Romney VP Announcement

[swerb]

9 AM tomorrow.

Looking like Paul Ryan. Possibly Portman or Rubio.

Ryan is the right pick IMO in an election that will come down to the economy.

The bounce he gets off the nom and the convention is big. McCain got a huge bounce off Palin and the convention, only to be totally done in by his completely inept response to the mortgage meltdown and economic crisis that intensified shortly thereafter .. and also Palin being exposed under more heavy scrutiny.

Romney still has a VERY uphill battle IMO. Would put him at a 15-20% chance of winning, even acknowledging the coming bounce and shitty economy. Debates will be huge, as will the next 3 jobs #'s and short term direction of the economy.

[GodHatesClevelandSport]

Ryan's a starting QB put into a backup role if he's the pick. Is that a wise move?

[swerb]

Young, telegenic, articulate, will energize the base, and gives the ticket two guys with STRONG economic credentials.

Be shocked if its not him. Its the right move.

[noles1]

Why is Ryan good on or for the economy again?

I ask that seriously because just because he pontificates about it doesn't exactly mean it's the gospel. I have yet to hear an effective rebuttal in any forum or conversation.

Put me firmly in the Portman camp, he'd be a safer more effective pick for the Repubs.

Overall the election is much closer than people are giving it credit. It's down to 5-6 states at this point (Ohio included) and those could flip around week-to-week. I think Repubs get more turnout in November and win Ohio over the Dems by the slightest of margins. Think the General may not follow suit though.

Overall, 4 years from now we're no better off with either candidate because Congress is a fuckin mess and the populous are moronic sheep led by special interest groups and uber-wealthy that pay them what to think.

[Adverb Harry]

Wow, the campaign really took an unexpected turn this morning. Romney introduced Ryan as "the next president of the United States."

[pup]

Wow, the campaign really took an unexpected turn this morning. Romney introduced Ryan as "the next president of the United States."

Simple, Romney will be so shocked if he actually wins, he will have a heart attack and never officially take office.

Still cannot believe the Repubs can do no better than McCain and Romney to keep us from 8 years of Obama.

[swerb]

Wow, the campaign really took an unexpected turn this morning. Romney introduced Ryan as "the next president of the United States."

Simple, Romney will be so shocked if he actually wins, he will have a heart attack and never officially take office.

Still cannot believe the Repubs can do no better than McCain and Romney to keep us from 8 years of Obama.

Almost as bad as the Gore/Kerry back to back nominations.

It is sad.

Economy just totally trashed, absolutely no signs of life. Everything Obama has done has failed ... was able to jam through lots of stuff the first two years, Obamacare, all the stimulus ... and we've still got 8.3% unemployment and 1.5% growth. Guy almost admittedly has no clue how to fix things now that the easy, brainless spending initiatives have failed miserably.

And you have a candidate that everything he has touched has turned to gold. Background of fixing things, turning things around, strong on the economy and jobs as a candidate.

And he's gonna lose. Cause he's a robot like Gore. Same reason Bush beat Gore that year. Just more likable. Better politician. More able to speak to Joe American in a way they like to hear things laid out.

Watched some of the Ryan thing this morning - and Ryan is engaging and was the right pick IMO. But every time I heard Romney speak, all I could think was "shit ... this guys gonna lose". Just like he did in '94 when he was trounced by Kennedy. Like he would have in '06 had he re-run for his governor seat. Like he lost in '08 to John Freaking McCain. Only reason he survived the primaries this year is cause the Santorum, Gingrich, Paul trio was possibly the weakest presidential primary field ever.

I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I will tell you this ... this economy needs him and Paul Ryan right now. Shame they're gonna lose.

[Govbarney]

$ is the reason he made this choice, he needed to do something to get the Tea Baggers to open up their pocket books b/c right now the dems have almost a 3/1 advantage in spending cash.

[Hikohadon]

Not sure if I've ever cared less about an announcement that's supposedly important to me in some way.

