Romney vs. Obama

[Ken C]

I see that the discussion has become a little more intelligent than the last time I poked my head into this thread.

But I'd like to remark on a big couple of points. Firstly the internet wasn't invented by Gore.

It was first developed by the DoD as a way to protect communications between bases in the event of a nuclear war. Then was picked up and adopted by colleges and universities for information transfer. Then Xerox and a couple of its devs got their hands on the idea and developed it for public use but it Sat on the back shelves until. a couple of devs came up with ip addresses and hyperlinks that made it accessible to the non pc geek. Gore may have been instrumental in some government infrastructure standard that was adopted by the industry as a whole but he wasn't the one that invented it.

Ok, now if Romney is going to cut taxes on corporate America. How does that equate to there being more jobs sent overseas? Part of the reason those jobs went overseas was due to the taxes imposed on corporations by the government. Think about it, if you make it cheaper to make things in this country wouldn't reason dictate that they be made here?

Also, and you pc folks are going to have a fit. But MLK was for the betterment of life for all less than privileged people. He was assassinated to keep the status quo alive. That's why people should be judged on the content of their character, "not" the color of their skin.

Lincoln, oh Lincoln you poor man.. he wasn't about freeing the slaves. He just didn't want to allow the expansion of slavery into anymore states that entered the union. The emancipation proclamation was used as a political tactic because the south was contemplating freeing their slaves themselves. He just wanted to beat them to the punch. But in doing so, and also the whole reason for the civil war was the fight for states rights, which Lincoln demolished.

As posted before, with every liberty or power you give the government. The less liberty you get as a result.

I'm telling you people this country is in a state of decline. I have an interesting book for y'all to read that discusses this concept, granted in a fictional sense and on a grander scale.

ISAAC ASIMOV'S ; THE FOUNDATION TRILOGY. yes it's about a galactic government, but like most of his books there's a lesson to be learned.

But I'm starting to get the idea that people have picked who they're going to vote for. The time between now and the elections is just for watching the freak show.

But I ask y'all to do yourself a favor next time you see big O give a speech listen to what he says. Other than talking smack about his opponent what else does he say? Does he give you a bill he has planned to put before congress if he wins again.
same question if you were to hear Romney's giving a speech how much of it is his plans and how much is Obama bashing. I think you'll find Barry doing more of the bashing. But I guess when you can't run on your record what else can you use? And half of not all of what he's saying about Romney is bogus

Oh and btw, the presidents approval rating is at 44% as of this morning.

And whoever decides to put a $3.00 tax on fuel should be shot. I can barelt afford to pay for the gas I need to get to work for the week as it is. How am I supposed to support my family then? Get on welfare and become trapped in a cycle of desperation like so many Americans are now? (47% of Americans are on assistance now as it is)

 

[A.Nonymous]

You're throwing around the term divisive to any one you disagree with. Someone giving you facts that can be confirmed is not divisive. It's called education.

Calling someone divisive because they run for office is not sufficient.

Killing someone for running for office is sufficient.

Creating or funding fake research is sufficient.

What one should be concerned about is intentional deception.

You realize what divisive means right?

 

[gamblor01]

You two really need to PM each other about this divisive/unifying argument. Seriously, you don't realize it but you're both right and wrong at the same time. I think all of the people you mention (Gore, MLK, etc.) were both divisive and unifying. They both unified large amounts of people to their cause and yet neither of those groups was an overwhelming majority...it was probably closer to 50%...so they unified 50% of the country together while at the same the other 50% thought they were wrong and therefore their views divided the country.

End of story.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Seems that way, but the majority of the country is religious.

There are polls that suggest only 30% are religious, if weekly attendance is a criteria. Church attendance is declining

This country was founded on religious principals and the freedom to practice one's religion was very, very important to our founders.

Per the Declaration of Independence the colonies rebelled against King George III due to unfair taxation.

Atheists will not likely move into the White House.

