2 Oct

How Romney Can Win With A Mandate [Reader Post]

                                       

It is panic time for the Rom

ney campaign. We are in the final stretch toward the most important election of our lifetimes, and Romney’s campaign still hasn’t left the starting blocks. The fact that he is as close as he is to an incumbent president in the polls is a powerful testament to the failure of our current leader, not shrewd tactics from Romney’s campaign team. By every measure, Obama’s policies have been an unmitigated disaster to the United States. Until this past month, Obama could claim to have some solid footing on foreign policy, but now even that part of his presidency is proving to be an epic fail. It would be hard for a cardboard cutout to poll any worse than Romney given the circumstances.

So, how do you lose what should be the easiest election against an incumbent president since Richard Nixon? The problems to date widely recognized by the pundits and a very confused electorate are the following:

  1. No one has any clue what Romney’s positions are.
  2. There is no sense of urgency.
  3. The public only knows Obama’s lies as to why we are in a recession.
  4. Romney has been defined entirely by the Obama campaign.
  5. The public doesn’t know how to get out of the recession.

There is an easy way to answer all of these concerns and a way of giving the nation a secure understanding of how Romney will turn us around:

Three to Five 30-minute “Fireside Chats” discussing the most important topics of the day.

These fireside chats will accomplish the following things that state to state campaigning, 30-second commercial advertising, and media outlets cannot:

  1. Provide a clear explanation of our current situation.
  2. Debunk the left’s lies about what caused the Great Recession.
  3. Give the sense of urgency of how important this election is.
  4. Give a clear concise message of what Romney will do to save the economy.
  5. Provide powerful sound bites and themes to carry through November.

Though important, Romney cannot depend on the debates to accomplish these objectives since they will largely be run by highly motivated liberal moderators who will keep the subjects to personal attacks and issues they know are republican losers like contraception and abortion. He needs to control the medium and content to correctly define his positions and explain how he will save the United States.

The “fireside chat” tradition was started by FDR early in his presidency, when he addressed the nation with radio speeches organized into what he considered to be the most important topics. The best candidate to have recent success with speaking to specific problems and solutions in a controlled 30 min format was Ross Perot. He attracted a huge audience (over 16 million) and used very simple charts and graphs to explain subjects in a way that resonated with the public. Though he was unable to ultimately capture votes from party loyalists, he had powerful support with the independents, that same 5-10% that Romney now so famously said were his focus at a fundraiser earlier this year. Most importantly, it will allow Romney to take control of the national narrative that has been dominated by the Obama camp to date.

Below are suggestions for subjects and the information that could be presented in each. The following proposal lists important topics and gives a synopsis of what has happened under the “Obama Record”. Some of the points should be illustrated in pictures, charts , and graphs that will show the magnitude of the problem. After the synopsis, there is a description of what “Romney’s Plan” would accomplish and why it will address the problems that have festered under Obama’s presidency.

Growth

Obama Record:

  • Labor force participation rate Jan, 2008 to Aug, 2012: 66.2% è 63.5% or about 3.7 million fewer jobs than the beginning of 2008.
  • 8.1% unemployment only made possible because of those dropping out of the force.
  • 5.2 million long-term unemployed.
  • 7.3% decline in median household income ($4K per family).
  • 15% poverty rate.
  • Over 46 million on food stamps as of Aug, 2012… up from 26 million in Jan, 2008.
  • Over $2 Trillion in cash sitting on company books.
  • Hundreds of billions sitting outside the country because of tax concerns.
  • Regulatory uncertainty freezing business activity.
  • Frank-Dodd freezing nearly all small business loans.
  • Obamacare driving medical innovation offshore.

