In reading the views of the liberals, this is what I understand they want.Liberals want all corporations to be either eliminated or else to be so
regulated that they might as well be run by the government.Lets look
at how well a nation runs when they have exactly that.Look at Cuba,
how is there economy?How about the USSR, oops, they collapsed.How about North Korea, their people aren't starving they are just
on a diet.How about Venezuela. The government only shuts down radio
and TV stations that it disagrees with.How about Vietnam? Their
economy is just booming right?How about China before they let go of
control of their businesses, they were just asleep.What you want
will not work, and has never worked. Why do you insist on re-using the failed
policies of the past?
The genius of the left never ceases to amaze. Ok ok, Obama isn't 100
percent at fault for making our economy worse then when he started, only about
90%. He had help from many other democrats and a couple of republicans. Point he
isn't smart enough to ever get us out of the economic downturn, unless he
turns to much more help from the GOP. Now lets get over the idiodic theory posed
by all leftists, that Bush and the GOP were 100% at fault for the deep recession
that began at the end of 2007. I will be generous and even say the democrats
were only 45% responsible for that one, compared to the GOP at 55%. Now
getting back to the orignial topic: "Obama is a good speaker but has no
solutions". Can you say empty Chair? Clint Eastwood really called that one!
Once again Mike makes the point of my argument much more eloquently than I
could. The electoral college is a relic of another era that most Americans could
care less about. It needs to be taken out with the other historical trash (the
seniority system, the filibuster, holds on nominations, etc.). "The
electors can vote for whom they choose." If that doesn't smack of a
class bound society different than today, nothing does. The Constitution has
been amended many times in the past when concepts became antiquated (slavery,
women's suffrage, direct election of Senators). It needs to be again. If
Obama wins only the electoral college, you will see the right introducing an
Democrats have a big problem in that liberalism has completely cut itself off
from what could be its theoretical foundations. Socialism still has them, but
Democrats are afraid of offending their corporate contributors by citing them,
so the Democrats remain little more than an alternate corporate party with some
feel good liberalism as a distraction.
Grover,Where did you get the idea that the President is the
president of the people? That concept is not part of the Constitution. We have
a federation of STATES. The President is the elected by the STATES, not by the
people. You do understand that don't you? Each STATE is allowed a number
of electors equal to the number of Representatives and Senators from that STATE.
The people of each STATE cast their vote so that the ELECTORS know the will of
the people of that STATE. According to the Constitution, no elector is bound by
the will of the people of that STATE. It is simply custom. The irony is that
even if a candidate won 100% of the popular vote, the electors are free to vote
for whomever they choose.The nonsense perpetrated on the people by
smooth talking politicians, who mock the Constitution even as they fail to
conduct themselves by its rules and limits has been so well received by the
ignorant that few even understand the role of the President. The Governor
represents the people of a State, no matter what Obama says.
The longer Romney waits to give us any idea of what he will do when he is in
charge, the less I will be moved to vote for him. But then I live in the most
Republican State in the Union so my vote doesn't really count. The name of
the game is the electoral college, but the media continue to report on the
easier to measure popular vote. My idea for an ideal result would be
for Romney to sweep the popular vote by millions and Obama to be reelected. Then
at least we would get rid of one problem since both parties would have been
recently burned by an antique system that serves no purpose. An added benefit
would be to see Mike Richards propose amending the Constitution minutes after
the results were known.
Mr. Obama does have solutions - more government spending, more crony capitalism
and Solyndras, more lobbyists in the WH, more celebrity money raising and more
blaming anyone other than the nation's chief executive.
Obama's not a good speaker. His dog and pony show is worn out. If I hear
him say "Yo, check it out" one more time trying to pander to the 20
something crowd, I might just throw up in my mouth a little bit. It would be
nice if one of his "yes" men would remind him every now and again that
he's the president of the United States and should act like one.P.S. No 1st lady should EVER EVER come off Air Force One or show up at a
function in sweats. If I want to see that, I'll go to Walmart.
J ThompsonWell, well, well. Mike Richards has hit another grand slam home
run. Look at how many liberals are attacking the messenger instead of defending
Obama, except to say that it was Bush's fault.============= No - Mike Richards, yourself, and other AM radio listeners don't
use logic and reason.You blame Pres. Obama for a rainy day.You blame
Pres. Obama for the price of milk.You blame Pres. Obama for things he had
NOTHING to do with.[War in Iraq, Afghanistan, price of Oil, job
outsouring, corrupt WallStreet traders, millions of Americans laid-off, the
entire economy].By doing so, you have made him a God, micro-managing
and controling every nuance in 350 Million people's daily lives.I don't buy it.The truth is - GW Bush lied, people died.Bush/Cheney set the economy on fire and played fiddles while watching it
burn.Obama tried his best to put out that fire, but the useless
firemen in Congress wanted him to fail -- so they did NOTHING but fan the flames
and point fingers as America went up in smoke.The topic - What
is Romney's plan?More gas and matches?
he was teeing golf balls off the stern deck.