The Constitution forbids any religious test to hold office, but one is free to be a bigot and not vote for someone based on religion.

You simply cannot separate government, religion and the people.

Why not ? Taliban/Al-Qaeda Afghanistan is not an example to be followed.

The Constitution doesn't mention God, Jesus or Christianity.

Hell, when Franklin suggested at the Constitutional Convention have prayers said there, it was rejected and the convention went on without prayers.

And you simply cannot trust that our pastors and reverends are decent people. Reverend Wright comes to mind.

Never met Reverend Wright, but has not been convicted of any crimes as opposed to leaders in other denominations.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... But I'd like to remark on a big couple of points. Firstly the internet wasn't invented by Gore.

No one stated that.

High Performance Computing Act of 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following a 1999 CNN interview Gore became the subject of some controversy and ridicule when his expression I took the initiative in creating the Internet[13] was widely quoted out of context, indeed often misquoted, by comedians and the popular media who took his expression to be a claim that he personally had invented the Internet.[14] But Gore's actual words were widely reaffirmed by notable Internet pioneers, such as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, who stated, "No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President."[15]

Al Gore and information technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cerf would also later state: "Al Gore had seen what happened with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, which his father introduced as a military bill. It was very powerful. Housing went up, suburban boom happened, everybody became mobile. Al was attuned to the power of networking much more than any of his elective colleagues. His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit."[63]

 

[ElasticNinja]

And whoever decides to put a $3.00 tax on fuel should be shot. I can barelt afford to pay for the gas I need to get to work for the week as it is. How am I supposed to support my family then? Get on welfare and become trapped in a cycle of desperation like so many Americans are now? (47% of Americans are on assistance now as it is)

I guess most lawmakers in the developed world should be shot then. I already stated that such a tax should be offset with increased tax credits, and tax cuts elsewhere (federal sales tax, anyone?). Excise duties are the best form of tax - if anything they have a positive (or very slight negative effect) on the economy, while also bringing in a very effective source of income. If the US had introduced proper fuel taxes you would see less European and Japanese cars about and I would see more American ones over here.

 

[RazorSharp]

I see that the discussion has become a little more intelligent than the last time I poked my head into this thread.

How nice of you to deign to join us again. Kindly see my response to your previous post here, I'd very much like to hear your thoughts.

Ok, now if Romney is going to cut taxes on corporate America. How does that equate to there being more jobs sent overseas? Part of the reason those jobs went overseas was due to the taxes imposed on corporations by the government. Think about it, if you make it cheaper to make things in this country wouldn't reason dictate that they be made here?

You very clearly did not read the in-depth PDF I linked to, it explains exactly why Romney's plan will lead to more jobs being sent out of the country.

I also very much enjoy that you seem to have conveniently overlooked everything else that I linked to: Romney's completely unsustainable economic plan, his intention to raise taxes on the middle class, etc. For goodness' sake, you're likely someone who would be affected by this, judging by your quote about supporting your family - don't you care? Don't you care that Romney would make you pay thousands and thousands more dollars in taxes so that the 1% can become even richer?

Lincoln, oh Lincoln you poor man.. he wasn't about freeing the slaves. He just didn't want to allow the expansion of slavery into anymore states that entered the union. The emancipation proclamation was used as a political tactic because the south was contemplating freeing their slaves themselves. He just wanted to beat them to the punch.

I have never heard anything like this before, and can't find anything to corroborate your statement after a little research. Can you provide evidence?

But I ask y'all to do yourself a favor next time you see big O give a speech listen to what he says. Other than talking smack about his opponent what else does he say? Does he give you a bill he has planned to put before congress if he wins again.

