Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When he was talking I could only see an empty chair LOL .
That isn't clever of funny when it has been stolen from a great actor who used the symbolic object to refer to an actual failure, Mr. Obama, who has accomplished nothing in nearly four years but to improve his golf handicap, create for himself Hollywood style celebrity status by inserting himself into daytime and late night TV talk shows as "eye candy," while real Americans are brutally murdered, their bodies dismembered, cut up like dog meat, by savages who are members of a "religion of peace."
We have nothing to show for his term but massive debt and deficits, 11.7% (U6) unemployment, an economy showing no sign of recovery (though he tries to sell us a recovery lie), increasing food prices, gasoline that is $2/gal higher than when he took office, median family incomes down by $4,000 annually, an expensive "health care bill" which will end health care as we know it and heap thousands of dollars of new taxes annually on every American, and ultimately eliminate private insurance, and your ability to choose your doctor.
The real Presidential figure last night was Mitt Romney, a successful business man with credibility to back up his promises. A man of integrity, and sincerity, who actually does care about this country and it's citizens, and understands that the problem is Obama, and his "big government" socialist ideas that have failed in every country that has tried them.
I saw a man of confidence, and leadership ability, proven by his business acumen. No "empty chair;" was he. The "empty chair" was pointed out clearly and unmistakably in Florida by the only man that has the right to use the symbolism, the one and only Clint Eastwood. The "empty chair" is and always will be Obama.
I thought it was ridiculous how they both said "Government doesn't create jobs" (which is partially true) but then went on to try and convince us how they would create jobs using the Government.
That's as a result of the catch-phrase being widely supported by the masses, even though it really isn't true on a foundational level, and an understanding by both candidates THAT it really isn't true on a foundational level. Any attempt to correct American thinking on the catch-phrase would basically be political SUICIDE. Here's what I mean:
Government DOES set tax rates which DO impact job creation, hence both candidate's pledge to cut taxes on small businesses, and Obama's pledge to end tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas and instead offer incentives for companies who create US jobs.
Government DOES set energy policy which DOES impact job creation, hence the Romney pledge to further oil and gas policy and the Obama pledge to further oil, gas, wind, solar, all of the above policy.
Government DOES determine Pell Grants for college students, which DOES impact people's ability to get an education to fill the modern jobs which require certain skills, hence the Obama pledge to continue the focus on increased Pell Grant offerings and the Romney CHANGE from Republican policies and budget proposals to cut Pell Grants to a FIRST-TIME-Romney-stated pledge to push the Pell Grant giving if elected. (Another Romney pivot which calls into question just where DOES he stand)
Government DOES have perview to file cases against unfair trade practices which has a DIRECT impact on job creation, hence Obama's citation of the China cheap-tire-dumping practice which his administration challenged at the WTO and won (actually won ALL the cases the administration brought), which helped to save the jobs of US tire manufacturing employees which would have been lost had China been allowed to keep dumping.
Both candidates KNOW that govenrment policy DOES help to create jobs in these various ways, which is why they make the pledges that I just cited. However, they ALSO know that the catch phrase "government doesn't create jobs" is a widespread American misunderstanding/incorrect belief that simply cannot be changed by a candidate informing the public in a debate. For some reason, Americans are often mentally resistant to information which corrects misperceptions that they have come to believe are fact. That's why for example in the first debate, BOTH candidates' lowest rated moments were when they were discussing DETAILS about the other's stance/plan. Americans love their catch-phrases and seem bored with details and fact-finding. Go figure. It is the way it is and cannot really be corrected, so the candidates are left with echoing the catch phrase but citing the specifics which disprove the catch phrase.
A thinker like you picks up on the inconsistency, but the American public at large has the misconception too engrained already- so the inconsistency is no big deal to them- they WANT to know what a candidate is going to do WITH GOVERNMENT to create jobs while at the same time actually believing government DOESN'T create jobs. That is how the American public thinks, and there is no correcting that thinking without falling on your political sword. A wise candidate understands this. Americans often think in ways that have no basis in logic but every basis in gut feeling. And even when logic disproves gut feelings, it often doesn't register with Americans or they reject the logic in favor of the gut feelings (which is why debate watchers watch more for sighs than for policy details and cause/effect explanations). So you're correct, but it wasn't ridiculous THAT they did that, it was ridiculous that Americans SO STRONGLY think the way they do- in inconsistent, illogical ways- that candidates HAVE to do that or else lose masses of voters.
He has that 5 point plan for starters amongst other things.
I'm registered as a "Not affiliated".
You have to excuse some of these people. If it doesnt fit in a 10 second commercial, its beyond their comprehension... 5 points.. very difficult for some people to digest who cant count passed 2..
But what did he say?? Undecideds still thought Romney was better on substance! All Obama did was look meaner and tougher.
But it was the same old thing......AND HE STILL COULDN'T DEFEND HIS RECORD!!
All he could say was "Not true" "Not True".........Romney countered everything!
Oh .....and thank you Candy Crowley for confirming that the media is in the tank for the Dems.