Romney’s Plan:

  • Create an environment for business to invest and grow. North of $2 Trillion of money sitting on balance sheets and off shore that would go DIRECTLY to investment in R&D and hiring, not the favors and pension padding of Obama stimulus dollars. That money will go to where it gets the best return. Under Romney that is in the US, under Obama that is offshore.
  • Lower business taxes to 25% and cut out loopholes. Lower taxes will bring in offshore money and increase the returns for domestic dollars.
  • Repeal Frank Dodd, which will lift the freeze on banks to lend to small business. Business start-ups have to go to “mom and dad” because Obama destroyed their ability to get money from banks.
  • Repeal Obamacare. The device tax is a company killer and 1/6th of the economy is in lock down as companies try to figure out regulations that are still being written. Show examples of companies that are taking their innovation dollars overseas.
  • Reduce regulations that make US investment onerous. Name some of the bad ones.
  • Encourage energy production in the US. Give numbers to show our untapped reserves. Give numbers to show how many jobs can be created. Mention that the oil will either be refined in our “green” refineries or seriously pollute in unregulated Chinese facilities.
  • Grant work visas to any foreign national who gets a graduate degree in the US. Stop educating the world’s innovators and then sending them away.

Taxes

Obama’s Record:

  • Higher tax rates kill growth. Period. This has been shown by the likes of even liberal economists Christine Romer and John Maynard Keynes. It is something that scares business and has created uncertainty.
  • Outsourcing at an accelerated rate partly in anticipation to higher business taxes (and partly due to increased regulations). Even the head of Obama’s jobs council, GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt is shipping thousands of their jobs off-shore.
  • Money made in the global markets does not return to the US because of high business taxes.
  • Over 50% of companies in the US file as S-corps and will see large tax raises well ABOVE the Clinton levels. That directly drains from hiring.
  • Obama’s tax cuts were temporary, econ 101 shows that temporary cuts do nothing to spur the economy.
  • The tax code is horribly confusing, counterproductive, hurts the little guy, and allows the rich to hide their money. It needs to be completely reformed. Describe what simplification means. Give real world examples.

Romney’s Plan:

  • Make the Bush cuts permanent. It will send a signal that S-corps and investors will continue to get good returns on investments in the US.
  • Decrease the corporate tax rate to 25%. This will directly free up money for hiring & innovation and encourage companies to keep their facilities in the US.
  • Give a one-time tax break for repatriating the hundreds of billions from overseas. This will provide a real stimulus directed by those who actually make jobs: businesses
  • Cut out loopholes in the code and simplify. The lower rates with fewer loopholes will actually be a more progressive tax. Describe what the loopholes are going to be with examples!
  • Give examples of how much easier it will be for someone to fill out their taxes and not feel like the IRS is always out to get them.

Debt

Obama’s Record:

  • On the Road to Greece.
  • Taxpayer money was spent to create jobs in foreign countries.
  • Taxpayer money was spent to promote and fund gas drilling by Mexico and Brazil.
  • Debt looks benign because interest rates are low. As soon as rates go up it will crowd out other government spending and lead to economy crushing taxes, on everyone
  • Over $6 Trillion added with little to show for it. Cost per job created is an astonishing figure.
  • That equates to $55,000 of debt per household added under Obama. Do you feel better off now?
  • Stimulus didn’t stimulate anything but uncertainty about the future.
  • At current rate of spending (and Obama projected budgets), we will have to take a 750 billion annual haircut on government programs in 10y just to service interest.

Romney’s Plan:

  • Reagan, Keynes(!), JFK, and even Clinton (large capital gains tax cut) showed that the best way to raise revenues is growth-inspiring tax cuts.
  • Entitlement reform! Show how to bend the curve and preserve the social programs. Show what kind of cuts you have to do if the budget is left under current projections.
  • Show the Bain Chief’s abilities to identify and cut waste out of systems with examples.
  • Show example of states and how they beat their deficits: New Jersey, Wisconsin, Massachusetts (under Romney), Indiana and contrast it with Obama style states like California and Illinois that raised taxes and pandered to labor interests.
  • Other good stats to show: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/obama-versus-economic-freedom.php

Sound Money

Obama’s Record:

  • Fed continues to benefit Wall Street at the expense of Main Street under Obama.
  • Show how much purchasing power has decreased in the past four years and who that hurts.
  • Show the increase of money supply and show what that means for future “poor taxing” inflation when banks start lending.
  • Adds uncertainty to the market.

Romney’s plan:

  • Replace Bernanke with someone who will protect the value of money
  • Give business the kind of long-term certainty they need to make decisions.
  • Mirror what Reagan did with Volcker to get us out of the Carter mess

Branding

Obama’s Record:

  • Everyone thinks Bain was some financial engineering group that hurt companies for shareholders
  • Convinced the public Romney is pitching the same toxic policies that got us here in the first place.

