Why should Romney be president?

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto: Your immigrant parents, and my immigrant grandparents, despite all their good intentions, didn't know a whole lot about money. If they had, they wouldn't have paid their mortgages off ASAP. There is bad debt, and there is good debt. And right now, the United States government can borrow at record-low rates [[i.e. good debt) that can be used to improve infrastructure and create jobs. Instead, we keep laying off tax paying public servants and making things worse.

Actually, they didn't trust banks enough to take a mortgage. Instead, they saved and, for a while, lived in the [[large) garage while building their own house. During the depression, rented their new house some undesirable tenants, and came out of the depression with patches and a building lot in GP Farms. They did ok. The people who seemingly knew very little about money lost their houses.

Two reasons interest rates are low is because the Fed printed and dispersed over $16T to banks and the demand for money isn't high.

Bully for Taiwan. Do they get a free toaster from their bank for being debt-free? What's the significance of this?

I already explained the significance. See my last post. While our children are paying down Bush/Obama debts, the Taiwanese and Chinese will be advancing themselves.

The fact is, for whatever reason, growth of the economy reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. I don't think you're arguing this point. What we have to do, in order to deal with debt, is to grow the economy again--WHATEVER that may entail! Yes, it would be foolish to assume that conditions are identical to the post-WWII era. But I also believe that that American worker can manufacture the finest industrial products in the world--if given the opportunity to do so. And let's not even use labor costs and taxation as an excuse--we're still the number one manufacturing nation on earth, and Germany is not far behind.

I understand that, in the long-term, high amounts of debt are unfavorable. But we're still in the midst of recession economics. Even a casual glance at unemployment numbers and interest rates will tell you that.

Let's illustrate with an example. Let's say there is a student who just graduated from high school and is considering what to do with his life. It's assumed this student wants to put himself in the best economic position possible in the long run. What does he do?

Does he take out $100,000 in loans at a low interest rate and get a college degree, leading to a professional career?

Or does he conclude that DEBT = BAD, sit at home, and balance his checkbook?

It wasn't me who assumed that conditions are the same as they were after WWII. If the kid had any sense, he would work a year while in college at a State University where he wouldn't get into a $100,000 debt mess.


The fact is, Romney hasn't proposed anything to improve the economy. He thinks we need to keep laying off teachers, firefighters, and police officers. He thinks we need to cut taxes on the wealthiest [[yet again). As if the results will be different this time. He's having a real Underpants Gnome problem, which looks like:

1. Cut taxes and spending
2. ????
3. Economic growth

[/QUOTE]

I don't believe in Keynesianism.

Teachers, firefighters, and police officers are local, not federal expenses. I don't expect Romney to cut spending. Maybe he won't raise spending as much as Obama but only by degree.

[oladub]

TKshreve: I think you're missing his point. F&T is suggesting that Obama has not raised the debt as much as you would lead us to believe. Here is the pertinent part of his post, which should be the focus of your rebuttal.

And then you gloss over the beef of f&t's statistically supported post with this gem:

You can't have it both ways. Either get rid of Bush's programs or claim ownership instead of complaining Bush made Obama do it. I do get the point although it wasn't mine. I didn't think the point was particularly relevant except to mention that Bush was a spender too. He was. The more important point, to me, is the burden of debt being placed on our young people to pay for the Bush/Obama follies; two-thirds of which will probably come from Obama if he is given a second term.

His statistics suggest that bush is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the debt we have to date. The information also suggests that a good deal of the $$ spent was already earmarked by Bush admin, but implemented after Obama took office. Which of those items should Obama not "own"? Should he not pay interest on money borrowed by former administrations? How about an immediate blind pullout of Iraq altogether upon assuming office to avoid continued spending? Or cut medicare benefits to millions of seniors? Or unilaterally raising taxes to make up for lost revenue?

Obama should dump as much of he can of any of those programs unless he is willing to accept the responsibility of the associated spending. Obama campaigned that if the war was still going on when he entered office, he would end it immediatley. Want to see the video clip? He didn't have to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich or vote for Bush's Wall Street bankers' bailout either.

Which of those options should he not "own" and still expect to win another term? Oh.... I see, even though his hand was apparently forced on those particular issues of spending, you expect him to sit down at his desk upon inauguration and proceed to make extremely unpopular decisions in order to appease the right. It seems that is what you're implying.

I don't expect him to do anything heroic or less than self-serving.

