%
2009 = 60.6% (Stimulus signed by Obama in 2009)
2010 = 58.5% (Down from 2009)
2011 = 58.4% (No net increase)
2012 = 58.5% (No net increase)
Maybe I'll be like RefNV and continuously post irrelevant statistics:
The average wingspan of a monarch butterfly is 93-105 mm.
The parquet floor in Boston Garden has 247 panels.
The deepests artificial point on earth is 40,230 feet.
"Maybe I'll be like RefNV and continuously post irrelevant statistics"
Pretty brave Kevin calling 12 to 14 million jobless Americans irrelevant. Mighty brave but the employment to population ratio gives you that information. I think yours and Gerry's attitude clearly indicates that democrats care less about the economy and the jobless and more about having a President who's cool. So be it.
Sorry Ref....what companies have announced they would hire millions in a Romney economy?
When did I call the unemployed irrelevant? I have said increased aggregate demand and a recovery in construction are necessary for normal unemployment. The president has little if any control over either.
Gerry,
A President creates an environment for business investing. Obama's class warfare tax plan and inability to devise a deficit cutting plan creates fiscal uncertainty which reduces long-term business investing prospects. Governments affect businesses via taxes, labor and regulations and Obama has negatively impacted businesses in all three areas. Removing Obama and adding Romney will be a welcome change to businesses, investors, the jobless and the employed seeking upward mobility. Romney understands business, the economy, investing and job creation. Obama does not.
On the issue of judgment, Romney already failed
his biggest business judgment call of his life.
He said let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt.
He was 100% wrong.
President Obama was 100% correct and made the
correct business decision over the business man,
Romney.
Today, Chrysler announced their best quarter in
13 YEARS!!!!
UP 473 MILLION DOLLARS AND UP 300%.
WOW!!! WOW!!! WOW!!!
Romney will lose the election on this BAD
JUDGMENT CALL ALONE.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAVED OVER A MILLION JOBS ON
HIS CORRECT JUDGMENT CALL.
YES, GM and Chrysler are alive and Bin Laden
is dead.
THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA.
YOU ARE THE MAN!!!
Teamster,
That's false. President Bush first bailed out the auto companies. Romney and many others felt it was better for GM to go through the bankruptcy process just like Chrysler did in 1980. It was a cleaner, less costly process.
@RefNV,
One: repeating the lie about the stimulus not working doesn't make it so.
Two: I can see the faulty data you are passing off. You haven't accounted for the increase of the population from 288,369 in 2002 to 314,281 as of 2012.
Three: most economists agree it usually takes almost 5 years to bring the economy out of a deep recession.
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_...
Teamster,
GM is still losing market share to Ford. Correction. Chrysler got a bailout in 1980, not bankruptcy however, the cost structure stayed the same which caused Chrysler to continue to lose market share post bailout. A post bankruptcy Chrysler in the 80's would have been a leaner and more cost competitive company. The UAW's membership suffered from Detroit's market share reduction ever since. It peaked in 1979, a year before the bailout, when the Union had over 1.5 million dues paying members. 25 years, UAW membership had fallen by two thirds -- down a million to to 538,448 (2006). Keeping those exorbitant labor contracts, pension obligations, and healthcare overhead kept Chrysler from really taking off again. Their current market share is around 11%, down from the 1970's of around 20%.
"this deep hold of debt...the sitting president got us there".
Ada - you said this. What planet do you sleep on at night? Are you really here or did this letter get beamed into the Sun via radio frequency?
"The sitting President created this debt" Oh yeah??
You must have read and taken to heart 2nd Corinthians, 5:7 which says: "For we live by believing and not by seeing" and in another version, "For we live by faith, not by sight."
2nd Corinthians teaches it's followers to reject reality and create their very own world inside their mind, or what is left of it. No wonder you vote Republican.
Vernos,
Look again. The employment to population ratio is consistent from 2002-2008 disproving your theory. You stated "You haven't accounted for the increase of the population from 288,369 in 2002 to 314,281 as of 2012". The ratio takes into account increases/decreases in employment and the fluctuation in population. Look at the numbers again. See how consistent the ratio is from 2002 to 2008. The recession in 2008 started impacting this ratio in late 2008 and 2009. Now look at 2010 thru 2012. The ratio is roughly 58.5% all these years. The fact that the ratios are consistent from 2002-08 and 2010-12 disprove your theory. The ratio is a moving ratio that moves with the changes in employment and population.
