"Things are not looking godd for the incumbent"

You are right. Things are not looking good for Obama. BUT they are not looking good for Romney either: The GOP should have been able to win this election easily because of Obama's poor performance, and yet here they are struggling again like they did in 2008. Being socially backwards, threatening to undo Roe v Wade, saying you are against "Obamacare" but being for Medicare (not to mention Romney did the "Obamacare" in MA as governor), does not help the GOP.

I doubt Romney will have an "easy win" especially if what I hear about his VP choice is true. Remember 2008, GOP! Hard for you to admit but Palin lost you that election, regardless of what RL tells you.

i dunno if it'll be an easy win - but fair to say that 'backward' social policies, opposite of 'forward', if you will, are in the eye of the beholder.Lots o folks in flyover country think Obamas social policies, partial birth abortions, doma, dadt, immigration, are just plain wrong, and that DOES help the GOP.

Rasmussen polls have Romney ahead by 26 pts in the state of California and show him winning nearly 710 electoral votes to Obama's 9 (where he'll only get them from the "state" of Hawaii). The voters will choose capitalism over communism, Mormonism over muslimism, Americanism over Kenyanism, fascism over democracy, and vanilla over chocolate (pun intended -- ha-ha-ha-ha-ha). For more on how Obama has failed the American public by not giving Wall Street more leeway, by not giving wealthy job creators more tax cuts, by forcing people into death squad committee goverment and insurance scams, and spending almost 3 trillion tax dollars on Solyndra -- and all this while he rolls dice with MC Hammer in the "White" House garden -- turn to Weasel Zippers and The Klan's Tea is Brewing.

"Flyover country". That's all the places in the United
States that real patriots want to live in so their kids can learn 'creationism' as an alternative to evolution in 'science' classes and where they are rightly taught that JD Salinger and Mark Twain are demonic communists whose aim was to corrupt our children. Hee-Haw! Let's remove that black buck communist community organizer from office! Weasel Zippers forever!

Glad to see I have so many people who love me so much they want to be me. I am overwhelmed.

I am further buoyed by a campaign email just received from Jim Messina, Obama2012 campaign director. Starts off "Wow, BHO campaign just sent a fundraising email, starts off with:

"Romney and the Republicans announced yesterday that they brought in more than $100 million in June.
For context, that's about what we raised in April and May combined. We're still tallying our own numbers, but this means their gap is getting wider."


I guess that $3 for dinner with Clooney, Sarah Jessica Parker, etc, is not working out so well. Or maybe it's something else, er, the ECONOMY!?!

I'm tired of all the subterfuge surrounding my name. Be that as it may, our side has more money than your side! Average Obama contributor: $35.00. Average Romney contributor: $1000.00. Maybe it's something else, like DEMOCRACY!?!

(I gotta tell ya, I just love engaging in dialogue at this level. Haven't had so much fun since 6th grade. Thanks to Jimfo1 for initiating these scintillating, challenging topic boards. Well done, Jimfo1. I rate this site: 4 Corndogs out 5.)

Yeah, the jobs numbers are pretty disappointing for the Obama campaign. The problem, though, is that it's not enough to simply say that Obama is doing a bad job with the economy. You also have to convince everyone that your party and your candidate (Mitt Romney) can do a better job, right?

So assuming that we accept the fact that Obama is not doing a good job, how are you going to convince us that the Republican party and Romney are going to do any better? What is it about the last Republican President's record that you think is going to convince us that another Republican President is going to be the answer to all our problems? Do you think that the shattered economy that George Bush left us is going to convince us that another Republican President is the answer? Or the massive government deficits that Bush was running? Or what about the fact that Bush started to major wars in Iran and Afghanistan but was unable to finish either one of them before he left office? Seems to me that the Republican party has big credibility problems if they want to now tell us that all of our problems will be over if we elect a Republican President.

If the yardstick is don't start any more wars, and reduce the deficit, Obama fails on both counts.

I "massive" is the word for "government deficits" that "Bush was running", then what is the word for Obama's deficits?

"Seems to me that the Republican party has big credibility problems if they want to now tell us that all of our problems will be over if we elect a Republican President. "

Not to mention that even though the GOP does not see it, people are not willing to go back in time as far as social issues go. Yes, we want abortion to be legal; no, we do not believe that Romney's "I am against Obamacare" is valid - did he forget already that he passed the equivalent policy as governor of MA? ; and no, we do not want another Alito appointed to the Supreme Court.....