I think this thread would provide better value if we stuck to the facts and disposed of the posturing and opinion.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Whose decision was it to spend what money? I don't care who was in office, and when? It all comes down to who decided it would be in the best interest of the county to spend X dollars on a particular liability/program. Which POTUS inked it?

And... Which items of spending have had the greatest impact, and which the least? Bailing out the auto industry, good idea. And we we're paid back. Secretly handing out [[tr)billions of dollars to the financial industry..... I kinda feel that was not done efficiently. But I need to understand that situation a little better.

Congress controls the purse strings, makes legislation, and allocates money; not the President. He either signs or vetoes legislation unless, of course, he chooses to bypass Congress and spites his oath of office by legislating with executive orders. The President, of course, also has influence over the doings of his own party. I wouldn't blame Bush/Obama exclusively for the latter. Congress should either reign in rogue presidents or impeach them.

Chrysler is now owned by a foreign company and there are $16-18B of stock market losses short of a government break even on the GM side. Also, former Saturn, Hummer, Pontiac, and closed dealership employees might not have such a positive perspective on the Bain like solution to GM woes. This isn't to say that consumers, still needing cars, wouldn't have bought a Ford or US asssembled Honda otherwise. How is a US assembled Fiat product more virtuous than a US built Toyota product anyways?

[rb336]

somebody likes to ignore facts that don't play into his Obama-hate. It's simple THE lowest rate of budget increases in how many decades? Erase continuing issues with dubya's wars [[from which we could not responsibly just cut and run) and what does that leave you? essentially flat, possibly even a decrease. Obama is not the huge spendthrift your hate makes you believe.

[oladub]

somebody likes to ignore facts that don't play into his Obama-hate. It's simple THE lowest rate of budget increases in how many decades? Erase continuing issues with dubya's wars [[from which we could not responsibly just cut and run) and what does that leave you? essentially flat, possibly even a decrease. Obama is not the huge spendthrift your hate makes you believe.

agent rb, Are you sure your aren't the government apologist on this board always championing the status quo, illegal wars, massive deficit spending, encroaching police state etc that Bush and Obama promoted? Really, I have to wonder about you. Harding and Coolidge both reduced the budget. That might be you answer but I didn't post that Obama raised the budget. You must still be having reading comprehension problems. Nor did I bring up the formerly Bush and now Obama Wars. Here is Senator Obama's campaign promise anyway.

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. "- Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

You are not being a loyal supporter if you are suggesting that he had no hope of fulfilling his promise. What that leaves, so far, is giving our kids over $15,000 in Obama debts to do what? Keep the unemployment rate above 8% for over 40 months straight. Without even bringing up the leaked TPP agreement and th erecent immigration legislative changes, those who support the Bush/Obama corporatism must hate US workers.

[rb336]

not an "apologist," just a realist instead of someone blinded by hatred and dogma. as far as the "encroaching police state," when have I ever made one comment in support of that? oh, i didn't. just another straw man argument.

Why are you bringing harding and coolidge into the mix? is it because their policies created the economic bubble that resulted in the great depression?

sorry, every one of your answers is spoken through a haze of hatred of this president and a fierce determination to defend your hatred despite the long-picture facts that do not bear out your dogmatic pronouncements.

[oladub]

not an "apologist," just a realist instead of someone blinded by hatred and dogma. as far as the "encroaching police state," when have I ever made one comment in support of that? oh, i didn't. just another straw man argument.

Why are you bringing harding and coolidge into the mix? is it because their policies created the economic bubble that resulted in the great depression?

sorry, every one of your answers is spoken through a haze of hatred of this president and a fierce determination to defend your hatred despite the long-picture facts that do not bear out your dogmatic pronouncements.

Harding reduced government spending and taxes a year after he came into office and unemployment went from about 11.1% down to 3.9% in the two years thereafter, Coolidge further reduced spending and reduced the size of the miltary. Both brought peace and prosperity. Harding/Coolidge policies and their successes were sort of the opposite of Bush/Obama policies you so avidly defend. As an apologist for Obama breaking his campaign promise to end the Iraq war immediately "Erase continuing issues with dubya's wars [[from which we could not responsibly just cut and run)" you can only hope that Obamanomics turned out half as well in his second term. I instead blame the monetary policies of the Fed for creating the bubbles of 1921, 1929, the Nasdaq bubble, and the housing bubble then to somehow claim that Harding caused the depression.

