martin wrote:

MSG3 wrote:Martin, you yourself wrote "you state it as a fact that Romney's plan will work". I don't think it's fact but to me it makes sense what he's trying to do. But when you throw out an economic study that says 12 million jobs will definitely be created no matter who's in office, you expect THAT to be taken as fact. Why don't you take the studies that show Romney's plan can work as fact?

I am not throwing out a claim from 1 economist, this is general consensus from a whole much of economists and studies. General consensus.

MSG3 wrote:Why don't you take the studies that show Romney's plan can work as fact?

You remember the 6 "studies" Romney keeps referring to in the debates regarding his tax/economy plan? 3 were opinion pieces, at least one of which was written by an adviser to his campaign. 2 of the other studies actually disagreed with the results of his plan (given Romney's underlying assumptions). These were NOT independent, fact-based reports. It's general consensus that his plan is caca based on the fact that there are no details, and given his broad assumptions for the plan, they don't really work out like he concludes.

Here is a politifact link that says 2/5 studies he cited as saying his plan could work (a third study says it could work but it's from Harvard and the author is a Romney advisor, so let's ignore that one),

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/

Post one link which cites your general consensus that any president will enjoy the benefits of 12 million new jobs. Not challenging you, I really want to see it because I haven't read that.

My greater point again is that everything can be "proven" and "disproven" when it comes to economic plans. Romney has proposed a plan. He has a track record of success. Yes, in business there are some things he has probably done that are not easy to swallow such as outsourcing jobs, downsizing after acquisitions, etc. But every big business in the country does this. How many Apple products do people on this board own? Why are we buying them when they're all manufactured overseas? Would companies like Staples even be in business today without Romney turning them around? The President hasn't moved the economy forward. I think the country needs wsomeone who can.

Go to the Presidents re election site. Show me where he proposes something for the next four years. His "plan" highlights misleading facts of what he's done while in office with regard to the economy.

MSG3 wrote:

martin wrote:

MSG3 wrote:Martin, you yourself wrote "you state it as a fact that Romney's plan will work". I don't think it's fact but to me it makes sense what he's trying to do. But when you throw out an economic study that says 12 million jobs will definitely be created no matter who's in office, you expect THAT to be taken as fact. Why don't you take the studies that show Romney's plan can work as fact?

I am not throwing out a claim from 1 economist, this is general consensus from a whole much of economists and studies. General consensus.

MSG3 wrote:Why don't you take the studies that show Romney's plan can work as fact?

You remember the 6 "studies" Romney keeps referring to in the debates regarding his tax/economy plan? 3 were opinion pieces, at least one of which was written by an adviser to his campaign. 2 of the other studies actually disagreed with the results of his plan (given Romney's underlying assumptions). These were NOT independent, fact-based reports. It's general consensus that his plan is caca based on the fact that there are no details, and given his broad assumptions for the plan, they don't really work out like he concludes.

Here is a politifact link that says 2/5 studies he cited as saying his plan could work (a third study says it could work but it's from Harvard and the author is a Romney advisor, so let's ignore that one),

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/

Post one link which cites your general consensus that any president will enjoy the benefits of 12 million new jobs. Not challenging you, I really want to see it because I haven't read that.

My greater point again is that everything can be "proven" and "disproven" when it comes to economic plans. Romney has proposed a plan. He has a track record of success. Yes, in business there are some things he has probably done that are not easy to swallow such as outsourcing jobs, downsizing after acquisitions, etc. But every big business in the country does this. How many Apple products do people on this board own? Why are we buying them when they're all manufactured overseas? Would companies like Staples even be in business today without Romney turning them around? The President hasn't moved the economy forward. I think the country needs wsomeone who can.

Go to the Presidents re election site. Show me where he proposes something for the next four years. His "plan" highlights misleading facts of what he's done while in office with regard to the economy.

MSG3 wrote:

martin wrote:

MSG3 wrote:Martin, you yourself wrote "you state it as a fact that Romney's plan will work". I don't think it's fact but to me it makes sense what he's trying to do. But when you throw out an economic study that says 12 million jobs will definitely be created no matter who's in office, you expect THAT to be taken as fact. Why don't you take the studies that show Romney's plan can work as fact?

