per patriot (8:57 a.m. July 5)... Curious? So you long for more casino
capitalism from another POTUS w/ an IVY League MBA?Don't know
about the rest of you but I'll pass on another term brought to us by the
So Mike (8:30 p.m. July 5, 2012)... I am anxious to get your 2 cents on GOP
@VSTI think when he said 80 years he meant roughly 80 years and was
suggesting that Obama inherited the worst situation since FDR.
@patriot"Business experience + Governor Experience VS NO
experience."Um... Obama has the most valuable experience there
is, he IS the president and has 3.5 years and counting of experience there.
A businessman works to get profits for his shareholder. He doesn't care
about creating jobs in his company. He doesn't care about what what his
business means for all the other businesses. We've had only a few
businessmen in the White House but they include the Bushes and Hoover. A
President has to look out for ALL Americans. Romney has not given any real
examples as to how his private sector experience is a benefit. He's been
vague on policy (if not outright flipping around positions like how suddenly
he's stopped talking about self-deportation) and any Republican can say
they want tax cuts and deregulation. So what makes Romney so special?
@patriot no experience? who was our president for the past four years? I
think I will take one term presidential experience over one term experience as a
wrzRead the Paul Ryan plan. It calls for immediate, massive cuts in
spending. No way attrition accomplishes anywhere close to the reductions the
plan calls for. Romney's just saying 'attrition' for political
purposes--in fact, his plans will immediately increase unemployment by a minimum
of 3 percent. Net job creation under Obama? Not great, but positive,
around 240,000 new private sector jobs created per month. Considering that
we're in a recession, that's pretty good. Why is the unemployment
rate so high? Public sector job losses. Teachers and cops and firefighters
laid off. State and local governments have been subjected to austerity plus.
Which, obviously, isn't the fault of the federal government. You say public
sector jobs pay twice that of private sector jobs? Sorry, not true. You can
cherrypick a few instances of overpaid public employees (California prison
guards), but do you personally know any cops? Or teachers? Or EMTs? Rolling in
the dough, are they?Auto industry. He saved millions of jobs. You say
creditors and shareholders got next to nothing. Nothing is exactly what they
would have gotten without federal intervention. Reduce nuclear
stockpiles? Uh, remember the START treaty?
Business experience is certainly a good quality in a president.Although it
did not seem important for Reagan. Or when the party nominated McCain.However, the GOP has dictated what can and cannot be done.Romneys
experience will only be valued when it is lock step in line with what the GOP
already believes. Any deviation, whether based on prior experience or not, is
NOT tolerated.Not that it will be a problem as he has shown that his
opinion is too easily molded to fit anything and everything the GOP demands.So, what good is his experience?
@one old man:"little two-letter word: NO! There's the
explanation. Right there."No, Obamacare is a good thing.@Eric Samuelsen:"That plan calls for massive cuts in
government spending, which means, in practical terms, laying off hundreds of
thousands of government workers."Wrong! Romney's plan is to
reduce government employment through attrition. Not layoffs."So
the idea is that, in order to increase employment, you first decrease
employment."Wrong again. You have to clear out dead wood. Romney
created a net 100,000 jobs for Americans. How many net jobs over his 3 1/2 years
did Obama create? None."We can't really let our country
fail."And it will, with four more Obama years."Saving the auto industry..."He turned most of the
ownership over to his friends, the auto workers' unions. Stockholders and
creditors got virtually nothing."...reforming health
care..."Heavens to Murgatroyd!"...reducing
nuclear weapons..."Where did you hear that? Never happened."Private sector job growth suggests a successful presidency."Of which he has achieved a net of zero, nada."Public
sector layoffs have sabotaged him."Public sector jobs have
bloated state and federal budgets with wages double private sector levels.
@Roland:"No President in eighty years has faced as tough a
challenge as President Obama has faced."The president had the
challenge but did little or nothing about it. His driving direction is and has
always been, to transform America into a socialist country with his
redistribution of wealth and his government healthcare. He has succeeded to
some degree. But that's not what America is about. America is about
creativity and freedom, to name two. Government control of of our lives kills
freedom and creativity.
We can be mesmerized by Obama's words, or we can see through him and his
empty "ra, ra" comments.What has he done to put Americas
back to work - even though he has raided OUR treasury for $5,000,000,000,000 in
his term he has created NO NEW JOBS. he doesn't know how to create jobs.