This morning, President Obama declared "Presidential Privilege" to prevent the disclosure of information relating to his "Fast and Furious" fiasco. I looked up "Presidential Privilege" and it turned out Bush abused the concept quite a bit too. No surprise. However, it wasn't Bush who promised that his administration was going to be the most transparent ever. Last week you were defending Obama's efforts to avoid transparency regarding his TPP efforts to foist this NAFTA on steroids treaty agreement on US workers. The week before, you were claiming Obama bombed Libya on the basis of NATO and UN documents which did not support your claims.

Back to why to vote for Romney. If someone, or groups like US workers and the middle class, was taking a beating on some level but managed to flag down a passing car; the occupants of which seemed equally unsavory, e.g. Romney's people, would one get in? Tough choice. That isn't much of a reason to support Romney but given the choice between continuing on our known present path or hoping that the change to Romney will be an improvement, or wouldn't be worse, is tempting. That's our choice. Continue the high unemployment, high deficits, debts and the rest or cross fingers hoping for the best, or at least a better outcome, with Romney.

[ghettopalmetto]

not an "apologist," just a realist instead of someone blinded by hatred and dogma. as far as the "encroaching police state," when have I ever made one comment in support of that? oh, i didn't. just another straw man argument.

Why are you bringing harding and coolidge into the mix? is it because their policies created the economic bubble that resulted in the great depression?

sorry, every one of your answers is spoken through a haze of hatred of this president and a fierce determination to defend your hatred despite the long-picture facts that do not bear out your dogmatic pronouncements.

Oladub hopes that if he can confuse the hell out of everyone with strings of "factoids", they might not notice that the thread is called:

Why Should Romney Be President?



And since Oladub doesn't have an answer to that question, he'll just go right on ahead and turn it into another thread about printing money, Harding, Coolidge, the gold standard, and inflation.

Now take your elitist book learnin and get out of my yard. :-)

[TKshreve]

Back to why to vote for Romney. If someone, or groups like US workers and the middle class, was taking a beating on some level but managed to flag down a passing car; the occupants of which seemed equally unsavory, e.g. Romney's people, would one get in? Tough choice. That isn't much of a reason to support Romney but given the choice between continuing on our known present path or hoping that the change to Romney will be an improvement, or wouldn't be worse, is tempting. That's our choice. Continue the high unemployment, high deficits, debts and the rest or cross fingers hoping for the best, or at least a better outcome, with Romney.

That's a really unique analogy Oladub. One that I think deserves a closer study. We should take a deeper look at how it applies other current and past topics that will resurface this election cycle.

Could you not apply your analogy to our current health care system? After all, I think everyone agrees it is inefficient and borderline broken. So why would the right so adamantly protect the current system we have? Why would they not want to work together to create a fair and balanced system for the majority? Instead the right would like us to pass on getting into that car, and instead: endure the roadside beating. At least the Obama administration tried to wrangle the horns of that bull. Or do you give him no credit for the attempt?

Or could you apply that analogy to the idea of trickle down economics? Have we not as a nation given the reduced top-tier tax bracket its fair go? It's been 30 years since the top tax brackets were slashed in order to allow the top earners in this nation the opportunity to invest in our country and "spread the wealth". But here we are in 2012, still trying to figure out how to put one foot in front of the other. Record numbers of bridge cards/food stamps [[as you so often point out), increasing population below the poverty line, borderline tax evasion by top earners in this country, never ending local/state/federal budget deficits, continued success in the private sector while offshoring of jobs [[without any repercussion), the runaway train that is the financial industry, and now the entrance of anonymous, unlimited monetary investment into our political sphere. Would you like me to go on? There is no shortage of issues our "leaders" have created out of thin air. Many of these problems should be in the rear view window. They should have been on the agreement when we signed this country over to the wealthy elite. But instead, those individuals used their first-at-the-trough position to set themselves higher on the hog at the expense of the middle class.

You continue to point at Obama as a guy who is not getting the job done. You continue to alert us of his broken promises and continued stagnant economy which is his burden, and his alone. I mean, my cat could have turned this economy around better/quicker than this guy. He was only dealing with a bubble that took decades to develop, egged on by shady financial corporations who pushed the envelope every inch allowed [[and then well beyond that). Why on earth would we expect Obama not to be able to reign in the countless policies and laws that have plagued our way of life for many decades now?

But here's the million dollar question for you:

What is it that Romney is bringing to the table? Why am I getting into his car again? Because it seems safer than the "beating" being rendered by Obama?