[motherscratcher]

$ is the reason he made this choice, he needed to do something to get the Tea Baggers to open up their pocket books b/c right now the dems have almost a 3/1 advantage in spending cash.

Nate Silver tweeted something to the effect of...this is pretty much the GOP throwing in the towel on the presidential race. It is unwinable. This is to motivate the Tea Baggers and far right to the booths to take the senate/Congressional races.

Or something.

You'll never be able to convince me that it will make any difference.

Broken, unfixable system.

[e0y2e3]

The only thing appealing to me about this election is reading Silver's blog work (just because he is that effin good, regardless of what he is researching) and watching Stewart/Colbert.

[Hikohadon]

I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I will tell you this ... this economy needs him and Paul Ryan right now. Shame they're gonna lose.

Like this totally fucked 2 party system would let them ever get anything done.

It's like watching 2 people play chess and all they do is move their kings back and forth between the same spaces.

[FUDU]

Tell me again why I should bother voting?

[Govbarney]

Tell me again why I should bother voting?

No National election in history has come down to one vote, so no need to bother.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Tell me again why I should bother voting?

I'm not.

Neither of these shitbags represents me, or what I believe in. So why support them with my vote? DC is essentially paid off to do nothing IMO.

Now on to the VP announcement.

Holy shit, what a shocker.

I'm not sure he's going to get a huge boost out of it, but it's the safest pick. I was hoping for Palin II, but I think that landmine has been pretty much been exposed.

Now he'll probably only lose by 3 points instead of 4.

[FUDU]

Exactly, and I've said it for years.

I know the usual reply is "how dare you, it's your duty to vote". Yeah I get it, voting is a privilege and should be revered, but FFS anymore our system is beyond broke. I respect the privilege of voting, I just despise that fact that in order to do so I have to give my vote to a guy (or gal) I do not stand behind.

[Hikohadon]

Exactly, and I've said it for years.

I know the usual reply is "how dare you, it's your duty to vote". Yeah I get it, voting is a privilege and should be revered, but FFS anymore our system is beyond broke. I respect the privilege of voting, I just despise that fact that in order to do so I have to give my vote to a guy (or gal) I do not stand behind.

I'll feel guilty if I don't vote, so I'm going to. I'm going to write someone in. Not sure who yet, someone I like who would be good at the job. Maybe Steven Wright.

One could claim that's "throwing my vote away", but so is voting for Obama or Romney.

Romney never had a chance with me anyway. I'd never vote for a Pro-Lifer. They come up with a party that has Republican fiscal responsibility without pandering to the religious right, then color me interested.

[Govbarney]

Exactly, and I've said it for years.

I know the usual reply is "how dare you, it's your duty to vote". Yeah I get it, voting is a privilege and should be revered, but FFS anymore our system is beyond broke. I respect the privilege of voting, I just despise that fact that in order to do so I have to give my vote to a guy (or gal) I do not stand behind.

I'll feel guilty if I don't vote, so I'm going to. I'm going to write someone in. Not sure who yet, someone I like who would be good at the job. Maybe Steven Wright.

One could claim that's "throwing my vote away", but so is voting for Obama or Romney.

Romney never had a chance with me anyway. I'd never vote for a Pro-Lifer. They come up with a party that has Republican fiscal responsibility without pandering to the religious right, then color me interested.

You should not feel guilty to not vote. Exercising your right not to vote is as American as voting in the first place. This "Let's pick the lesser of two evils" voting philosophy is what's gotten us into trouble in the first place. Only thing worse Is the uninformed voter who votes for someone because of the color of his skin, ethnic background, or People like my 70 yr old italian grandmother who only votes for people with a 'd' next to their name b/c 50 yrs ago Kennedy happend to be catholic and a democrat and Frank Sinatra endorsed him.

[FUDU]

I'm writing in my name.

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

As someone who fought for the right to vote, I respect the idea that a person's vote is worth more than the recycled trash that we get to choose from....

