Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Gymkata wrote:Didn't O have two years of a D-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority? That should have been Christmas!

And as someone who finds Romney no great shakes by a large margin, but has been fairly disgusted by Obama's handling of many issues, someone please tell me what his specific economic plan is for a second term.

And if it doesn't include entitlement reform, we are boned.

Entitlement reform has to take both parties..It is such a political hotbed that who ever enacts anything to change the trajectory of the deficit will be sure to lose their jobs..They are all afraid to do it, both parties...The economy is run by Wall Street not Washingtonians as they will lead you to believe...So unless an American president can come up with a remedy to fix Europe, then embrace slow growth...

I agree it takes both parties, but my counter is that you have one party that has refused to seriously engage about entitlement reform. "We have a plan. It's called Medicare." Nancy Pelosi said that in 2011. Maybe you hate Ryan's plan, but at least he has something concrete out there. The ideal would be for the other party to also trot out something concrete and horse-trading to commence.

Entitlements are the number one driver of our debt and we only have to look across the pond to see where that can lead. Plus we also just added a massive new entitlement program. What's O's tactic to address these looming fiscal crises? And that's not a smarmy rhetorical. I genuinely want someone to educate me.

More so than tax cuts for the rich and all these wars? I doubt it.

2012 outlays

Defense: $651 billion
Social Security: $762 billion
Medicaid: $250 billion
Medicare: $469 billion

Source

By 2020, not enough revenue to pay full SS benefits.

Both Medicare and Medicaid outlays expected to "rise rapidly" in the coming decade.

Source: CBO

Implement the "Buffet rule" (hitting the "1%," specifically in regards to dividends taxes) would produce $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years. Our deficit this year alone topped $1 trillion (for the fourth year in a row).

Gymkata wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Gymkata wrote:Didn't O have two years of a D-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority? That should have been Christmas!

And as someone who finds Romney no great shakes by a large margin, but has been fairly disgusted by Obama's handling of many issues, someone please tell me what his specific economic plan is for a second term.

And if it doesn't include entitlement reform, we are boned.

Entitlement reform has to take both parties..It is such a political hotbed that who ever enacts anything to change the trajectory of the deficit will be sure to lose their jobs..They are all afraid to do it, both parties...The economy is run by Wall Street not Washingtonians as they will lead you to believe...So unless an American president can come up with a remedy to fix Europe, then embrace slow growth...

I agree it takes both parties, but my counter is that you have one party that has refused to seriously engage about entitlement reform. "We have a plan. It's called Medicare." Nancy Pelosi said that in 2011. Maybe you hate Ryan's plan, but at least he has something concrete out there. The ideal would be for the other party to also trot out something concrete and horse-trading to commence.

Entitlements are the number one driver of our debt and we only have to look across the pond to see where that can lead. Plus we also just added a massive new entitlement program. What's O's tactic to address these looming fiscal crises? And that's not a smarmy rhetorical. I genuinely want someone to educate me.

And you are absolutely correct..The democrats have zero plan on the books to tackle entitlements...The only thing they have going is Obamacare which save 760 billion over 10 years and has extended Medicare another 8 years..But as far as a plan, nothing from the Democrats...But that said, how does one cozy up to a plan that has drastic cuts in education, research, health care, and a whole host of other social programs while increasing defense spending, more tax cut for the rich, etc...Is there another plan other than trickle down?? This is Reagan playbook all over again...But you are correct because this plan cuts the deficit by 6 billion dollars with zero added on the revenue side...

misterearl wrote:Rejection

fishmike wrote:
A. He did not use the money to stimulatejb growth anywhere near enough relative to what he had to spend
B. Regulations on mortgages housing and personal borrowing have thwarted buying--especially from first time buyers, selling of homes for a price consistent with what the national 10 year avg of homes cost(below)the ability for a person to get a personal loan to start or run a small business(entrepreneurship and job creation)or to grow a small business
C. I do not believe as an African American President that he used his position wisely to help African-American/Hispanic neighborhoods in inner cities schools housing and job creation with stimulus money he was afforded
D. Gas prices are way out of whack and not sustainable
E. Condition the release of handouts--way to many people receiving freebies who CAN work who have the ability to work but have found free is better than earned--these benefits need expiration dates for those who are not sickly injured under the age of 45 etc..
F. Has let the deficit gain traction with no definitive plan to stops its massive growth

At this point it looks like a fail fail.