A very wise person once told me that you should not run away from an existing position, but instead be running to a new opportunity. I think that analogy is the correct one to apply to this presidential race. Not people getting beat down on the side of the road. In this case, I do not see Romney as someone to run for.

[firstandten]

excellent post

[rb336]

And since Oladub doesn't have an answer to that question, he'll just go right on ahead and turn it into another thread about printing money, Harding, Coolidge, the gold standard, and inflation.

Now take your elitist book learnin and get out of my yard. :-)

that, and that it is becoming more and more obvious that he bases his opinions on a personal hatred of Obama, are the reasons i've thrown him in my "ignore" file

Now on to the Romney. Republicans, as usual, are talking tough about the deficit, but the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch had this to say:

"Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenue by nearly half a billion dollars in 2015 below what it would be if current policy continued. That would put revenue at about 15% of GDP, compared with spending of around 20%. The deficit would be about 5% of GDP, compared with 3.1% under Obama’s budget.."

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012...cuts-tax-rates

And the Ryan budget Romney supposedly supports? Forbes had this to say:

"

Earlier this week, TPC

projected

the tax cuts in Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...-for-the-rich/


In case you are not adding, extending the bush tax cuts + the Ryan tax cuts = $10 trillion added to the deficit [[sic - i think they meant debt)

[oladub]

TKshreve: That's a really unique analogy Oladub. One that I think deserves a closer study. We should take a deeper look at how it applies other current and past topics that will resurface this election cycle.

Could you not apply your analogy to our current health care system? After all, I think everyone agrees it is inefficient and borderline broken. So why would the right so adamantly protect the current system we have? Why would they not want to work together to create a fair and balanced system for the majority? Instead the right would like us to pass on getting into that car, and instead: endure the roadside beating. At least the Obama administration tried to wrangle the horns of that bull. Or do you give him no credit for the attempt?

Thank you for extending the analogy to include options besides a continued beating and crossing one’s fingers and jumping in with Romney. Since I consider Bush, Obama, and probably Romney to be controlled by the same corporate puppet masters, you mischaracterize me. Vermont is trying to run off and set up its own single payer system but the Obamacare regulators are insisting that it includes Obamacare as a starting point. That will not bring about the affordability of any Canadian province’s single payer system because the lawyers, bureaucrats, and insurance industry are all still left feeding at the health care trough. Since Obama is thwarting real change and keeping in all the profiteers who make our present health care system unaffordable, I don’t give him much credit except for acting concerned. Also, Vermont’s plan is consistent with the 10^th Amendment, Obama’s isn’t.

Or could you apply that analogy to the idea of trickle down economics? Have we not as a nation given the reduced top-tier tax bracket its fair go? It's been 30 years since the top tax brackets were slashed in order to allow the top earners in this nation the opportunity to invest in our country and "spread the wealth". But here we are in 2012, still trying to figure out how to put one foot in front of the other. Record numbers of bridge cards/food stamps [[as you so often point out), increasing population below the poverty line, borderline tax evasion by top earners in this country, never ending local/state/federal budget deficits, continued success in the private sector while offshoring of jobs [[without any repercussion), the runaway train that is the financial industry, and now the entrance of anonymous, unlimited monetary investment into our political sphere. Would you like me to go on? There is no shortage of issues our "leaders" have created out of thin air. Many of these problems should be in the rear view window. They should have been on the agreement when we signed this country over to the wealthy elite. But instead, those individuals used their first-at-the-trough position to set themselves higher on the hog at the expense of the middle class.

Trickle down obviously has turned into trickle up. It isn’t something I support or promote. My solution to spreading the wealth would include creating a real demand for US labor by escaping the free trade agreements and instituting tariffs on import companies and by severely punishing the cheating employers of illegal aliens. Suddenly there would be a demand for US labor and then, and only then, will unions flourish and successfully demand a larger share of the economic pie for US workers.

You continue to point at Obama as a guy who is not getting the job done. You continue to alert us of his broken promises and continued stagnant economy which is his burden, and his alone. I mean, my cat could have turned this economy around better/quicker than this guy. He was only dealing with a bubble that took decades to develop, egged on by shady financial corporations who pushed the envelope every inch allowed [[and then well beyond that). Why on earth would we expect Obama not to be able to reign in the countless policies and laws that have plagued our way of life for many decades now?

The bubble did not take decades to develop although the Fed has created a number of them before and still keeps pumping out money. Be careful. You seem to be admitting that Obama doesn’t really have the solution. How many bankers has he thrown in jail? Answer: Zero, just like Bush. I never had expectations that Obama “reign in the countless policies and laws “ you mentioned. My lack of expectations have since been confirmed.

