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.
Shame on you for not reading my post, not thinking for yourself, or using common sense. You completely ignore the reality that Congress is severely broken because of the tea party contingent and regressive obstructionism. President Obama has been hampered greatly by this reality, and it has hurt the country mightily. The GOP has had their way and the results reflect this. Romney, and all of the GOP candidates, are part of the problem.
To suggest that we elect someone who can get things passed with this tea party-cursed Congress, IS buying into GOP rhetoric despite your claims to the contrary. Face it, you have been suckered into blaming Obama not acknowledging the historically high obstructionist role of the GOP in Congress. Such a pathetic view would favor supporting an unsuitable person like Romney. Again, shame on you.
About my English teachers, my parents, you again are way off the mark. President Obama doesn't need your vote. There are enough enlightened people in this country who know the reality as I have described it here. Pub candidates don't have a chance in hell, but if you feel comfortable rationalizing that you should support Romney, do it. Count me among the many who find your line of reasoning absolutely ludicrous.
So the congress that bailed out big business against the peoples wishes is the fault of the Tea Party? The congress was broke long ago. It's about policy. The republocrats policies are horrible.
The idea is to NOT have Congress and the President pass laws and run your life.
But I guess another housing bill or involvement in a foreign war is just what we need to get this economy going for some.
But let's not forget that a big part of the reason they're hurting is the exporting of jobs overseas--which was made possible due to deregulation from Presidents Reagan and Bush II. And then the mortgage bubble burst and made it so much worse.
The housing bubble was brought about by the lending practices of the Clinton era and Clinton also expanded NAFTA to levels it is now and wanted to go further.
Are you so myopic in your view of reality that you believe that the current woes are caused purely by President Obama? If so, then my attempting to correct your misguided view would be as useless as a blind man turning around to look.
Don't exclude yourself from serious consideration in future discussions with this nonsense.
He is the President, that is what we are discussing here in case you have missed that point. His job and his future in it is the topic and I could care less whether you take me seriously or not...I know I don't take several poster here all that serious.
DixieGirl: In what ways would you say Romney is more conservative than Perry? I'm guessing the in-state-tuition-for-illegal-immigrants thing? (I'm actually against that--although anyone who thinks that illegals aren't an essential part of the economy hasn't looked in the back of a restaurant kitchen or talked to any agricultural business owner west of the Mississippi.) And the Gardasil issue?
Outback NV: What individual liberties, exactly, do you think Romney would curtail?
I won't argue the benefits of a well-funded, effective central government with a Libertarian. But you do realize that the government grew *hugely* under Reagan and George W. Bush, don't you?
Yes, Mitt Romney is definitely more conserative on immigration. He did not pass the Dream Act or a similar bill in his state that allows illegals to pay in state tuition which mean they basically go to college on the taxpayers dime. That is ridiculous, when many of our children struggle to go to college. That bill in Texas has cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Perry has done nothing to secure the boarder in Texas and he has not address getting rid of sancturary cities in Texas. There is obviously good reason for this, his friends in business use that cheap Mexican labor and don't have to give them benefits or squat. There is a reason Texas has the lowest high school graduation rate in the country and huge number of uninsured. Which brings me to my other point, Mitt Romney is much more fiscally conservative than Rick Perry and better at balancing budgets.
Under Rick Perry's watch, the state of Texas ran up a $27 billion dollar deficit. So much for Rick Perry saying he will be for a balanced budget ammendment. Why didn't he balance his own state's budget?
Mitt Romney on the other hand faced a 3 Billion dollar deficit when he took office in Massachusetts in 2002. By 2005, the state had a $400 million dollar surplus. Those are just two of the most glaring differences.
I was a huge supporter of Obama till he tried to place nice with the GOP Congress on the debt-ceiling issue. He seems inherently unable to be the mean, semi-ruthless SOB that a president has to be when it comes to dealing with the other party. (LBJ was great at this.) He didn't even *threaten* to use executive privilege to raise the ceiling!
