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".

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.

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.

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 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?

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