That being said and as much as I despise the RR, I'd never let the abortion issue be the deciding factor

This country is in an economic death spiral and maintaining the staus quo of the past 4 yrs is going to be like riding Harry Reid's 6 billion $ bullet train from Nowhere, CA to Vegas where 70% of homes are underwater

A person would have to be a bluthering hopeless idiot to not vote against Barrack Obama in this election

[Commodore Perry]

Overall, 4 years from now we're no better off with either candidate because Congress is a fuckin mess and the populous are moronic sheep led by special interest groups and uber-wealthy that pay them what to think.

Ding Ding Ding.

I caught the VP rally on the radio this morning. I believe the it was the governor of Virgina that introduced Romney as "the man who will balance the budget within 8 years."

Ha.

Bush and the Republicans controlled the entire government for 2 years, spending rose double digits each year. Every year, no matter who is in charge, freedoms get rolled back, spending rises, debt rises. Even a guy like Obama, who didn't need to rely on special interest money, still couldn't help filling his staff with ex-lobbyists.

[CleSportsTruth]

On the "Ryan will be great for the economy" thing: Really? His plan resolutely, bravely, etc. kills the deficit by... 2040. And that's assuming we reach the totally realistic figure of 2.8% unemployment. Uh, good luck with that.

All this while voucherizing Medicare* (but not for those currently most likely to vote GOP!), block-grant Medicaid to states in insufficient numbers (thus burdening states), decreasing the tax burden for the well-off/succesful, likely increasing it a bit for lower-middle classes (his math, shaky as it is, doesn't work at all if you don't) and instituting very sharp austerity (but not defense, oh no!) quickly.

Even if you think these are all good, it has virtually nothing to do w/ short-term growth. In fact, sharp, quick austerity, esp. gutting non--discretionary social programs (food stamps, for one) will do the opposite. But hey, the Romney's of the world will be better off, so...

*That could be a decent idea IF the voucher was to keep up with health care inflation. Ryan's plan doesn't.

[motherscratcher]

On the "Ryan will be great for the economy" thing: Really? His plan resolutely, bravely, etc. kills the deficit by... 2040. And that's assuming we reach the totally realistic figure of 2.8% unemployment. Uh, good luck with that.

All this while voucherizing Medicare* (but not for those currently most likely to vote GOP!), block-grant Medicaid to states in insufficient numbers (thus burdening states), decreasing the tax burden for the well-off/succesful, likely increasing it a bit for lower-middle classes (his math, shaky as it is, doesn't work at all if you don't) and instituting very sharp austerity (but not defense, oh no!) quickly.

Even if you think these are all good, it has virtually nothing to do w/ short-term growth. In fact, sharp, quick austerity, esp. gutting non--discretionary social programs (food stamps, for one) will do the opposite. But hey, the Romney's of the world will be better off, so...

*That could be a decent idea IF the voucher was to keep up with health care inflation. Ryan's plan doesn't.

No plan is perfect.

[Hikohadon]

As someone who fought for the right to vote, I respect the idea that a person's vote is worth more than the recycled trash that we get to choose from....

That being said and as much as I despise the RR, I'd never let the abortion issue be the deciding factor

This country is in an economic death spiral and maintaining the staus quo of the past 4 yrs is going to be like riding Harry Reid's 6 billion $ bullet train from Nowhere, CA to Vegas where 70% of homes are underwater

A person would have to be a bluthering hopeless idiot to not vote against Barrack Obama in this election

Yeah, like voting for Mitt Romney will change one damn thing.

I already told you I'm voting for Steven Wright. Or maybe Don.

Status quo is all there is now.

Republican takes office. Tries to do X and Y. All the Republicans in Congress vote for him. All the Democrats don't. They cancel each other out. Nothing happens. Nothing gets done. People get frustrated that nothing gets done. So they vote in a Democrat to "change" things. Democrat takes office. Tries to do X and Y. All the Democrats in Congress vote for him. All the Republicans don't. They cancel each other out. Nothing happens. Nothing gets done...

