Not good for Romney

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

i agree with a lot of this ... with the obvious exception of Reagan ... i think the only consideration as far as judging obama's presidency is the current make up of the GOP ... this current version is so partisan that you could be jesus christ himself but as long as you have a D next to your name - they aren't gonna work with you ...

like i've been saying - i wouldn't vote for obama nor do i think he's done a good job but i do recognize that the republican party as it has been the last few years made his ability to do anything virtually impossible ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

i agree with a lot of this ... with the obvious exception of Reagan ... i think the only consideration as far as judging obama's presidency is the current make up of the GOP ... this current version is so partisan that you could be jesus christ himself but as long as you have a D next to your name - they aren't gonna work with you ...

like i've been saying - i wouldn't vote for obama nor do i think he's done a good job but i do recognize that the republican party as it has been the last few years made his ability to do anything virtually impossible ...

Personally I don't think Reagan is great either, but he is on a lot of lists. But he did have a leadership quality that people bought in to...keep in mind he had a democratic congress to deal with as well.

The GOP has done their best to fight his policies, but I can't help but wonder if he was seen as a strong leader would he be having the same trouble? who knows...lot's of good will when he was elected.

PJ_Soul

mikepegg44 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

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.

i agree with a lot of this ... with the obvious exception of Reagan ... i think the only consideration as far as judging obama's presidency is the current make up of the GOP ... this current version is so partisan that you could be jesus christ himself but as long as you have a D next to your name - they aren't gonna work with you ...

like i've been saying - i wouldn't vote for obama nor do i think he's done a good job but i do recognize that the republican party as it has been the last few years made his ability to do anything virtually impossible ...

Personally I don't think Reagan is great either, but he is on a lot of lists. But he did have a leadership quality that people bought in to...keep in mind he had a democratic congress to deal with as well.

The GOP has done their best to fight his policies, but I can't help but wonder if he was seen as a strong leader would he be having the same trouble? who knows...lot's of good will when he was elected.

The GOP's main goal at the VERY beginning of Obama's presidency was to ensure that he wasn't elected again, meaning that their main goal was actually to make him as ineffective as possible (which in my mind is basically a collective act of treason, but oh fucking well I guess). Given this, I think that Obama has actually done very well under the circumstances!

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

Personally I don't think Reagan is great either, but he is on a lot of lists. But he did have a leadership quality that people bought in to...keep in mind he had a democratic congress to deal with as well.

The GOP has done their best to fight his policies, but I can't help but wonder if he was seen as a strong leader would he be having the same trouble? who knows...lot's of good will when he was elected.

ya ... i don't subscribe to the notion that if he was a better leader perhaps he could have worked better with the GOP ... i just don't see that in the current makeup of the party ... i also think it's a fairly recent development ... i think clinton and reagan both had less partisanship to deal with ... this stretches beyond congress as well ...

look at the discussions here and in public ... it's so partisan - it's scary ... we've lost the ability to think critically about so many issues ...

pandora

It seems to me it is nothing new to have one party try to sabotage
the other party during their years in,
so they look ineffective and don't get reelected ...
kind of the name of the game really.

Didn't the Democrats shut down Congress under Bush?
I'm sure we can dig up all kinds of stuff done there.
I don't think Obama was anymore hated by the GOP than any other Democrat
candidate or President
Hopefully our President doesn't play the victim card bronzed in pass the buck.

I just wish he'd stop buying votes with funny money and using my tax dollars
to come no where close to fixing the deficit. Are his policies part of the problem,
just maybe?

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

It seems to me it is nothing new to have one party try to sabotage
the other party during their years in,
so they look ineffective and don't get reelected ...
kind of the name of the game really.

Didn't the Democrats shut down Congress under Bush?
I'm sure we can dig up all kinds of stuff done there.
I don't think Obama was anymore hated by the GOP than any other Democrat
candidate or President
Hopefully our President doesn't play the victim card bronzed in pass the buck.

I just wish he'd stop buying votes with funny money and using my tax dollars
to come no where close to fixing the deficit. Are his policies part of the problem,
just maybe?

It's not generally the name of the game to do so at the direct expense of American citizens though. They usually have more restraint (morals) than that.