Employment-Population Ratio
2002 = 62.7%
2003 = 62.5%
2004 = 62.3%
2005 = 62.4%
2006 = 62.9%
2007 = 63.3%
2008 = 62.9%
2009 = 60.6% (Stimulus signed by Obama in 2009)
2010 = 58.5% (Down from 2009)
2011 = 58.4% (No net increase)
2012 = 58.5% (No net increase
RefNV......
Chrysler and GM are making a strong comeback
because of PRESIDENT OBAMA'S support.
Our economy will continue to grow as long as
Romney keeps his nose out of the White House.
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!!!
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/tr...
The average unemployment rate under Democratic administrations and Republican administrations has been almost exactly the same since World War II. The Guy sitting in the White House means nothing.
Your ratios mean nothing. As stated above the countries with the highest ratios are Iceland, Denmark, Switzerland and China.
In terms of General Motors. They sold 9 million cars last year putting them back in the top position. In addition they were the world leader for eight decades and have sold hundreds of millions of cars and trucks around the world since World War II. Hell, GM helped us to win World War II with their massive production of war material.
In terms of the deficit being 10% of GDP not being sustainable. Who says?
We have close to $700 trillion worth of GDP coming down the pike in the next 40 years. Our deficit is about two points of that. If people want to pay off the deficit they can take a couple points of GDP to do it. If they don't nothing says they have to.
There have been debt bubbles, financial bubbles and every other type of economic catastrophe for hundreds of years. None of this stuff is new.
What would be new is if we did pay off the deficit. It's been around on and off since the Revolutionary war.
The employment to population ratio is such an obscure economic statistic it's hard to find data going back more than a few years. I don't even know how you found it.
If you can find this ratio going back more than 10 years I would love to see it. I can't find anything prior to 2002. With many economic statistics I can find data going back 100 years or more.
Years ago union membership comprised a substantial portion of the labor force and welfare was nil. Today union membership is almost nil and half the families in the country are getting some kind of government assistance. Social welfare has replaced high-paying jobs and pensions.
If you don't believe this check Medicaid and Medicare expenditures. Those two programs alone will pay out close to $1 trillion this year. Not an insignificant amount of money.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/ser...
Check this baby out. Your ratio has been dropping for 13 years. You gotta love that ratio.
If we don't get rid of BHO and company we'll all be broke or at least in the same position we're in now four years from now.
I'm not happy we have to pay for his retirement, and that of all the other clowns that will be leaving with him. We should be able to vote on that also....
Gerry states "In terms of the deficit being 10% of GDP not being sustainable. Who says?"
Economists say this Gerry. Not me. Deficits above 3% are not sustainable.
Gerry states "Your ratios mean nothing. As stated above the countries with the highest ratios are Iceland, Denmark, Switzerland and China."
Gerry, the ratio is used to measure employed people to total population. The unemployment rate does not factor well the unemployed who are discouraged and stop looking for work. After the 1981 recession ended in November of 1982, the employed to population ratio was 57.3% and four years later it was 60.9%, a positive change of 3.6%. By the end of Reagan's term it was back to 62%. By contrast, after the 2008 recession ended in June of 2009, the employed to population ratio was 59.4% and now it's 58.5%, a negative change of -0.9%. Clearly, Reagan got the economy going after a recession while Obama has not.
Gerry states "Check this baby out. Your ratio has been dropping for 13 years. You gotta love that ratio."
Check the information in your link again. The employed to population ratio fluctuated from between 62.3% to 63.3% from 2002 to 2008. from the time Obama took office to now, its fluctuated from 60.6% in January 2009 to 58.5% now. Gerry, the unemployed would love to see the ratio go back up again to the 62% -63% range as that would indicate that those 12 to 14 million jobless Americans would be working again.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/ser...
"Chrysler and GM are making a strong comeback
because of PRESIDENT OBAMA'S support."
How about the 200 plus nationwide new car dealers and parts suppliers who were put out of business so GM and Chrysler Corporate could collect their gov't [taxpayer] funds? They coming back strong?
Carmine A. DiFazio
We should up the subsidy to 10 grand for Volt buyin. We got to get to sellin and job-creatin. Open up the taxpayer checkbook and let me start vote-buyin. BO '2012.
RefNV:
Get your misquoting right!
The Budget for All:
Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
Fiscal Year 2013
The Budget for All puts Americans back to work, charts a path to responsible deficit reduction, enhances our economic competitiveness, rebuilds the middle class and invests in our future. Our budget makes no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits, and asks those who have benefited most from our economy to pay a sensible share.