Romney’s Pitch:

  • Romney’s business history was to create a firm that engages distressed companies or divisions and turn them around. Banks and institutions lined up to lend to Bain’s companies because of Romney’s record returning the money and building enterprises with it.
  • It doesn’t makes sense that a corporate raider who would loan companies up with debt and fire everyone would be a called upon by the Olympic committee to rescue them from too much debt… or for the people of Massachusetts to vote in a REPUBLICAN to rescue them from crushing debt and the nation’s worst job creation rate.
  • Romney went into a debt-crushed state and came out with a surplus, tax cuts, and maximum theoretical unemployment. Obama went into a debt-crushed country and came out with double the debt, tax hikes, and 3.8 million fewer jobs…

A series of talks that illustrate the above points in clear simple language, using charts, graphs, and real world examples, would win over the undecided and elect Romney with a mandate to put us back on the track to free markets. If Romney doesn’t reveal a clear plan, we will have four more years of Obama and solidify a “new normal” of high permanent unemployment, low growth, and steady progress to a debt crisis that will inevitably remove our status as the international superpower.

Crossposted from Reality Bats Last

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
| 379 views

20 Responses to How Romney Can Win With A Mandate [Reader Post]

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Obviously it is NOT because Romney hasn’t made his policies and positions clear…..he has.
    It has to do with the media being in Obama’s pocket and NOT REPORTING clearly about Romney’s policies and positions.

    Like, today, an Obama-friendly PAC did an unintentionally funny ad about Romney being out of touch with his garbageman who claimed he feels ”invisible” to Romney.
    Oddly here’s what Romney said about his time working as a garbageman:

    ….I gathered trash as a garbage collector.
    I stood on that little platform at the back of the truck, holding on as the driver navigated his way through the narrow streets of Boston.
    As we pulled up to traffic lights, I noticed that the shoppers and businesspeople who were standing only a few feet from me didn’t even see me.
    It was as if I was invisible.
    Perhaps it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect.
    I wasn’t a particularly good garbage collector: at one point, after filling the trough at the back of the truck, I pulled the wrong hydraulic lever.
    Instead of pushing the load into the truck, I dumped it onto the street. …..

    ReplyReply
  2. James Raider says: 2

    @ Jess Jones,

    Very well done. You’ve obviously given some thought to the challenges and come up with some good ideas.

    I agree with you on the S-corp problem and there are straight-forward answers which the Admin. & Congress could easily introduce, but won’t. Radical measures could go a long way toward reigniting this economy.

    The ‘tax’ question is going to be a major turning point for the future of the Nation.

    How do you feel about 0% corporate tax rate, rather than 25%? . . . . Pick it up on ‘consumption’?

    Another huge piece is, and is going to be, Interest Rates.

    ReplyReply
  3. Ditto says: 3

    There also needs to be plans to get new manufacturing. America can not prosper unless we return the US to a production economy. The creation of goods and commodities creates a healthy growing economy. A service economy where most goods are imported while exporting steadily declines means we will always have a trade deficit.

    ReplyReply
  4. Doc Holliday says: 4

    Stop illegals from voting? Unscrew the warped public education system? Magically. tear the brain deads away from Dancing With the Stars and give them the desire to protect the Constitution? I am just spit-balling here.

    ReplyReply
  5. JustAl says: 5

    @Doc Holliday: Instead he’s already agreed to let O’s unilateral amnesty stand and has joined O in the classwar by wanting to limit the home mortgage deduction. Obama lite vs Obama, a self proclaimed progressive vs an obvious communist. I’m just sooo excited.

    ReplyReply
  6. Nathan Blue says: 6

    While I agree that we need to be critical of Romney and not just endorse him “because he’s not Obama,” I think this article may be a little harsh. Personally as a voter, I do feel that I know where Mitt stands and what he’s going to do. It’s the tactic of the Obama to be unapologetic in glad-handing and self-promotion, offering specific promises that he simply can’t deliver on. Mitt’s not doing that.