The only bluthering hopeless idiots are those that think that changing the hood ornament will fix the transmission.

[swerb]

Even if nothing at all gets passed in Congress (like the last two years), it still matters greatly who the President is. I would never not vote. To me, every election of my adult life has been a lesser of two evils vote, but still a vote worth casting.

This is the guy who is commander in chief of our armed forces. The guy who decides Supreme Court justices. The face of the country to foreign leaders. Veto power on bills. Decides key roles like secretary of state and all the other outward facing cabinet positions. Has the power to dictate tempo and agenda in Congress, as we saw when Obamacare got jammed down the throats of a populace that was 65% against it.

Political gridlock has never been worse than the last two years. Nothing significant on the bill side has emerged from Congress ... and it is immensely frustrating.

But vote for Christs sake. Even if its for Steven Wright. If all the people rightly outraged at Congress that don't vote cause they think it doesn't matter voted for a third party candidate, it would have impact on the two parties everyone hates.

[Hikohadon]

[Orenthal]

^^AMEN! Even gridlock allows executive orders and bureaucratic appointees to work their magic in the background. It's bullshit to say that it doen't matter. Whatever you think about Obamacare it doesn't happen if McCain is Prez (I understand he could have done something worse in an unrelated area, so save it).

[Adverb Harry]

I've just always had to laugh when people say that a VP candidate really puts someone over the top, whichever side of the aisle you're talking about. I've personally never gotten the idea of how the VP pick "balances" the ticket or "strengthens" the presidential candidate, anyway. I mean, it's not like the two candidates do some crazy mind meld and come away speaking as one unified, complete being. Picking a veep who's an expert at the economy doesn't make YOU any better at the economy, just as picking a veep with foreign policy or defense credentials doesn't strengthen you in those areas, either. Besides, any ideological differences between the two (and there are always some) are tossed aside because the VP candidate is expected to toe the line of the presidential candidate in order to not contradict the campaign's messages. Even if elected, the VP doesn't make the policies, and it's basically a ceremonial position.

(By the way, this has nothing to do with anything any of you have said so far in this thread...just pointing out something that's always bothered me. It gets pretty heated around here without politics coming into play, so I figured I'd better point that out.)

[swerb]

I've just always had to laugh when people say that a VP candidate really puts someone over the top, whichever side of the aisle you're talking about. I've personally never gotten the idea of how the VP pick "balances" the ticket or "strengthens" the presidential candidate, anyway. I mean, it's not like the two candidates do some crazy mind meld and come away speaking as one unified, complete being. Picking a veep who's an expert at the economy doesn't make YOU any better at the economy, just as picking a veep with foreign policy or defense credentials doesn't strengthen you in those areas, either. Besides, any ideological differences between the two (and there are always some) are tossed aside because the VP candidate is expected to toe the line of the presidential candidate in order to not contradict the campaign's messages. Even if elected, the VP doesn't make the policies, and it's basically a ceremonial position.

(By the way, this has nothing to do with anything any of you have said so far in this thread...just pointing out something that's always bothered me. It gets pretty heated around here without politics coming into play, so I figured I'd better point that out.)

VP has close to zero impact on actual policy enactment, with Biden being the poster boy of that. Name one thing the guy has done in the last 3.5 years.

But it does have some impact on elections. With the Sarah Palin Katie Couric interview being the perfect example.

Think back to four years ago ... she was the surprise VP pick, she came out looking all hot at the RNC, had a GREAT speech written for her ... McCain got a legit 10-12 point boost in the polls. From down 5-6 (like Romney is now) to up 5-6 points. Then it all slowly eroded as the financial crisis culminated in Sept/Oct of '08, and McCain and Palin had zero response to it ... and Palin was exposed in other ways (Couric) as being totally clueless.

