Magox

From my perspective, the intentions are a secondary issue that is virtually disprovable one way or another. If we are going to elect people who have tremendous power, so much power that it affects peoples lives, then what matters most is that we get it right and that we do everything that we reasonably can to limit fraud. Asking someone for a freaking ID isn't unreasonable!

No its not that, its just that if you see a dipshit, you call them out for being one, dipshit.

It's not just a "supply side" argument, it is about certainty and unleashing the animal spirits of American capitalism. The key to getting this economy going is motivating corporations to unleash those trillions of dollars that are sitting on the sidelines. Burdensome nonsensical regulations, and the least competitive corporate tax rates in the world don't help. If you (the president) can somehow give added certainty by providing a long-term plan to reduce the debt, lower personal and corporate tax rates and broadening the base, and sending a signal to the business community that you are on their side by undoing some of these ridiculous regulations, corporations and small businesses will begin to hire. Of course, it doesn't address all our structural labor issues, but it would at least turn this "recovery" from an anemic one to bordering on average. Keynesian demand side solutions are useful to help jump start an economy, or help fill a void, the problem is that isn't a structural solution. It's temporary, and corporations and small businesses know that it will eventually run out. So we need permanent long-term solutions, not these short-term sugar highs.

Romney is the only one who has repeatedly pushed for reforming the entitlements out of the two.

Your view is too singularly myopic. In your first paragraph, you are making the case that without sales, nothing else matters. Well yeah, but that isn't the case, there are sales. Again, the argument you make is either black or white. White being red hot sales, black being none at all. The reality is that sales are below what we normally see in a normal economy, and the only way we will get back to a normal economy is through higher employment. We know that profits from corporations aren't the problem, the issues is getting corporations to spend that money. So the million dollar question is; Why aren't they spending and investing that money? It's simple, you can either read WSJ, tune into CNBC and apply a little logic and hear what the CEO's are saying or you can read HUFFPO or the spin from the Whitehouse and congressional Democrats. I guarantee you, that if you listen to what the Dem's are saying or hear the spin from keynesian economists that promoted the stimulus (like a Mark Zandi) and have time in and time out been proven wrong on almost all their projections, then you are going to continue to never find the right solution. Guys like Mark Zandi feel as if their reputation is on the line, they heavily promoted the stimulus and have defended itwith incredible zeal, so they are stuck attempting to justify their error. (BTW I am not an anti keynesian, just that this recovery requires structural solutions) I'm right about this, and the solution isn't the typical left-wing or keynesian one which is the standard "we need more demand" answer. What we need are structural solutions, why? Because structural labor problems require structural solutions. Before you came to this site, I spoke in detail about why Obama's demand side solutions wouldn't work, and this was before the failing results came in, and I've been proven right. What we need is to give confidence to the business community, both at the corporate and small business level, that the US is open for business, and that Government for the most part is on your side. How do we do that? Well, you lessen regulations, you allow businesses to keep more of what they earn, you seek new avenues of demand for our exporters by improving trade relations with growing companies and most importantly don't get in the way of their progress. Obama is incapable of making the economy thrive, he isn't up to the task, why? Because it isn't in his DNA, he is a community organizer, he cares more about "fairness", and even though that is nice concept that appeals to some people, it by no means is a way to reinvigorate an economy. "fairness" economic models are built through regulations and wealth distribution, and these two points that I listed are job and growth restrictors. What we need to do is figure out a way for those corporations and businesses to spend and invest that money, that is the key to getting this economy going, and guess what? It won't cost the taxpayer money because it is money that is just sitting their owned by the private sector. In regards to the housing market, there is no quick fix solution. Let the market find it's bottom, stop placing ball buster regulations on the banks in the name of populism and at some point, the prices of the homes (which we are about there) will be attractive enough for buyers to step in. So it's just a matter of the banks having enough confidence to lend again. But if regulations are going to cut further into profits, does that make it more or less likely they will loan money to consumers? The answer is obvious. In regards to Romney and Obama, there is plenty of difference between the two. SOrry, I don't buy into this vogue comparison that there isn't much of a difference between the two. People can try to justify all day long how these two are similar but they are nothing alike. Romney will work tirelessly in figuring out a way for businesses to get going, Obama works tirelessly in building a more "fair" economy. That is an incredibly stark contrast in how these two men will promote policies to move this country forward.