    I like that Mitt doesn’t follow Obama into the muck, and though it seems he’s losing votes because of that, I’m not so sure. I feel that most people are questioning lots of things, and in the end, Mitt will come out on top. He has publicly given his opinion on foreign affairs (the lib. MSM will always distort them into “gaffes”). He choose a budget specialist for a VP. He’s flatly stated that he differs from Obama on how to solve the issues at hand, rather than saying Obama doesn’t care (though Obama was quick to attack that ad, wasn’t he).

    All and all, Mitt is a better candidate than what even most Reps give him credit for. The issue is that he’s not incendiary or overtly bold (a la Chris Christie). Most cons seem to want an avenging angel for a candidate, and I think that would be a mistake. We don’t want to keep this Rep/Dem cold war going. We need a peacemaker to foster an environment that will help heal the wounds Obama allowed to be inflicted.

    Mitt’s is best for that, right now, and he really needs our support.

    ReplyReply
  7. Richard Wheeler says: 7

    I’ve been saying it since day one. The reason Romney has the best chance of beating Obama is because he is a Mass.Moderate who will reach across the aisle as he did in Mass.The Repub. far right couldn’t get a nominee and that’s a blessing for America.
    This election will be close and if Romney continues his moderate views on immigration and maintains his positive and friendly demeanor he’s got a great chance of winning.

    Congrats. on a great debate performance.

    ReplyReply
  8. Richard Wheeler says: 8

    I would add that if Repubs. and a majority of Indies follow the advice and counsel of Nathan Blue #6 ( A new cogent voice in the discussion) Obama WILL lose.

    ReplyReply
  9. Doc Holliday says: 9

    @JustAl:

    I wish I could disagree with you, but I can’t. The debate proved that Romney is a progressive, not a real conservative. He agrees with Obama that government has a solution for every problem. The one difference is that Romney deigns to allow the free market to play a small role in the overall government plan.

    Romney said he will not cut “education”. So what the heck does that mean? I guess the Department of Education is pretty safe. He said he will NOT cut taxes on the wealthy a cent, well, there goes supply side theory. Romney wants to end Obamacare, but then keep this part of it, and of course keep THAT part as well. grrr.

    well, maybe this is what it takes for a Republican to win in the America we have today. At this point Romney is my guy because only he can stop Obama. I support Romney and can’t wait for the day Obama gets sent packing.

    ReplyReply
  10. Doc Holliday
    don’t stop your spitting, it tell the truth they don’t want to hear,

    ReplyReply
  11. Nathan Blue
    as you see, some don’t take the time to see why MITT ROMNEY won’t become OBAMA,
    and accuse with fabricated lies, instead he will telling the OBAMA that he fail and pointed it precisely,
    he will not come down to OBAMA LEVEL and the follower of OBAMA use that as a weakness,
    well those who know can detect the MITT ROMNEY superiority as oppose
    to an LILLIPUTIAN MIND,
    of his opponent, which has prove his failure to hold the highest position requiring SUPERIOR mind
    like MITT ROMNEY has been ascertained by the smart many leader of STATES top position and other leaders of top enterprises in this great nation which are a big credibility factor for what MITT ROMNEY say in his campaign and on his first debate
    a wisdom acquire from his youth right upbringing

    ReplyReply
  12. MataHarley says: 12

    @JustAl and @Doc Holliday… in agreement with both of you, save that “Romney is my man” part at the end of yours, Doc.

    I guess I viewed the debate differently than most. To me it was an arena in ancient Rome, and the spectators came out to enjoy the old fashioned blood sport of politics. The quest was to see Obama was ripped apart, and Romney gave them that.

    But the after glow and puffed up pride in Romney came not because a conservative got on stage and successfully took it to the failing policies of a lib/prog POTUS. James Carvelle probably put it best… Romney “out Obama’ed Obama”, seizing the traditional progressive phrases of “middle class” and “trickle down”, using it for his own purposes. The sheer delight of the kill came not because conservatives could cheer on a champion who espoused their views, but because they so thoroughly enjoyed watching Obama being skewered… by any one and in any way possible.