How exactly is Romney planning to fix the economy? He is repeating policies that were in place under clueless W, and look what that did to our country. In 6 years of an all-republican leadership (White House, Senate, House), what exactly got accomplished? Let's see, war, spending, deficit....and it all collapsed in 2008 thanks to who? Not just democrats, that's for sure.

I agree that Obama is doing a horrible job, but I do not see so far how electing Romney would make things better. At least with Obama we do not have the Palins of the world attempting to set this country back!

Tell me what Romney plans to do (other than what W already did like giving tax breaks to the rich) to fix the economy, and maybe I can change my mind and vote for the GOP, but until then.....

I "massive" disagree with Hmm on this issue. The choice is as clear as black and white, left or RIGHT!

jimf01 said: "I "massive" is the word for "government deficits" that "Bush was running", then what is the word for Obama's deficits?"

Hey, jimf01, I think of myself as an independent andI'm not going to defend everything that Obama has done. I'm just saying that the fact that Obama may not be doing a great job with the economy doesn't mean that a Republican President would do any better. And I base that assertion on our recent past experience with having a Republican President. Any arguments with my reasoning?

Sure, plenty of them. Let's start with, is Romney saying he is going to do what Bush did? Of course he isn't. If you believe the Democrats campaign to convince you that is Romney's intention, then I am not going to change your mind on that. But if you look at what Romney says, he isn't planning to go back to old Bush era policies (and I say era because they weren't all Bush policies) that got us in to trouble, created more debt, etc.

A new President doesn't inherit the same situation as his predecessor, and therefore the argument is just silly, in my opinion.
If you think Romney is going to take the economy down further, yes, you aren't going to vote for him, by any means.

The reason voters replace the President is because he isn't doing a good job over the 4 year term. Obama and the Democrats set the agenda for two years, came up with legislation, pledged we would see results from it, and we do not have the results. In fact, in many ways things have gotten worse.

So what would you say are the salient departure points between Romney's economic policies and those of the Bush era?

Spending: As president, Mitt’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:
...
Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
...
Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels
...
Web Link

Obviously, this depends on a revived economy, but spending cuts will make a significant impact. I have said it before, Bush proved himself to be a free spender. We have to stop that.

Anyone who is actually trying to make a decision, independents who aren't comparing Bush and Romney, but are instead comparing Obama and Romney, know that the Democrats cannot stop spending, it's in their DNA. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in one term, he has tripled it instead.

Jimf01 said: "Anyone who is actually trying to make a decision, independents who aren't comparing Bush and Romney, but are instead comparing Obama and Romney, know that the Democrats cannot stop spending, it's in their DNA"

I dunno, Jimf01. It seems that big spending is one thing that both Democratic administrations AND Republican administrations have in common. The only difference is that Democrats are "tax-and-spend" while Republicans are "spend-and-spend". Republican administrations aren't shy about spending - it's just the taxing part that they don't like so they leave it to the Democrats to do that part and then blame them for both the "spending" part and the "taxing" part. Clever strategy.

Fiscal responsibility is what the Tea Party have been fighting for, Sam. I don't think the gov't should keep growing, so I am supporting the idea that we can run the federal gov't on 18-20% of GDP, or less.

Clearly, the Democrats generally disagree, across the board. Every Dem politician in DC.

So Romney has chosen some nice, round arbitrary numbers. That's a finely nuanced economic plan, that is. Look at how well austerity measures have done so far in creating jobs--the more people cut their budgets, the more jobs they add to payrolls, right? I mean, it just makes sense, RIGHT? Just look at how well austerity has improved the European Union: they're already in their second recession while we lag behind still recovering from the first one Bush gifted us. Can we allow to let Europe pass us up? I say no! Under Romney, we could be the next Portugal, Spain or Greece! Americans For Austerity! Keep cutting until there is NO room for jobs in ANYONE's budget!

Oh my gosh, Free Man, you're soooo missing the beauty of my plan. Of COURSE slashing the budget will lead to fewer jobs. But this, combined with increased policies favoring companies that go offshore for their cheap labor, will bring American workers to their knees. They'll be so desperate for work, they'll be willing to work for less than the Chinese. Those irksome American unions will therefore become a thing of the past. We'll slash minimum wage across the board under the rubric of Right to Work Laws - heh-heh-heh-heh.