"Our number ONE priority is to make Obama a one term president" - Mitch McConnell

Did you consider if President Obama did not face Republican obstruction, he might be able to do half the things you suggest?

"I want the President to fail" - Rush Limbaugh

Earl Im a moderate democrat by definition. I almost always vote democrat because of the social agendas. But Im pretty sure Im sitting this one out. US needs a pres who will work with both sides like Clinton did and Obama isnt that guy. He could have pushed through anything in the first two years and it was Obama care and billions in green energy. Fine ideas but poorly executed and poor timing. There is ZERO hedge with this guy. He's all in and his epic spending is going to leave my kids with the bill.

Romney's plan seems to really help the 1%. Im not sure who Obama's plan helps. Pretty crappy choices mate.

Just my take

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Gymkata wrote:Didn't O have two years of a D-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority? That should have been Christmas!

And as someone who finds Romney no great shakes by a large margin, but has been fairly disgusted by Obama's handling of many issues, someone please tell me what his specific economic plan is for a second term.

And if it doesn't include entitlement reform, we are boned.

Entitlement reform has to take both parties..It is such a political hotbed that who ever enacts anything to change the trajectory of the deficit will be sure to lose their jobs..They are all afraid to do it, both parties...The economy is run by Wall Street not Washingtonians as they will lead you to believe...So unless an American president can come up with a remedy to fix Europe, then embrace slow growth...

I agree it takes both parties, but my counter is that you have one party that has refused to seriously engage about entitlement reform. "We have a plan. It's called Medicare." Nancy Pelosi said that in 2011. Maybe you hate Ryan's plan, but at least he has something concrete out there. The ideal would be for the other party to also trot out something concrete and horse-trading to commence.

Entitlements are the number one driver of our debt and we only have to look across the pond to see where that can lead. Plus we also just added a massive new entitlement program. What's O's tactic to address these looming fiscal crises? And that's not a smarmy rhetorical. I genuinely want someone to educate me.

More so than tax cuts for the rich and all these wars? I doubt it.

2012 outlays

Defense: $651 billion
Social Security: $762 billion
Medicaid: $250 billion
Medicare: $469 billion

Source

By 2020, not enough revenue to pay full SS benefits.

Both Medicare and Medicaid outlays expected to "rise rapidly" in the coming decade.

Source: CBO

Implement the "Buffet rule" (hitting the "1%," specifically in regards to dividends taxes) would produce $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years. Our deficit this year alone topped $1 trillion (for the fourth year in a row).

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Gymkata wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Gymkata wrote:Didn't O have two years of a D-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority? That should have been Christmas!

And as someone who finds Romney no great shakes by a large margin, but has been fairly disgusted by Obama's handling of many issues, someone please tell me what his specific economic plan is for a second term.

And if it doesn't include entitlement reform, we are boned.

Entitlement reform has to take both parties..It is such a political hotbed that who ever enacts anything to change the trajectory of the deficit will be sure to lose their jobs..They are all afraid to do it, both parties...The economy is run by Wall Street not Washingtonians as they will lead you to believe...So unless an American president can come up with a remedy to fix Europe, then embrace slow growth...

I agree it takes both parties, but my counter is that you have one party that has refused to seriously engage about entitlement reform. "We have a plan. It's called Medicare." Nancy Pelosi said that in 2011. Maybe you hate Ryan's plan, but at least he has something concrete out there. The ideal would be for the other party to also trot out something concrete and horse-trading to commence.

Entitlements are the number one driver of our debt and we only have to look across the pond to see where that can lead. Plus we also just added a massive new entitlement program. What's O's tactic to address these looming fiscal crises? And that's not a smarmy rhetorical. I genuinely want someone to educate me.

