Another Perspective on the Election

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Rggr

Many others manged to address it, and I responded to their points. Since you asked for it again, I'll present it in a simple form that may not spark such outrage.

1. According to Gallup polls, the electorate identified the economy as the number one priority.
2. Also according to Gallup polls, the electorate viewed Romney as the better candidate regarding the economy.
3. Romney did not win the election.
4. The column quoted in the OP concludes that people voted as they did because they were not ready to make the hard choices required to deal with the economy.
5. Question posed by Rggr (note: the rest of the points were not made by Rggr thus no need to attack him for them): In light of the polling data in points 1 and 2, does the author's claim in point 4 have merit? (again, no argument presented by Rggr to warrant an attack - just a political topic for discussion about factors at play in the election results)

1- I did too.
2- I did not.
3- Correct, and Gallup was incorrect.
4- What hard choices did Romney talk about? I found him complain and pander to the ignorant about cuts to medicare, no tax increases for anybody, that he will bring moon on a platter, that not government but he will create 12 million jobs. BTW, he didn't, because that is a way to get votes and you think he didn't get any for that reason?
5- See above.

Now, allow me to add some others from the OP that you believe provides "new perspective" but don't want to discuss here:

6-On the one hand there are the wealth creators and the self-reliant, who want the state out of their lives and a fair chance to rebuild business, enterprise and their bank balances after the debacle of the banking collapse of 2008.
-> "Job Creators"

7- On the other is the coalition of minorities put in place by President Obama, and which he exploited to secure his victory. Many of these people depend upon the welfare culture he has created – what the state calls ‘entitlements’.
-> Minorities/Race = Entitlements (or, as Lee Atwater put it, the New Southern Strategy, and that was in 1981)

8- The President’s plans to implement Obamacare – his health insurance programme – will only add to this, with the current $16 trillion debt reaching at least $20 trillion by the end of his term. One reason why taxes are scheduled to rise so much is that the Democrats have been so reluctant to cut back on welfare benefits for their clientele."
-> ObamaCare

9- The problem is that entitlements have to be funded, and the private sector increasingly resents being asked to pay higher taxes to do this, draining the productive sector of the economy of funds for investment.
"Taxes and Entitlements"

10- People who run or work in private enterprises fail to see why they should work harder to fund Mr Obama’s clientele. And when they feel disincentivised, the country fails to achieve the growth it needs to prosper again.
-> Private Sector is the best instrument for the general welfare of the nation.

Now, I might have memory that lasts longer than that of a fruit-flies lifetime, so go ahead and blame it for not recognizing the babble in the OP as "a new perspective".

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

1- I did too.
2- I did not.
3- Correct, and Gallup was incorrect.
4- What hard choices did Romney talk about? I found him complain and pander to the ignorant about cuts to medicare, no tax increases for anybody, that he will bring moon on a platter, that not government but he will create 12 million jobs. BTW, he didn't, because that is a way to get votes and you think he didn't get any for that reason?
5- See above.

1- I did too.
2- I did not.
3- Correct, and Gallup was incorrect. Okay, so your perspective is that the argument is flawed because Gallup was incorrect. Fair point.
4- What hard choices did Romney talk about? I found him complain and pander to the ignorant about cuts to medicare, no tax increases for anybody, that he will bring moon on a platter, that not government but he will create 12 million jobs. Okay, so you disagree with the column because you don't think he proposed hard choices. The rest of this part seems to go with point 2 about why you do not think he was the best on the economy - okay, but not specifically on topic BTW, he didn't, because that is a way to get votes and you think (again, Rggr only posed a question and did not pose the argument in the column as Rggr was not the author) he didn't get any for that reason?
5- See above

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Now, allow me to add some others from the OP that you believe provides "new perspective" but don't want to discuss here:

6-On the one hand there are the wealth creators and the self-reliant, who want the state out of their lives and a fair chance to rebuild business, enterprise and their bank balances after the debacle of the banking collapse of 2008.
-> "Job Creators"

