S/O How Will Romney/Ryan Improve Economy, Debt, Jobs..etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what r/r will do. Blame Obama for everything....oh wait they are doing that already.

It's probably good for you to begin realizing an r/r presidency, keep thinking that way, it'll make the sting be that much easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is what r/r will do. Blame Obama for everything....oh wait they are doing that already.


It's probably good for you to begin realizing an r/r presidency, keep thinking that way, it'll make the sting be that much easier.

Yes I have started to buy gold, ammo, and guns.

[Anonymous]

PP, have you ever seen an oil spill?
Are you one of those who also wants to get rid of EPA?
Most of your argument makes you look like the typical American who is obsessed with instant gratification. Republicans are giving Obama a hard time because he still blames Bush.
Not like Bush who is like the kid passing out candy to the other kids at the playground so that they won't tattle on him when he plays in traffic.

You know that feeling when you meet someone at a party who you think is pretty cool and then after 10 minutes you find your "wacko meter" pinging?

I thought this was a measured discussion..dunno where the nutty stuff came from. I voted against bush twice and think we need an EPA. I guess fossil fuels are a touchy subject around here--we're as anti-oil as a houstonian is anti-govt---can anyone notice some irony?

Oh..and I'm also against oil spills--pretty bold statement, eh?

But I'm very much in favor of the "no keystone, no nuclear, no fracking" crowd giving me a reasoned rational and Realistic alternative. Can anyone somewhat middle ground understand why we think this is the wingnut part of the Democratic party and while you properly cite romney's pandering to his side, a lot of us see Obama's Keystone decision as pandering to the environmental crazies who never see a project they like?

[Anonymous]

"Keystone pipeline would only transport about 6 years worth of oil. That's right, I said "transport" because you do realize, don't you, that a pipeline transports (not produces) oil? And it would actually increase gas prices in America. Especially the midwest."

oohh. snark away. yep, I really do know what a pipeline does. Will confess I'm missing how increased supply of crude to the lower 48 to handle stranded Canadian production might increase prices of refined product. As for midwest pricing, maybe as new pipes allow oversupply stuck in midwest to migrate to other markets? if so, I see nothing wrong with that but please illuminate.

[Anonymous]

The keystone "debate" is nonsense. Everyone wants to build a pipeline, it's just a matter of where to locate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP, have you ever seen an oil spill?
Are you one of those who also wants to get rid of EPA?
Most of your argument makes you look like the typical American who is obsessed with instant gratification. Republicans are giving Obama a hard time because he still blames Bush.
Not like Bush who is like the kid passing out candy to the other kids at the playground so that they won't tattle on him when he plays in traffic.

You know that feeling when you meet someone at a party who you think is pretty cool and then after 10 minutes you find your "wacko meter" pinging?

I thought this was a measured discussion..dunno where the nutty stuff came from. I voted against bush twice and think we need an EPA. I guess fossil fuels are a touchy subject around here--we're as anti-oil as a houstonian is anti-govt---can anyone notice some irony?

Oh..and I'm also against oil spills--pretty bold statement, eh?

But I'm very much in favor of the "no keystone, no nuclear, no fracking" crowd giving me a reasoned rational and Realistic alternative. Can anyone somewhat middle ground understand why we think this is the wingnut part of the Democratic party and while you properly cite romney's pandering to his side, a lot of us see Obama's Keystone decision as pandering to the environmental crazies who never see a project they like?

What? You lost me. What's wacko about the statements you quoted? You took a few random quotes out of a much longer post, so are you actually a dem just demonstrating how republicans take quotes out of context to make someone look like a wacko? I'm not being snarky here. I honestly don't know.