    Me? I’m somewhat nauseated to find the conservative crowd roaring with delight at Romney’s liberal plans. It seems that if the choice is way left, and somewhat left of center, the latter is to be celebrated. When I see that, I believe the battle for fiscal sanity is all but lost. There is no hope for a conservative leader in this nation until 2020… by then it’s too late. The expanded Medicaid system (which is both Obamacare and Romneycare alike) will have about 41% of the nation’s projected citizens on government subsidized healthcare. And in case any one wanted to ignore it, Romney did not win the “healthcare” part of the debate. His only winning point was that he did the same thing Obama did, but with the Mass Republicans’ blessings. Sorry… I don’t find much solace in that.

    But then, Romney was never going to win the healthcare debate.

    INRE Obama’s performance. There’s no excuse for it. He watched Romney embellish “facts” against Newt in Florida, and Gingrich’s reaction was similar… stunned into silence. And make no mistake, Romney misstated just as much as Obama did. This means… pay attention, Greg…. you have no moral high ground with your guy in the Oval Office.

    WaPo did a fast fact check of claims from both sides. Always some degree of truth, massaged to extremes beyond feasibility. I don’t buy those defending Obama by saying Romney lied without them copping to the reality that Obama did exactly the same.

    But afterglow is short lived, and the big spin on the latest job and unemployment reports makes it’s usual rounds thru the media. Naturally, this will be used by the O’team to indicate an “improving” economy – an argument that will be bought and paid for, in full, by the economic illiterates who vote. Will they figure out that 44,000 of the jobs created are in the health sector, the majority of which are likely to be indirectly on the federal subsidized payroll? Or that the loss of 16,000 manufacturing jobs is just another omen of the larger global slow down?

    Before anyone puts too much emphasis in Romney’s shining moment, CNN’s snap polls debate eve had one particular statistic that stuck out to me. After the debate, there was 18% more likely to vote Obama, and 35% more likely to vote Romney.

    But the largest number was 47% … who said the debate didn’t change their mind one iota. (breakdowns on pg 21 of the PDF linked above)

    In the sample of 430 respondents – all white, 50 years and above in age – 33% of them were Republicans, 37% Democrats and 29% Indys. The largest political demographics that said the debate didn’t alter their opinion were the Dems (54%) and the Indys (53%).

    This means that out of the 125 approx Indy’s in the sample, 66 of them were unaffected by the magnificent performance of “out Obama’ing Obama”.

    Of the 159 Dems sampled, about 86 of them were not disappointed in Obama’s inept performance to be swayed away from a clueless POTUS.

    This is what Romney is up against… that the O’faithful cannot be swayed, even by a smarter liberal than Obama, masquerading as a conservative. And Indys who are seeking a genuine conservative leader aren’t going to be influenced by liberal policies just because the guy has an “R” behind his name.

    This debate was Romney’s arena to win. Whether you agreed with Romney’s approach or not, we could be entertained that Obama was revealed as clueless to economic realities, and at least the other guy knew what he was talking about. But is that enough?

    The next two debates will focus more on foreign policy, albeit with two very different types of formats. The Candy Crowley debate on the 16th is a townhall style, with approved questions from the audience.

    We already know how the foreign policy debate will be handled by Obama… the “I killed Bin Laden” and “I’ve killed more AQ with drones” , constantly echoed here by the liberal participants, will be the mainstay. He will attempt to portray the ME as becoming more democratized with Arab Spring. And he will dodge Libya as an investigation in progress or, if forced, perhaps lay it off on Hillary’s State Dept. (i.e. “we’re looking into it”). But always as nicely as possible so as not to alienate Teflon Bill. But you know that Obama never allows the buck to land on his Resolute desk.

    Unfortunately, Romney will have nothing but lip service to offer in return.

    One can only hope his debate coaches will teach him how to effectively counter the above arguments with reality – that the US has lost more Muslim allies under this POTUS, and placed our diplomats and military in a very dangerous position by his choices to support the wrong side of every situation. But I wouldn’t be expecting the same 2 to 1 “win” by Romney on the next debates.