He resorts to "ra, ra, ra" - only we're no longer cheering for
him.The court told us that Obama lied to us. We know that he stole
two car companies from their shareholders. He claims that as a victory. We
know that he "loaned" $2,000,000,000 to Gerge Soros from OUR treasury.
He claims that George Bush did it.. We know that he gave his friends at Solyndra
$500,000,000 - money which was wasted. Do we have to accept his raiding of the
treasury.No more "ra, ra, ra".Empty promises and
empty performance equals a one term presidency.
So if I follow this logic, Outsourcing jobs to overseas entities is responsible
management, which Bain oversaw companies who used this practice, therefor, the
outsourcing of American government jobs to India and China is what is going to
make us a strong country again? The fact that we have lost much of our steel
production to China... that we have lost much of our energy production
capability to overseas, and now the ideal candidate is one who would also send
basic government services overseas is what Wall Street fans want us to do next.
Does national security and sustainability ever enter the picture here.And this "community organizer" label that writer like this like to
through around. It was not Obama's day time job. Obama doing work for
community organizations for even decades makes him a community organizer than
does Romney's religious callings for the same period make him an
evangelical preacher. I do think that Romeny could bring a new era
of streamlined and efficient government into play. I agree he is qualified for
that work. But being President is ever so much more than just being a manager.
And in that, I have my doubts.
Ok, I'll try this again. I'll skip the use of asterisks to make my
point.I find common ground with Roland Kayser's comment in that
I agree that a Romney presidency would be nothing more than a Bush III
administration. You need only to look at his circle of advisors and his
statements. For instance, this is what he said about former vice-president Dick
Cheney late last year:"I think it was last weekend I was
watching C-SPAN and I saw Vice President Dick Cheney and he was being asked
questions about a whole host of issues: following 9/11, the affairs in various
countries in the world."And I listened to him speak and said
whether you agree or disagree with him, this is a man of wisdom and judgment and
he could have been President of the United States. That's the kind of
person I'd like to have - a person of wisdom and judgment."Do you need any more proof than that?Where I differ from Roland is
on voting. I think I'll follow the advice of P.J. O'Rourke's book
Don't Vote It Just Encourages [them].
The basic premise of this article is fundamentally flawed. Businessmen compete.
They want their businesses to compete, and don't mind if others fail. To
some extent, governors do the same--they want to attract businesses to their
states, away from others. But the President has to want all businesses to
succeed. What we know of Romney's plans are, in essence, the Paul
Ryan plan, which he's signed on to. That plan calls for massive cuts in
government spending, which means, in practical terms, laying off hundreds of
thousands of government workers. So the idea is that, in order to increase
employment, you first decrease employment. Explain how that makes sense. This
ties to Romney's work at Bain--laying people off to make companies more
efficient. In business, sometimes this works, sometimes businesses fail. We
can't really let our country fail.As for the complaint that President
Obama hasn't done anything during his four years in office, balderdash.
Saving the auto industry, reforming health care, reducing nuclear weapons here
and abroad would be three amazing achievements for any president. Private sector
job growth suggests a successful presidency. Public sector layoffs have
I'm going with four years presidential experience versus none.
wrz -- Why didn't Obama get us out of the mess President Cheney left for
him?Have you ever heard of the GOP wing of Congress that has a
one-word vocabulary?A little two-letter word: "NO!"There's the explanation. Right there.
Alfred, please explain exactly how things have gotten worse around the world? I
thought things had actually improved a whole lot since Cheney and Bush left
office. Some specifics would be nice to back up your claim.
@Roland Kayser:"No President in eighty years has faced as tough
a challenge as President Obama has faced."He certainly knew of
the tough challenges ahead when he ran. So, why did he even both? He's
done nothing to fix the problems in his 3 1/2 years in office. All we heard
from him was 'hope and change.' All we hear now is: 'It's
George's fault.' "Plus we were engulfed in two very
unpopular wars. Given that perspective, I think he has done okay, not great, but
okay."He said he would get us out... and we're still there.