Obama has already announced extensive plans for his second term, including an entire budget proposal - see here.

same question if you were to hear Romney's giving a speech how much of it is his plans and how much is Obama bashing. I think you'll find Barry doing more of the bashing. But I guess when you can't run on your record what else can you use? And half of not all of what he's saying about Romney is bogus

Romney runs almost exclusively on Obama-bashing. Have you ever listened to any of his speeches? His ads are exclusively Obama-bashing, the RNC ads are exclusively Obama-bashing. This is the RNC's official YouTube channel, every single one of the TV ads on that channel is Obama-bashing, there are zero that are about Romney's good qualities.

Oh and btw, the presidents approval rating is at 44% as of this morning.

George W. Bush would have been ecstatic to receive a 44% approval rating. He was well underneath that for most of his second term. He also left office with the lowest approval rating ever - just 22 percent.

 

[Ken C]

Ok, and no I'm not going to hunt through every little link you put up. Just like I won't put up a link on the Lincoln thing. I find little nuggets here and there. From sources other than you tube for these things. It's remembering these little details that's the key. People are taught so much about everything that's only partially true.

Example: when asked who is the person that killed the most people from a position of power. Most people will answer, quickly mind you, Hitler. Even though I'd you look just a tad deeper into history you'll realize that distinction belongs to Mao. Yet you never hear this. Why? Because it's easier to teach people about the Germans and the rise of Nazism than to go through the mess that is the Chinese communist revolution.

I'm not here to belittle somebody or to spout some party line (even though it may seem that way at times) if the current president would do the things he says he wants to do now that he's running for another term instead of looking to me as if he's trying to preempt the Romney campaign. I'd think about it.

I live in Florida which is still loaded down with unsold foreclosed properties. I went home to Massachusetts where I'm originally from. And talked to my uncle about job prospects. He said there are plenty of jobs, you just have to be willing to take something that doesn't pay $60/hr

So maybe you can do yourself and others a favor, try to argue your point from a position of no political persuasion. Take the current fools out of it. How would you fix things? It's all fine and Dandy for us to sit here yelling this or that. How would you do it. And not just a surface answer, dig deep, think of all the little inconsequential things that would affect every choice.

We've seen what on the job training gets you when your running a country. Ands honestly, I'm of the opinion that generations ahead of us are going to ask themselves why we couldn't come to any consensus about things.

The nation is crippled and the sooner we admit to our parts in that and do something to change it the better off well be as a nation.

 

[RazorSharp]

Ok, and no I'm not going to hunt through every little link you put up. Just like I won't put up a link on the Lincoln thing. I find little nuggets here and there. From sources other than you tube for these things. It's remembering these little details that's the key. People are taught so much about everything that's only partially true.

I can't tell you how ridiculous what you said sounds to me. You refuse to debate logically, to read what I post for you, to even bother backing up your own assertions with facts, yet continue to belittle Obama and act like I haven't refuted damn near every point you've tried to make. I also don't appreciate your denigrating tone when you mention YouTube - I was hardly using it as a "source", merely linking to the RNC's collection of TV ads, as should be obvious to anyone reading my sentence. Do yourself a favor, read the links I post. Educate yourself, man. You're making yourself look bad.

I'm not here to belittle somebody or to spout some party line (even though it may seem that way at times) if the current president would do the things he says he wants to do now that he's running for another term instead of looking to me as if he's trying to preempt the Romney campaign. I'd think about it.

Funny, every post you've made here has been toeing the Republican party line (ie. "get rid of Obama"). You clearly have no respect for him, you call him "Barry" and "Big O". The current president has spent the last few years fighting an obstructionist Congress who is blocking him at every turn. Yes, he's spending time attacking Romney (completely justified, as Romney and the RNC are spending all their time attacking him), but in between he's still managed to put out a comprehensive budget plan and outline for his second term. I ask you again, take a moment, educate yourself.

So maybe you can do yourself and others a favor, try to argue your point from a position of no political persuasion. Take the current fools out of it. How would you fix things? It's all fine and Dandy for us to sit here yelling this or that. How would you do it. And not just a surface answer, dig deep, think of all the little inconsequential things that would affect every choice.

The nation is crippled and the sooner we admit to our parts in that and do something to change it the better off well be as a nation.