More so than tax cuts for the rich and all these wars? I doubt it.

2012 outlays

Defense: $651 billion
Social Security: $762 billion
Medicaid: $250 billion
Medicare: $469 billion

Source

By 2020, not enough revenue to pay full SS benefits.

Both Medicare and Medicaid outlays expected to "rise rapidly" in the coming decade.

Source: CBO

Implement the "Buffet rule" (hitting the "1%," specifically in regards to dividends taxes) would produce $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years. Our deficit this year alone topped $1 trillion (for the fourth year in a row).

I meant repealing the Bush tax cuts not just changing how dividends are taxed. Actually compared to most western nations and even our own past, going back to the Clinton tax levels would still be remarkably low. Even during most of Reagan's years it was 50 to 70%.

Fair enough, but remember, "repealing Bush tax cuts" may sound rosier, but you're essentially looking at a widespread tax increase that could affect the middle class as well, which is risky in an economy like ours that is taking baby steps forward. Obama himself said that it's not a good idea to raise taxes in a recession. Thankfully, we're not in a recession, but a double-dip is a hair's breadth away.

Which is all moot of course until we start seriously talking about entitlement reform.

nixluva wrote:The thing that has infuriated me is Undecided voters. WTF is the deal with these people? Do some darn research! It's not hard to find the facts on these 2 and clearly these people are mentally lazy cuz after all these years there's no excuse for not being able to find the facts and make an informed decision one way or the other. These 2 men are almost completely opposite on most of the big issues. There is no middle ground here.

Romney is basically a retread of the Bush administration. Many of the same Bush era players are part of his team. His plan is to do basically the same things Bush did. Bush wrecked the country. End of story.

Bush was an idiot just like Jimmy Carter was/is an idiot. There are idiots on both sides - people should judge the individual not the party.

mrKnickShot wrote:

nixluva wrote:The thing that has infuriated me is Undecided voters. WTF is the deal with these people? Do some darn research! It's not hard to find the facts on these 2 and clearly these people are mentally lazy cuz after all these years there's no excuse for not being able to find the facts and make an informed decision one way or the other. These 2 men are almost completely opposite on most of the big issues. There is no middle ground here.

Romney is basically a retread of the Bush administration. Many of the same Bush era players are part of his team. His plan is to do basically the same things Bush did. Bush wrecked the country. End of story.

Bush was an idiot just like Jimmy Carter was/is an idiot. There are idiots on both sides - people should judge the individual not the party.

Republicans have changed that when they started voting an an entire block to counter Obama..I used to look at the individual and vote for him or her, can't do that anymore....

holfresh wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

nixluva wrote:The thing that has infuriated me is Undecided voters. WTF is the deal with these people? Do some darn research! It's not hard to find the facts on these 2 and clearly these people are mentally lazy cuz after all these years there's no excuse for not being able to find the facts and make an informed decision one way or the other. These 2 men are almost completely opposite on most of the big issues. There is no middle ground here.

Romney is basically a retread of the Bush administration. Many of the same Bush era players are part of his team. His plan is to do basically the same things Bush did. Bush wrecked the country. End of story.

Bush was an idiot just like Jimmy Carter was/is an idiot. There are idiots on both sides - people should judge the individual not the party.

Republicans have changed that when they started voting an an entire block to counter Obama..I used to look at the individual and vote for him or her, can't do that anymore....

Each side will do whatever they can to beat the other side.

They are all the same.

Moonangie wrote:

izybx wrote:Four more years of Obama...Mr Clinton was also a great speaker, but his presidency actually had substance to it. With the country going the direction its in currently, what does it matter if the same man who has continued mauling our economy gets another four years to do so.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

Please dont call me ignorant. You dont know the first thing about me. Thank you.

My statement about the economy has to do with the levels of debt in this country at every level of government. Until we have a leader that recognizes the severity of the problem and does something about it I'll continue to be critical. Now feel free to go back to your talking points and statistical manipulation to prove that Romney/Obama is better.