Our Budget Puts Americans Back to Work
Our budget attacks America's persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.9 trillion in
additional job-creating investments. This plan utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get our economy moving again, including:
Direct hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps, a Park Improvement Corps, and a
Student Jobs Corps, among others.
Targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological
investments in the private sector.
Widespread domestic investments including an infrastructure bank, a $556 billion surface
transportation bill, and approximately $2.1 trillion in widespread domestic investment.
Our Budget Exhibits Fiscal Discipline
The Budget for All achieves $6.8 trillion in deficit reduction, hits the same debt to GDP ratio as the Republican budget, and has lower deficits in the last five years, but does so in a responsible way that does not devastate what Americans want preserved.
We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit -- unsustainable
tax policies, the wars overseas, and policies that helped cause the recent recession -- rather than
putting the middle class's social safety net on the chopping block.
Our Budget Creates a Fairer America
Ends tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans on schedule at year's end, Extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast majority of Americans. Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. Eliminates the tax code's preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies. Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability. Calls for the adoption of the "Buffett Rule". Creates a publicly funded federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good.
Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
Responsibly and expeditiously ends our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America
more secure at home and abroad
Modernizes our military to address 21st century threats and stop contributing to our deficit problems.
Protects American Families
Provides a Making Work Pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food cost 2013-2015.
Extends Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child and Dependent Care Credit.
Invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep families in their homes.
Invests in our children's education by increasing Education, Training, and Social Services.
Read the details here:
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Execut...
Here is a snapshot of what it will do:
Our Budget's Top Line
Deficit reduction of $6.8 trillion
Primary spending cuts of $749 billion
Public investment and job creation measures of $2.9 trillion
Debt reduced to 62.3% of GDP by 2022
Plus it has lower deficit levels than the republican budget:
Vhttp://cpc.grijalva.house.gov//images/user_images/B4AllDefGraph.jpg
Here is that graph link:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov//images/us...
After reading the Ryan budget and the Budget For All I am willing to bet that if you took a scientific sample of 1000 Americans and asked them which budget protects America and Americans it would be 80% in favor of the Budget For All, meaning that quite a few republicans don't like the Ryan budget anyway.
JeffFromVegas,
The plan you cut & pasted is a $2.9 trillion union giveaway at tax payer's expense. Long-term, it won't reduce the deficit because it takes money away from the private sector economy via higher, even more progressive taxes on those who already pay all the taxes which will not stimulate business investment. It's a tax redistribution from tax payers to unions. The plan even has a "financial crisis responsibility fee",an unlimited tax mechanism to ask for even more money from Americans to pay for their liberal spending. The big $2.9 trillion is another stimulus mirrors the already failed attempt by Obama to grow our economy and create jobs. Yet more failed economic policies from Obama and liberals.
RefNV:
You take one line of the budget and ignore the rest. This is your modus operandi and why you have zero credibility in this posting community. There is a small handful of LasVegasSun.com groupies like you who try to savage anything about Obama, liberals, teachers, and unions.
You serve no other purpose and in a debate on the reality of issues you groupies have shown you are not worth the time of day in debate. You are rabid dogs for the Koch brothers and other similar zealots.
Ref - I'm not sure what the technical term is for what you keep doing, but it sure sounds like "I know I am but what are you?"
Both Gerry and I have said multiple times now that the statistic you quote over and over ad nauseum is irrelevant. I even provided an extremly simple example of how it's irrelevant. And your response each time is that Gerry and I don't care about unemployed people. What bologna.
Wanna' know who doesn't care about unemployed people? Mitt Romney! Crystal clear in his words about not being concerned about very poor people. And who are those 12-14 million people? Very poor people. "Oh wait," you say, "most of them are not poor". To which I say, if Mitt Romney is elected, "not yet!"
Your beloved, oft-quoted by you, statistic is irrelevant. The people who are unemployed are not. The statistic does NOT tell me how many people are unemployed. That's like saying the national debt as a percentage of the GDP tells me what the national debt is. It does not. The statistic that tells me the number of unemployed is the unemployment rate.
In the six months after the stimulus was signed, the unemployment rate was still increasing as the brakes were applied to the freefalling economy left by the Bush-Cheney adminstration. And since then, there has been a constant and steady (albeit slow) decrease in the unemployment rate. Is that why you constantly state that the stimulus failed?
The unemployment rate. Focus.
Here's another irrelevant statistic for you: The average height of men in Nepal is 5'4".