This thread isn't "how would YOU fix things," it's Romney vs Obama. There's no point in discussing what I would do, I'm not the one running for office. I absolutely will not cease arguing for my candidate and my viewpoint, because I honestly believe we would be making a gigantic, world-altering mistake by electing Romney, and I'm going to do everything in my power to convince everyone else as well.

 

[A.Nonymous]

How I would fix things would be to toss everyone in Washington out on their ears and start over. That includes Romney and Obama.

 

[OutofDate1980]

How I would fix things would be to toss everyone in Washington out on their ears and start over. That includes Romney and Obama.

Last I checked, you ain't king.

 

[rushmore]

BS. Republicans have no desire to compromise. Their goal and only goal is too make Obama a one term president. They opposed legislation that they once supported just to jam up the system.

Typical recalcitrant position trying to ignore legislative history and absolute failures of the current president. BO makes Carter seem like JFK or Clinton (BC had his faults, but I still voted twice for him).

The whole term so far has been like the movie Being There, but without the comedy and insight

 

[rushmore]

The Romney Economic Agenda and Its Effect on the Middle Class and Growth: How His Economic Proposals Depend on the Failed Bush Strategy of Enriching the Wealthy at the Expense of Everyone Else | Center for American Progress Action Fund

"It is no exaggeration to say that the linchpin of Romney's economic strategy is to further enrich the richest 1 percent of Americans. Nearly every element of his economic agenda revolves around what would be good for the richest people and the biggest corporations in the United States. This shouldn't truly surprise anyone.

There is no better example of the failure of supply-side economics than the tax policies of President George W. Bush that have been in effect for more than a decade. The Bush tax cuts not only failed to deliver on the promise of broad-based economic growth but also increased inequality and gravely worsened our country's fiscal health. Despite this experience, Romney's tax plan doubles down on the Bush tax cuts, extending all of the most lucrative tax breaks for high-income individuals while promising even larger tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. How large? A Romney administration would give an average tax break of $250,000 for millionaires over and above the Bush tax cuts, provide more than $1 trillion in tax cuts for corporations, and eliminate taxes on large estates. His tax plan is George W. Bush's plan on steroids, vastly more fiscally irresponsible than the Bush tax cuts.

Six of Romney's proposals would directly eliminate jobs from the U.S. economy. These proposals would create tax incentives that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas, and would undermine growth-enhancing investments in education, science, infrastructure, and health [...] Even assuming a gradual phase-in, the expenditure and public service worker cuts can be expected to cost nearly 450,000 jobs in 2013. In total, by a conservative tally, Romney's plan would actually cost the economy about 360,000 jobs in 2013 alone."

This report goes into great detail about Romney's financially disasterous plans for the country. The price of the Romney plan would be catastrophic, costing $4.9 trillion dollars over the next decade, not including the costs of the Bush tax cuts. I hope that everyone planning to support him reads this very closely.

First of all, both sides of the fence over the past several terms have been a cluster frack. Not enough real business acumen and too many hard core narcissists (more than normal) as an aggregate are in office ATM.

My MBA specializes in economics and actually use it a lot in my current job as well as manage the model for my company's P&L. First of all, "The Center for American Progress" defines progress by how quickly to a heavy neo-economic model (government control) and are one of the more biased groups that exists ATM.

I would trust their agenda minded "facts" and numbers as much as any other "progressive" group. BTW, please tell me how growing government helps the GDP (the key to growth and any real correlation of liquidity)? Cutting government jobs and shifting that TAX PAYER MONEY to free enterprise (with SOME neo-classic controls- ie regulations) is a GOOD thing. Throwing money into government with a weak trending to no growing GDP is an immediate decent on a diminished return chart.

Added:

BTW, small businesses that drive most new job creation are a large part of the "rich" $250,000 and above group being touted. Tax them more, they hire LESS and fire more. More government jobs if not in check with the GDP are like fiscal leeches to a free economy. Unless of course tax payers do not pay for those jobs.... Oh yeah, the growing national debt is absorbing it- got it!

