Not good for Romney

Cliffy6745

I think this is an interesting subject that could have some good debate. I will start off by saying that Obama clearly made some big mistakes in the debt negotiations. They had a deal in place and he pushed too far. He shouldn't have done that and I think he would admit that was the biggest mistake of his presidency so far.

I would argue though, that as a leader and decision maker, he is very good. Regardless of politics, his decision making process seems to be very throrough and pragamatic. Like I said, regardless of politics, he surrounds himself with smart people he trusts and takes all their points into consideration before making a decision. I think that is key to being a good leader. I haven't seen recent polls but I would also think that the international view of our country and leadership has improved over the past 4 years, which is also a good sign. I think the key to being a good leader is understanding situations, making a thoughful decision and following through. LIke I said, politics aside, he clearly made mistakes in negotiations which he hopefully learning from, but I think the pragamtic side of Obama is important and the sign of a good leader.

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, someone saying, "No," is the end of the discussion? Again, I am in a leadership position. If I can't get done what needs to get done, it stops with me. It does not go further than that. If you want a leader that points fingers, good for you. I prefer one that actually leads.

You're comparing your leadership position tot hat of being President?!?!

wow. I have seen it all.

Exactly. What I do is far less important. And, yet the concept of leadership is the same. You can't just bully folks into doing stuff and then cry later they didn't do what you wanted.

Why is it so different? Clearly, it's on a different level. But, the concept of leadership itself is a common concept whether you're in front of a classroom giving a speech in 2nd grade, in charge of a billion dollar company or the President of the US. I'll let you guess which one I am. But, don't worry. You know who everyone is here.

I don't know who everyone is; where did you get that from? All I said was it was a terrible comparison.
And, I hope you are a second grade teacher; I respect that, and I am sure you are very good at it.

markin ball

EdsonNascimento wrote:

markin ball wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

To help you out - 30 years ago was the 1st year of the Reagan Administration. It did not take him 4 years to get it turned around. This is the FOURTH year of the Obama administration. And, yet we're still blaming the guy before him. Which fits perfectly with how kids are being raised these days. It's not MY kid! It's someone else's fault.

So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.

Obama didn't triple it, but he's sent it to a place nobody imagined. Saying Reagan tripled it is being a bit dogmatic. In gross terms, everything that has come before pales in comparison to what Obama has done to the deficit.

Obama has increased defense spending - check 2!

As for increasing taxes - Reagan did that AFTER the ship was righted. Or, more correctly, as it was clear it was heading in the right direction. He did not do it right away (for the most part - and Obama has already increased taxes to the middle class). I'm not AGAINST raising taxes necessarily. It depends on the methods used and timing. Obama's plan is purely punitive with no real corresponding economic correction. Spending must be cut. Period. Otherwise, you can raise all the tax rates you want, and we're still headed for the cliff (though I'd think we're already over it with the amount Obama has spent these last 4 years. To throw more good money after bad makes little sense. And that's basically his plan.).

We need to remove the "poor me" attitude from this generation instead of feeding it. Yes, there are folks that need help. But, far too many are unnecessarily taking advantage of the system to the point that the system will eventually own us.

Again - LOWEST labor participation rate in 30 years and unemployment above 8%. That combination is almost impossible to do. So, folks have simply given up. Now that's morale for you. What else would you like to let Obama kill? He's taken our desire. He's taken our morale. I guess the spirit is next.

Ok, so we agree Regan and Obama both increased defense spending, both ran up the deficits and raised taxes, (I'll concede the point that the Affordable Care Act is a tax for the sake of this discussion). Then you say Obama is being purley "punitive" and Regan did it for "economic correction" (by the way, that's not very "free market" of him). That position sems "a bit dogmatic" to me.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Exactly. What I do is far less important. And, yet the concept of leadership is the same. You can't just bully folks into doing stuff and then cry later they didn't do what you wanted.

Why is it so different? Clearly, it's on a different level. But, the concept of leadership itself is a common concept whether you're in front of a classroom giving a speech in 2nd grade, in charge of a billion dollar company or the President of the US. I'll let you guess which one I am. But, don't worry. You know who everyone is here.

obama was not a bully. remember the first 2 years of trying bipartisanship? it took the man 2 years to figure out what we all knew, that the gop had and has no interest in anything he wants to do. even when they were gop initiatives that the gop originally voted for.

you can not beat or bully people who change their positions, and you can not lead people who refuse to be lead. plain truths...

PJ_Soul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

markin ball wrote:

So would it be okay if Obama used the same methods that Regan did to right the ship? Among other things that would mean tripling the deficit, increasing defense spending and increasing taxes for many.