RefNV ReFreeman:
I am not sure, because your writings are so bizarre if you could clue me into something. I am asking without malice and will not use this info to ridicule you, but I honestly cannot tell if you are a man or a woman.
The only Re I know of was a woman stage named "Re Styles" who was a dancer with the innovative rock band called "The Tubes"
Re Styles: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2481/4059...
Kevin,
It's an economic statistic followed by those who realize that the unemployment rate does not capture accurately the jobless who have dropped out of the job search. The reason why you and Gerry are frustrated is that the stat gives readers a clearer reading on joblessness in our country. The 1981 recession ended in November of 1982 and at that time the employed to population ratio was 57.3% and four years later it was 60.9%, a positive uptick of 3.6%. Reagan ended his term in office with a 62% employed/population ratio. Contrast that with Obama. The 2008 recession ended in June of 2009 and the employed/population ratio was 59.4% at that time and now it's 58.5%, a drop of -0.9%. It's a clear sign to readers that Obama has failed to grow our economy and create jobs. Readers other indication would be GDP growth. It takes a GDP growth rate of 3.2% just to provide jobs for new entrants in the labor force. Our GDP growth the last three years have been 3%(2011), 1.7%(2011) and is estimated to be 2.0% this year. Yet another indication the economy is stagnate. A pro-business President is what we need Kevin. Clearly, Obama, liberals, unions and Occupiers do not create jobs, businesses do.
RefNV:
You claim: " A pro-business President is what we need Kevin. Clearly, Obama, liberals, unions and Occupiers do not create jobs, businesses do."
A pro-Americans president would be a better choice than a pro-business president, Willard the ripper, stripper, and exporter of American jobs and infrastructure (as he has shuttered business - the taxes not generated in those communities have become a serious problem -- lower tax base=rotten bridges)
It is very clear to a majority of non voting and Obama supporting Americans that we do not want your type having the keys to the car (Thank God, and Obama we aren't all driving Volvo's).
Unions at the table with respect make for a better market for all products, the current union hatred by your sycophants has built a beautiful Chinese skyline.
There are no real liberals anyway, and occupiers have a chance to shake it all up.
Once again your rabies have clouded your thought processes.
RefNv:
You're right on all accounts and your detractors here are whistling past the cemetary.
Economy and jobs IS the issue and has been since President Obama took office. He failed miserably adopting the policies of John Maynard Keynes who believed by taxing and gov't spending the nation can emerge from a recession. Add to Obama's impractical and out-of-date economic theories, a Fed Chief who diminished the value of the dollar with QE1 and QE2 and Operation Twist. We have the perfect storm now of an economy that after 3 1/2 years is for the most part no better than it was in Jan 2009 despite huge deficit spending and record setting Federal debt.
It's apparent that what was/is being done is not working. And change is desperately needed. That change is the GOP and Romney. If this country is really serious about getting ahead of the last 3 1/2 years of stagnation and inflation we need business oriented leaders who know and comprehend economics on a national and global level. This president and his senior economic advisors, like Geitnher, Bernanke, Corzine, Biden, Reid and Pelosi, don't. Vote them out. Nov 2012 is the time for the real deal on hope and change.
Carmine A. DiFazio
You have to laugh...
The Howell-Romneys have been on the campaign trail for FIVE LONG YEARS, and in ALL THAT TIME, have failed to come up with a cogent, definitive platform to run on.
"Don't hate us because we're RICH!"
"I'm a 'successful BUSINESSMAN'!"
(Memo to Mitt; Having made a ton of dough in the manner you did does not make you a 'businessman' OR 'Presidential Material'; Drug Dealers & Pimps are rich, too.)
'ONLY ME & THE OTHER 1 PERCENTERS can run this country!'
'Keeping Richie Rich happy & prosperous is the ONLY WAY TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY FORWARD!'
"Corporations are people too, my friend!"
'Barack Obama is DANGEROUS! He is RUINING AMERICA!'
My GOD, but it's a PARODY!
It's a running Saturday Night Live SKIT.
Romney is Sharron Angle on STEROIDS, and any AD AGENCY would be ECSTATIC to have the opportunity to 'create' poli-ads for President Obama's re-election campaign; and plenty will have the opportunity, as The Prez has a BOATLOAD of DO-RE-ME...
The contrast between Barack Obama & Thurston Howell-Romney COULD NOT BE MORE STARK...
The winner of the Republican Primary 'Clown Contest' is a TRUE CHAMPION of the 1 percenters...and PROUD OF IT.