 

[OutofDate1980]

Obama winning Electoral College 332 to 206

Aug. 1: Obama Extends Electoral College Advantage - NYTimes.com

 

[Lord Vader]

The very fact that you cited the New York Times, one of the most biased and unprofessional "news" sources in existence, totally destroys your whole post to begin with.

If anyone thinks Obama has this won, they are fools. Period.

Oh, BTW, the same rag of a paper constantly showed Jimmy Carter with a commanding lead in 1980 in both polls and the Electoral College, even 8 weeks before the election.

Guess who won that election? And in a landslide.

Romney easily wins if he can keep the focus on the economy, because that is the SOLE underlying issue here. As long as Obama can shift the focus to stupid crap like Bain Capital (never mind that factcheck.org totally ripped Obama's BC ads as totally false), Romney's taxes, and anything else OTHER than this horrible economy, he stands a good chance of winning. And why not? There's no way for a failure like Obama to win if the truth remains visible. Hide it and he can win.

 

[OutofDate1980]

The very fact that you cited the New York Times, one of the most biased and unprofessional "news" sources in existence, totally destroys your whole post to begin with.

If anyone thinks Obama has this won, they are fools. Period.

Oh, BTW, the same rag of a paper constantly showed Jimmy Carter with a commanding lead in 1980 in both polls and the Electoral College, even 8 weeks before the election.

Guess who won that election? And in a landslide.

Romney easily wins if he can keep the focus on the economy, because that is the SOLE underlying issue here. As long as Obama can shift the focus to stupid crap like Bain Capital (never mind that factcheck.org totally ripped Obama's BC ads as totally false), Romney's taxes, and anything else OTHER than this horrible economy, he stands a good chance of winning. And why not? There's no way for a failure like Obama to win if the truth remains visible. Hide it and he can win.

I see you are back from your banishment.

Romney needs to keep the discussion away from tax amnesty for his tax cheating off-shore accounts, tax returns and his association with convicted financial fraudster like Milken.

Not to worry, Bain Capital alone will sink this POS. Factcheck.org has been discredited by SEC filing concerning Bain Capital.

Note: this is a blog. You do not argue the facts or methodology.

A typical ad hominem.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

 

[Sunrider133]

Obama is peaceful president and if military will go out from Afganistan, people will vote for him.

 

[RazorSharp]

BTW, small businesses that drive most new job creation are a large part of the "rich" $250,000 and above group being touted. Tax them more, they hire LESS and fire more. More government jobs if not in check with the GDP are like fiscal leeches to a free economy. Unless of course tax payers do not pay for those jobs.... Oh yeah, the growing national debt is absorbing it- got it!

AFAIK, Obama's plan does not include raising corporate taxes, merely personal income taxes on the $250K+ bracket. Out of curiosity, when would you wager the last time someone like Mitt Romney (whose income was $250 million last year) used his own money to create jobs? What new businesses has he started? How many people, besides campaign workers, has he hired over the past few years?

Romney easily wins if he can keep the focus on the economy, because that is the SOLE underlying issue here. As long as Obama can shift the focus to stupid crap like Bain Capital, Romney's taxes, and anything else OTHER than this horrible economy, he stands a good chance of winning. And why not? There's no way for a failure like Obama to win if the truth remains visible. Hide it and he can win.

I strongly suggest that you read my post here (on this page) that discusses Romney's awful economic plan. Also, now that you're back, I continue to await your response to my post here where I answer several of your misguided statements and bring up more of Romney's harmful social beliefs that he will attempt to impress on the American people if he were elected President.

The very fact that you cited the New York Times, one of the most biased and unprofessional "news" sources in existence, totally destroys your whole post to begin with.

You often attack the sources people use to back up their statements. What sources do you consider reliable?

 

[Lord Vader]

I see you are back from your banishment.