No, J, we're not attacking the messenger. We're attacking the false
messages you and your cohorts carry.
Well, well, well. Mike Richards has hit another grand slam home run. Look at
how many liberals are attacking the messenger instead of defending Obama, except
to say that it was Bush's fault.Obama was steering the ship of
state - right into the ice berg. Maybe he was too busy playing cards with his
buddies to see where the ship was headed. Maybe he was too busy playing
suffleboard. Maybe he was bowling. Who knows? He hasn't told us why he
steered the ship of state into the iceberg except to say that it was Bush's
fault.Just a little while ago, Clint Eastwood told a newspaper in
Carmel, California, that Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on America.
He is right. Given the fact that so many of Obama's apologists attack the
messenger, Eastwood was more than right. Eastwood sees right through Obama and
Obama's followers.Obama's only solution is to turn the
government back to Bush because its obvious that Bush must still be sitting in
the Oval Office. Maybe that's why Obama spends so much time on the golf
course.Obama has no plan. He never did.
The GM bailout, in addition to being completely constitutional, also made money.
For who? the unions? All those middle class retirement plans holding bonds from
GM lost their money. 70 percent of GM production is outside the country.
Chrysler moved part of its production moved to Mexico. 61 percent is owned by
FIAT. Obama touted how because of his policies, the auto manufacturers making
cars with twice the mileage, but promised us Gas would be 4 to 5 times more
expensive. Energy costs under Obama, by his promise would be extremely more
expensive. The poor are the ones that will take it on the chin for higher
energy costs. Think of that poor single mother who can no longer afford to turn
the heat on in her apartment because Obama made energy to expense to use. And
remember the biggest across the aisle bi-partison legislation was all voting no
to Obama's budget.
Ok Richards, I am calling you out for your willful misrepresentation of
government spending. Government spending has increased at the lowest rate of any
presidency since Eisenhower. This according to the Wall Street Journal, hardly a
leftist periodical. The deficit has increased because of lack of revenues such
high unemployment and the lowest tax rates for the wealthy since Eisenhower. I
am sorry but you are flat out wrong. As for the slow recovery, you can lay that
on a Congress such as Ryan that etch a sketches at a rate that almost rivals
Romney. Give the Obama administration an F for communicating if you like but
distortion is a bigger sin.
@Mike RichardsGood economics requires that you spend during recessions
because gov't needs to step in to fill the void that comes with people not
spending until they can recover. Consider that corporations have record breaking
profits and the markets are at highs they haven't hit since 4 and 11 years
ago (DOW and NASDAQ respectively). So where's the jobs? The problem is we
have a demand-based recession. People aren't spending money, they're
rebuilding their savings or paying down personal debt. That's good for
individuals but bad for the economy. It's why we've stalled and why
gov't needs to step in and rebuild things like our infrastructure now when
we most need jobs. The problem is... thanks to Bush getting our
deficits up to large levels before the recession even started, we had a horribly
baseline starting point before any recessionary effects kick in (like reduced
revenue and any stimulus). We need to have balanced budgets during good times so
we can afford to spend money during recessions to help the economy.
Mike Richards, PLEASE take a quick Google of things like "Policy Differences
Under Two Presidents" and the Wall Street Journal's article "The
Obama Spending Spree That Didn't Happen."But that would
make you confront the truth -- and you don't seem willing to do that.
Mike,A trillion dollars of debt is a trillion dollars of debt.The debt doesn't care where it came from. It costs the same
regardless.We need to scrutinize ALL Deficit spending. Not just
the spending we dont like, or that which was done under a different
president.But the partisans on the Right only complain about the
lefts spending, and vice versa.You say that Obamas 5.5 Trillion had
nothing to do with Bush's war. Hardly true. We are spending quite a bit
still in Iraq and Afghanistan. And ending those wars is getting the
wrath of the right.Again, I am not defending Obama, but rest
assured, he had lots of help spending that money. And a bunch of those that
helped have a big R by their names.
Re: embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT"Keep spinning, waste your
vote, and enjoy President Obama's next term."Time to dust
of Bill Clinton's slogan that goes: "It's the economy,
stupid".The phase "He who laughs last, laughs best" will apply
this November 6th.
