Romney opens 5 point lead over Obama

[Adam]

More "polling";

 

The Economists Get It

 

James Carter

 

August 14, 2012

George Bernard Shaw famously quipped, “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” But after nearly four years with Barack Obama in the White House, economists are increasingly reaching the same conclusion: The Obama administration’s economic policies aren’t working, and the country can do better.

 

That was the finding of an Associated Press survey of economists last December. As reported by Politico, “President Barack Obama doesn’t get top marks for his economic policies in a new survey of economists, and two-thirds said they would pick Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential candidate who would do the best job managing the economy.”

 

And this morning, more than 400 of the country’s leading economists — including five Nobel laureates — publicly broke with the Obama administration to endorse Governor Romney’s economic plan.

 

The statement, printed below in its entirety (at link), touts Governor Romney’s reliance on “proven principles” and his promise to return America “to its tradition of economic freedom.” It also details the many ways in which the administration’s economic policies have failed America.

 

In short, when it comes to the Obama administration’s economic policies, many of the country’s leading economists agree with another of George Bernard Shaw’s quips: “Better never than late.”

 

http://www.nationalr...it-james-carter

I do like Romney's economics, but the fundamental problem is the people below 55 that have paid into medicare for years, seem like they will lose what they have paid for. That may be a necessity, but it is a major problem.

 

I also have a problem with his talk about increasing military funding. There is no reason for that- it should be made efficient and reduced- if we have to outspend everyone to stay ahead, then we aren't even close to being efficient. People would be fired over that type of garbage anywhere else.

[Oxrock]

I do like Romney's economics, but the fundamental problem is the people below 55 that have paid into medicare for years, seem like they will lose what they have paid for. That may be a necessity, but it is a major problem.

 

I also have a problem with his talk about increasing military funding. There is no reason for that- it should be made efficient and reduced- if we have to outspend everyone to stay ahead, then we aren't even close to being efficient. People would be fired over that type of garbage anywhere else.

Not even remotely true.

"The first of course, was to make sure traditional Medicare, with its marketplace clout, popularity among seniors, low administrative costs, was preserved for all time," he said. At the same time, he said, the compromise with Ryan represents a "more reasonable approach" to limiting growth, and making sure that if costs did grow they wouldn't "automatically hammer the seniors."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/15/143782004/wyden-ryan-medicare-plan-shakes-up-politics-more-than-policy

[WorldTraveller]

I do like Romney's economics, but the fundamental problem is the people below 55 that have paid into medicare for years, seem like they will lose what they have paid for. That may be a necessity, but it is a major problem.

 

 

Could you please expand on "but the fundamental problem is the people below 55 that have paid into medicare for years, seem like they will LOSE what they have paid for." ?I would prefer facts for you to make your case, not your perceptions.Thank you

[John Adams]

I also have a problem with his talk about increasing military funding. There is no reason for that- it should be made efficient and reduced- if we have to outspend everyone to stay ahead, then we aren't even close to being efficient. People would be fired over that type of garbage anywhere else.

 

Pandering to the base. Yes, ultra senseless and I expect more from Ryan.

[WorldTraveller]

People can have honest differences in philosophies, you can believe that we should have a smaller military, I also happen to be on that side, but to dismiss one's beliefs as "pandering" with no evidence to back up that claim, other than your perceptions, is pretty weak. If there is one thing that Paul Ryan isn't, he's not a panderer, and anyone who believes that is in the definitive minority with that view.

[Rob's House]

I applaud those economists but I'm guessing that 400 other economists (the Krugman camp) will come out in support of Obama. I wouldn't put much faith in this.

Around the turn of the century, before economics became a destination for Marxists seeking credibility in the attempt to advance their discredited economic model, roughly 90% of economists agreed that free private enterprise capitalism was the most optimal known system to bring about prosperity. There will always be activists perverting the field, most of whom hide out in academia or media where being consistently wrong is of little consequence, but those whose jobs depend on being right (including liberals) acknowledge the supreme power of the markets to achieving growth & prosperity.

[B-Man]

Pandering to the base. Yes, ultra senseless and I expect more from Ryan.

 

I certainly wouldn't make that leap.

 

There are many Americans, in all the parties who want a stong defense.

 

but go with the knee-jerk "pandering" response............................its simpler.

 

.

[Nanker]

More "polling";

 

The Economists Get It

 

James Carter

 

August 14, 2012

George Bernard Shaw famously quipped, “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” But after nearly four years with Barack Obama in the White House, economists are increasingly reaching the same conclusion: The Obama administration’s economic policies aren’t working, and the country can do better.

 

That was the finding of an Associated Press survey of economists last December. As reported by Politico, “President Barack Obama doesn’t get top marks for his economic policies in a new survey of economists, and two-thirds said they would pick Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential candidate who would do the best job managing the economy.”

 

And this morning, more than 400 of the country’s leading economists — including five Nobel laureates — publicly broke with the Obama administration to endorse Governor Romney’s economic plan.

 

The statement, printed below in its entirety (at link), touts Governor Romney’s reliance on “proven principles” and his promise to return America “to its tradition of economic freedom.” It also details the many ways in which the administration’s economic policies have failed America.

 

In short, when it comes to the Obama administration’s economic policies, many of the country’s leading economists agree with another of George Bernard Shaw’s quips: “Better never than late.”

 

http://www.nationalr...it-james-carter

 

But Romney's wife's got a horse!