But here's the million dollar question for you:

What is it that Romney is bringing to the table? Why am I getting into his car again? Because it seems safer than the "beating" being rendered by Obama?

A very wise person once told me that you should not run away from an existing position, but instead be running to a new opportunity. I think that analogy is the correct one to apply to this presidential race. Not people getting beat down on the side of the road. In this case, I do not see Romney as someone to run for.

I don’t see Romney as someone to run to either. He doesn’t seem to be bringing much to the table. His foreign relation, monetary, and spending policies will probably be much like Obama’s and Bush's. I do like your idea of running to a new opportunity instead of settling for near twin versions of the status quo. I would hope that Romney would be less destructive to the Constitution but I don’t have any strong reason to believe that. Perhaps, someday Democrats will have an internal movement similar to the Paul movement hoping to wrestle the Republican Party away from neocons perhaps made up of Nader/Kucinich type candidates supporting Vermont's right to have a single payer plan and an end to the wars. That might be something worth running to.

[Zacha341]

Yep. Bottom line for me is that Romney is problematic and will not get my vote. Obama? Well he's not 100% teflon from his decisions, and policies either.

Expect more push-back [[finally) and concern to mount from EVEN within the dems once this election is over and he wins. I'll be voting for neither.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

All politicians are crooks. Anybody ever heard of Robert Ficano?

[Papasito]

Because he can afford to buy the office, thanks to Citizens United, instead of being legitimately elected to the office. Don't be surprised if Romney doesn't care about voters' opinions.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney...rticle/2501905

Barack Obama's fundraising broke previous records for presidential primary and general campaigns, and has changed expectations for future presidential elections. The campaign avoided using public campaign funds, raising all of its money privately from individual donors. By the general election the campaign committee raised more than $650 million for itself, and coordinated with both the Democratic National Committee [[DNC) and at least 18 state-level Democratic committees to create a joint-fundraising committee to raise and split tens of millions of dollars more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_...campaign,_2008

[rb336]

better to look at the breakdowns:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

[jackie5275]

What Romney is doing, and he's going to do it as long as he can get away with it is to basically attack what Obama has done,offer a general vision of where he will take us, but be real short on specifics. I don't expect to hear any specifics from him until well after the convention.

Based on Jimaz's video clip elsewhere in this thread, I don't know who came up with this first, but it seems that Romney has taken a page from Rick Snyder's playbook. In Snyder's campaign, he kept all specifics & details close to his chest. Nothing of substance came out until his first state of the State address. I think Romney is playing it exactly the same way. I don't expect to hear any specifics until after his inaugration if he wins the election.

[TKshreve]

Based on Jimaz's video clip elsewhere in this thread, I don't know who came up with this first, but it seems that Romney has taken a page from Rick Snyder's playbook. In Snyder's campaign, he kept all specifics & details close to his chest. Nothing of substance came out until his first state of the State address. I think Romney is playing it exactly the same way. I don't expect to hear any specifics until after his inaugration if he wins the election.

Soo....... I guess we'll never hear those at all. Sigh. Was looking forward to Mitt's groundbreaking, unprecedented, recession-breaking, middle class restoring ideas.

Oh, wait...... he wants to cut the EPA and Education Department. Never mind.

[Papasito]

No specifics?
Like Hope and Change without telling us what we were supposed to be Hoping for and nothing specific about what he was going to Change?
Or are you talking about the dozens of campaign promises he never fulfilled?

Obama is a pathalogical liar.

Romney was never this evil, looming monstrosity who was scary for the country until after he became the Republican nominee. This guy has been in politics since 1993 and the country hasn't burst into a gigantic fireball.

[rb336]

^^Typical Obama hater^^

ever listen to anything but right-wing nutcase radio?

[firstandten]

Based on Jimaz's video clip elsewhere in this thread, I don't know who came up with this first, but it seems that Romney has taken a page from Rick Snyder's playbook. In Snyder's campaign, he kept all specifics & details close to his chest. Nothing of substance came out until his first state of the State address. I think Romney is playing it exactly the same way. I don't expect to hear any specifics until after his inaugration if he wins the election.

If Romney is truly doing this [[and it seems like he is) this strategy will backfire on him.