Romney team is desperately looking for a push these next 3-4 weeks off the Ryan thing and culminating in the RNC. Pull even, get a small lead even. Then try and win the debates and make it a dogfight in Nov.

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

Meh...

He just may have locked up the Catholic vote after recently patronizing the Jewish in Israel...

If there's one thing Florida has its a plethora of silver haired Northern bred Catholics and Jews

peeps should be rejoiceing that there are two people here who actually know how to fuckingcount and what a fucking budget is

[FUDU]

As someone who fought for the right to vote, I respect the idea that a person's vote is worth more than the recycled trash that we get to choose from....

That being said and as much as I despise the RR, I'd never let the abortion issue be the deciding factor

This country is in an economic death spiral and maintaining the staus quo of the past 4 yrs is going to be like riding Harry Reid's 6 billion $ bullet train from Nowhere, CA to Vegas where 70% of homes are underwater

A person would have to be a bluthering hopeless idiot to not vote against Barrack Obama in this election

I agree, problem is who are we supposed to vote for to replace BHO?

We can argue all day long about the leadership abilities of these candidates, their areas of expertise, their inner core values and beliefs, their "promises" of change/hope/restoration of America...EOD it is a waste of time b/c of the simple fact these guys/gals do not live on the same plane on the rest of America. They do not live in the same reality and remotely share the same problems as most of the people that they would be claiming to represent.

Their positions have become such of celebrity status and almost a protected class that holds virtually zero accountability and is run as sloppy as Howard Johnson in 1978.

The situation is so sad it becomes almost funny, that in a country of choice like ours we have only two when it comes to our elections.

[motherscratcher]

The problem is that all of these guys (every one of them) has 2 priorities and 2 priorities alone.

1. Get re-elected
2. Stop the opposite party from doing anything...ANYTHING. It doesn't even matter if you think it will help or is the right thing to do. If the other party wants to do it, it must be stopped. At all costs.

It's fucking ludicrous.

Broken. Unfixable. Indefinite until the zombie apocalypse.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

And people are surprised some folks own guns.

Shit.......

[leadpipe]

The problem is that all of these guys (every one of them) has 2 priorities and 2 priorities alone.

1. Get re-elected
2. Stop the opposite party from doing anything...ANYTHING. It doesn't even matter if you think it will help or is the right thing to do. If the other party wants to do it, it must be stopped. At all costs.

It's fucking ludicrous.

Broken. Unfixable. Indefinite until the zombie apocalypse.

Well, at least your vote as an American isn't filtered....wait a second....

[noles1]

On the "Ryan will be great for the economy" thing: Really? His plan resolutely, bravely, etc. kills the deficit by... 2040. And that's assuming we reach the totally realistic figure of 2.8% unemployment. Uh, good luck with that.

All this while voucherizing Medicare* (but not for those currently most likely to vote GOP!), block-grant Medicaid to states in insufficient numbers (thus burdening states), decreasing the tax burden for the well-off/succesful, likely increasing it a bit for lower-middle classes (his math, shaky as it is, doesn't work at all if you don't) and instituting very sharp austerity (but not defense, oh no!) quickly.

Even if you think these are all good, it has virtually nothing to do w/ short-term growth. In fact, sharp, quick austerity, esp. gutting non--discretionary social programs (food stamps, for one) will do the opposite. But hey, the Romney's of the world will be better off, so...

*That could be a decent idea IF the voucher was to keep up with health care inflation. Ryan's plan doesn't.

That was pretty much the crux of my concerns. People confusing budget with economy, as well.

Not to mention, Ryan's true budget plan never (repeat never) has a shot in hell of getting thru both sides of Congress. It's extreme and panders well to its intentions but any and all economic history shows it would create immediate and potentially devastating damage to our ecomony and the global economy.