After all, a 'living wage' is relative. Whether you're a successful businessman like me or an uneducated Tea Party pig farmer who feeds at the trough of the right-wing blogosphere, we're all good Americans simply making a living. Why, I'm currently unemployed myself! Just like so many of you. Heh-heh-heh.

So, elect me and look for that 20% cut. We can't compete with the 3rd world unless we become 3rd world ourselves. In fact, we've got to do better than 3rd world. Let's race to the bottom before the unions take us all down.

"Fiscal responsibility is what the Tea Party have been fighting for..."

Fiscal responsibility includes responsible government regulation. Remember that the financial panic on Wall Street that caused this recession to be so deep and so long was mainly caused by derivatives trades that went bad. It didn't happen because the federal government was spending too much money on Medicare, Social Security, or defense. It didn't happen because the deficit was growing or that small businesses were over-regulated. AIG needed a $182 billion bailout because AIG was on the wrong side of derivatives trades (specifically synthetic credit default swaps where AIG was not hedging, but simply making side bets). These derivatives were largely unregulated so the CFTC really didn't understand the size of the problem until it all started to fall apart. Many of the parties on the winning side of the swaps were banks that held FDIC insured deposits. Had AIG been allowed to fail, those banks would not have been paid, triggering FDIC takeovers in some cases. Had the Glass-Steagall act still been in force, those banks would not have been allowed to trade derivatives at all, and this would never have occurred. Had the CFTC succeeded in getting derivatives on public exchanges (like stocks and options), regulators would have seen the trouble building far earlier, and would have know much more about its magnitude.

The scandals at MF Global, JP Morgan, and Barklays show that these problems are very much still with us.

I haven't heard much anything from Romney regarding regulation of derivatives trades or of limiting or banning commercial banks from proprietary trading. All he says is that he wants to roll back Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank is far from perfect, and I'd like to see a better, less complex alternative, but Romney doesn't say anything about replacing it. So far, he just says he wants to roll it back. Won't that put us back in the precarious state we were in 2008? Why should I vote for that?

Should I have said that George Bush is a lying fascist and Barack Obama is a Marxist from Kenya?

It's complete horsebleep, imho, to scream austerity will kill us when the country has run on a budget of 18-20% of GDP for about 40 years. Along come Bush and Obama, spending goes through the roof (deficit spending to boot) and now if we roll back to a nominal baseline we will be plunged in to a PIGS style crisis? Come off it!
It aint gonna happen.

For the reader, the liberals define austerity as cutting any kind of spending (spending they don't like, you can cut defense), and define cutting as decreasing the baseline or the planned increase to that baseline. A normal person defines austerity somewhat differently.

On the contrary, the debt and deficits are unsustainable, if we do not do something about it, THAT will put us in to a crisis situation. The interest on the debt alone is only sustainable at the artificially low rates we are seeing now. And the numbers have been run, we cannot tax the rich to pay for the current levels of spending, there just isn't enough revenue there. Unless, of course, you redefine who is considered 'rich'.

The effect of electing Republican leadership in this recession, at the state level
Web Link

In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.

jimf01,

As I said above, it wasn't big government spending that caused the financial panic that made this recession so long and so deep. It was derivatives trades gone bad at large financial institutions like AIG and Morgan Stanley. Proper regulation of the financial industry could have gone a long way in preventing this and is needed to prevent a similar crisis in the future. All I've heard from the Romney campaign regarding the regulation of large, too big to fail institutions is that he wants to roll back Dodd-Frank. He hasn't said anything about what he will replace it with. Why should I vote for Romney when he says he wants to do even less than Obama?

Patriot,

I'll add to that; it's also the Greenspan monetary policy that kept interest rates artificially low for so long (and continue to be kept low). The low interest rates help drive consumption yet also lead investors seeking higher yields to riskier vehicles such as the sub-prime mortgage derivatives.

Stacey,

Good points. I agree that Greenspan's monetary policy had both effects and made matters worse.

Of course it was risky, Your Honor. And yes, I killed her. But it was Greenspan's low interest rates that made me do it. Honest.

Just joking, for Pete's sake. Actually, Stacey, I like your thinking. It reminds me of Arnold's, and lordy lordy we're going to need more people thinking like him and you if we are to Fire Obama!

mittens is dead. His soul has gone to the darkside, which is why he continues to support the failed administration, despite a record of no positive accomplishments. Bet it's warm where you are, mittens. Too bad about the nine lives myth...kinda like the 72 virgins thing....

