Another year, another $1 trillion deficit

[select20]

When Mitt Romney produces actual numbers and publishes a plan, I'll consider him.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

If you want a more detailed version, feel free to check out the 1000+ plus pages of it.

It's hard for me to believe that after 4 years of nothing but failure, people still want Obama. Definition of Insanity anyone?

Also, if anyone knows anything basic leadership, blaming your predecessor for your failures it really bad. Especially when you do it for 4 years. If Obama is Prez again, he will continue to blame Bush for his inability for the next term.

I not insulting anyone's intelligence, but you can't honestly think re-electing a failed Prez again will net you different results.

---------- Post added 2012-10-18 at 10:46 PM ----------

Oh then there was this little Romney gem.

You need to comprehend or learn a little english. How about quote what he said after the Gov doesn't create jobs. He said his goal is to stimulate Small Business so THEY can create jobs.

l2read/listen

[ptwonline]

I wish liberals would quit using this particular claim, it makes us look bad. A significant chunk of that 2009 spending was actually added after Bush was out of office, and was signed in by Obama. The Bush spending request was about $400 billion lower, and had higher requested revenues, but the omnibus wasn't signed into law until March '09, by Obama.

On the contrary, the number is flattering to Bush. What would have happened if Obama doesn't authorize more spending and the economy continues in free fall? That 2009 deficit could have gone much, much further down the toilet, and the economy and unemployment would have been far worse.

People right now are forgetting how bad things were 4 years ago precisely because Obama stabilized things so fast.

[Mnevis]

I not insulting anyone's intelligence, but you can't honestly think re-electing a failed Prez again will net you different results.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's exactly how the "left" feels about promoting supply side economics and deregulation as a plan to revive the middle class.

And yeah, what Spectral says. Fiscal responsibility rhetoric from the right rings very false. Obama certainly hasn't wrangled Congress into getting the budget issues addressed, but we don't believe the GOP will either.

[Spectral]

Definition of Insanity anyone?

I believe that would be, "electing a Republican to cut deficits".

[ptwonline]

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

If you want a more detailed version, feel free to check out the 1000+ plus pages of it.

It's hard for me to believe that after 4 years of nothing but failure, people still want Obama. Definition of Insanity anyone?

Also, if anyone knows anything basic leadership, blaming your predecessor for your failures it really bad. Especially when you do it for 4 years. If Obama is Prez again, he will continue to blame Bush for his inability for the next term.

I not insulting anyone's intelligence, but you can't honestly think re-electing a failed Prez again will net you different results.

---------- Post added 2012-10-18 at 10:46 PM ----------



You need to comprehend or learn a little english. How about quote what he said after the Gov doesn't create jobs. He said his goal is to stimulate Small Business so THEY can create jobs.

l2read/listen

So, imagine you're a leasder and you're in a situation where it's actually the previous guy's fault. Let';s take you at your word and suppose that YOU take the blame, and not pass it on to the guy who actually did it. Fine.

But what happens going forward? if YOU take the blame instead of the guy whose fault it ACTUALLY is, what do you think will happen? People don't learn, and they will repeat the mistakes.

The only way to learn and advance is to put responsibility where it actually belongs.

And failed President? Stopping an imploding economy, ending a war, eliminating enemy #1, recovering over 5 million jobs, lowering unemployment, improving the economy...if that's failure, sign me up for more.

[Spectral]

On the contrary, the number is flattering to Bush. What would have happened if Obama doesn't authorize more spending and the economy continues in free fall? That 2009 deficit could have gone much, much further down the toilet, and the economy and unemployment would have been far worse.

People right now are forgetting how bad things were 4 years ago precisely because Obama stabilized things so fast.

I didn't say I disagreed with Obama's policy decision. Austerity in a recession would have been a very, very stupid decision. I just don't think we should attribute spending that was signed in by Obama to Bush.

[select20]

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's exactly how the "left" feels about promoting supply side economics and deregulation as a plan to revive the middle class.

I see your point but again, electing the same Prez that just failed at 4 years of office, is crazy. Trying anything else is better than re-electing a Prez that has a failed track record.

[Wells]

I see your point but again, electing the same Prez that just failed at 4 years of office, is crazy. Trying anything else is better than re-electing a Prez that has a failed track record.

How was he a failure?

[twh]

Or could vote for Gary Johnson, the only candidate that will do anything different. Do you honestly think Mitt would be ANY different from Obama and actually make drastic changes?? I would never vote for either one of them.

[Mnevis]

Trying anything else is better than re-electing a Prez that has a failed track record.

Well, I believe your definition of failed is wrong, and I disagree that your conclusion is correct. It could be much worse.

[ptwonline]

I see your point but again, electing the same Prez that just failed at 4 years of office, is crazy. Trying anything else is better than re-electing a Prez that has a failed track record.

Um, no it isn't.

That logic only works if you assume that the candidates and their policies are at least roughly equivalent in merit. I don't think they are--not by a long shot. It was true once upon a time, but hasn't been true for a while now.

I mean, by your logic electing President Sarah Palin, electing President Donald Trump, electing President Lindsey Lohan would be better.