Obama didn't triple it, but he's sent it to a place nobody imagined. Saying Reagan tripled it is being a bit dogmatic. In gross terms, everything that has come before pales in comparison to what Obama has done to the deficit.

Obama has increased defense spending - check 2!

As for increasing taxes - Reagan did that AFTER the ship was righted. Or, more correctly, as it was clear it was heading in the right direction. He did not do it right away (for the most part - and Obama has already increased taxes to the middle class). I'm not AGAINST raising taxes necessarily. It depends on the methods used and timing. Obama's plan is purely punitive with no real corresponding economic correction. Spending must be cut. Period. Otherwise, you can raise all the tax rates you want, and we're still headed for the cliff (though I'd think we're already over it with the amount Obama has spent these last 4 years. To throw more good money after bad makes little sense. And that's basically his plan.).

We need to remove the "poor me" attitude from this generation instead of feeding it. Yes, there are folks that need help. But, far too many are unnecessarily taking advantage of the system to the point that the system will eventually own us.

Again - LOWEST labor participation rate in 30 years and unemployment above 8%. That combination is almost impossible to do. So, folks have simply given up. Now that's morale for you. What else would you like to let Obama kill? He's taken our desire. He's taken our morale. I guess the spirit is next.

what is romney's plan?

or should i say what is romney's plan this week?

in light of total republican obstructionism the bolded and underlined part is an unfair statement, and without seeing the bigger picture it is just you being dramatic.

Nothing like a war with Iran to pump up the American spirit, right? Queue the photos of soldier daddies saying goodbye to their little girls holding little flags, a new epic song about American pride in our troops to sing at every sporting event, and some kind of colored ribbon decals for people to plaster their cars with, and the desire, morale and spirit will come crashing right back into the hearts of America. :thumbup: Vote Romney!!

EdsonNascimento

markin ball wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Obama didn't triple it, but he's sent it to a place nobody imagined. Saying Reagan tripled it is being a bit dogmatic. In gross terms, everything that has come before pales in comparison to what Obama has done to the deficit.

Obama has increased defense spending - check 2!

As for increasing taxes - Reagan did that AFTER the ship was righted. Or, more correctly, as it was clear it was heading in the right direction. He did not do it right away (for the most part - and Obama has already increased taxes to the middle class). I'm not AGAINST raising taxes necessarily. It depends on the methods used and timing. Obama's plan is purely punitive with no real corresponding economic correction. Spending must be cut. Period. Otherwise, you can raise all the tax rates you want, and we're still headed for the cliff (though I'd think we're already over it with the amount Obama has spent these last 4 years. To throw more good money after bad makes little sense. And that's basically his plan.).

We need to remove the "poor me" attitude from this generation instead of feeding it. Yes, there are folks that need help. But, far too many are unnecessarily taking advantage of the system to the point that the system will eventually own us.

Again - LOWEST labor participation rate in 30 years and unemployment above 8%. That combination is almost impossible to do. So, folks have simply given up. Now that's morale for you. What else would you like to let Obama kill? He's taken our desire. He's taken our morale. I guess the spirit is next.

Ok, so we agree Regan and Obama both increased defense spending, both ran up the deficits and raised taxes, (I'll concede the point that the Affordable Care Act is a tax for the sake of this discussion). Then you say Obama is being purley "punitive" and Regan did it for "economic correction" (by the way, that's not very "free market" of him). That position sems "a bit dogmatic" to me.

Just to clarify - I did not say Reagan did it FOR "economic correction." I said he did it when he was clear the economy was heading in the proper direction. As in, he didn't use it to FIX the economy (Obama's plan). He did it to gain revenue and reduce deficits (at least in theory) once the money started flowing all ways. Please re-read what I wrote because the incorrect interpretaton leads you to the wrong conclusion of what I was saying. Reagan's policies created sustainable jobs in the economy, as shown by lowering the commonly held definition of what full employment meant. Read that again if you didn't live it or are trying to re-write history. He redefined the low end % of unemployement we thought we could reach.

Basically, Obama is saying he knows better what to do with folks' money than they do while creating 0 sustainable jobs. That's punitive.

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul wrote:

Nothing like a war with Iran to pump up the American spirit, right? Queue the photos of soldier daddies saying goodbye to their little girls holding little flags, a new epic song about American pride in our troops to sing at every sporting event, and some kind of colored ribbon decals for people to plaster their cars with, and the desire, morale and spirit will come crashing right back into the hearts of America. :thumbup: Vote Romney!!