No substance from BO because he has nothing but a losing record to run on! That is why he has to result to lies, blame, and deflection. It is really disgusting.
Romney is clearly a leader and his record of improving businesses and the Olympics and his state as governor is REAL and tangible.
Obama looked like an inept, petulant child once again and the only time he was ahead is when the moderator lied for him. I love what Candy Crowley did! She showed her true colors......and that of the mainstream media.....and now she will enjoy the backlash for her awful actions.
THE FACTS: As he has done before, Obama is cherry-picking his numbers to make them sound better than they really are. He ignores the fact that public-sector job losses have dragged down overall job creation. Also, he chooses just to mention the past 30 months. That ignores job losses during his presidency up until that point. According to the Labor Department, about 4.5 million total jobs have been created over the past 30 months. But some 4.3 million jobs were lost during the earlier months of his administration. At this point, Obama is a net job creator, but only marginally.
There is a logical reason Obama did that. When he came into office, job losses were on the rate of 800,000 per month and we were steeped in the 2nd worst recession in US history. Those losses and that recession had NOTHING to do with Obama policies. Yet the losses and recession were happening UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATION. So it makes total sense to focus on what you did to turn the ship rather than try to take responsibility for the job losses already happening when you first took the helm of the ship.
If a guy is getting pummelled in the street by a bully, and you step in, wrestle the bully off, run the bully away from the scene, administer first aid to the victim, get the guy up on his feet and begin helping him get to a hospital, it would make total sense for you to discuss how you have helped the guy rather than take credit for the beating he was getting when you first got involved. And instead of Republicans acknowledging the reality, when the hero says "you know, that guy has had it ROUGH the past few minutes" Republicans scoff and say "SEE, he ADMITS that his policy of running off the bully and administering first aid has resulted in the victim having it rough." They totally misconstrue the reality because they so want the president to take the lumps for the losses during the initial part of his administration when he was handed a hand-grenade by the Bush administration. Bravo for the president not sitting idly by and accepting responsibility for that. Bravo for the president focusing on what he did to TURN the ship and the results in job creation that have followed.
What you call cherry-picking here is really separating out what was happening to jobs when he took office and when he was first beginning to put in policies to turn the ship versus what has happened SINCE he put in those policies to turn the ship. And it makes all the sense in the world to do exactly that. It's not hiding from his record, it's correctly wanting credit for turning the ship, and correctly not wanting responsibility from the direction the Bush economy ship was headed in the early months of Obama's administration. Who wants to take responsibility for the beating when they were the one to step in, run the bully off, and administer first aid? It simply wouldn't make sense to do so.
I cannot consume the fact that everyone thought Crowley did a great job....
She actually came in and said, "he did" when Obama said he admitted in the Rose Garden that it was a terrorist attack". He did not...he talked about terrorisum, but did not admit it was a terrorist attack, I remember him stating along with Hilary, that this was a protest, resulting from that vile, dirty rotten video that came out and attacked the muslim belief. It was in fact, a guise of a protest, that terrorists used rocket launchers....
And Crowley is a stupid woman....concerned about her entitlements....a woman's right to an abortion???? I am sick to death of this being a concern. You want an abortion get one, if your against abortion, and pass a law of such, all you'll do is create a lucrative business for slimy doctors who WILL in fact do abortions. I can't believe you people don't see this, especially after prohibition?
She brings out asult weapons, like right now that is the most important issue?
Last edited by cremebrulee; 10-17-2012 at 06:41 AM..
What you call cherry-picking here is really separating out what was happening to jobs when he took office and when he was first beginning to put in policies to turn the ship versus what has happened SINCE he put in those policies to turn the ship. And it makes all the sense in the world to do exactly that. It's not hiding from his record, it's correctly wanting credit for turning the ship, and correctly not wanting responsibility from the direction the Bush economy ship was headed in the early months of Obama's administration. Who wants to take responsibility for the beating when they were the one to step in, run the bully off, and administer first aid? It simply wouldn't make sense to do so.
You're correct, of course - Obama isn't responsible for the housing crash that happened in Bush's reign, nor is he responsible for the state the country was in in the beginning.
The only way to judge his actions is by the following:
1) How many jobs did he create?(In the sense that, as Keynes was fond of pointing out, even a broken window gives the glass man a job)
2) How much debt did he accrue doing so? - Did these jobs make the average American richer or poorer?
3) How many jobs are sustainable? - If they aren't sustainable, obviously these people will simply be let go when the government ceases paying for them.
4) How many jobs came about regardless of policy? - Obviously, the stimulus package wasn't responsible for a McDonald's opening up, but his policies definitely increased green energy companies and the like.
5) What was inflation like for said president? - Creating money by fiat lowers monetary worth. This reduces net worth for the average person and makes savings that people do have worth less. Was it higher or lower than normal?
Would you say that judging Obama by those factors would be fair? If not, why not and what factors would you say it is fair to judge Obama on?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
You Obama Knew The Left Would Call Victory If Obama Was More Aggressive