Believe the answer lies somewhere in between when dealing with spending and the deficit. We have to address the defense spending if we truly want to tackle this beast. Additionally, we can't "cold turkey" cut off everything. We have to phase in a logical and effective approach to curbing spending while balancing the countless loopholes in the tax code. Unfortunately, we have 3 groups within govt that cant much agree on anything let alone an issue and solutions as complex as what is in front of us.

Long story short, we're fucked.

[jerryroche]

Will either Romney or Obama do everything in their power to force Congress to:

1) cut defense spending
2) replace the progressive income tax system with a flat consumption tax
3) institute means testing for Social Security and Medicare
4) restore welfare-to-work
5) increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age by at least two years
6) drastically cut foreign aid until the fiscal crisis is resolved
7) Oh, yeah: create corporate tax breaks for businesses that bring jobs back home

Per noles1: "Long story short, we're fucked."

[Hikohadon]

Will either Romney or Obama do everything in their power to force Congress to:

1) cut defense spending
2) replace the progressive income tax system with a flat consumption tax
3) institute means testing for Social Security and Medicare
4) restore welfare-to-work
5) increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age by at least two years
6) drastically cut foreign aid until the fiscal crisis is resolved
7) Oh, yeah: create corporate tax breaks for businesses that bring jobs back home

Per noles1: "Long story short, we're fucked."

Who cares? Neither will get it done even if they try.

[rebelwithoutaclue]

Tell me again why I should bother voting?

No National election in history has come down to one vote, so no need to bother.

Right, because when something has never happened, it will continue to never happen. Tell that to the ~50% of registered voters in Florida circa 2000 who didn't vote, probably because their vote "wouldn't have mattered." It would have only taken 538 of the ~6,000,000 (538/6000000 = 1/10000 of a percent more voters) people who didn't vote to swing the entire election. Pure fallacy and it is thinking like this (similar to the bystander effect) that causes voter turnout for the entire nation, to not even reach 60% for presidential elections.


Pathetic.

[jerryroche]

Who cares? Neither will get it done even if they try.

By the same token, then, there's no sense in following the Browns this season. They'll never win more than three or four games. Their schedule is too hard. They're too young. They've got too many injuries. Their head coach is a schmuck. Bullcrap. They play the games for a reason.

Even if the 2012-2016 president doesn't succeed, I'd still like to see somebody who's a real leader—who can whip his own party into submission and have the wisdom to deal with the opposition party through compromise. Even the one major piece of legislation passed during the current administration was flogged through Congress by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

At this point, I'm leaning Romney. Give the new guy a chance. And if he can't do it, in four years, we'll have the opportunity to give another person a chance. That's how our great country works.

[rebelwithoutaclue]

Overall, 4 years from now we're no better off with either candidate because Congress is a fuckin mess and the populous are moronic sheep led by special interest groups and uber-wealthy that pay them what to think.

I use this same argument for people who expected Obama to fix the entire 8 year travesty of Dubya's presidency. Bush set the policies that put us in this mess, Obama was left to pick up the pieces and because he's not doing it fast enough, the Republicans wanna put Bush 2.0 in office. Worked out great the first time.


http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor


Statistics pulled from the US Dept Office of Management and Budget

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

After adjusting for inflation, spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace — the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

But let's not let the truth get in the way of the Barack "Big Spender" Obama rhetoric.


This country will not be fixed anytime soon and to expect one man to fix it, whether it be Obama or Romney or anyone, is setting them up for failure before they even take office.


The timeline for a fix of the economy should be measured in decades and half-centuries, not years.

[pup]

Tell me again why I should bother voting?

No National election in history has come down to one vote, so no need to bother.

Right, because when something has never happened, it will continue to never happen. Tell that to the ~50% of registered voters in Florida circa 2000 who didn't vote, probably because their vote "wouldn't have mattered." It would have only taken 538 of the ~6,000,000 (538/6000000 = 1/10000 of a percent more voters) people who didn't vote to swing the entire election. Pure fallacy and it is thinking like this (similar to the bystander effect) that causes voter turnout for the entire nation, to not even reach 60% for presidential elections.


