You are so correct. Obama had to be brought down by the people, the very people
who elected him. No candidate could have done it. With the economy still getting
worse and all of the recent scandals and those scandals still to unfold, it is
happening this very minute. That is why 2016 will be primed and poised for the
re-emergence of Romney. 2016 Will forever be known as Redemption 2016. Find and
join us on facebook if you agree.
A President Romney would have followed the constitution and made a difference in
every aspect of our lives as citizens, asking us to stand a little taller, work
a little smarter and be self reliant and not government dependent. He would have
us live within our means and ask government to get out of the way of capitalism
and growth. Jobs would be abundant in the private sector and less populated in
the public sector, our renewed leadership in the oil and gas fields and with
more workers there would be more savings in our 401 accounts.A President
Romney would have made America great again for a new generation.
@Riverton Cougar,Are you enjoying your free stuff, maybe you should
give some back.
Why bring this up? I'll tell you why. It's because we need to learn
from the past. Those who fail to learn about the past are doomed to repeat it.
FDR's handling of the Great Depression took an awfully long time to bring
about true recovery. His leadership was admirable, but his economic policies
didn't work. He didn't know better because there was no past Great
Depression to learn from.Today we have the history of the Great
Depression to learn from. Obama didn't learn the lesson, apparently. He
wants to spend our way into prosperity. Some people have said the economy is
recovering. Yeah right! That's just a bunch of spin from the Democrats. It
is recovering, but at a snail's pace. In other words, the
"recovery" is so slow that we barely notice anything. Does anyone care
to compare employment numbers from now and January 2009? Hint: it's roughly
the SAME."Apparently Romney governed so well that the residents
of the state felt that 4 more years of Obama were preferable."Or
they wanted free stuff.
A good frame of reference for a Romney Presidency would be to look at
Massachusetts. These people had the opportunity to live under 4 years of Romney
as a Governor and Obama as POTUS. Who did they chose?Obama wins the
state by 23 points. Apparently Romney governed so well that the residents of
the state felt that 4 more years of Obama were preferable.
Typical of the Press... now that the election's over, they can admit that
romney was the better candidate, but during the time it really matters, they
could say nothing good about him.
I think this country got the President that it deserves.
A Tea Party disaster.
FT1/SS 10:22 p.m. July 26, 2013We would at least have somebody in
the White House telling us the truth, and not cluttered with scandals.------------------------In truth, we have a better chance of that
now than we would if we had been stuck with Romney in the White House. Romney
wouldn't recognize the truth if it reached up an bit him on the nose, much
less tell it (unless, of course, he could use it for his own benefit).
We're much better off without Romney.
@Tators 10:15 a.m. July 26, 2013It's totally obvious that those
praising Romney on this post are still entrenched in ignorance of who Romney
really is and the damage he would've accomplished. It's utterly sad
that so many people judge and criticize from an uninformed basis. People (like
me) who once supported him investigated him in depth, saw him for what he really
is, and give him the condemnation he so richly deserves. He is amoral,
unprincipled wannabe "leader" who has neither the real-world experience
nor credentials to do anything which would have really helped this country at
any time. In fact, the truth is that he would have done just the opposite.The Romneys put on a show pretending to live in a basement apartment
while going to college, but that's all it was -- a show. They didn't
"budget tightly" and didn't have to -- they could in fact afford
anything they wanted at any time just by selling the stock his father gave them.
Romney understands nothing about anyone who isn't affluent.
Thankfully Romney wasn't inflicted on the country. Bad as Obama is, Romney
would have been infinitely worse.
The outcome of the election is predtermined like a WWE wrestling match. The
super rich put a puppet in office that represents them and their interest and
they insturct that puppet to tell the people that they are representing them
when nothing can be further from the truth. They give you the illusion of
choice. They hold an election between two puppets that will be totally obedient
to them regardless of who wins and who loses. The election has been rigged for
many many years. It's the super rich that are the real governors of this
country. They just make more money by having a puppet in office and they also
avoid the scrutiny that the president usually takes by putting a puppet in
If Romney won not a single thing would be different. Romney was nothing more
than the white Obama. Romney didn't become governor in the most liberal
state in the country because of his "conservative" politics. He did
everything Obama is doing now at the state level.