Ya know, I think I've finally figured out Mike Richards. He must be a
liberal who posts these incredibly far-right comments to show just how
irrational conservative rhetoric really is. There's really no other
explanation. Clever, Mike, very clever.
Okay, Mike Richards, so let's look at the numbers. The wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan involved continuing commitments. It would have been completely
irresponsible for the President to just end those wars immediately after taking
office. The Medicare expansion was a continuing commitment. And it was a
good idea, all except for the 'not funding it' part. The Bush
tax cuts, he could have immediately ended. But no way was he getting that
through Congress.And with the economy in free-fall, tax revenues were way
down. Not his fault either, right?The GM bailout, in addition to being
completely constitutional, also made money. Obamacare is completely
funded.That leaves the stimulus bill. Which saved millions of jobs, and
ended the free-fall. I know what Republicans wanted. Immediate
austerity, like Cameron did in Great Britain. Immediate budget cuts. And
we've seen how well that worked in Britain. It's proven to be a
complete catastrophe. So, sorry, your 'Obama was fiscally
irresponsible' narrative is not supported by facts.
What increases has Obama put forth? Obamacare? Paid for with taxes in itself.
It will actually increase revenue and lower the deficit.Stimulus of
2008? That was passed before he took office and was done under Bush. Tarp?
Passed under Bush. There was the $800 Billion stimulus that included $450
Billion in tax cuts.To see what he actually has done, we need to
look at what he has done since taking office. At the same time, we have to also
look at what the republicans have stopped. Such as the numerous plans to reduce
the deficit through a 10 to 1 cuts to increase. Obama even agreed to a full 1
Trillion in cuts a year including to entitlements such as Social Security and
Medicare all he wanted was a small increase in revenues. The Democrats embraced
this plan and the Republicans balked.So before anyone says it is
Obama's fault, look at who stopped the reductions to the deficit and then
complains about it. The same group of people...and they say don't look at
us, it's Obama's fault.
Uncle! You're right, Mike. Obama did this all by himself. Congress had
nothing to do with it. Especially not the House, where any attempt to actually
pay for even our necessary expenses with real tax dollars instead of funny money
(debt) is out of the question. No, let's just cut $1.2 trillion
from the budget and see how many jobs go down the drain. This will make the
Great Recession look like a picnic, especially since the Tea Party won't
allow another government infusion of cash to stop the bleeding.It's rather simple-minded to blame one person for a problem that all of
us, even Republicans, are responsible for in one way or another. Only when we
all stop behaving as children will we be able to deal with our debt problem. And
it is OUR problem, not Obama's.
Okay children, let's do our math assignment. Here's the story problem
for today. Obama increased the deficit by $5.5 TRILLION dollars since he has
been in office. (That has nothing to do with "Bush's war"; that is
strictly the money that Obama spent since taking office.) There are about
330,000,000 Americans. How much does EVERY American owe because of OBAMA's
spending? $5.5 TRILLION / 330 MILLION = $16,666 per citizen.Obama
added that to the $10 TRILLION that already existed before he took office. He
has increased the deficit by 1/3rd in less than four years. The deficit started
with Washington in 1789, It took 219 years for the deficit to grow to $10
trillion and only 3.5 years under Obama for it to grow another $5.5 trillion.
Give Obama credit. He has spent money faster than any other person
in history. He has laid a bill on each faster than any other President in
history. He OWNS that debt. He spent it. No on forced him to do it. He did
it on his own.
"Obama has destroyed the economy." Wow, what a fantasy. I happen to
remember what things were like when Obama took office. We were looking over the
precipice, waiting to take a flying leap. Wall Street had just tried to commit
hara-kiri, banks weren't lending, businesses were shedding jobs like a dog
losing its winter coat, the auto industry was about to give up the ghost, and
the housing market was a train wreck. So, Mike Richards, which part of this did
Obama destroy?You're right, he's not perfect. Certainly
not if you look at his work through the black-tinted glasses of the toxic GOP.
But I'd give him pretty high marks on a lot of things, particularly
considering the fact that he has had to deal with an opposition party that has
one goal—destroying him—a goal GOP leaders weren't shy about
declaring in public.If you look at where most of that $16,600 comes
from, though, it is from Bush's two wars and Bush's tax cuts. So,
please, don't take it so personal that someone from the other party won an
Every person in America is $16,600 poorer because of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.I am sure that is somehow different. Can your $50 extra
dollars pay for that?