President Barack Obama is a Champion of The Peeps';
and the WORST NIGHTMARE of the TeaNuts.
A 'mixed race', intelligent, well-spoken, educated supporter of the EXACT THINGS the Gun Totin', Money Grubbin', Bible Thumpin' RIGHTIES DESPISE...
(no need to expound upon those things here...)
The Republican Party has GROSSLY MISCALCULATED.
Pandering to their little niche doesn't add up to a whole bunch o' votes; but it WILL be entertaining!!!
Ref says "democrats care less about the economy and the jobless and more about having a President who's cool. So be it." If I were capable of being offended by him, I would be. Ref, you're wrong.
As far as the mandatory qualities I look for in a President, I think both Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney have them. And being cool is not one of them. But, if all else were equal, I think even republicans would side with the cool one. Of course, not all else is equal.
Here's what I believe: Both men are "presentable" on the world stage. They're both intelligent and educated (two things that don't always go hand in hand). At their inner core, both truly are good people. Both have wonderful families, which says a lot about them. Both have instincts that serve them well. Both are extremely respectable. Both have a sense of humility. There are other vital qualities that both men share as well.
I also think that both men want what's best. But it's their politics, the path toward "what's best", that separates them. It's how they guide us to "what's best" that decides who I vote for. It is this core political principle that distinguishes one side of the political spectrum from the other.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Romney is a person who believes that government should stay out of the way of everyone to the greatest extent possible. But, he knows that, by its nature, government always "gets in the way" to some extent. He also knows that getting in the way is not always bad. It can be done in a good way. But still, the least getting in the way possible. Thus, his philosophy is one where government gets in the way, in a good way, to as few as possible. Then, the few who benefited directly from the government will share those benefits with everyone else, such that everyone benefits, directly or indirectly. The path toward "what's best" is the one where government directly benefits as few as possible.
Obama is a person who, like Romney, believes that government should "get in the way" as little as possible. And he, too, knows that getting the way can be good. But his philosophy is one where government gets in the way, in a good way, to benefit as many as possible. In Obama's eyes, what the government does for the few, it should do for the masses. The path toward "what's best" is the one where government directly benefits as many as possible.
I didn't vote for Obama four years ago because he was cool. And I'm not going to vote for him this November because he slow-jammed the news with Jimmy Fallon. I have two choices. The first is a path where the government directly benefits as few as possible. The second is a path where the government directly benefits as many as possible. I don't think the first path works. I think the first path gets to what's best for the few, but not for all. I think taking the first path requires faith in the few to share the wealth. I think the few have proven that it is a misguided faith. I choose the second path. That is why I will vote for Pres. Obama.
BTW RefNv, it goes without saying I understand your posts here and the numbers you cite to support your arguments.
Conversely, I am frustrated by the actions and words coming from Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke. They are in my opinion worse than the 3 stooges when it comes to implementing and executing consistent effective economic policies. The worse. The only others as bad were President Carter and Sec. Miller. And fortunately they both had Paul Volcker as the Fed Chief who took the needed actions to turn the economy around.
Volcker was a senior economic advisor to Obama BUT resigned his appointed position after throwing his arms up in frustration with the likes of Geithner and Bernanke.
Change is coming. You know it. I do too. And Obama and his advisors should start packing.
Carmine A. DiFazio
JeffFromVegas,
The employed to population ratio speaks for itself. Economic growth helps the unemployed, the employed who desire upward job mobility, it helps seniors who have retirement stock investments and raises tax revenue for government. Honestly, it's shocking to see Obama with his anti-business rhetoric. The private sector is 70% of our economy led by businesses, large and small. Obama chastises the very group we need to grow our economy and create jobs. His economic record is proof Jeff that Obama is not the right guy to turn to these next four years. We need someone who understands business, the economy, job growth and someone who can manage our nation's finances. The cool-dude Obama just didn't get the job done. We are awaiting a new leader who will grow the economy and creating jobs.
"have carmen light a candle"
Consider it already done. A lit candle provides light in the darkness. That's exactly what Romney and a GOP House and Senate will do starting in Jan 2013.
You don't put a bushel over the lighted candle. You let it shine bright in the open. The darkness will be dispersed and give way to the light when Obama, Reid and Pelosi are finally all replaced once and for all and for good.
Carmine A. DiFazio
TEAbagger:
I have in every instance mopped the floor with my dealings with the likes of RefNV and carmine and you. Using accurate words and applying them correctly is not name calling, it is telling the truth. It hasn't even been close, they are all lightweights.