Honest men don't hide income in off shore accounts and Swiss banks because
it is more convenient . I don't think Mitt can even spell "middle
class" let alone represent them?
We would be spending a lot on "defense" though I think that
"defense" is often a misnomer nowadays. In terms of jobs; I
think there might well be significant improvement, especially in military jobs
sadly, but perhaps more widely than that based on immigration controls, if Mr
Romney could manage to inspire better enforcement via the business community
especially, or based on a real desire to improve levels of employment if that
could effect change (he would be only President, he would need support in the
Legislature and Supreme Court and that would not necessarily alter for the
better.I think we might be making some ground in the fight against
illegal immigration, but again only with support in the other branches of
government.I fear that we might be encouraged by example and
rhetoric to be "Proud Americans" with an unapologetic, patronizing and
contemptuous, attitude to all foreigners, friend or foe. I think we already have
that though.I think there would still be a wide divide based on
socio-economic class, coming from another angle but just as nasty.
Romney lost because of A. Voter Fraud. B. The liberal press never gave him a
chance. C. Obama promised everybody free stuff. Pick one and then move on.
Time for new leadership in the Republican party. Lets start by replacing
McConnell and not re-electing Lee.signed low information voter
We would at least have somebody in the White House telling us the truth, and not
cluttered with scandals.
NEWS FLASH - Romney lost the election!! Between the Deseret News, Mike Leavitt
and Kirk Jowers, to name a few, we seem to want to focus on past junctures. Get
over it. As adults we should take are losses and move on. Certainly on a
personal level we can benefit from the mistakes made and learn a lesson or two
for the future, but keep punishing the rest of us with "but if" fluff?
Again, Deseret News, et al, MOVE ON.
To my way of thinking, O'bama is the worst U.S. president ever. Just to
give you an idea, he thinks I should be in jail just for saying such a thing.
And his blind followers probably think the same way. And that is only the tip of
WoW!!!!!! The Kool Aid drinkers need to take a lesson on how our Representative
Republic works. Congress makes the laws. Obama may have a wish list, but the
Republicans in congress shouldn't just "rubber stamp" what he
wants. They each have a vote. The Dems in congress haven't passed any
Republican ideas or legislation, and Obama surely hasn't signed any into
law.Obama is an extreme, big government liberal, who has never once shown
an ability to compromise on anything. He is a horrible manager, and I would
dare say the laziest President we've probably ever had. (Flying around the
world/country giving Political speeches isn't Presidential work, it just
costs the taxpayers millions of dollars). His economic record is abysmal. This
is by far the slowest post recession recovery in history. It would have done
better on it's own. Same for FDR. He took a 3 year depression for the
rest of the world and turned it into a 10 year depression for us.
Considering the obstruction the Republican party has given to President Obama
I'd give him an A. Anyone who has to try and work with that clown show
gets an A automatically in my book. In all seriousness, Obama gets an
incomplete grade because the obstruction has been out of this world so we
can't really even grade him out yet. But, despite all the obstructing I
would say we have rebounded nicely since the great recession and we aren't
in any new wars, that in itself deserves a high grading.
to Ernest T. Bass"If Mitt won,... Iran would have Starbucks on
every corner."That is the funniest thing EVER posted on these
re: Tators"It's totally obvious that the Romney criticizers
on this post are still entrenched in ignorance of who Romney really is and what
his realistic potential could've accomplished. It's utterly sad that
so many people judge and criticize from an uninformed basis.No. Its
pathetically obvious that the Romney fanboys still seem to prefer some idyllic
almost naive perception of who Mitt is."The Romneys spent years
living in a basement apartment and budgeting tightly while going to college. He
understands."Then, they hit the big time like George &
Louise Jefferson. Now, Mittens & Annie inhabit the same pocket of unreality
that most Ivy Leaguers in the 1% do.