Pathetic.

Wrong. The fact that even if you go your choices are someone that is going to run the country down a hill very fast. Just depends on which hill they prefer.

Why is someone supposed to waste their time voting between Roseann Barr and Jabba The Hut?

[Orenthal]

I agree with the premise, as a non-supporter of Bush spending, but Obama's remedy has been more spending. Once stimulus was tried and failed he should have begun looking in other directions. It isn't that he hasn't had time its that he is making it worse.

ETA
Jabba has a much better economic record.

[Orenthal]

eh, Presidents have come in and shaken things up in less than 2 years... Oh I know now is always different, so much more complex. AXE IT!

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

Bleaaaah!

Bush kissed Democrat ass for 7 out of 8 yrs passing every budget put in front of him and all he got in return was to be called a fucking Nazi

Fucking Obama is spending like a drunk sailor with the clap and hasn't passed a budget in 3 yrs.....

Co-incidence?....Only for the brain dead

That's why conservatives didn't like Bush either and that's why Ryan is the right pick

I'll take my luck with Rich Guy after seeing what 4 yrs of Community Organizer produced multi-trillion $ debt/8% unemployment looks like


...and FTR, I hate Quitters

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I agree with the premise, as a non-supporter of Bush spending, but Obama's remedy has been more spending. Once stimulus was tried and failed he should have begun looking in other directions. It isn't that he hasn't had time its that he is making it worse.

ETA
Jabba has a much better economic record.

Of course the right would love Jabba. he's a fat, rich, slave owning, criminal.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Yes.

I choose to quit wasting my vote on one cunt over the other.

[Hikohadon]

At this point, I'm leaning Romney. Give the new guy a chance. And if he can't do it, in four years, we'll have the opportunity to give another person a chance. That's how our great country works.

Or one could argue that's why it doesn't work and why it's not great.

Switching to new guys every 4 years gives them just enough time to frustrate the masses because they failed to get anything accomplished (and be damn certain the other side will do everything in their power to ensure that) so you switch again and the same thing happens.

Which of course doesn't negate the fact that sticking with a guy that's not getting anything done is just as useless.

Yes, your Browns analogy was very apt. Regime comes in, initial excitement, lack of progress, disdain, reboot. Yawn.

[jerryroche]

Or one could argue that's why it doesn't work and why it's not great.

Switching to new guys every 4 years gives them just enough time to frustrate the masses because they failed to get anything accomplished (and be damn certain the other side will do everything in their power to ensure that) so you switch again and the same thing happens.

Ahh, the other side of the proverbial coin. Good points all, Hiko ... Quit raining on my parade.

[CleSportsTruth]

Will either Romney or Obama do everything in their power to force Congress to:

1) cut defense spending
2) replace the progressive income tax system with a flat consumption tax
3) institute means testing for Social Security and Medicare
4) restore welfare-to-work
5) increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age by at least two years
6) drastically cut foreign aid until the fiscal crisis is resolved
7) Oh, yeah: create corporate tax breaks for businesses that bring jobs back home

Per noles1: "Long story short, we're fucked."

1. Obama's far more likely. Romney seems to be going neocon.
2. Romney. I oppose a pure flat tax, as it's highly regressive, though consumption/VAT could be interesting if applied right.
3. Good question. On the surface, I could argue both or neither. As part of a huge "Grand Bargain," I could argue a reelected Obama would have more room to maneuver here.
4. Wingnut hysteria aside, there's little to "restore."
5. Romney, though I could, again as part of a Grand Bargain, see SOME movement from Obama on this. But not like Romney.
6. Neither. Also irrelevant. Foreign aid is a tiny fraction of 1% of the budget.
7. Prob. neither. Also, probably a lousy idea. Tax code needs fewer deductions, not more.

[swerb]

Obama : Romney :: McCoy : Weeden