[Anonymous]

I'm the original OP in the other thread. Been away for a couple days, but wanted to respond to a couple of things. I can't find it now, but criticized Obama's stimulus package. here's where that money went. I'm wondering what the problem is here:

60% of the stimulus money went to tax cuts to individuals, small businesses, etc.
$153 billion or so went to help states with Medicaid expenditures and to protect teachers and first responders from layoffs.
$117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.
$100 billion to help people hurt by the Bush recession,
$88 billion for Pell Grants, NIH, upgrading health care IT, special education, etc;
$75 billion for energy efficiency, science and technology, R&D, broadband


Someone also wonders what is wrong with Keystone and how could it possibly RAISE U.S. gas prices:

The purpose of the pipeline is to give TransCanada greater access to the international market. It would divert oil from midwest refineries. These refineries produce more gasoline than those in any other US region, and is sold to US consumers. That oil will instead be diverted to gulf coast refineries which produce as much diesel as possible, and the majority would be exported. So, taking oil from the midwest refineries and diverting it to the Gulf Coast diesel refineries will decrease the amount of oil available to American consumers.

Also, the midwest currently enjoys Canada crude at a deep, deep discount. The Keystone will increase the cost of a barrel of Canada crude by $20-$40.

So, to recap: increased cost of production at US refineries, decreased supply of gasoline in the US, and the loss of our discount from Canada = higher gas prices

TransCanada originally pitched the Keystone idea to Canadian regulators as a way to "increasing the price of crude in the US." transcanada did admit to congress that the pipeline would increase US gas prices and that it's main purpose is to export diesel from the gulf coast to the international market.

[Anonymous]

One more thing...

the Keystone advocates will say that, although all of the above is true, the pipeline will decrease the world oil prices by adding more supply.

Truth is that it will not add nearly enough to have any impact on world oil prices. It will increase global oil supplies by a fraction of a percentage. Not exactly enough to send oil prices plummeting around the world.

TransCanada's economical rationale for the pipeline relies on the increase of US gas prices while not affecting the international market prices.

[Anonymous]

Doing nothing but cutting back spending and refusing to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and repealing Obamacare (but leaving the provision for coverage of preexisting conditions IMO) would help the economy IMMENSELY. Just that alone.

In fact, I bet investor confidence would improve by the mere fact that a republican is in office. I think historically, that is what has happened in the past, at least initially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP that asked this question before. Thanks for trying again! Still can't get anyone to give us anything substantial, can we?

If they can't tell us what they expect from R/R OR tell us how all these things were better under Bush, maybe they can tell us what is so bad about Obama?

Come on, people! What policies are you so upset about? And WHY are you upset about hose policies?

there are several active Obama/Romney threads right now, and I have yet to see anyone give a real reason to dislike Obama. It's pretty disturbing.

Here is how Obama has affected my family and me.

Obamacare (screws medical sales companies)
Obama's threat to raise taxes on people and small business making over 250k a year.
Obama vilifying anyone that makes over 250k a year and proclaiming that taxes are for the good of all where as our donations to charities and churches are less important.

Yes the bush years were much better for our family. The promise of lower taxes and the fact that happened as well as better housing values. Granted those things are not under Obama's control, yes things were better under the Bush years. You asked right?

I am busy working so the above is a few things of a long list but I don't have time to write them all.

As you say give a real reason I have given more than 1 "real reason".

I make well over $250K and I don't feel vilified by Obama. I wish the limit was $500K, but I know that both camps have to play to middle america where $250 is considered a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ok, I'll take a stab at this.

i'm undecided, wholly around social issues and fear of rewarding bad behavior with the white house. but i read a lot of remarks by corp ceo's and they are frozen with uncertainty right now, thus are reluctant to hire.

i believe obama took on the wrong issue out of the box with health care and he and the economy has paid a price since. most of the stimulus money went to transfer payments and bailing out states instead of bricks and mortar--in my view a flawed decision.

dodd-frank is a full employment project for banking lawyers--jamie dimon asked a simple question: did anyone add up the cumulative impact of all the new regs? i think he got back a blank stare. i think there was little focus on the unintended consequences of a new massively complex bill. but i really think dems who want more stimulus spending don't have the background to understand the sand-in-the-gears impact of these and other new regs.