SG in SLC:I agree that President Obama isn't the worst
President. I even dare say it's still early to give him a grade. But if I
had to predict or even grade on what I've seen or lived through, rating the
President in the top quartile is a stretch. A huge stretch. I try to rate
fairly as a historian myself and BTW I don't give W. very good marks
either. I suspect both should be in the lower quartile with two below average
Presidents in succession thus leaving us in our current difficulties. I would
rate without question James Buchanan as the worst President. He did nothing to
stop the Civil War and if your Mormon, you should have an even lower opinion of
$2 gas, says who?If Mitt won, gas would be FREE!No corporations or
people with 6-figure incomes would have to pay taxes.Nobody would have
health insurance without paying triple premiums.Health insurance companies
would have ten-fold profits.There would be a couple hundred keystone
pipelines so Canada could get their oil to the world market.Iran would
have Starbucks on every corner.The poor's tax rates would
quadruple.The nation's debt would have topped $20 trillion.It
would be awesome!!
@alt134:You do have a good point. No matter how good of a person
Romney actually is (inspite of the negative bias many still harbor against him)
and no matter how good his agenda for the country might have been (we'll
now never know for sure), he would certainly have been limited by the actions of
a Congress that (like you) I don't trust either. Way too much partisan
gridlock. And no president, regardless of his potential for doing
good, can do much of anything without some cooperation from Congress.
That's a factor many fail to take into account. I appreciate you pointing
that out. It's been hindering Obama and it undoubtedly would've also
Personally, I think Romney's austerity program would have strangled the
recovery, as we have seen happen in Europe. The sequestration has had a mild
effect compared to what would have happened under Romney. Hoover's
four-year attempt to balance the federal budget just made the Depression worse.
You don't turn off the water when you're trying to fight a fire.
@There You Go AgainSaint George, UTWhich Romney?10:02 p.m. July 25, 2013========== Brillant!Agreed 1,000% "Which Romney?"HaHa - Thanks for
making my whole day!
@Tators"Many of Romney's most avid critics completely changed
their opinions about him once they truly got to know him"Back
around 2003 Romney was my favorite Republican. I'm a Progressive so
naturally that meant he was talking about pro-choice, gun control, had said he
was more liberal on gay rights than Ted Kennedy, and was pushing forward a
healthcare system quite similar to what ended up being Obamacare. I really liked
that version of Romney. While I'd like to think that version of
Romney would reappear after winning the election (he was my second most-desired
Republican of the primary field if a Republican won... Huntsman was first)
there's just one little problem. Well two. One, with regards to what the
president has most control over, foreign policy, he had way too many Bush guys.
Two... Ryan was his Vice President, and I highly doubt Romney would have strayed
far from the sorts of things the Republican Congress was passing, and I strongly
disagree with what they're doing. So even if I took an optimistic take on
Romney, I wouldn't trust the Congress or trust that Romney would stop them.
@worf"Gas in Europe are around $4.00 per gallon more than here with
oil going less distance. Taxes on gasoline are controlled by government, and
does effect price."Those taxes, at least at the federal level
are around a quarter a gallon. They were last set in 1993 and NOT indexed for
inflation so federal gas taxes as a percentage of gas prices and monetary value
if it were allowed to increase with inflation have declined during the Bush and
Obama administrations.@morganh"I was not even born during
Buchanan's time so I can't say Obama is worse than him. "None of us were but calling Obama the worst president in history is kinda
silly if we only look at only 4-12 presidents (depending on how old each of us
are). There's a difference between being of the other political
party and being awful. This goes both ways (Reagan is generally ranked around
7-10 on historian-made lists but non-historian liberals tend to think he's
something worse than 30th). Besides, DW-NOMINATE scores grade this Republican
caucus as it is now the most conservative ever, small wonder all Obama's
deal-making falls apart to obstructionists.
What if? What if silly speculative stories weren't published? What if the
British had won the War of Independence? What if the South had won the Civil
War? What if the Germans had won WWII? What if I won $500 million in the
lottery? What if I even bought a lottery ticket to make that happen?
What if...The Titanic never sunk?Hitler was never elected
German Chancellor?Penacillian had never been discovered?the South
had won the Civil War?Joseph and Hyrum Smith were never shot?What if
the American's had lost the Revolutionary War?Go ahead
Republican Tea-Partiers, keep living in your Grandeous Utopian imaginary
world of make-believe.THAT is the very reason you have, and will
continue to loose election after election.Putting Ideology ahead of
Reality is a fool's game.