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul wrote:

pandora wrote:

It seems to me it is nothing new to have one party try to sabotage
the other party during their years in,
so they look ineffective and don't get reelected ...
kind of the name of the game really.

Didn't the Democrats shut down Congress under Bush?
I'm sure we can dig up all kinds of stuff done there.
I don't think Obama was anymore hated by the GOP than any other Democrat
candidate or President
Hopefully our President doesn't play the victim card bronzed in pass the buck.

I just wish he'd stop buying votes with funny money and using my tax dollars
to come no where close to fixing the deficit. Are his policies part of the problem,
just maybe?

It's not generally the name of the game to do so at the direct expense of American citizens though. They usually have more restraint (morals) than that.

Don't let him fool you. It's the same as it's always been. The difference is, Pres' like Clinton, Reagan, etc. moderated their policies to get the job done (Whether you agree with that job or not). Obama has actually been proven to do the opposite (As in when he thinks he has a deal done, he asks for more). So, perhaps instead of thinking the House is being obstructionist, it's time to flip it on its head - has Obama been the REAL obstruction to progress? By insisting his way or the highway (which he himself built - ha, ha. Sorry. Couldn't resist) he plays the victim card, but doesn't get ANYTHING done. Perhaps, it is him that is the obstruction to progress. Isn't that POSSIBLE?

Letting yourself believe that there is any more partisanship today than there ever has been is like telling your kids you walked up hill both ways to school when you were a kid.

pandora

PJ_Soul wrote:

pandora wrote:

It seems to me it is nothing new to have one party try to sabotage
the other party during their years in,
so they look ineffective and don't get reelected ...
kind of the name of the game really.

Didn't the Democrats shut down Congress under Bush?
I'm sure we can dig up all kinds of stuff done there.
I don't think Obama was anymore hated by the GOP than any other Democrat
candidate or President
Hopefully our President doesn't play the victim card bronzed in pass the buck.

I just wish he'd stop buying votes with funny money and using my tax dollars
to come no where close to fixing the deficit. Are his policies part of the problem,
just maybe?

It's not generally the name of the game to do so at the direct expense of American citizens though. They usually have more restraint (morals) than that.

really... morals you say?
All is fair in love, war, business and now we have added big government,
I fear.
The system is set for the lack of morals, centering on greed on every level.

The power struggle is real, alive and well and at the expense of the people for sure.
When a government can run a deficit to this point where the interest alone will keep it
from ever being controllable it is clear the people are not the first priority.

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

pandora wrote:

It seems to me it is nothing new to have one party try to sabotage
the other party during their years in,
so they look ineffective and don't get reelected ...
kind of the name of the game really.

Didn't the Democrats shut down Congress under Bush?
I'm sure we can dig up all kinds of stuff done there.
I don't think Obama was anymore hated by the GOP than any other Democrat
candidate or President
Hopefully our President doesn't play the victim card bronzed in pass the buck.

I just wish he'd stop buying votes with funny money and using my tax dollars
to come no where close to fixing the deficit. Are his policies part of the problem,
just maybe?

It's not generally the name of the game to do so at the direct expense of American citizens though. They usually have more restraint (morals) than that.

Don't let him fool you. It's the same as it's always been. The difference is, Pres' like Clinton, Reagan, etc. moderated their policies to get the job done (Whether you agree with that job or not). Obama has actually been proven to do the opposite (As in when he thinks he has a deal done, he asks for more). So, perhaps instead of thinking the House is being obstructionist, it's time to flip it on its head - has Obama been the REAL obstruction to progress? By insisting his way or the highway (which he himself built - ha, ha. Sorry. Couldn't resist) he plays the victim card, but doesn't get ANYTHING done. Perhaps, it is him that is the obstruction to progress. Isn't that POSSIBLE?

Letting yourself believe that there is any more partisanship today than there ever has been is like telling your kids you walked up hill both ways to school when you were a kid.

I disagree. I really do believe that there is more partisanship than ever before (not that there wasn't lots before), and mostly thanks to the Tea Party movement.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

pandora wrote:

It seems to me it is nothing new to have one party try to sabotage
the other party during their years in,
so they look ineffective and don't get reelected ...
kind of the name of the game really.

Didn't the Democrats shut down Congress under Bush?
I'm sure we can dig up all kinds of stuff done there.
I don't think Obama was anymore hated by the GOP than any other Democrat
candidate or President
Hopefully our President doesn't play the victim card bronzed in pass the buck.