Now I find it frustrating that instead of pushing through a REAL jobs program like FDR did--a longer-term and larger version of ARRA [2009 stimulus bill], he's asking for this paltry series of tax credits. It's barely better than nothing, and no one thinks it's going to have any real impact. In my view, the federal government is the only employer with the money, stability, and mandate to create more jobs. (I think this should be funded by higher taxes on multimillionaires and by closing the loopholes corporations have used to evade taxes for the last 2-3 decades.)
Stay with me; I'm getting to the Romney part.
It seems like no matter what Obama proposes (even ideas that were formerly supported by Republicans), the GOP Congress opposes him. So I wonder if a moderate GOP president with progressive tendencies here and there might be able to get some of those passed with a GOP Congress, because they'd have no vested interest in his failure.
My reservations about Mitt are that he might gut the Clean Air Act (but then BHO wants to drill everywhere), that he might appoint some extreme religious conservatives to important positions to appease that wing of the party, and that he might also gut consumer protections. And the Healthcare Act, which I think was a great thing, just too limited.
To boil it down even further:
Is it better to have a moderate Dem president who can't get anything done without making major, sell-the-farm compromises? Or is it better to have a GOP president who might be able to get more progressive policies in place? I'm kind of picturing George HW Bush.
(Am I wrong to think Mitt might actually have progressive impulses? I tend to regard his "repeal Obamacare" talk as pandering to the Teapots.)
He does have some progressive ideas or let's put it this way, he certainly isn't right wing, but are you nuts to support or vote for him? Just look at it this way, if Obama has pissed you off, Romney certainly will. That being said, we welcome your Republican vote...
What you're saying might work. It depends though. The Tea Party is pressuring the Republic Party as well as the Democratic one. It would be harder for them to pressure Romney to bend to their will because a large part of their activated base will turn off once an "R" is in office, but they would still probably threaten him with political consequences if he doesn't do exactly as they say. Heck, in fact, the TPs are already more or less in an open war with him. You have to consider that.
I also think it's wrong to assume that Romney has any truly moderate impulses. He'll do what the experts in the Republic Party tell him to do, which won't be moderate.
However, like you, I am an Obama supporter who is turned off by Obama's weaknesses. I don't want to reward his tepid rule by voting for him again. I could see myself voting for Romney to send a message. Romney at least appears sane, which is more than can be said for the other Republic choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian
I was a huge supporter of Obama till he tried to place nice with the GOP Congress on the debt-ceiling issue. He seems inherently unable to be the mean, semi-ruthless SOB that a president has to be when it comes to dealing with the other party. (LBJ was great at this.) He didn't even *threaten* to use executive privilege to raise the ceiling!
Now I find it frustrating that instead of pushing through a REAL jobs program like FDR did--a longer-term and larger version of ARRA [2009 stimulus bill], he's asking for this paltry series of tax credits. It's barely better than nothing, and no one thinks it's going to have any real impact. In my view, the federal government is the only employer with the money, stability, and mandate to create more jobs. (I think this should be funded by higher taxes on multimillionaires and by closing the loopholes corporations have used to evade taxes for the last 2-3 decades.)
Stay with me; I'm getting to the Romney part.
It seems like no matter what Obama proposes (even ideas that were formerly supported by Republicans), the GOP Congress opposes him. So I wonder if a moderate GOP president with progressive tendencies here and there might be able to get some of those passed with a GOP Congress, because they'd have no vested interest in his failure.
My reservations about Mitt are that he might gut the Clean Air Act (but then BHO wants to drill everywhere), that he might appoint some extreme religious conservatives to important positions to appease that wing of the party, and that he might also gut consumer protections. And the Healthcare Act, which I think was a great thing, just too limited.
To boil it down even further:
Is it better to have a moderate Dem president who can't get anything done without making major, sell-the-farm compromises? Or is it better to have a GOP president who might be able to get more progressive policies in place? I'm kind of picturing George HW Bush.
(Am I wrong to think Mitt might actually have progressive impulses? I tend to regard his "repeal Obamacare" talk as pandering to the Teapots.)
I was referrring to Romney. I think you have your panderers confused, since Perry is who likes to talk about secession.
It is amazing, you did know what you are talking about, but some don't. I realize you were not talking about Romney. In fact I would rep you but I have to spread it around.
NIta
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.