@ute alumni"it is impossible for obama groupies to understand that he
is the worst president in US history"This isn’t the first
time I have heard this claim, and I shake my head and laugh every time I do,
because it demonstrates an incredible lack of historical knowledge and
perspective.Barack Obama the worst President in U.S. history? Not
even close.In surveys of historians, political scientists, and
presidential scholars from across the political spectrum, and even in many broad
polls of popular opinion, either James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, or Andrew
Johnson consistently rank as the worst President in U.S. history; in fact, those
three consistently rank in the bottom three, though the order varies. In more
recent polls and surveys that include Barack Obama, he consistently ranks in the
2nd quartile (best to worst) -- somewhere in the 14-17th range. By comparison,
George W. Bush consistently ranks in the bottom quartile -- typically somewhere
in the 34-38th range; more or less in the same range as Richard Nixon.Others have also jumped on your preposterous claim and exposed it for the
ideological hyperbole it is, and rightly so.
Romney"s presidency would have really helped the economy and created real
jobs.We would be in the process of freeing ourselves from Obamacare. The liberal
press would go completely out of their minds in attacking everything Romney
does. America made the wrong choice in choosing Obama. Obama has been a
divider.Using,the bully pulput to make inflammatory comments on race. He has
bypassed congress to make recess appointments. He has allowed Eric Holder to
ignore the Supreme Court and press for their own liberal agenda on voting
rights. Basically we have a radical liberal socialist administration that is
harming the economy and dividing the country.
Oh, yes, by all means, let's re-litigate the last election. None of us
have anything better to do.
It's totally obvious that the Romney criticizers on this post are still
entrenched in ignorance of who Romney really is and what his realistic potential
could've accomplished. It's utterly sad that so many people judge and
criticize from an uninformed basis.Many of Romney's most avid
critics completely changed their opinions about him once they truly got to know
him. He is a moral, principled leader with the experience and credentials to
have helped this country significantly. We are a self-chosen (via
democracy) capitalistic based society in America. We became the greatest country
in the world by espousing capitalism from a Republic based Constitution.
It's a disaster to currently have a president who has no capitalism
experience and who has consequently lost millions of high paying manufacturing
jobs and is replacing them with low paying service industry jobs. The tax base
has diminished and our federal deficit is growing at an unprecedented and
unsustainable rate. Romney would've already taken steps to reverse and
correct that major problem, based on his past performances in economic
settings.The Romneys spent years living in a basement apartment and
budgeting tightly while going to college. He understands.
Sure dream all day that Romney were president. And pray all night we all forget
the dumb things George Bush did.
Did anyone here bother to read the article? The Economist isn't
complimentary of Romney.
I'll tell you what would happen.Your grandparents would have to go
back to work to afford healthcare and meds, the rich would get richer, and the
poor would be walking Mitt's dogs and mowing his lawn.
Good politicians can delay the inevitable demise of our country, just as bad
ones accelerate it, but we're going downhill, no matter whom gets elected.
It's foolish to pin hopes on any individual. Our institutions guarantee
failure; democracy can't be delegated.
Even if Romney won the election, it is very unlikely that any of his reforms
would actually succeed because the Senate is controlled by Democrats who would
be just as likely to obstruct the Romney agenda as Republicans have been
obstructing the Obama agenda. Let's be honest with ourselves. Politics in
D.C. has devolved into a perpetual brinksmanship. The article in the Economist
mentions these points, but this DesNews article conveniently leaves that part
What if Romney had won? Obviously it's difficult to say anything with any
certainty.One thing we can say for sure is, if Romney had won -
180,000 Americans who work in the health care industry would still have their
jobs. That's because Obamacare wouldn't have passed, meaning there
wouldn't have been increased taxes on healthcare companies that spurred
massive layoffs within the industry.Obamacare: 180,000 lost jobs and
I doubt much would have changed. One candidate was raised a welfare child, and
while not stigmatic in itself, it left him without a perspective on how most
people live. The other candidate was "Ritchie Rich", which also left
him without a perspective on how the "productive class" lives. Until a
leader arises who does, our nation will continue it's decline.
To many opinions formed by media news, and people do little researching to
Pragmatist, Although I will not go as far to say that Obama was the
worst, but I think Obama did do things that I consider bad. Largely the
Principal Reduction Alternative, which creates a huge moral hazard. I dont think you can blame Bush for a lot of the issues. Bush really had very
little to do with the recession, and the only ones to blame for 9-11 are the
terrorists. If people ever realize how little Bush had to do with the bad
economy I think history will be kinder to him.