    ReplyReply
  13. Richard Wheeler says: 13

    Mata As usual you are right on. You just took a little longer in #12 to embellish what I said in #’s 7 and #8.
    This election is still about 270. It’s still very close and Mitt must continue to move to the middle. Today he disavowed the 47% comment and stated ‘I’m for the 100%”—Smart.

    ReplyReply
  14. retire05 says: 14

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Why do I always here progressives claim that Republicans must move more to the middle, but I never read where you demand that of the far left like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Why is it that the Republicans are the ones who should “reach across the aisle” yet the Democrats are not held to account by you when they don’t?

    Mitt Romney is a liberal northeastern squich. I have said that before, and will continue to say it, but what he is not is a Marxist. And for that very reason, I will vote for him.

    ReplyReply
  15. @MataHarley: #12,

    “Romney was never going to win the healthcare debate.”

    In the confused-go-nowhere healthcare debate Romney made an important point on the Obama timing – Obamacare slammed down the throats of taxpayers, just as the Nation was descending into economic hell. Obama/Jarrett came into office and made it their signature performance, damn the consequences. Starting next year, those consequences will include a serious hit on the economy, and an increased burden in everyone’s cost of living. And that is before the other huge financial concerns rear their ugly heads.

    Romney isn’t conservative, although he knows more about business and what fuels the economy than the Obama/Jarrett incumbency. No one knows what he will really do if elected, perhaps not even Romney. In a very evenly divided electorate, however, Romney probably fits the bill better than most, if the Nation is looking for someone who might bring some positive solutions.

    I intensely dislike compromising one’s principals (I like to believe I have established a few through the years), and don’t like compromises in business. However, we have witnessed the deadlocked stupidity which is hurting the country, just as the economic abyss arrives and we will all be beyond the point of no return should this continue. Under the Constitution, and given the current composition of the electorate, the Senate, the House of Reps and this White House – it is a sad state of affairs when it has become evident that “compromise” may be the only chance the country has of averting extreme economic disaster. Congress will not pass, and Obama/Jarrett will not sign, bills which are really needed to bring government spending under control, so, . . . . milk-toast bills, with a heavy dose of financial conservative influence will be needed to at least reduce the pain.

    As you know, countries like England or Canada who have parliaments, in effect can end up with 4 year ‘dictatorships’ if the ruling party has a majority. The Prime Minister can pass any bill he/she wants. Averting disaster with a hardline socialist-big-government crowd like this Administration is impossible. When you have a President who spends his time in a debate looking down because he’s shuffling through his prepared cue-cards because he has no idea what he’s doing, a tenth grader would be a better alternative.

    Unfortunately, Romney has shown no indication that he is fiscally conservative. Still, hopefully he will get in, and do the right thing with a conservative ‘lean’ as much as the system will allow.

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 16

    @James Raider: In the confused-go-nowhere healthcare debate Romney made an important point on the Obama timing – Obamacare slammed down the throats of taxpayers, just as the Nation was descending into economic hell.

    I agree. I thought I made that point when I said:

    And in case any one wanted to ignore it, Romney did not win the “healthcare” part of the debate. His only winning point was that he did the same thing Obama did, but with the Mass Republicans’ blessings. Sorry… I don’t find much solace in that.

    My point? Of course Romney “works across the aisle”. Did it all the time in Mass. And the results were RomneyCare/Medicaid expanded enrollment, 50% funded by the rest of the nation, with a mandate… just like Obamacare. The results were liberal appointees as judges. The results were Romney, himself, protesting in front of coal plants with his AGW peers. The results were Romney and Kennedy, not only working in tandem on Romneycare, but also to shut down the Cape Wind farm because it would harm the property values of his buds on the island.

    In other words, when Romney “works across the aisle”, he caves to liberal principles since he doesn’t appear to have any of his own. So what difference is it if he accomplishes the same results as Obama does with, or without Republican blessings? Either the GOP has the numbers in Congress, and balls, to gain effective compromises (as the 1990s Congress did with Clinton), or they don’t.

    No one knows what he will really do if elected, perhaps not even Romney. In a very evenly divided electorate, however, Romney probably fits the bill better than most, if the Nation is looking for someone who might bring some positive solutions.

    Well, as I mentioned above, we do know what Romney did as Mass Governor… and the only “positive” was for the Mass Medicaid coffers and other sundry liberal causes.