Keystone--should have been an easy call. it sends a terrible message and has much broader impact beyond one pipeline.

my bottom line--over the past decade there have been zero net private jobs in this country..any growth has been wholly in the public sector. there is, i think by now, an appreciation that public sector will not grow, so we must have private sector job growth. i fear that will not happen, or will not happen at a brisk pace, under a 2nd obama term.

now please don't go parsing speeches and ask me to cite "so where exactly does he trash big biz." i'm just saying the cumulative effect of 4 years of this administration is that they don't get how to set the table (and then get out of the way) for robust private sector job creation.

and, fundamentally, i think they don't understand govt's inability to do much here except harm. Was there a master fed policy to encourage growth in social media employment? Natural gas production?

but it's my bias--i think a govt should collect the revenue it needs for some core services--which includes a safety net--and then get out of the way. not every problem has a govt fix.

i think romney gets that far better than obama. doesn't mean i'll vote for him, but i sure don't appreciate being called stupid for so considering---particularly by the limo lib crowd.

The more I read about Keystone, the more it scares me. Obama did not say no to Keystone, he said that you are not going to give me some 2 week arbitrary deadline in which a decision needs to be made. There are many environmental considerations before a final yes can be given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the original OP in the other thread. Been away for a couple days, but wanted to respond to a couple of things. I can't find it now, but criticized Obama's stimulus package. here's where that money went. I'm wondering what the problem is here:

60% of the stimulus money went to tax cuts to individuals, small businesses, etc.
$153 billion or so went to help states with Medicaid expenditures and to protect teachers and first responders from layoffs.
$117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.
$100 billion to help people hurt by the Bush recession,
$88 billion for Pell Grants, NIH, upgrading health care IT, special education, etc;
$75 billion for energy efficiency, science and technology, R&D, broadband


Someone also wonders what is wrong with Keystone and how could it possibly RAISE U.S. gas prices:

The purpose of the pipeline is to give TransCanada greater access to the international market. It would divert oil from midwest refineries. These refineries produce more gasoline than those in any other US region, and is sold to US consumers. That oil will instead be diverted to gulf coast refineries which produce as much diesel as possible, and the majority would be exported. So, taking oil from the midwest refineries and diverting it to the Gulf Coast diesel refineries will decrease the amount of oil available to American consumers.

Also, the midwest currently enjoys Canada crude at a deep, deep discount. The Keystone will increase the cost of a barrel of Canada crude by $20-$40.

So, to recap: increased cost of production at US refineries, decreased supply of gasoline in the US, and the loss of our discount from Canada = higher gas prices

TransCanada originally pitched the Keystone idea to Canadian regulators as a way to "increasing the price of crude in the US." transcanada did admit to congress that the pipeline would increase US gas prices and that it's main purpose is to export diesel from the gulf coast to the international market.

ok, i'm guessing you either have little grounding in economics or do not accept as its primary purpose to efficiently allocate resources. Still, I'll try:

I'm wondering what the problem is here:

60% of the stimulus money went to tax cuts to individuals, small businesses, etc.
$153 billion or so went to help states with Medicaid expenditures and to protect teachers and first responders from layoffs.
$117 billion or so went to building and repairing roads, bridges, rail, and other crucial infrastructure.
$100 billion to help people hurt by the Bush recession,
$88 billion for Pell Grants, NIH, upgrading health care IT, special education, etc;
$75 billion for energy efficiency, science and technology, R&D, broadband

the 60% in tax cuts wasn't spent, as we entered the crisis with too much debt and recipients used to begin deleveraging. That's why we didn't see the typical rebound coming out of this sharp a downturn. Traditional conservative (i'm not one) would say..you took my $ and gave it to someone else. Or, more accurately, you borrowed $ from my kids and they'll have to pay it back somehow.