First you can't make that comparison, at least not from a rational basis. The economy we had in 2003-2007 is vastly different than what it is now. We need to reinvigorate the private sector, unleash the animal spirits, and demand is obviously a part of the equation, but in order to produce more demand you have to get people working again. The WhiteHouse believes that we should borrow money and produce a job with that money. THe problem is that Gov. is usually very inefficient when given that responsibility, as evidenced in the Stimulus Bill. Considering that our labor issues are mainly structural, we need to try to resolve these issues not with quick keynesian quick fixes but with structural solutions. Considering that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, addressing this issue is extremely important. The president has decided to push for the Buffet Tax, that is a political gimmick in order to rile up his looney leftist base, than actually solve our problems of addressing our tax code. Secondly, leftists which you aren't a full blown leftist, but you definitely reside on the left side of the aisle, refuse to acknowledge the impact of regulations and how that affects business behavior. Businesses first and fore most crave certainty. Without a doubt, regulatory impacts of Dodd-Frank (Im a casualty of this regulation), Obamacare and the EPA have dampened certainty. ALso, we know that under a second Obama term, Obama will push for punitive taxes on the job creators in the name of "fairness". This is what I see as the number one issue standing in the way from our anemic growth to having average growth. Other areas that need to be addressed is ramping up oil/energy drilling, there are literally millions of jobs that can be created over the next 5-10 years if we decided to have full blown energy policy. Of course, having better relations with our trading partners an area that can lead to more exports would be fruitful. There are many areas that we can go, but this president has failed to address these areas, simply because its not in his DNA, he is incapable of doing what needs to be done to get ths economy going again. In regards to your housing solution. I disagree. The gov. should do nothing, and just allow the market to find its natural bottom, the quicker it finds its bottom, the quicker the healing can begin. The more you inject "stimulus" the more it distorts its natural price, which means the healing gets postponed. ANd in regards to your personal situation, well, you are one of the below 40% of the population that can say the same. I'm in the 60%, I lost my business because of the DOdd Frank Regulation, I am a direct casualty of Obamas awful economic policies, so again, good for you, I'm happy that you are doing well, but most AMericans don't feel your enthusiasm.

So that's what you got out of that website? Like I said, that's how you approach things, by using the "la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la" tack. There was a whole lot more than just cut and tax thats on that website, but you selectively decide to ignore the rest. That's just a reflection of either your lack of desire to want to know his plans are or your inability to comprehend what is in there. It's only one of the two, which is it? You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge his plans, or you simply can't comprehend what he is saying? Sorry, sensible thinking business people dont agree with you. What you consider "far right" is what the business community including corporations consider a pro growth and pro jobs agenda. But go ahead, keep living in insulated leftist ideologue world, if thats what makes you feel more comfortable, than I'm all for it.

You are one lazy dude. http://www.mittromney.com/jobs That wasn't so hard was it?

He has, but you're deaf and you would rather just go "la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la la"

Although I do agree with some of what you are saying, your view is too simplistic, a defeatist perspective, that basically implies a black or white scenario, tilting heavily towards black. The reality is that there are many shades of grey in between and that there are policy prespriptions that can lead us to a long-term solution by incrementally leading us to lighter shades of grey. The president and his staff is a team comprised of a bunch of leftist ideologues, early on my criticism was that his administration had virtually no one that had private sector experience, and that I knew from the beginning that the Obama Whitehouse would be incapable of leading us to a solid sustained recovery, and guess what? Some of us were right. There is over two trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines from corporations, and if the president had any sort of business sense, he would work tirelessly in how to have them unleash and spend that money. But rather than do that, he is more concerned with the politics of "fairness" which contradicts in what makes a business want to grow. Even if you look past the corporations and them hoarding money through fear of uncertainty and higher taxes, small business polls show that regulations is what is inhibiting job hiring, not lack of demand. The president has failed and it's time for someone who actually understands business to finish the job he couldn't handle.

But but they killed Bin Laden.