Romney needs to keep the discussion away from tax amnesty for his tax cheating off-shore accounts, tax returns and his association with convicted financial fraudster like Milken.

Not to worry, Bain Capital alone will sink this POS. Factcheck.org has been discredited by SEC filing concerning Bain Capital.

Note: this is a blog. You do not argue the facts or methodology.

A typical ad hominem.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

A) I was never banished.
B) The issue is the ECONOMY, not Romney's taxes or anything similar to all the smoke and mirrors the Obama team has put up. Fortunately, most Americans know this. They also are smart enough to recognize what the Obama camp is doing by shifting the focus.

Obama was a failure as an IL. State Senator. He was a failure as a U.S. Senator. He is a failure as a U.S. President. At least he's consistent, I'll give him that.

"It's the economy, stupid," as one famous Democrat has always said. This same individual has recently commented further that if the focus remains on the economy, which it should but which the Obama team does NOT want to happen, "He's toast." That's a quote directly from the (Democratic) horse's mouth.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Hard to call someone a failure when they've had the career success that Obama has had. I'll give him props there. The guy has had a successful career if nothing else.

In any case, I'd bet money at this point that Obama gets re-elected.

 

[Lord Vader]

Career? What career? Running for office and getting elected? That's not a career. The guy has never held a private sector job in his entire life. He got elected to state and U.S. Senator by thuggery and other typical strong-armed tactics so common here in Illinois. Then after he gets elected to those two positions, he does almost nothing. (As a state senator, he voted "present" for more than 50% of all votes cast.) He couldn't even take a position on things.

He got elected to the presidency for several reasons, chief among them that the GOP was too stupid to nominate someone who actually had a chance and because of the financial collapse occurring when it did. Now, with the economy as bad as it is (and no signs of real improvement anytime soon), he's in serious trouble.

The key polls to watch are the ones that tell the real story--the right track/wrong track especially. In that one, Obama's numbers are very foreboding.

 

[rushmore]

AFAIK, Obama's plan does not include raising corporate taxes, merely personal income taxes on the $250K+ bracket. Out of curiosity, when would you wager the last time someone like Mitt Romney (whose income was $250 million last year) used his own money to create jobs? What new businesses has he started? How many people, besides campaign workers, has he hired over the past few years?

I strongly suggest that you read my post here (on this page) that discusses Romney's awful economic plan. Also, now that you're back, I continue to await your response to my post here where I answer several of your misguided statements and bring up more of Romney's harmful social beliefs that he will attempt to impress on the American people if he were elected President.

You often attack the sources people use to back up their statements. What sources do you consider reliable?

Seems the same standards do not apply here? Quoting a progressive and highly liberal group for econ statistics kind of evens the playing field for asserted bias. Your assessment of personal income and corporate entities is a tad on the gray side. All moot though, since increasing taxes without a correlating and marginally higher increase in GDP (kept in check with liquidity and NOT credit) has no result but bad.

Still, I suggest such tactics are by design, since the motive could be to weaken the economy, so MORE people depend on government and they can also wrongly equate government jobs as part of economic growth. What else is the answer? If these folks really are smart, they must know what they are doing is counter-intuitive to free econ principles.

Which is it then? Are they smart and are doing this on purpose, or do they "think" they are smart and making ignorant decisions? I am a registered dem (but NOT a liberal), so no right wing ploy, but an objective question. Are they making wrong decisions like tax increases, energy constraints, hundreds of billions of dollars on bad energy investments, cash for clunkers, etc- because they KNOW what they are doing??

