And Here. We. Go. 2012 Presidential Election: Obama v. Romney - Page 301 - Politics and Economics

seattlelou · 06-14-2012, 01:46 PM

And the June payroll number.

seattlelou · 06-14-2012, 03:39 PM

The tightening race is helpful to Romney in terms of fundraising. It's a much harder sell I assume if looks like you don't have a punchers chance of winning.

**MrWookie** · 06-14-2012, 05:05 PM

lol Republicans

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...asian-children

Quote:

RNCLatinos.com features as its main image a stock photo from Shutterstock, which tags the photo with keywords that clearly suggest the kids are Asian, including: "asia," "asian," "interracial," "japanese," and "thailand."

Quote:

The Spanish-language site, which is linked to prominently from the main RNC site, on Thursday also featured a blog post on its homepage with the mangled title "How to cease locks the loss in ladies - suggested ways."

champstark · 06-14-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swinginglory

But many people reasonably believe that a guy who has spent his adult life involved deeply in business might have a better idea of what direction to drive the economy than a guy with no bona fides in that area.

If by deeply involved in business you mean maximizing profits and cutting as many jobs as possible, then you are correct.

I think most rational people would realize that those two things are not the way to fix the economy and that's all Romney has experience doing. He failed pretty horrifically in his previous political executive position which is a million times more relevant to the presidency than his time at Bain.

seattlelou · 06-14-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by champstark

If by deeply involved in business you mean maximizing profits and cutting as many jobs as possible, then you are correct.

I think most rational people would realize that those two things are not the way to fix the economy and that's all Romney has experience doing. He failed pretty horrifically in his previous political executive position which is a million times more relevant to the presidency than his time at Bain.

I don't think "failed pretty horrifically" is the consensus view.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...qSaV_blog.html

LetsGambool · 06-14-2012, 06:02 PM

Using any MA economic performance problems or spending level data to suggest electing a Democrat is pretty hilarious. The 139-21 Dem House majority had a massive veto proof majority and wrote the budget.

EDIT: I mean the Governor writes the budget, but the House basically took every single line he wrote and changed it. Romney vetoed the budget, overruled by a wide margin.

Just one example from the wiki on Romney's governorship. The legislature rewrote Romney's entire 2006 budget then overrode all 250 line-item vetoes.

Quote:

In 2006, the Massachusetts legislature approved a budget for fiscal year 2007 that required spending $450 million from the rainy day fund. Even though the state had collected a record-breaking amount of tax revenue in the fiscal year,[28] the funds were needed to cover the increased spending. Romney vetoed the transfer of funds from the contingency account. The veto was overturned by the legislature, and indeed for the 2006 budget, all 250 line-item vetoes were overturned, and for the entire year of 2006, all of Romney's vetoes of legislative bills were subsequently overturned by the Massachusetts Legislature.[18][29] In November 2006, Romney then used his emergency "9C authority" to cut the $450 million from the budget, saying: "One of the primary responsibilities of government is keeping the books balanced. The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we're looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before."[30] Later, he restored some of that amount.[31]

swinginglory · 06-14-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by champstark

If by deeply involved in business you mean maximizing profits and cutting as many jobs as possible, then you are correct.

I think most rational people would realize that those two things are not the way to fix the economy and that's all Romney has experience doing.

Harvard MBA, Is an expert in E-F-F-I-C-I-E-N-C-Y a word that is like herpes to those who have never owned a business before.

M-A-N-A-G-I-N-G. Something executives are supposed to do. An overly bloated bureaucracy isn't the way to prosperity. And that evil word P-R-O-F-I-T is what allows businesses to expand and hire more people.

swinginglory · 06-14-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Using any MA economic performance problems or spending level data to suggest electing a Democrat is pretty hilarious. The 139-21 Dem House majority had a massive veto proof majority and wrote the budget.

EDIT: I mean the Governor writes the budget, but the House basically took every single line he wrote and changed it. Romney vetoed the budget, overruled by a wide margin.

Just one example from the wiki on Romney's governorship. The legislature rewrote Romney's entire 2006 budget then overrode all 250 line-item vetoes.

Don't try to stand in front of a runaway meme.

Obama's campaign slogan," My economic record sucks, but the guy with the magic underwear's sucked worse when his legislature wouldn't let him do what he wanted to do!"

A winnar if I've ever seen one.

**goofyballer** · 06-14-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swinginglory

Obama's campaign slogan," My economic record sucks, but the guy with the magic underwear's sucked worse when his legislature wouldn't let him do what he wanted to do!"

A winnar if I've ever seen one.

OH THE IRONING

gusmahler · 06-14-2012, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

OH THE IRONING

Why do people completely forget that the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate for the first two years (a veto-proof majority the first year).

**goofyballer** · 06-14-2012, 07:11 PM

Nobody's forgotten, that doesn't make it somehow not the case that there's been a massively obstructionist Congress the last two years which is hilarious in the context of swinginglory's post

Effen · 06-14-2012, 07:11 PM

because they didn't ram through the legislation they could have? see payer, single

they did meh weaksauce versions of stuff they wanted

seattlelou · 06-14-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effen

because they didn't ram through the legislation they could have? see payer, single

they did meh weaksauce versions of stuff they wanted

They had a hard enough time ramming through the POS that they did. See Cornhusker, kickback.

**goofyballer** · 06-14-2012, 07:14 PM

Yeah the Dem majority was AIDSy anyway with idiots like Ben Nelson aboard, couldn't even get 58+2 people to agree on anything when they could do whatever they wanted. ****ing retards

suzzer99 · 06-14-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gusmahler

Why do people completely forget that the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate for the first two years (a veto-proof majority the first year).

The time between Al Franken getting sworn in and Scott Brown getting sworn in was about 7 months.