I just wish he'd stop buying votes with funny money and using my tax dollars
to come no where close to fixing the deficit. Are his policies part of the problem,
just maybe?

It's not generally the name of the game to do so at the direct expense of American citizens though. They usually have more restraint (morals) than that.

really... morals you say?
All is fair in love, war, business and now we have added big government,
I fear.
The system is set for the lack of morals, centering on greed on every level.

The power struggle is real, alive and well and at the expense of the people for sure.
When a government can run a deficit to this point where the interest alone will keep it
from ever being controllable it is clear the people are not the first priority.

Morals, as in knocking down legislation like, say, helping war veterans, SOLELY because they want to screw their thumbs into the President's eyeball? ... I think this Congress has hit new lows.

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul wrote:

I disagree. I really do believe that there is more partisanship than ever before (not that there wasn't lots before), and mostly thanks to the Tea Party movement.

You would be wrong. The Tea Party is also not the first of its kind (on either side). Sorry to be so patronizing, but you should learn your AMERICAN history.

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul wrote:

Morals, as in knocking down legislation like, say, helping war veterans, SOLELY because they want to screw their thumbs into the President's eyeball? ... I think this Congress has hit new lows.

Again, this is a clueless statement based on rhetoric. Both parties have "done" this. What happens is that stuff like help for veterans bills are tagged with untenable items that are struck down. The "offended" party then points at the other and says - look at them - they hate veterans.

I have made that generic because, again, both sides have done that forever.

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Morals, as in knocking down legislation like, say, helping war veterans, SOLELY because they want to screw their thumbs into the President's eyeball? ... I think this Congress has hit new lows.

Again, this is a clueless statement based on rhetoric. Both parties have "done" this. What happens is that stuff like help for veterans bills are tagged with untenable items that are struck down. The "offended" party then points at the other and says - look at them - they hate veterans.

I have made that generic because, again, both sides have done that forever.

Okay, I'm not clueless. I am not saying this hasn't gone on in the past - I am talking about how right now it's really bad on the part of the GOP. I do not think they hate Veterans AT ALL, and never said that. They hate Obama so much (and want to get all the power so much) that they care about that more than anything else though. And I think they are doing it at a more extreme level than has been done in the past.

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I disagree. I really do believe that there is more partisanship than ever before (not that there wasn't lots before), and mostly thanks to the Tea Party movement.

You would be wrong. The Tea Party is also not the first of its kind (on either side). Sorry to be so patronizing, but you should learn your AMERICAN history.

:roll: I don't think that it is an outrageous theory to view the partisanship going on right now as more extreme than it has been in the past. I know history, and I do think it is more extreme today than ever; that does not mean I don't think it's always been around. But I think it's hit a high during this presidency. If you don't think so, then perhaps he have a different view on some of the details and what they mean. But yeah, no need to be patronizing.

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I disagree. I really do believe that there is more partisanship than ever before (not that there wasn't lots before), and mostly thanks to the Tea Party movement.

You would be wrong. The Tea Party is also not the first of its kind (on either side). Sorry to be so patronizing, but you should learn your AMERICAN history.

:roll: I don't think that it is an outrageous theory to view the partisanship going on right now as more extreme than it has been in the past. I know history, and I do think it is more extreme today than ever; that does not mean I don't think it's always been around. But I think it's hit a high during this presidency. If you don't think so, then perhaps he have a different view on some of the details and what they mean. But yeah, no need to be patronizing.

It is not. You are wrong. It's not an opinion. It is a fact. I do wonder how old you are or how much you paid attention to American politics 30 years ago. But, Reagan's first couple years were tooth and nail. Hell, you can read Theodore Roosevelt's biography about the opposition he faced to get anything done.

The only reason it SEEMS that way is because Obama is incapable of leading. But, whatever. I guess folks think gridlock is going to end because he doesn't have a re-election to go after next time. :roll: If anything, I'd imagine that will embolden him to make it worse. He has no leadership skills.

Remember - 2 years into his Presidency, the House turned over. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of his first 2 years. Now, again - that's typical. So, it's not unique to him. Very rarely does the President have control of everything, and when he does, it is typically short lived.