    I have my doubts about Romney fitting the bill for positive solutions. He fears to tread in the arenas that require overhaul. He’s already said he won’t repeal Obamacare because so much of it is like Romneycare and are things he wants to keep. We already know he’s a big Medicaid guy.

    I too have a problem with Romney’s vague promises. I understand that he wants to roll back some tax credits… but apparently it’s not going to be in health care or education. Those are two huge budget drains in federal agencies. He’s sure not going to be able to expand or maintain the military, as he suggests, without boldly attacking other agencies and programs that need elimination, slashing or reform. And cutting out Big Bird won’t even come close. Obama may have been wrong on his own tax/economic statements, but I also see serious flaws with Romney’s as well.

    I know the concept is to keep revenue status quo by more workers, more jobs but at a lower tax rate. But government doesn’t create jobs in the private sector. They can make the environment friendly to do so, but the global economy also has to have a marketplace for the business expansion. So we have a double problem… making the US again a friendly nation to house the main offices of business, but also having to deal with declining demand and consumption world wide.

    I was also disappointed – tho not surprised – that no where in the economy/jobs segment did either man address the devaluation of the dollar or eternal Fed QE policies.

    ReplyReply
  17. @MataHarley: #16,

    We may both have misgivings about Romney for similar reasons. When Obama was running against Hillary and against McCain, I felt I had a handle on who he was regardless his pretence. Obama didn’t dispel my fears – the evidence is in. Along comes Romney, who’s played in a game I spent some years in, so I get a sense of his background etc., give him leeway for breathing in and running a hardcore progressive State though I question some of his decisions, he ran a successful Olympics (not easy), then he seems to stray from his background (business background) which is where his foundation lies, and he floats out less than fiscally conservative plans for the country. He’s not dangerous to the country and the world the way 4 more years of Obama would be, however, I have difficulty, intuitively and rationally, figuring his centre.

    I look for self-confidence, not arrogance or self-importance, but individuals who are naturally secure, and can demonstrate it in their actions. Obama is simply very insecure IMHO. Romney obviously much less insecure but damn I’d like to feel much, much more confidence coming from him. I’d like to see him walk onto that stage like he owns the place.

    And I agree that they both missed on QE and devaluation, which evidently the moderator didn’t have a clue about just like the President. This was a serious omission. Perhaps also telling about Romney. If he steps into the Oval Office, he’ll have to deal with those head-on before his first lunch. About all I’ve heard is that he’ll remove Bernanke, . . . big deal.

    ReplyReply
  18. James Raider
    we seems to forget
    MITT ROMNEY as president, will have quite a smart CREW to supply the infos needed, as I’m sure you had in your business
    and any smart advices he would need,
    that is what OBAMA is missing, and someone to tell him the truth, instead they praise him to his face and most likely blame him in his back,
    but it won’t be so with MITT ROMNEY, BECAUSE HE HAS PROVEN HE CAN DELEGATE TO THE RIGHT PERSON, AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE DEMANDS, HE SAID IT TOO.
    I would not be worry about details because of what we are forgetting is the CREWS
    OF KNOWLEDGE HE WILL PICK HIMSELF,
    too secure is as dangerous as too unsecure,
    and he had learned during his previous endeavor,

    ReplyReply
  19. hey 28 days before the ELECTION,
    I’m feeling the positive , and we must elevate the pressure a notch higher,
    MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT,
    OHIO STEP UP THE PRESSURE, I know you have to fight the negatives forces,
    but you all have the power to win over them, WE NEED YOU FOR AMERICA
    do it for the sake of those who fought and died for the freedom of you all,

    ReplyReply
  20. MATA
    DID I heard it well that OBAMA HAS 1500 SECURITY FOR HIM,
    and did not agree to send some security to the AMBASSADOR AND PEOPLE IN THERE BENGHASY,
    AFTER MANY DEMANDS BY A COMMANDER WHICH WAS ANSWER YOU HAVE TO DO WITHOUT AND WE WANT TO CUT ON SECURITY ON OTHER EMBASSY ALSO.
    THAT WAS TODAY ON FOX NEWS
    BYE

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>