In a phrase attributed to physicist Niels Bohr, “Prediction is very
difficult, especially about the future.” Romney certainly had better
intentions than his opponent but any improvements might have been slight in
light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who continues to thwart efforts for
real legislative progress and reform. Also, the populace is nearly evenly
divided on every major issue, making the US the "Divided States of
"@morganh - you say Clinton was willing to negotiate with Republicans as if
to imply that Obama hasn't been. Quite the opposite. He's been trying
so hard to negotiate with Republicans to realize that they're not willing
to negotiate with him."On that point....the House Republicans
are having a hard time compromising with themselves right now. We truly have a
fractured government right now, even within the parties themselves. I see
little that leads me to believe that in this current environment Romney would
have gotten further than Obama has.So long as compromise and working
across the isle is seen as weakness, stagnation will be the rule of the day....
no matter who is president.
Mr. Romney would not have made a good President. This man was morally bankrupt
in is drive for profits above all else. Running a Country is not a profit
centrist idea, it is about balancing the needs of everyone, in a financially
prudent way.Romney's first actions would be to sell several states.
@morganh - you say Clinton was willing to negotiate with Republicans as if to
imply that Obama hasn't been. Quite the opposite. He's been trying
so hard to negotiate with Republicans to realize that they're not willing
to negotiate with him.
@happy2behere - I voted for Obama in 2008, and I was severely disappointed in
his inability to stand up for middle and working class families. And yes, I
still say Romney would be worse, because he would go so far as to outright
attack middle and working class families (probably accuse them of being the
47%.) That's why I voted for a true liberal progressive - Jill Stein.
What if Mitt had won??Would he suddenly have got in touch with the
country?Would he understand what it is like to live a normal
life?More likely he would have continued the path he has always
trod..that of indifferent arrogance. He would kill off entities that he did not
like or did not make money from, he would work with the groups that surrounded
him and George W and most likely have this country in a war.As Allan
Greenspan predicted the country would have incurred much more debt with no
reasonable plan to get rid of it.I for one am glad to live in the
In all honesty, I doubt if we'd be in any different situation.
Sequestration would have already been implemented so the economy would be
slowing down due to less stimulus and federal spending, higher taxes, and the
deficit would be shrinking (would he take credit for that?). Romney would still
be grappling with a divided Congress where the Senate will not overturn
ObamaCare. Romney did say he'd approve the Keystone pipeline, so my guess
is that the debate and obstacles for it would shift to the states and local
communities suing to prevent it from going through their backyards. No big jobs
creator... at least not yet.He'd be stumped on Egypt and
America's approach to it would not be different than it is now. The one difference would be renewable energy. Under Obama, renewables are
booming. Under Romney, he'd turn us back to coal, unionized coal jobs,
leading to more need for government health assistance for the industry and
dirtier air. I think Romney would lock horns with conservative Midwest states
where wind power is a growing industry (and where he lost important states, such
as Iowa and Colorado).
I am thrilled that Obama won. He is definitely a president of the people and
he's done an outstanding job. If congress wasn't against him,
he'd be able to do more. I'm glad that Romney didn't win. I
believe his comment about not caring about the 47% and I really admire
Obama's stand on equality for everyone. Our country is better off having
Obama as President. If Hillary runs in 2016, I'll be voting for her as our
first woman president!
@Ernest T. Bass 9:48 p.m. July 25, 2013 If Romney had won then
blessings, even rich blessings would be in store for America!----------------------------The correct statement is "If
Romney had won then rich blessings for the rich would be in store for America .
. . and the rest of us could just go hang!
Romney was autocratic, his wife even more so -- and seemed to be running only
from mormon duty, not from a real desire for the race.Most
commenters knock President Obama. Although imperfect, he certainly did not
dismiss half of America as no good. Can anyone refute the idea that the rich
have gotten richer, the poor poorer, due to previous republican policies?Sorry, lds people. If you would like to elect a President, do better
The western world, not just the United States BTW, is not recovering rapidly
from the 2008 (last year of the Bush presidency, BTW) collapse because all such
nations are practicing what is called economic austerity, which is punishing the
innocent working class while those responsible get off scott free. If Romney
had been elected we would have much more austerity than we have now. Many more
would not be able to get health care and the economy would have sunk to Spanish
"Learn from the past, prepare for the future, live in the present.”― Thomas S. MonsonRepubs, the election ended almost 9
months ago. Time to move on. Dnews, that goes for you too. Stop fueling this
fire. Time to move on.