Opponents of right wing ideologues are used to showing up with a hand of friendship while your side brings handguns. Those days are over, we will show up with our Bibles and our machine guns to knock some sense into you, then we will shake hands with you again.
Once you are no longer rabid.
I never thougth I'd miss Nixon..........
"I have in every instance mopped the floor with my dealings with ...carmine"
Dream on poster. Like your Dem/Obama spin, you're the only one fooled.
Carmine A. DiFazio
RefNV, here's my bumper sticker:
bin Laden DEAD / GM ALIVE Obama 2012
Here's mine:
It's the economy and we're not stupid!
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine:
"Dream on poster. Like your Dem/Obama spin, you're the only one fooled."
What chapter and verse in the Bible did the pilgrims use to think that Plymouth Rock was the Holy Land?
Romney would've let GM go bankrupt along with thousands (perhaps millions) of jobs at the height of the financial crisis. Does that sound like good judgment to anybody? LOL
Psalms: specifically 84 verse 5 NIV:
"Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage."
There are others and you can read them for yourself.
Carmine A. DiFazio
If Jesus were here today he'd throw out Romney and
all of the greedy, heartless republican money
changers, OUT ON THEIR EAR.
Why does Romney have a Swiss bank account?
If Jesus were here today he would walk with
PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
AND YES, the Catholic Church came out AGAINST the
Ryan plan because it is TO HARD ON THE POOR.
Now Carmine doesn't know which way to turn.
Karma in action.
Hey Carmine:
Next verse is (I hate when "Christians" quote slices of the Bible for political means).
"As they pass through the Valley of Baka,
they make it a place of springs; "
In case you didn't know, Baka is quite regularly referred to in ancient times as Mecca and I think you are trying to say that "THUH Pill Gruhms" were Muslims who were on their way to Mecca, but wound up at Plymouth Rock?
Do the pretzel yeah yeah yeah!!!!
Plymouth Rock did not exist when the Bible was written, as well as many other Pilgrim places.
If only Bible sited sacred places are allowed, using your flawed thinking and logic, there would be dozens of sacred places and pilgrimages here in the USA, Canada, South America and Europe that would not be made/counted.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Romney would've let GM go bankrupt along with thousands (perhaps millions) of jobs .."
Thanks to meeting the criteria of TARP to receive $80 Billion in taxpayer funds, GM and Chrysler closed over 200 "franchised" sales dealers nationwide in 2009, 2010. They are suing GM and Chrysler now for violation of their Constitutional rights by being forced out of business.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"AND YES, the Catholic Church came out AGAINST the
Ryan plan because it is TO HARD ON THE POOR."
And the Catholic Church and USCCB are against Obamacare. What's your point?
Carmine A. DiFazio
BTW, perhaps you need a refresher on the definition of pilgrimage. Here's one:
"A pilgrimage is a journey or search of moral or spiritual significance."
No specific physical location is stated/made. I presume the place would depend on your particular faith. What do you think?
I'd say the Pilgrims, escaping widespread religious persecution in all of England and parts of Europe, got it right by making that long uncertain problematic voyage to practice freedom of faith. What do you think? Think they were atheists? Agnostics? Nah. Had to believe in something to make a voyage like that. As it was most died/killed from the first wave of bad weather, poor health, disease, and injuries from making the trip. They had to have some faith to sustain them. What do you think they believed? One God, many gods? Darwinism? Wonder if there were any Mormons in formation on board? Possibly?
BTW, you never did tell me if you relatives on the Mayflower and waht they said about being persecuted before coming to the US.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Carmine.....
Do you agree with the Catholic Church in that
the Ryan plan is too hard on the poor?
acejoker......
Your republican, anti-union stance falls on deaf
ears here.
GM IS NOW THE NUMBER ONE AUTO MAKER IN THE WORLD,
thanks to our GREAT PRESIDENT OBAMA!
WE UNION MEMBERS BUILT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THIS
GREAT COUNTRY THAT YOU ENJOY.
UNIONS FOREVER!
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
"Carmine.....
Do you agree with the Catholic Church in that
the Ryan plan is too hard on the poor?"
I agree that more can be done ALWAYS,... BUT the resources are not available to do it. In an ideal world, with unlimited financial resources and money, doing ALL is not an issue. We can and should do more. BUT... in the real world, with limited resources and limited taxpayer money, MORE cannot ALWAYS be done for the common good all the time.
Government must make the tough decisions on money allocation that the Catholic Church and religions don't.
Carmine A. DiFazio