No, Mike, not because of Obama. We are poorer because of the system we have
embraced since the 1880s, in which corporations rule and funnel all the wealth
to the top. It is a system that, after decades of lawsuits, finally bought
enough Supreme Court justices to declare corporations "persons," with
all the rights of individuals under the 14th Amendment and other parts of the
Constitution. This system grows through debt accumulation. First, corporate and
consumer debt, and then, when the consumers are maxed out, through government
debt—government being the consumer of last resort. The system
reached a limit of sorts in September 2008. Because we have not reformed the
system, we are left with the logical result of its imperatives: debt. And if
Romney wins in 2012, the system will eat him alive as it has eaten Obama. Of
course, he's bent on feeding it, not taming or reforming it, so he will
likely enjoy being devoured."You can't make a silk purse
out of a pig's ear." No, but the letter writer somehow managed to make
a pig's ear out of a silk purse. Quite a trick.
It's called All hat and no cattle.
Neither party has a plan and neither party will have a plan until they stop
being purchased by corporations, big banks and Wall Street.That said, dems
aren't owned by those entities nearly as much as the repubs are so vote
Romney is a wooden, cold speaker with no plan.
Every person in America is $16,600 poorer because of Obama. That's the
amount of debt that he has put on EACH OF US. That is a debt that must be paid.
It will take decades for me to repay that debt because with less than $50 a
month in "extra" income, there is nothing to use to pay a debt that
Obama has heaped on us.He doesn't care that that he has put us
under the burden to pay for his folly. He still visits the golf course several
times a week. He still perfects his bowling game in his private bowling alley
several times a week. He still plays cards on Air Force One and scolds anyone
who does not pay strict attention to the card game. That is what he does. That
is who he is.Empty promises have destroyed my family's ability
to function financially. Empty promises have destroyed my customers, who
can't sell their products to people who have no money to spend. Obama has destroyed the economy. A lie is a lie, no matter how good the
Who has no new solutions? Romneys' plan is simply reduce taxes (corporate,
and personal), reduce regulations on businesses, and cut government spending
programs. Whether you believe in this program or not you can't seriously
think there is anything new here at all. It's the Republican formula for
good times, and it's there formula for bad times. Circumstances matter
however. Tell me with 3.8 million jobs posted and going unfilled because people
with the appropriate skills can't be found, and 23 million unemployed, how
does it make sense to want to cut education spending including tuition support?
Last night the President committed to tax reform, entitlement
reform, investment in new industries, investment in education, and social
equlity. Sorry but those are new ideas compared to the last 28 years of
I have been asking for five years, Mr. Romney, give me at least one serious,
concrete, detailed proposal. It has never come. Give me a reason. Nothing except
he is not Obama. Did you know that a mere eight days, yes eight days, after
Obama took the oath of office, Romney was criticizing him for not turning around
the economy. Romney doesn't stand for America, he stands only for himself.
And this letter is about personal attacks, and not one word of substance. Must
be from a Republican.
We must have listened to different speaches. I thought that President Clinton
did a fantastic job of making a case for four more years. I thought he did a
fantastic job of addressing the other campaigns ideas. It was in my opinion,
the best speach of either convention.
Yes, we clearly need a new congress! Time Magazine had an article
recently that outlined the post-2008 GOP congressional strategy centered on
opposing anything initiated by Obama so that he would not have any bipartisan
victories. It is a chilling article that reveals how the GOP has selfishly put
its interests in "winning" in 2012 at the expense of allowing Obama to
initiate fixes to the nation's economy. Bailouts under Bush
enjoyed wide bipartisan support. Under Obama, such intiatives were framed as
"socialism." Stimulus under Bush were supported as "tax
relief." Under Obama, stimulus was described as "evil Keynesian
eocnomics" and "adding to the deficit" (created by Bush no less).
I congratulate the GOP on its excellent storytelling and narratives
to sway the public. It has, however, cost America a faster resolution to our
problems. Obama is destined to win re-election. The American
people will expect more bipartisanship over the next four years as Obama will
not have to think about another election for himself and will likely be tougher
The Republicans were against the many plans to reduce the deficit. All because
Obama wanted a 10 to 1 ratio of cuts to increases all to lower the deficit. The
Republicans also didn't want any cuts to defense spending. They only
wanted cuts to the social programs and programs they don't like.We can speculate all day about what would have happened if the Republicans had
been willing to actually lower the deficit but unfortunately we will never know
what benefits the country could have seen if the party of "No" had
actually cared about reducing the deficit instead of doing what they could to
try to make Obama a 1 term president.
Yet there are people who are convinced that Mr. Job Creator Romney has all the
answers, even though the fact is that Romney's party is responsible for the
economic struggles we are now facing.You are entitled to your own
opinion, but not your own facts. Keep spinning, waste your vote, and enjoy
President Obama's next term.