Added:

Factor in a Trojan horse healthcare plan with thousands of unread pages (by lawmakers that passed it) that is 30% (at best) spend on actual health care and 70% spend on growing government infrastucture and jobs- If they know what the are doing, they would appear not to be fans of a free economy. Heck, if they are saying their healthcare plan is a carbon copy of Romney's plan, the lawmakers would have read all the pages and 80% of the spend would be on (shock) actual healthcare and not growing government. Lib 101: Use things that people really care about as a vehicle (Trojan horse) to get what you REALLY want done. In this case, GROW government.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Career? What career? Running for office and getting elected? That's not a career. The guy has never held a private sector job in his entire life. He got elected to state and U.S. Senator by thuggery and other typical strong-armed tactics so common here in Illinois. Then after he gets elected to those two positions, he does almost nothing. (As a state senator, he voted "present" for more than 50% of all votes cast.) He couldn't even take a position on things.

He got elected to the presidency for several reasons, chief among them that the GOP was too stupid to nominate someone who actually had a chance and because of the financial collapse occurring when it did. Now, with the economy as bad as it is (and no signs of real improvement anytime soon), he's in serious trouble.

The key polls to watch are the ones that tell the real story--the right track/wrong track especially. In that one, Obama's numbers are very foreboding.

Many people make careers as politicians.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... (As a state senator, he voted "present" for more than 50% of all votes cast.) He couldn't even take a position on things. ...

Do you do any research before you post garbage ?

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Legislative Record

Q: How many times did Obama vote 'present' as a state senator?
A: He did so 129 times, which represents a little more than 3 percent of his total votes.

 

[RazorSharp]

As a state senator, he voted "present" for more than 50% of all votes cast. He couldn't even take a position on things.

Once again, you are wrong:
Obama cast over 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate, and voted "present" 130 times. He used the present vote "to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Sometimes the present votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. In more than 50 votes, he [was] acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy. In at least 45 instances, Obama voted with large numbers of fellow Democrats as part of the tactical skirmishing with Republicans over the budget. In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure."

The key polls to watch are the ones that tell the real story--the right track/wrong track especially. In that one, Obama's numbers are very foreboding.

"The key polls to watch are the ones that tell the real story"? What does this even mean? Which polls, pray tell, are the ones that tell "the real story"? You haven't answered my earlier question about naming sources that you personally consider to be accurate and non-partisan.

Seems the same standards do not apply here? Quoting a progressive and highly liberal group for econ statistics kind of evens the playing field for asserted bias. Your assessment of personal income and corporate entities is a tad on the gray side. All moot though, since increasing taxes without a correlating and marginally higher increase in GDP (kept in check with liquidity and NOT credit) has no result but bad.

Still, I suggest such tactics are by design, since the motive could be to weaken the economy, so MORE people depend on government and they can also wrongly equate government jobs as part of economic growth. What else is the answer? If these folks really are smart, they must know what they are doing is counter-intuitive to free econ principles.

Which is it then? Are they smart and are doing this on purpose, or do they "think" they are smart and making ignorant decisions? I am a registered dem (but NOT a liberal), so no right wing ploy, but an objective question. Are they making wrong decisions like tax increases, energy constraints, hundreds of billions of dollars on bad energy investments, cash for clunkers, etc- because they KNOW what they are doing??

Added:

Factor in a Trojan horse healthcare plan with thousands of unread pages (by lawmakers that passed it) that is 30% (at best) spend on actual health care and 70% spend on growing government infrastucture and jobs- If they know what the are doing, they would appear not to be fans of a free economy. Heck, if they are saying their healthcare plan is a carbon copy of Romney's plan, the lawmakers would have read all the pages and 80% of the spend would be on (shock) actual healthcare and not growing government. Lib 101: Use things that people really care about as a vehicle (Trojan horse) to get what you REALLY want done. In this case, GROW government.

Obviously I don't have the degree of economic acumen that you do, but I certainly don't believe that the government would purposefully tank the economy to increase the populace's reliance on it. Perhaps it's consequences that your "free econ principles" had on the economy during the Bush presidency and made the increased governmental regulations and bailouts necessary that have the current administration wary? As that report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund states, Romney's plan if he's elected is to double down on the Bush tax cuts that had a demonstrably disastrous effect on the economy.