@ altI was not even born during Buchanan's time so I can't
say Obama is worse than him. But I can say that since I have been following
politics which starts with Reagan, to now Obama takes the cake as the worst
President. Even Clinton who I didn't like was willing on occasion to
negotiate with Republicans once in awhile. Obama said in 2008 he would have the
most transparent Presidency and he would reach across the aisle and work with
the other side. What he really ended up doing was going around the country
blaming the Republican Party for gridlock because they don't support his
idea of taxing the rich who by the way already pay the majority of our taxes.
Also the Republicans have drafted legislation to create jobs and improve our
healthcare, but since it is not the Gov't takeover that Obamacare is, Harry
"lost his values" Reid will not even bring it up a vote in the Senate.
We tried to get fiscal responsibility and we got four more years of a very bad
President whose goal is to accomplish the unfilled dream of his socialist father
It seems to me the economist magazine giving their opinion on what would be good
or bad for the economy is kind of like the fox given their opinion on
what'sgood or bad for the hen house.
If Romney had won then blessings, even rich blessings would be in store for
There were plenty of Presidents worse than Obama. I too rate Buchanan the worst
but right up there is Harding, Grant, Pierce, Carter, W. Van Buren, Andrew
Johnson, LBJ, Nixon, probably some others I missed. I rate President Obama quite
low because he has generally failed in many of his goals and to work effectively
with Congress. Some of his appointments have been far from stellar. He is no
Truman as far as taking blame for shortcomings. Still, to be fair, his term is
not over and perhaps things could change but I'm not really seeing this on
the horizon. His biggest "achievement" is the Affordable Care Act which
might be a disaster.I think the problem we are running into as a
nation is Congress, deeply divided and representing the fringes of each party
making compromise more difficult. The President also seems untractable in his
positions, therefore nothing substantial to help the country moves forward and
bigger problems to use a cliche get kicked down the road.Unless the
dynamics change, tough times are ahead.
If Romney were President?? Ah yes two dollar a gallon gas, world leaders bowing
at our feet, no Obamacare and still everyone has health care, and yes a unicorn
on everyone's front lawn and a rainbow in their backyard. Obama the worst President in American history? Seriously when the President
before over saw the first attack on American soil, led us into a preemptive war
that skyrocketed our debt and killed hundreds of thousands of people including
ten thousand Americans. Then over saw the worst recession in 70 years where we
were losing 250,000 jobs a month. I'm not even saying he's the worst
President I'm just saying Obama hasn't done anything even close to
being as terrible as this President.
"Oil is a global commodity"? Gas in Europe are around $4.00 per gallon
more than here with oil going less distance. Taxes on gasoline are controlled
by government, and does effect price." $2 a gallon gas would
effectively kill exploration in North America. That pipeline.... would surely
never see the light of day.... because the capital to build it.. would not have
been there." --The capital would increase if taxes were not taken for
redistribution--taxes are higher than oil profits.We're being
Oh, my, here we go again.People are literally living in a dream world. How
can otherwise, probably, intelligent people keep this up week after week?They really think Romney and Obama, absolutely, can control everything!This feels like some kind peculiar historical fiction that will be available
in about 25 years.
@ute alumni"it is impossible for obama groupies to understand that he
is the worst president in US history."His worst jobs month was
Jan 2009, the month he was only in office the last bit of it. Bin Laden is dead,
the Iraq war is over. I can understand you not thinking he's all that good
since well, you probably don't support a lot of the things I do like
Obamacare, but to think he's the worst president in history is delusional.
Oh and, by the way, I do not consider George W. Bush to be the worst. I give
that honor to Buchanan.
I preface this comment that I have been accused of being both liberal and
conservative on these blogs. I am neither but try to be fair minded.I have to judge Romney by his past and overall he has been competent whether
it was heading the Olympics, business or as governor. Not perfect but
competent. With the President, well there is little to judge. He was a
community organizer and then had a very small time in actual elected politics,
none in the Executive Branch. I think we are paying the price for this
experience. Romney has a thicker skin so to speak and deals much better with
disagreement and criticism while the President takes things personal to his
detriment.However, Romney would still have to deal with gridlock.