I agree about Obama's failed policies -- especially that ACA health care fiasco that used my own as blue print. Gee willikans! And rescuing the economy? I recommended he do that for crying out loud! And Osama bin Laden? Well, who couldn't have done that? I actually trained the special forces, and every one of them told me that Obama is in way over his head.

But I'm not dead, honest. I'm way out ahead in the polls. The people love me, in a maniquin sort of way. And we live in a country with the highest corporate tax rate in the world! What we really need to do is better vett Obama. Who cares about tax returns, for heavens sake! What about his law school transcripts.

jimf01,

Any arguments with my reasoning (above)?

Pat - My big concern with regulation is the cost to businesses. These costs, after all, are passed directly to consumers, and also reduce the global competitiveness of the country. OMB estimates $1.75 Trillion (that is trillion with a T) is the annual cost of federal regulation.
This is what has happened with the Democrat majority in power for 2 years, during a severe recession the first two years of his presidency, Obama grew the regulatory workforce by 16 percent, or 276,429 employees. The Federal Register hit a record in 2010 of 81,405 pages. The rules issued in 2010 result in $26 billion in annual costs.

The Dodd-Frank Act delegates a wide scope of rulemaking power to the same agencies that had failed to prevent the financial crisis. It
mandates 259 rules and suggests another 188. Its Financial Stability Oversight Council and other regulatory agencies will have power to press financial firms into compliance with new regulatory framework.

I got the info above from here Web Link

The Romney campaign states there some of what will be proposed to replace Dodd-Frank, so your statement that they have said nothing is incorrect.
I believe you are correct to say 'it wasn't big government spending that caused the financial panic that made this recession so long and so deep', but it IS overregulation, and increased costs to the economy of new regulation which can help to prevent recovery.

jimf01,

So it's a general concern you have with the effect of all regulation business? I'm not seeing how this translates to improving the quality of regulation of the financial markets. Business flourished under Glass-Steagall too.

OK jimf01, I searched in your link for Dodd-Frank. I didn't see anything like a proposal for replacing Dodd-Frank, just mention that it will be repealed and replaced with a "streamlined regulatory framework". That's politi-speak for "we got nothing at the moment".

jimf01,

Thanks for the response. I have to agree with what Stacey says. In that long document there was only one, very vague paragraph concerning replacing Dodd-Frank. There were no specifics. Nothing about proprietary trading by commercial banks. There was no mention of the Volker rule, bringing back Glass-Steagall, or public exchanges for derivatives trading.

B-b-but, big government bad! Deregulation good! Corporations are people!

Birth certificates! Sharia law! Evil nurses' unions! TAXES! Come on guys, aren't you persuaded yet?

If already wealthy business owners are taxed at a higher rate, then Jimbo is right: they'll just pass along expenses onto the consumer. Because, hey, you don't expect wealthy business owners to lower their OWN profit rates do you? That would be unAmerican. What would happen to God, apple pie, and Screw the Consumer (after I've busted the union in order to further Screw the Workers)? We have a great system where the ten percent who own over 80% of the wealth pay less than 50% of the nation's income taxes; where the wealthy saw income increase 270% over past 10 years while the income of others has either dropped or stayed flat. Hands off additional taxing of the rich. And I'm not saying that because I'm rich. Because sometimes I feel I'm poor, and for heaven's sake, I don't know how much wealth I really have anyway -- and neither to you! heh-heh-heh

The quality of regulation, and the specifics of such legislation will come from the new Congress. So, in my opinion, you are looking in the wrong place for specifics. The President sets a tone, an agenda, a general direction, call it whatever.
The Congress (or the moneymen and lobbyists who own them) writes the legislation.
I agree that the plan is very light on specifics.

Someone alert the PW staff (Kathleen, you have them on speed dial, right?): jimf01's account has been hacked. That last post was accurate, civil, and devoid of loaded or inflammatory terms that reflect a selective understanding of the bigger picture.

You should be ashamed, faker; jimf01 has spent a lot of time and credibility establishing his reputation, and here you are, unsullying it for your little 'joke.'This whole fake-name thing is getting out of hand. Is nothing sacred to people on this forum?!