What happened?"I have heard nothing from Romney to dissuade me
from thinking that he would be G.W. Bush's third term."And
what have we heard from Obama lately? Not even his ethereal 'hope and
There is no mention in this article of the wars placed on a hidden credit card
by President Cheney and his little buddy.There is no mention of the
incredible increase in government spending and debt under the Cheney
administration.There is no mention of the lack of government
oversight and regulation of greed industries in Wall Street and large banks.There is no mention of all the jobs people like Mitt have sent
overseas.There is no mention of the fact that the rate of government
spending increase under Obama is the LOWEST it has been since the hallowed days
of St. Ronald the Reagan.There is no mention of the power of
corporations and their lobbyists to control our government.There are
many other important facts being overlooked in this obviously partisan
Patriot, who has NO experience?I'll take the Obama experience
any day over what Mitt is offering -- if anyone can figure out what that
re: patriot 8:57 a.m. July 5, 2012Ivy League pinhead vs Ivy league
pinhead. I'll go w/ Richard Pryor's sentiments in Brewster's
"The fact is, the most qualified person four years ago was Hillary Clinton,
as she has shown time and again by her masterful job as the nation's top
foreign policy official."Are you smoking something? Hillary
Clinton is mediocre at best. All she does is stand up and give a short speech
about some issue. In fact, things have gotten even worse around the world since
she was installed as Secretary of State under Obama.
Business experience + Governor Experience VS NO experience. You decide.
All the problems of the world are caused by the greed of people. Not surprising
when you consider that all people are driven by greed. Greed being the natural
expression of the basic need to survive, which is inherent in every living thing
in the world. Governments are created to do those things that the
people who created the government cannot of don’t want to do for
themselves. We think of good governments as those who benefit the people
governed. Poor governments are those who only benefit the few. Poor
governments are generally created in a top-down manner by tyrants and dictators,
or even by a small powerful minority. Businesses are like
governments in their mission and purpose, but are all of the top-down
distinction. Their main reason for creation is the benefit of the few. They
are always dictatorial and seldom put consideration on the welfare of people who
are workers, consumers and effected others. Business experience,
training and indoctrination are not the best for being a administer of
government to benefit people in general. Business tends to reward the
expression of greed, good government tends to repress greed in favor of overall
So the writer is in essence calling for direct intervention into the economy by
the government. It's funny how the Republicans want government out of the
way, then in practice do just the opposite. Bush is a perfect example, giving
us the Wall Street and auto bailouts, then handing it to Obama to face the wrath
of the far right. Geez....
After my second reading of the article, I see that the headline doesn't
necessarily match the content of the article. But the author has carried on
that time honored tradition of belittling the work of communicty organizers.Wikipedia includes this as part of their definition, "Community
organizers generally seek to build groups that are democratic in governance,
open and accessible to community members, and concerned with the general health
of the community rather than a specific interest group. Organizing seeks to
broadly empower community members, with the end goal of distributing power more
equally throughout the community.That sounds more like the skills
needed in the White House than the definition Wiki gives for a businessman,
"...someone involved in a particular undertaking of activities, commercial
or industrial, for the purpose of generating revenue from a combination of
human, financial, and physical capital."Give me the community
organizer any day.
"...Obama has fallen back on the time-tested campaign tactic of noting that
most of the blame for his failures in the first term resides with his
predecessor."Well duh! Imagine coming into office and taking
over the presidency from someone who took a balanced budget and turned it into a
trillion dollar a year deficit. Imagine inheriting two wars that were started
without any attempt to pay for them. Imagine having to fix a foreign relations
nightmare created by your predecessor whose policies promoted torture and
rendition. Then imagine hearing the Senate leader of the opposing party state
that his most important goal was to see that you were not re-elected and worst
of all, then leading the members of his party in the House and Senate in
carrying out that wish. Oh, and by the way, the economy that you inherited was
losing 900,000 jobs a month.Now the economy is moving the opposite
way with new jobs. Our foreign relations have improved immensely and we are in
the process of winding down the second war after ending the first. George Bush
was a business man and a governor. Just what the auther is asking for.
No President in eighty years has faced as tough a challenge as President Obama
has faced. When he entered office the economy was declining faster than it did
at any point during the Great Depression. Plus we were engulfed in two very
unpopular wars. Given that perspective, I think he has done okay, not great, but
okay.I have heard nothing from Romney to dissuade me from thinking
that he would be G.W. Bush's third term. Given that the first two were
unmitigated disasters, I'll stick with Obama.