While I think he has a better a skill set to deal with that, there is no
guarantee that he wouldn't be as impotent as the President is now with
moving his agenda forward. That is the nature of politics. While I think
Romney has better skills to work with the other party, there is still no
guarantee that he could still move things forward.
It is useless to speculate about a Romney Presidency.It is easy to
speculate how much better off the country would be IF the Republicans had not
done everything in their power to make sure Obama was only a one term president.
If the republicans even now would try to do what is right for the
country instead of what is right for their idioligy. The T Party is truely the
Ute,The recovery is happening, or have you not been paying attention
to the DJIA and record-breaking corporate profits?Unemployment is
below what it was when Obama took office.Again, please bring your
arguments back to the real world.
The only people who still say Romney would have been worse for the country are
the people who now see that Obama is not, and never was, Presidential material,
but just can't come to admit it yet. One day you will. Otherwise, enjoy
it is impossible for obama groupies to understand that he is the worst president
in US history. unfortunately, it will be almost impossiblre to recover
economically and spiritually when he leaves office. takers got what they
Really? Another Romney story? And no more information in this one than we have
ever gotten about him or exactly what he would have done.
@What in Tucket?"It's tough for an honest man like Mr.
would now be $2.00 a gallon"No it wouldn't, it'd be
around where it is now. Oil is a global commodity and the President really has
way less influence on it than you think.@JSB"International
leaders would have new respect for the USA"Based on what? Heck
if Republicans took the senate I think we'd be at war with Iran by now. You
do realize international relations were in shambles after the Bush team got
through with it, right? (And that Romney had many top Bush team guys as his
foreign policy advisors).@Shimlau" maybe he would use the
reduction in his capital gains tax to increase the number of employees and
improve their benefits. "Businesses are currently sitting on
record setting profits rather than investing it... plus your plan involves
larger deficits than Obama's.
This fantasizing about a Romney presidency is bizarre.Please you
guys, live in the real world. There's real and urgent work to be done
here.Or, you can go on dreaming of what color the unicorns would be
on the Romney Whitehouse lawn.
merich39; the person that fills out that W2 for you would probably be in a
better position to offer you some benefits if his taxes weren't quite so
high. maybe he would use the reduction in his capital gains tax to increase the
number of employees and improve their benefits. maybe if more people were
paying taxes, then your share wouldn't be so big, and the amount might even
go down. Did that even come to mind at all?
"Gasoline would now be $2.00 a gallon," and Texas' economy would
be in shambles. Be really careful what you ask for. $2 a gallon
gas would effectively kill exploration in North America. That pipeline....
would surely never see the light of day.... because the capital to build it..
would not have been there.I was really hoping that there was more
detail here. It would have been really interesting to see what these 20 days of
rapid fire change would have been. Its too bad.... it might have been good
stuff.... but for what ever reason these great ideas still aren't being
shared.If Romney has the secret sauce, lets see it.....
Well, Mitt planned to push for elimination of all capital gains taxes. Most of
his own income is from capital gains. So if successful, his taxes would have
gone away completely. And my taxes on my actual W2 income would have had to go
up to make up the difference. That's one difference between Romney and
Obama that comes immediately to mind.
Gasoline would now be $2.00 a gallon, and the economy would be improving.People would not be appreciating the difference with Romney. IMO, a
society must experience massive trials, and depression periodically to renew the
understanding, and goodness of liberty.It's like being really
thirsty. You realize the importance of water.
It's tough for an honest man like Mr. Romney to make it in politics. We
have had a 0.9% growth per year in the past 4 years. This is stagnation.
Regulations, tax obfuscation, and stratospheric debt serious oncoming problems
with entitlements would have been correctly treated by Romney. Obama can't
or won't help us.
If Romney had won we would have had a competent, smart and moral leader.
International leaders would have new respect for the USA. He wouldn't be
complicating racial problems by speaking out on the Martin/Zimmerman case.
Business would have greater confidence in the government. He would lead instead
of blame. And he would be able to work with both parties. Obamacare would be
dead. Instead, we reelected an out of touch charismatic, cowardly, golfing