$ to states: yes, state budgets were and are careening out of control so they needed disaster relief from decades of irresponsibility. Did you know the increase in public education employees over the past 20 years FAR exceeds the number of students enrolled? And no one would contend the results have improved. Regarding first responders---can you tell me over the past 35 years we have 40% fewer fires yet 40% more firemen? If they're doing something else shouldn't we so call them (and, maybe, get them out of the firemen's union?)

$ to infrastructure--we should have spent most of the $ there..we'd have saved the construction industry and gotten something good out of it.
"bush recession" -- please google "correlation v causality"
Pell Grants--this is a separate thread about dumb Federal spending on higher ed
"energy efficiency, et al" = industrial policy, which the soviets learned doesn't work and Obama is starting to get

Keystone--ok, so if you accept the premise that free markets are about winners and losers, we subsidize gas for the Midwest at who's expense? And who gets to decide that?

btw, as an aside, I'm not the one tying ideas to presidents--"obama" this and "bush" that. who's the one lacking some independent thinking?

I really don't know for whom i'm voting, but would be helpful at the least to have a discussion beyond powerpoint bullets.

[Anonymous]

The more I read about Keystone, the more it scares me. Obama did not say no to Keystone, he said that you are not going to give me some 2 week arbitrary deadline in which a decision needs to be made. There are many environmental considerations before a final yes can be given.

sorry but that's wrong too. He overrode years of review and clearance by his administration only when the enviro warriors made it their line in the sand. This was about politics, not sound energy policy decision-making. And, I'm still waiting to hear from someone how we handle looming energy issues w/o more pipelines, fracking, domestic oil production, etc.

[Anonymous]

Romney as President will have no powers to create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand for quality competitively priced goods. President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke have done a masterful job of keeping this nation's economy afloat in a situation which potentially could have been as catastrophic as the great depression of the 1930s when there was no money to lend and the economy came nearly to a total halt for twelve years.

Wake up and smell the roses. President Obama saved the automotive industry and all of its downstream suppliers. The national infrastructure is currently being rebuilt which will yield nationwide profits for decades into the future and our cars and buildings are wearing out requiring them to be replaced during the next few years. During the next couple years the product demand will begin anew which will require hiring new employees in every sector of the economy. It doesn't matter who is elected president in November, because there will be a great number of jobs created in 2013 and 2014.

Be thankful that the current administration has kept us afloat long enough to allow the U.S. Economy to begin the healing process.

Please don't be so naive as to believe that a Romney/Ryan Administration will reduce taxes on the wealthy and that this will somehow magically create millions of good paying jobs for unemployed Americans. As George Herbert Walker Bush once said of the same kind of trickle down economics presently being advocated by the Romney/Ryan Ticket, it is nothing more than "Voodoo Economics".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romney as President will have no powers to create jobs. Jobs are created by consumer demand for quality competitively priced goods. President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke have done a masterful job of keeping this nation's economy afloat in a situation which potentially could have been as catastrophic as the great depression of the 1930s when there was no money to lend and the economy came nearly to a total halt for twelve years.

Wake up and smell the roses. President Obama saved the automotive industry and all of its downstream suppliers. The national infrastructure is currently being rebuilt which will yield nationwide profits for decades into the future and our cars and buildings are wearing out requiring them to be replaced during the next few years. During the next couple years the product demand will begin anew which will require hiring new employees in every sector of the economy. It doesn't matter who is elected president in November, because there will be a great number of jobs created in 2013 and 2014.

Be thankful that the current administration has kept us afloat long enough to allow the U.S. Economy to begin the healing process.

Please don't be so naive as to believe that a Romney/Ryan Administration will reduce taxes on the wealthy and that this will somehow magically create millions of good paying jobs for unemployed Americans. As George Herbert Walker Bush once said of the same kind of trickle down economics presently being advocated by the Romney/Ryan Ticket, it is nothing more than "Voodoo Economics".

um, ok (backing away quietly)

time for some more of that good kool-aid?