[select20]

I believe that would be, "electing a Republican to cut deficits".

You know what? Everything I've posted is just what I think right now. But also seeing this, plus knowing how deep into Oil most Republican's are is disheartening. I honestly can't agree with most of the Dem party and picking Repub feels like picking the lesser evil.
Last line and I'm done...

As a huge patriot and Army Vet, it's really hard not to be frustrated and a little bitter at the current situation of our country. It's hard to re-elect someone who failed is all I'm saying. If he can get the country back on track, great I'll worship the guy, but the last 4 years has proven other wise. ALso I'm not the guy that hates people that don't think the same way politically as I do. We are all Americans after all.

Cheers

[Magpai]

Obama doesn't care and neither do his smug pseudo-intellectual disciples.

[SirPiken]

Or could vote for Gary Johnson, the only candidate that will do anything different. Do you honestly think Mitt would be ANY different from Obama and actually make drastic changes?? I would never vote for either one of them.

3rd party candidate? Why even bother voting.

[Magpai]

3rd party candidate? Why even bother voting.

This mentality is THE REASON why we're stuck choosing between a big fat turd and a stupid douche in every federal election and most state ones.

[lizon]

I stopped believing hat GOP's sincerity to balance the budget from the very first GOP Debate after this question:



I'm sorry, Romney would not balance the budget, he would make things worse. The fact that the crowd is even cheering them just shows how much the party has fallen.

You know what? Everything I've posted is just what I think right now. But also seeing this, plus knowing how deep into Oil most Republican's are is disheartening. I honestly can't agree with most of the Dem party and picking Repub feels like picking the lesser evil.
Last line and I'm done...

As a huge patriot and Army Vet, it's really hard not to be frustrated and a little bitter at the current situation of our country. It's hard to re-elect someone who failed is all I'm saying. If he can get the country back on track, great I'll worship the guy, but the last 4 years has proven other wise. ALso I'm not the guy that hates people that don't think the same way politically as I do. We are all Americans after all.

Cheers

You also have unrealistic expectations. It took us decades to get into this economic mess, many of the factors involved in this economic downturn can be traced all the way back to Reagan. You cannot reasonably expect anyone to turn everything around at the snap of their fingers. It took 12 years for our economy to recover from the Great Depression and that was with a World War to speed it up a bit.

The thing is we live in a society where people want instant gratification and instant results. They want everything now now now and could care less about how it gets done. That is wrong, you know it and I know it. The problem isn't our leaders, it's the public expectations of what their leaders can actually accomplish. Many of those expectations are just downright impossible in the real world.

Keep in mind, the Budget is something that is in the hands of Congress. That's their job and they aren't doing it. Every president always proposes a budget and every year it is tossed in the trash can. It's tradition.

[Mnevis]

As a huge patriot and Army Vet, it's really hard not to be frustrated and a little bitter at the current situation of our country. It's hard to re-elect someone who failed is all I'm saying. If he can get the country back on track, great I'll worship the guy, but the last 4 years has proven other wise. ALso I'm not the guy that hates people that don't think the same way politically as I do.

Well, what specifically leads you to believe he's failed? He hasn't exceeded wildly in turning a near-depression into a boom, but he helped turn a near-depression into a slow recovery (well, fast recovery on Wall Street, slower in overall GDP and employment, but the direction is positive instead of terrifyingly negative like in late08/early09). He has focused on Al-Qaeda in a way that the previous administration did not and his opponent didn't see a need for.

Are you yourself an unemployed vet? The Democrats tried to create a Veterans Jobs Corps and it had some bipartisan support, but it was ultimately blocked because it didn't pay for itself fast enough. The President's more general job creation act has also been refused by Republicans in Congress. Keeping Americans from losing their jobs and trying to get America back to work has been priority number one.

[Wells]

This mentality is THE REASON why we're stuck choosing between a big fat turd and a stupid douche in every federal election and most state ones.

No the reason we're stuck with two parties is because they're the only ones with the mass required to raise money.

[KDSwain]

Obama doesn't care and neither do his smug pseudo-intellectual disciples.

ROFL. The college students that make up probably 85% of the posters here are very smart. They have the participation trophies to prove it.

[Magpai]

I stopped believing hat GOP's sincerity to balance the budget from the very first GOP Debate after this question:



I'm sorry, Romney would not balance the budget, he would make things worse. The fact that the crowd is even cheering them just shows how much the party has fallen.

Increasing revenue is not the only way to balance a budget (or make progress on one). Economic growth and spending cuts are what Republicans are preaching. Their message just doesn't get out because liberals and (or rather including) the mainstream media refuse to acknowledge it, because they don't particular care about intellectual integrity. My words, not theirs.

---------- Post added 2012-10-18 at 11:09 PM ----------

No the reason we're stuck with two parties is because they're the only ones with the mass required to raise money.

Yeah I"m sure if a third party candidate outspent Obama you'd totally vote for him.

I think you and many other people vastly underestimate the "diminishing returns" on campaign money spent. That, or I badly overestimate the average voter's willingness to inform themselves.