7- On the other is the coalition of minorities put in place by President Obama, and which he exploited to secure his victory. Many of these people depend upon the welfare culture he has created – what the state calls ‘entitlements’.
-> Minorities/Race = Entitlements (or, as Lee Atwater put it, the New Southern Strategy, and that was in 1981)

8- The President’s plans to implement Obamacare – his health insurance programme – will only add to this, with the current $16 trillion debt reaching at least $20 trillion by the end of his term. One reason why taxes are scheduled to rise so much is that the Democrats have been so reluctant to cut back on welfare benefits for their clientele."
-> ObamaCare

9- The problem is that entitlements have to be funded, and the private sector increasingly resents being asked to pay higher taxes to do this, draining the productive sector of the economy of funds for investment.
"Taxes and Entitlements"

10- People who run or work in private enterprises fail to see why they should work harder to fund Mr Obama’s clientele. And when they feel disincentivised, the country fails to achieve the growth it needs to prosper again.
-> Private Sector is the best instrument for the general welfare of the nation.

Now, I might have memory that lasts longer than that of a fruit-flies lifetime, so go ahead and blame it for not recognizing the babble in the OP as "a new perspective".

These were in the column referenced in the OP, but none of those were a part of my question nor relevant to what I actually asked. If you want to discuss those, I'm sure the publication accepts letters.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Rggr

1- I did too.
2- I did not.
3- Correct, and Gallup was incorrect. Okay, so your perspective is that the argument is flawed because Gallup was incorrect. Fair point.
4- What hard choices did Romney talk about? I found him complain and pander to the ignorant about cuts to medicare, no tax increases for anybody, that he will bring moon on a platter, that not government but he will create 12 million jobs. Okay, so you disagree with the column because you don't think he proposed hard choices. The rest of this part seems to go with point 2 about why you do not think he was the best on the economy - okay, but not specifically on topic BTW, he didn't, because that is a way to get votes and you think (again, Rggr only posed a question and did not pose the argument in the column as Rggr was not the author) he didn't get any for that reason?
5- See above

4- Does Gallup tell you HOW he was better for the economy? No. I didn't think Bush was good for economy either and he proved me right.

And stop making excuses that you're not the author. You created this thread, be prepared to be dealt accordingly.

Originally Posted by Rggr

These were in the column referenced in the OP, but none of those were a part of my question nor relevant to what I actually asked. If you want to discuss those, I'm sure the publication accepts letters.

If they are irrelevant, you shouldn't have made a center piece of your bickering in the OP.

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

What hard choices did Romney talk about? I found him complain and pander to the ignorant about cuts to medicare, no tax increases for anybody, that he will bring moon on a platter, that not government but he will create 12 million jobs.

A distinction without a difference. As president you ARE the government. What you say you will do, you are saying GOVERNMENT will do. There is no "I as president will do this, but when I do it, it isn't government doing it." When a president does a thing and is successful, it IS the American government that is doing the thing. When he sends troops to attack somebody somewhere, it's the American government doing it. When he signs a bill into law, it's the American government in action. When he issues an executive order, it is American government being carried out. So Mitt Romney saying he will create 12 million jobs as president IS Mitt Romney saying his government will create 12 million jobs. There is no separating the American president from American government. That's why it was disingenous when he turned around and claimed government doesn't create jobs when President Obama was talking about creating jobs.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

4- Does Gallup tell you HOW he was better for the economy? No. I didn't think Bush was good for economy either and he proved me right.

I would hope you understand that Gallup isn't making the argument, they're reporting the view of the people polled that he was.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

And stop making excuses that you're not the author. You created this thread, be prepared to be dealt accordingly.

Not an excuse - a fact. If you post a quote from Romney does that mean you're making the argument he made or relaying what he said? Simple concept.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

If they are irrelevant, you shouldn't have made a center piece of your bickering in the OP.

I didn't. I thought you would get that in the post where I broke it down into simple points.