Who's saying anything about a war with Iran? Folks have GIVEN UP looking for a job. As in, they've lost desire!!! He constantly is blaming others and telling folks they can't help themselves. As in, he's taken their morale!!!! What's left after that? Spirit. I have no idea how he will take that.

Where in my discussion have I mentioned Iran or war? I just want folks to WANT to have jobs. I just want folks to BELIEVE in themselves.

EDIT: Ha, ha, ha. Re-reading what I wrote, maybe I got that backward. Maybe he has crushed our spirit already. I just didn't realize it. Thanks for helping me figure that out.

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Nothing like a war with Iran to pump up the American spirit, right? Queue the photos of soldier daddies saying goodbye to their little girls holding little flags, a new epic song about American pride in our troops to sing at every sporting event, and some kind of colored ribbon decals for people to plaster their cars with, and the desire, morale and spirit will come crashing right back into the hearts of America. :thumbup: Vote Romney!!

Who's saying anything about a war with Iran? Folks have GIVEN UP looking for a job. As in, they've lost desire!!! He constantly is blaming others and telling folks they can't help themselves. As in, he's taken their morale!!!! What's left after that? Spirit. I have no idea how he will take that.

Where in my discussion have I mentioned Iran or war? I just want folks to WANT to have jobs. I just want folks to BELIEVE in themselves.

EDIT: Ha, ha, ha. Re-reading what I wrote, maybe I got that backward. Maybe he has crushed our spirit already. I just didn't realize it. Thanks for helping me figure that out.

I didn't mean to suggest you ever mentioned a war. I just think that's what will happen if Romney wins the election.

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Nothing like a war with Iran to pump up the American spirit, right? Queue the photos of soldier daddies saying goodbye to their little girls holding little flags, a new epic song about American pride in our troops to sing at every sporting event, and some kind of colored ribbon decals for people to plaster their cars with, and the desire, morale and spirit will come crashing right back into the hearts of America. :thumbup: Vote Romney!!

Who's saying anything about a war with Iran? Folks have GIVEN UP looking for a job. As in, they've lost desire!!! He constantly is blaming others and telling folks they can't help themselves. As in, he's taken their morale!!!! What's left after that? Spirit. I have no idea how he will take that.

Where in my discussion have I mentioned Iran or war? I just want folks to WANT to have jobs. I just want folks to BELIEVE in themselves.

EDIT: Ha, ha, ha. Re-reading what I wrote, maybe I got that backward. Maybe he has crushed our spirit already. I just didn't realize it. Thanks for helping me figure that out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-ame ... 012-6?op=1
http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/co ... ss_war_yet

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Exactly. What I do is far less important. And, yet the concept of leadership is the same. You can't just bully folks into doing stuff and then cry later they didn't do what you wanted.

Why is it so different? Clearly, it's on a different level. But, the concept of leadership itself is a common concept whether you're in front of a classroom giving a speech in 2nd grade, in charge of a billion dollar company or the President of the US. I'll let you guess which one I am. But, don't worry. You know who everyone is here.

obama was not a bully. remember the first 2 years of trying bipartisanship? it took the man 2 years to figure out what we all knew, that the gop had and has no interest in anything he wants to do. even when they were gop initiatives that the gop originally voted for.

you can not beat or bully people who change their positions, and you can not lead people who refuse to be lead. plain truths...

He was bipartisan the first 2 years? He didn't even let his own party members read the Obamacare legislation. He was being a dictator in that case.

That is so silly. He had control of both houses the first 2 years. Some slight compromises and he could have done whatever he wanted to.

So, now the legislature is saying - no - you don't know what the fuck you are doing, and it's called obstructionism. I call it checks and balances. The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

If he were a better leader, he'd figure out how to get around the obstruction (as you put it). That's what leaders do every day.

whygohome

Obama did not have a filibuster-proof majority for two years.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... years.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-th ... -how-long/

http://washingtonindependent.com/74033/ ... ermajority

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Nothing like a war with Iran to pump up the American spirit, right? Queue the photos of soldier daddies saying goodbye to their little girls holding little flags, a new epic song about American pride in our troops to sing at every sporting event, and some kind of colored ribbon decals for people to plaster their cars with, and the desire, morale and spirit will come crashing right back into the hearts of America. :thumbup: Vote Romney!!

Who's saying anything about a war with Iran? Folks have GIVEN UP looking for a job. As in, they've lost desire!!! He constantly is blaming others and telling folks they can't help themselves. As in, he's taken their morale!!!! What's left after that? Spirit. I have no idea how he will take that.

Where in my discussion have I mentioned Iran or war? I just want folks to WANT to have jobs. I just want folks to BELIEVE in themselves.