I am not throwing out a claim from 1 economist, this is general consensus from a whole much of economists and studies. General consensus.

MSG3 wrote:Why don't you take the studies that show Romney's plan can work as fact?

You remember the 6 "studies" Romney keeps referring to in the debates regarding his tax/economy plan? 3 were opinion pieces, at least one of which was written by an adviser to his campaign. 2 of the other studies actually disagreed with the results of his plan (given Romney's underlying assumptions). These were NOT independent, fact-based reports. It's general consensus that his plan is caca based on the fact that there are no details, and given his broad assumptions for the plan, they don't really work out like he concludes.

Here is a politifact link that says 2/5 studies he cited as saying his plan could work (a third study says it could work but it's from Harvard and the author is a Romney advisor, so let's ignore that one),

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/

Post one link which cites your general consensus that any president will enjoy the benefits of 12 million new jobs. Not challenging you, I really want to see it because I haven't read that.

My greater point again is that everything can be "proven" and "disproven" when it comes to economic plans. Romney has proposed a plan. He has a track record of success. Yes, in business there are some things he has probably done that are not easy to swallow such as outsourcing jobs, downsizing after acquisitions, etc. But every big business in the country does this. How many Apple products do people on this board own? Why are we buying them when they're all manufactured overseas? Would companies like Staples even be in business today without Romney turning them around? The President hasn't moved the economy forward. I think the country needs wsomeone who can.

Go to the Presidents re election site. Show me where he proposes something for the next four years. His "plan" highlights misleading facts of what he's done while in office with regard to the economy.

Got a lot of work over the next few days, but I will respond in full about 12 millions jobs and your other questions. I'd like to highlight and speak to the bolded part..... please check out the private sector job growth in a dozen or so posts in this thread. That is moving the economy forward; the area that is lacking, unbelievably, is the public sector, ie gov't jobs: teachers, firefighters, etc which have been undercut by state and federal budgets, etc (exactly the jobs proposal Obama put forward about a year ago or more). I think your expectations are a bit whack... do you think that it only takes 2-3 years to dig out of the biggest depression since the Great Depression while kung-fu fighting the most inept Republican filibuster, do-literally-nothing Congress ever? Please see the rest of the world and compare it to how the USA is doing. Are we far enough? No. Could we have collectively done better, absolutely. Did Obama give his best for us? Absolutely not. Is Romney's ideas better? Fuck no, witness the previous 8 years of Bush ineptness, cause it's the same plan.

MSG3 - please do not write contrived ideas about meaningful partnerships, or two way streets nonsense.

"I want the president to fail" - Republican party chairman Rush Limbaugh

January 20, 2009

The Dinner

Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.

The dinner table was set in a square at Luntz’s request so everyone could see one another and talk freely. The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes.

“If you act like you’re the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority,” said Keven McCarthy, quoted by Draper. “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.”

That was DAY freakin' one.

MSG3 wrote:

misterearl wrote:"our number one priority is to make Obama a one term President" - Mitch McConnell

MSG3 - please do not write contrived ideas about meaningful partnerships, or two way streets nonsense.

"I want the president to fail" - Republican party chairman Rush Limbaugh

January 20, 2009

The Dinner

Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.

The dinner table was set in a square at Luntz’s request so everyone could see one another and talk freely. The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes.

“If you act like you’re the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority,” said Keven McCarthy, quoted by Draper. “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.”

That was DAY freakin' one.

Well Earl...not much I can say if you're going to pretend that Rush Limbaugh is the voice of Romney supporters. I hate that *******, along with Hannity, Chris Matthews, etc.

Read my posts. I voted for O. I'm disappointed and have every right to be without someone saying I'm speaking nonsense. Remember, the President had both houses of Congress. Whatever came out of that closed doors dinner strategy session, the likes of which happen with all parties after every makor election, wouldn't have mattered if he got things done with the support of his own party and God forbid making deals with the other side.

How long did Obama have a filibuster proof majority? How long did he have both houses?

There goes the markets.