But, that only serves to highlight his incompetence in both the first 2 years and his last 2 years (pun intended).


It's funny - can't remember where I read it - but his skill set is actually better suited to be a party leader in Congress where he probably would have held his position for longer (regardless of outcome in November). As a wise man once said - A man's got to know his limitations.

gimmesometruth27

interesting... looks like romney can no longer use "the unemployment rate has been above 8% your entire presidency!" line of attack anymore...

it's still not great, but it is better than what it was.

looks like obama might be doing something right...

US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobles ... 10106.html

US unemployment rate falls to 7.8 pct. in September, lowest since Jan. 2009; hiring increases

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Barack Obama took office.

The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate performance against GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

Stock futures rose modestly after the report. Dow Jones industrial average futures, up 30 points just before the report came out, were up 45 points after it was released.

The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbed to 1.73 percent from 1.68 percent just before the report, a sign that investors were more willing to embrace risk and moving money from bonds into stocks.

The job market has been improving, sluggishly but steadily. Jobs have been added for 24 straight months. There are now 325,000 more than when Obama took office.

The September gains were led by the health care industry, which added 44,000 jobs — the most since February. Transportation and warehousing also showed large gains. The revisions showed that governments actually added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses.

Still, many of the jobs added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million.

whygohome

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

interesting... looks like romney can no longer use "the unemployment rate has been above 8% your entire presidency!" line of attack anymore...

it's still not great, but it is better than what it was.

looks like obama might be doing something right...

US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobles ... 10106.html

US unemployment rate falls to 7.8 pct. in September, lowest since Jan. 2009; hiring increases

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Barack Obama took office.

The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate performance against GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

Stock futures rose modestly after the report. Dow Jones industrial average futures, up 30 points just before the report came out, were up 45 points after it was released.

The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbed to 1.73 percent from 1.68 percent just before the report, a sign that investors were more willing to embrace risk and moving money from bonds into stocks.

The job market has been improving, sluggishly but steadily. Jobs have been added for 24 straight months. There are now 325,000 more than when Obama took office.

The September gains were led by the health care industry, which added 44,000 jobs — the most since February. Transportation and warehousing also showed large gains. The revisions showed that governments actually added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses.

Still, many of the jobs added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million.

@ MichaelMandel : You have to go back to Reagan to see a bigger one-year decline in the unemployment rate

dignin

http://www.mamiverse.com/romney-on-47-p ... xes-24484/

"Well, clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question and answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong." Mitt Romney

EdsonNascimento

whygohome wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

interesting... looks like romney can no longer use "the unemployment rate has been above 8% your entire presidency!" line of attack anymore...

it's still not great, but it is better than what it was.

looks like obama might be doing something right...

US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobles ... 10106.html

US unemployment rate falls to 7.8 pct. in September, lowest since Jan. 2009; hiring increases

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election.

The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Barack Obama took office.

The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate performance against GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

Stock futures rose modestly after the report. Dow Jones industrial average futures, up 30 points just before the report came out, were up 45 points after it was released.

The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbed to 1.73 percent from 1.68 percent just before the report, a sign that investors were more willing to embrace risk and moving money from bonds into stocks.

The job market has been improving, sluggishly but steadily. Jobs have been added for 24 straight months. There are now 325,000 more than when Obama took office.

The September gains were led by the health care industry, which added 44,000 jobs — the most since February. Transportation and warehousing also showed large gains. The revisions showed that governments actually added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses.

Still, many of the jobs added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million.

@ MichaelMandel : You have to go back to Reagan to see a bigger one-year decline in the unemployment rate

Except Reagan didn't also have the lowest labor participation rate at that point. His gain was accomplished ALONG with getting folks back into the job market. We are still at a 30 year low on the labor force participation rate. Those number don't mean anything unto themselves. If folks want a job, but have given up, and aren't counted in the unemployment rate and that is the most important issue to them (getting a job even though they've "dropped out"), they will vote a certain way. The numbers don't effect THAT person.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

interesting... looks like romney can no longer use "the unemployment rate has been above 8% your entire presidency!" line of attack anymore...

If I'm Romney I try to take control of it by saying, the closer we get to the end of Obama's presidency, the more confident people are that I will be elected president, the better the economy is getting!