Thanks to Obamas "Growth" Policies, he has successfully lowered the price of Gasoline over the past month. On a more related note to the original point of the thread, what I like what the Romney campaign is doing is that they are taking the fight to the Obama administration, this isn't like the McCain campaign, where McCain played mr. nice guy allowing himself to get bludgeoned by the Obama hit squad. That's what they thought was going to happen, they fully expected Romney to just take it, and they aren't doing that. The strategy is smart, it helps consolidate and galvanize the base in the early stages, solidifying and hardening support to help create passion and troops on the ground and as the campaign moves forward, more of the swing voters will begin to tune in and then at that point he can begin to pivot more to the middle, by touting his bipartisan record in MA, which is something that moderates and independents like hearing, which is something that the president has massively failed at during his presidency. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/mitt-romney-fighting-moderate-wins-over-the-righ And with the lousy economy that Obama is incapable of turning around the way it should be, it's gonna make Mitt's job that much easier.

I understand what you are saying, but politics is a contact sport. The reason why the shouting down in this instance from my perspective extremely effective is because today was the launch of ATTACK ROMNEY part deux. The reason why that is significant is because as you probably know, campaigns want to win news cycles, and the news cycle that the Obama campaign wanted for today, was AxleRod going to Mass. and hammering his record, and then of course they would get lots of free coverage on all the News outlets, covering his attack on Romney. Instead of that, my guess is that at least half of the coverage won't be so much the substance of what Axlerod was saying, but an image of AxleRod getting visibly frustrated and stooping down to the same level of some protesters out on the street. This is yet another news cycle that Romney will win, on a day that was suppose to be seen as an important one for the Obama c campaign.

I had this discussion with JA earlier, I contended that ROmney would run a better general election campaign than what we saw in the Primaries, simply because his core is much closer to the middle than that of the most energized which are the far righties. As we all saw, the unveiling of the Bain attacks hasn't been nearly as effective as what the Obama campaign had hoped for, so now they are launching their new line of attack,which is focusing on ROmneys record as Gov. of Mass. Today was the first day, and it started with this on Morning Joe. Deval Patrick isn’t much of an attack dog. Yikes! However that is not as a result of Romney's campaigns doing, thats just someone who has a hard time demonizing ROmney. This next clip is all a result of ROmney's campaign. You gotta check this video out. This speaks to the agility of the Romney campaign. This was suppose to be a big day for the Obama attack campaign, and I can't get over how petulant and small Axlerod came off. He Actually told those that were protesting that they should "quiet down". The man was visibly frustrated

Learn something new every day. So I guess this thread did have some value for me afterall.

Im guessing you are done with doing work around the house.

These sort of subjects peak your interest. That's all.

Jboy, your sweeping generalizations of people from N.C is similar to those who do the same of the Muslim religion. Just sayin'

Wow, those two polls aren't even close to one another.

To equate "Muslims" as terrorists is absurd. If you qualified your point with extremist Muslims that would be one thing, but to categorize the entire religion is astonishingly ignorant.

Yeah, I believe Fitzpatrick has shown that he CAN get the job done. Having said that I do have my reservations, first I noticed towards the latter half of the year, that his confidence had gone down, you could see it in his body language. There were countless instances where I would see him walking onto the field before a drive with his head held down. So he's gonna have to get his MOJO back, thats first and foremost. The other area that I have concerns with him is his deep ball. Simply put, it's awful. I'm hoping he practices that long ball a good bit during the offseason, there were numerous opportunities for key plays during games and TD's that were squandered because of his woeful inaccurate deep ball. In regards to his "leash", well I think without a doubt that having Vince Young on the team made his leash that much shorter. It's tough to say when they would yank him, I don't believe you can accurately put a number on it. There are many variables that I believe Chan would look at, such as Wins/Losses, his performance with INT's/TDs, his accuracy, how the team is driving down the field and body language. I'd say that he is my biggest concern for the year for the Bills.

The justifications from your perspective for disqualifying them was because of where they were drafted?

Obama is showing a real profile of courage by campaigning in Wisconsin on behalf of Barrett and the Unions, for what is arguably the biggest election of the year, aside from the presidential election. He really has been putting it all on the line for them. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/229485-unions-angry-with-washington-democrats-over-lack-of-help-in-wisconsin