EDIT: Ha, ha, ha. Re-reading what I wrote, maybe I got that backward. Maybe he has crushed our spirit already. I just didn't realize it. Thanks for helping me figure that out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-ame ... 012-6?op=1
http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/co ... ss_war_yet

This seems to indict Obama (And Clinton - Figure 8 seems to have peaked right at the end of his Presidency and receeded a bit during Bush's. Figure 9 seems to show the same thing. Am I getting my years confused? - Clinton 1993 to 2000; Bush 2001 to 2008). The graphs of unemployment seem to peak 2 years into Obama's term and hold steady. I'm very confused.

I thought you were pro-Obama. I guess I was wrong.

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

Obama did not have a filibuster-proof majority for two years.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... years.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-th ... -how-long/

http://washingtonindependent.com/74033/ ... ermajority

EXACTLY!!!! So, he needed to be a leader and find a way to make things better within that framework. Nonetheless, you cannot ignore the power he held.

And we can all post articles.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conser ... 78990.html

whygohome

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

has crushed our spirit already. I just didn't realize it. Thanks for helping me figure that out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-ame ... 012-6?op=1
http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/co ... ss_war_yet

This seems to indict Obama (And Clinton - Figure 8 seems to have peaked right at the end of his Presidency and receeded a bit during Bush's. Figure 9 seems to show the same thing. Am I getting my years confused? - Clinton 1993 to 2000; Bush 2001 to 2008). The graphs of unemployment seem to peak 2 years into Obama's term and hold steady. I'm very confused.

I thought you were pro-Obama. I guess I was wrong.[/quote]

It actually refutes the bull shit behind:
1. the trickle-down theory
2. that there is sooooo much regulation that corporations just can't make a buck these days
3. the idea that the free market will rescue all of us
4. corporate America and the rich give a shit about this country

The graphs of unemployment peak because we were mired in a recession that Obama inherited. Where have you been?

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Obama did not have a filibuster-proof majority for two years.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... years.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-th ... -how-long/

http://washingtonindependent.com/74033/ ... ermajority

EXACTLY!!!! So, he needed to be a leader and find a way to make things better within that framework. Nonetheless, you cannot ignore the power he held.

And we can all post articles.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conser ... 78990.html

How do you make things work when all they care about is obstructionism and getting you out of office?

Your sentiment that, "So, he needed to be a leader and find a way to make things better within that framework. Nonetheless, you cannot ignore the power he held," lacks any logic and common sense.
Mind-numbing

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

This seems to indict Obama (And Clinton - Figure 8 seems to have peaked right at the end of his Presidency and receeded a bit during Bush's. Figure 9 seems to show the same thing. Am I getting my years confused? - Clinton 1993 to 2000; Bush 2001 to 2008). The graphs of unemployment seem to peak 2 years into Obama's term and hold steady. I'm very confused.

I thought you were pro-Obama. I guess I was wrong.

It actually refutes the bull shit behind:
1. the trickle-down theory
2. that there is sooooo much regulation that corporations just can't make a buck these days
3. the idea that the free market will rescue all of us
4. corporate America and the rich give a shit about this country

The graphs of unemployment peak because we were mired in a recession that Obama inherited. Where have

you been?

The op-ed certainly tries to push that. But, the graphs belie that Obama is the solution (nevermind the liberal's love for Clinton - who is probably damned by those graphs just as much. Interestingly, it tells a moderating story for Bush. I actually didn't realize that.)

But, to the point you'd like to make - so we should just take that money and give it away? I'm lost. Did GM go under because of CEO pay or because they stopped making cars folks wanted to buy? Sure, the CEO pay is obscene. I don't argue that point. But, that's such a drop in the bucket, and not really where Obama's policy goes. Again, he has already raised taxes on the middle class, and now he's calling $250K rich. As rich as that seems to most, why do you insist on lumping those families with the select few?

whygohome

EdsonNascimento wrote:

But, to the point you'd like to make - so we should just take that money and give it away? I'm lost. Did GM go under because of CEO pay or because they stopped making cars folks wanted to buy? Sure, the CEO pay is obscene. I don't argue that point. But, that's such a drop in the bucket, and not really where Obama's policy goes. Again, he has already raised taxes on the middle class, and now he's calling $250K rich. As rich as that seems to most, why do you insist on lumping those families with the select few?

He has not raised taxes on the middle class

I have no problem with asking these individuals to pay higher taxes so we can invest in infrastructure like we did in the 50s when taxes were much higher, or to pay down the debt and deficit. But, that wasn't the point of my post.
There is an obscene culture of greed in this country; capitalism is not humane--it doesn't have to be; it is not patriotic, it does not care about the citizens of this country. These individuals don't give two shits about the rest of the population.