[WorldTraveller]

JA at heart is a liberal. He believes with utter rigidity that if you don't believe in Pro-choice or are against gay marriage, that there is no other explanation, other than that you are a horrible social right wing monger, period! There is no room for explanation.

 

He also believes that the views of the NY times and other "mainstream" outlets are the accurate descriptions of how things should be perceived. He also believes that there is a considerable amount of credence to how Jon Stewart sees things, that he is the purveyor of rational thought.

 

However, JA is a smart guy, and he understands math, so even though his heart yearns for liberalism, his head tells him otherwise, (fiscal conservatism).

Edited August 14, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Doc]

 

I do like Romney's economics, but the fundamental problem is the people below 55 that have paid into medicare for years, seem like they will lose what they have paid for. That may be a necessity, but it is a major problem.

 

I also have a problem with his talk about increasing military funding. There is no reason for that- it should be made efficient and reduced- if we have to outspend everyone to stay ahead, then we aren't even close to being efficient. People would be fired over that type of garbage anywhere else.

I fall into the under 55-paid/paying into the system category and I realize that if nothing is done now, there won't be anything for me to benefit from later.

[John Adams]

People can have honest differences in philosophies, you can believe that we should have a smaller military, I also happen to be on that side, but to dismiss one's beliefs as "pandering" with no evidence to back up that claim, other than your perceptions, is pretty weak. If there is one thing that Paul Ryan isn't, he's not a panderer, and anyone who believes that is in the definitive minority with that view.

 

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He's either pandering or he's a fool. Increasing military spending is utterly senseless.

 

 

Is there any position that you disagree with their position on besides immigration?

 

JA at heart is a liberal. He believes with utter rigidity that if you don't believe in Pro-choice or are against gay marriage, that there is no other explanation, other than that you are a horrible social right wing monger, period! There is no room for explanation.

 

He also believes that the views of the NY times and other "mainstream" outlets are the accurate descriptions of how things should be perceived. He also believes that there is a considerable amount of credence to how Jon Stewart sees things, that he is the purveyor of rational thought.

 

However, JA is a smart guy, and he understands math, so even though his heart yearns for liberalism, his head tells him otherwise, (fiscal conservatism).

 

Is Mitt's rooster in your mouth forcing you to type such stupidity, or is it Ryan in your ass that brought this idiocy on?

[WorldTraveller]

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He's either pandering or he's a fool. Increasing military spending is utterly senseless.

 

 

Is there any position that you disagree with their position on besides immigration?

 

Yes, I'm pro choice, I have no problems with gays marrying. I believe in reduced military spending. I'm sure if I took a look back, there would be others as well.However, I won't dismiss their motives with the same level of rigidity that you do. I believe that some people have honest differing views in how to move forward, maybe I disagree with them, but I understand that they see things from a different perspective than I do. That doesn't mean they are "pandering" or that their view is "senseless" it just means they see things differently.

 

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He's either pandering or he's a fool. Increasing military spending is utterly senseless.

 

 

Is there any position that you disagree with their position on besides immigration?

 

 

 

Is Mitt's rooster in your mouth forcing you to type such stupidity, or is it Ryan in your ass that brought this idiocy on?

 

Nice thoughtful retort.

[meazza]

Is Mitt's rooster in your mouth forcing you to type such stupidity, or is it Ryan in your ass that brought this idiocy on?

 

Ok folks, enough with the gay jokes.

[WorldTraveller]

Joe Biden strikes again:

 

 

Via 44, Joe Biden doing his best Joe Biden:

 

Speaking to supporters in Virginia, Vice President Joe Biden said that Republicans and Wall Street would put Americans "back in chains."

 

"They've said it. Every Republican's voted for it. Look at what they value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing," Biden said about Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

 

"[Romney] said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains," Biden said.

 

Biden also said that with voters' help, the Democratic ticket could win "North Carolina again."

 

The 'chains' comment was, to put it mildly, not ideal. Biden has been targeted by the GOP for his gaffes for months, but this one is a more loaded comment.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/

 

[IDBillzFan]

Is Mitt's rooster in your mouth forcing you to type such stupidity, or is it Ryan in your ass that brought this idiocy on?

 

Y'know, in the real world, this kind of stuff is pinned on homophobes, not someone endlessly fighting for acceptance of gay rights. It's like a black person complaining about racism before calling their friends "niggas."

[WorldTraveller]

There isn't really much behind JA's views other than meaningless, non substantiated pejorative declarations such as:

 

"pandering to the base"

 

or

 

"ultra senseless "

 

or this beauty

 

"Is Mitt's rooster in your mouth forcing you to type such stupidity, or is it Ryan in your ass that brought this idiocy on?"

 

The one common denominator in all these statements is that there is no substance behind it, only his rigid intolerant perceptions and maybe a little frustration.

[IDBillzFan]

It's being reported that during a speech today, Obama decided to bring up Romney driving with a dog on his roof.

 

Seriously.

 

If he keeps this up, not even conner will show his face.

[B-Man]

It's being reported that during a speech today, Obama decided to bring up Romney driving with a dog on his roof.

 

Seriously.

 

If he keeps this up, not even conner will show his face.

 

Wow................They really got nothing.

 

 

.

[GG]

Pandering to the base. Yes, ultra senseless and I expect more from Ryan.

 

Pandering to exactly what base in March 2012, well before he was on the Veep radar?

[WorldTraveller]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

 

Gallup showing a modest + 2 pop for Romney

 

I would say that's quite natural considering for the most part the coverage for Ryan has been somewhat positive. That will change though. It will be up to Romney's campaign to make sure they define Ryan before the other side does.