If he basing this on Snyder's campaign there are some differences that he needs to consider. People even Dems jumped off Jenny's bandwagon. She was perceived rightly or wrongly as not showing leadership and playing it too safe politically. The time was right for a Repub to win the office and as long as he wasn't a right-wing nut job they were going to win. Besides Snyder's business background helped

Obama unlike Jenny has made some bold moves, has shown leadership as much as Congress allowed him to in many areas.

Also I think people are starting to understand the linchpin of Repub economic policy supply side economics and realize thats what got us into this mess in the first place.

So people desperately want to see what is it thats Romney is going to tell them that will be different with Repub economic policy this time. Romney has no answers because its not different. So Romney must pound away at the slow recovery [[based on the damage that was done to the economy and the obstructionism of Congress its a wonder its going this fast) and hope that people have very short memories.

[antongast]

Romney was never this evil, looming monstrosity who was scary for the country until after he became the Republican nominee.

Maybe this is because Romney changed his position on every single substantive issue in American politics in order to win the nomination.

[oladub]

TKShreve: Was looking forward to Mitt's groundbreaking, unprecedented, recession-breaking, middle class restoring ideas.

Oh, wait...... he wants to cut the EPA and Education Department. Never mind.

firstandten: So people desperately want to see what is it thats Romney is going to tell them that will be different with Repub economic policy this time. Romney has no answers because its not different. So Romney must pound away at the slow recovery [[based on the damage that was done to the economy and the obstructionism of Congress its a wonder its going this fast) and hope that people have very short memories.

Sounds like kids waiting to hear Santa's sleigh bells. "Wonder what he's going to give me."One way to evaluate Romney is to look at his record as Governor of one of the most liberal states in the Country. He signed Romneycare into law. I'm unaware that Massachusetts school from K-MIT were damaged during his tenure although college tuition went up fast. Romney compromised and was quite the moderate as Governor. He cut out some spending and raised taxes to balance budgets.

firstandten, How do you explain the obstructionism of the Democratic House and Senate during the President's first 2 years in office? What slow recovery? We are still in a major recession being masked by trillion dollar annual deficits and the $16T tossed on the fire by the Fed. Stop billing all that debt to our children and we go back to 2009. Romney did raise some fees and taxes in MA to balance his budgets. Maybe we could improve the lot of the middle class by balancing a federal budget too. Didn't Obama promise to cut the annual budget deficits in half by the end of his first term? Didn't happen. Romney, however, balanced MA budgets.

[firstandten]

How many times must I say that because of Senate filibustering rules a simple majority in the Senate doesn't mean you can get your agenda passed. You need a super majority [[60 votes) which Obama had for a quick minute when Franken got in then lost it when Kennedy died. The only reason Obama was able to get the ACA passed was because he did have majority control of the House the first two years and then did a reconciliation thru the Senate. Of course the last two years he neither had the majority in the House or the super majority in the Senate.



As far as Mitts record in MA here is a balanced view of his achievements

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys...best-or-worst/


Going back to the first point for a minute. The reason why having a super majoriity is so important that unlike other Congresses were generally somebody will cross party lines to vote for a bill, The Repubs said we are voting NO ! we can talk, read the bill, talk some more... still voting NO !

If that isn't obstructionism then I don't know what is.

[rb336]

How many times must I say that because of Senate filibustering rules a simple majority in the Senate doesn't mean you can get your agenda passed. You need a super majority [[60 votes) which Obama had for a quick minute when Franken got in then lost it when Kennedy died.

to your first sentence, the answer is until you are blue in the face. Even when there were 59 dems and one liberal independent, nominally giving the president a "super majority," there were a couple of blue dogs who occasionally joined the republicans on cloture votes.

Going back to the first point for a minute. The reason why having a super majoriity is so important that unlike other Congresses were generally somebody will cross party lines to vote for a bill, The Repubs said we are voting NO ! we can talk, read the bill, talk some more... still voting NO !

If that isn't obstructionism then I don't know what is.

exactly!

[jackie5275]

... Besides Snyder's business background helped...

Also I think people are starting to understand the linchpin of Repub economic policy supply side economics and realize thats what got us into this mess in the first place.

So people desperately want to see what is it thats Romney is going to tell them that will be different with Repub economic policy this time. Romney has no answers because its not different. So Romney must pound away at the slow recovery [[based on the damage that was done to the economy and the obstructionism of Congress its a wonder its going this fast) and hope that people have very short memories.

Romney is touting his business background as well as a strong reason for him to be elected. However, running a business & running government just aren't the same. They never can be regardless of how many people demand that "gov't be run like a business".