I spent two months over the summer on the NYMEX (CME, whatever), working with my friend as a commodities trader (something I still do, but part-time). Now, there was some rumbling about Israel and Iran...nothing new; and, my friend and I talked about war. We got to a point in our conversation where we talked about what everyone in this building (the NYMEX) would be thinking.
Nobody would be thinking, "gee, I feel for these soldiers and their families, what can I do to help them. What can I do to help this country?" No, instead, we came to the conclusion--and my friend has been there for 10 years--that everyone in the building would instead be thinking, "How does this affect me and my $$$$$$$$$?"

The system is flawed because it is a system that perpetuates and rewards GREED and SELFISHNESS. This is the problem we are dealing with.

My friend who I worked with, and another friend who retired at 31/32 after 11 or so years on Wall St. say the same thing: (I paraphrase) "the place is a cesspool, and anyone who thinks that what is going on down there and with the banking/financial industry is capitalism, they are fucking fooling themselves. This is not capitalism. It is a manipulation and bastardization of capitalism and it is destroying the country."

Jason P

Now THIS is not good for Romney ...

Obama leads Romney among NASCAR fans: Poll

Mitt Romney's recent slide in several polls, including those in the battleground states of Ohio, Virginia and Florida, is troubling enough for the GOP. But, now the Republican nominee appears to be trailing President Barack Obama among a traditionally conservative constituency: NASCAR fans.

Obama leads Romney 49 to 42 percent among NASCAR enthusiasts, according to a new Zogby poll by JZ Analytics.

.....

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-nascar-poll-140401668--politics.html

:think:

I thought all white people, especially ones that watch NASCAR, were racists? I haven't watched NASCAR in a few years ... have the demographics changed?

PJ_Soul

Jason P wrote:

I thought all white people, especially ones that watch NASCAR, were racists? I haven't watched NASCAR in a few years ... have the demographics changed?

No, they haven't - Romney is just that bad.

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

whygohome wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

has crushed our spirit already. I just didn't realize it. Thanks for helping me figure that out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-ame ... 012-6?op=1
http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/co ... ss_war_yet

This seems to indict Obama (And Clinton - Figure 8 seems to have peaked right at the end of his Presidency and receeded a bit during Bush's. Figure 9 seems to show the same thing. Am I getting my years confused? - Clinton 1993 to 2000; Bush 2001 to 2008). The graphs of unemployment seem to peak 2 years into Obama's term and hold steady. I'm very confused.

I thought you were pro-Obama. I guess I was wrong.

It actually refutes the bull shit behind:
1. the trickle-down theory
2. that there is sooooo much regulation that corporations just can't make a buck these days
3. the idea that the free market will rescue all of us
4. corporate America and the rich give a shit about this country

The graphs of unemployment peak because we were mired in a recession that Obama inherited. Where have you been?[/quote]

the idea that the free market will rescue all of us

do you believe our market is a free market? freer than some I suppose, but free?...nope

corporate america has no allegiance to a country. Why would they? I here about borders being imaginary lines all the time in terms of immigration, what makes that concept any different for corporations? they aren't a gov't agency, they don't need defined borders...there are billions of people in the world to use.

The better phrase would be, Corporate America doesn't give a shit about people. It isn't fair to lump the rich in there, many, many, many rich people care about the world and everyone in it.

President Obama couldn't have caused all the problems that have the country mired in a funk. that has been in the works for many many many many years. Approximately since we decided that the interests of business are the gov'ts concern rather than the interests of individuals and when we decided deficit spending was a good idea.
He just hasn't done much in the way of changing the philosophy that has caused a bloated Federal Gov't to suck up and screw up our economy. I think a good analogy could be made to the replacement officials in the NFL. 90% of the time they did a fine job, continued the same procedures as the normal refs...they just lost control far to often and are seen as incompetent and over their head. A good President would never be seen as something being over his head, beyond his control...look at the list of "great" presidents...all of them kept the certainty/illusion of control in the public psyche enough to be seen as the right man for the job.

Reagan, Clinton, JFK, Truman, Lincoln...the list goes on and it is certainly bi-partisan. Obama isn't on it now, and won't be on it IMO. I just don't think his skill set is best suited for President. With his oratory skills, charisma and legal mind, the senate was the right place for him, probably becoming the majority/minority leader for a long period had he stayed. Romney will end up just as far from that list as well. Anyone silly enough to portray such chameleon like behavior in public and private doesn't deserve to win.