PDA

View Full Version : Romney Makes His Pitch: Obama Has Failed,



Qtec
08-31-2012, 02:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney has been vague about his specific plan to right the nation’s wrongs. He didn’t delve into many specifics here, though he did repeat his five-step plan to create 12 million new jobs through opening up new fossil fuel production, offering school choice and education programs, balancing the budget, creating new trade agreements and simplifying regulations and “reducing” taxes.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Romney hasn’t offered many particulars on any of these points in the past, and he didn’t on Thursday either.</span>

Romney seized on what was a common thread throughout the convention — amping up the party’s outreach to women, billing himself as a man who has launched women to great heights.

“As governor of Massachusetts, I chose a woman lieutenant governor, a woman chief of staff, half of my cabinet and senior officials were women, and in business, I mentored and supported great women leaders who went on to run great companies,” he said.

But the main thrust of the speech was overtly negative. Romney attacked Obama repeatedly for failing the fundamental test of American leadership.

Romney again attacked Obama for “apologizing for success,” a line that has been part of the Romney campaign for a while but reached a fever pitch after Republicans launched the out-of-context “you didn’t build it” attack on the president. </div></div>

So the guy that won't release his tax returns says "trust me"!

Ryan didn't offer any specifics either!

The message is,

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"vote for me and I will tell you what I will do AFTER I am elected.!!!!"</span>

eg , Commit to buying this car and THEN I will tell you what the price is.

are the US public SO stupid as to swallow this crap? (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romneys-tampa-speech.php?ref=fpa)

Fairy dust. They don't have a clue. Its just more of the same trickle down crap that has been PROVED to be a disaster for the middle class.


http://bobcesca.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/chart_middle_class_income.jpg

Q


Q

eg8r
08-31-2012, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"vote for me and I will tell you what I will do AFTER I am elected.!!!!"</div></div>LOL, sounds like Pelosi's plan for Obamacare.

Deficit cut in half in 4 years was Obama's gaurantee or he will only be a 1 termer. He never really offered a whole lot of info how he was going to do that but what good would it have done if he did? All he has done is spend trillions more dollars and not cut a single penny of the deficit. With all of his plans on how he was going to do this we were paying 1 in 10 of tax payer dollars in interest. What has he made that value now?

I say this because it doesn't matter what they say in their stump speeches...everything changes once they get in the hot seat. They have no idea how everyone is going to work together. Obama knew going in that the Reps were not going to accept him with open arms so why would he make statements like he did about being a 1 termer if not successful knowing full well that he had no chance to doing what he said he would do? Did he honestly think that those Reps that would not work with him as a Senator would all of a sudden change their minds when he became President?

Romney's pitch that Obama failed could not be any more true. Obama has failed. He offered a lot of hope and change but in the end he turned out to be a lot of GWB.


eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-31-2012, 09:30 AM
LOL, sounds like Pelosi's plan for Obamacare.

To a winger (which I don't take you to be, btw), that may sound the same. The difference? At the time she said that, it had been through hundreds of committee sessions, markups, and was written down in legislative language that could be seen in full detail on Thomas, complete with CBO scoring on the package.

Deficit cut in half in 4 years was Obama's gaurantee

No, it wasn't. I know what he said about that, and apparently you do not.

or he will only be a 1 termer

He didn't put those together. The predicate of that was 'turn this around.'

Did he honestly think that those Reps that would not work with him as a Senator would all of a sudden change their minds when he became President?

This is false, and not only false, backwards. They DID work with him when he was a Senator. Lugar, McCain, Coburn-- they all worked with him on important legislation that got accomplished and signed into law by President Bush. When he became president, for a period of time, he RECEIVED SUPPORT from the GOP to reach the 60 Senate votes he needed to get things done, albeit from the apostate last couple of moderate Northeastern GOPrs, even though the leadership had decided to oppose him on everything on the very day of his inaugural. Only later did the GOP impose complete party discipline to make sure nobody did what they did early on, and cross over to allow a simple majority to prevail on a final vote.

Some of the rest of what you say is true, but you're looking through a glass, darkly, as to the setup.

llotter
08-31-2012, 10:27 AM
My understanding what the The Moron promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term in office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8

eg8r
08-31-2012, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He didn't put those together. The predicate of that was 'turn this around.' </div></div>LOL, well even if your clarification to my statement is correct by all accounts then he should be a 1 termer. He hasn't turned anything around. If he was a man of his word he would step down. I know though that he really is not allowed to make those decisions and the people running him don't care what he said.

eg8r

eg8r
08-31-2012, 11:17 AM
That is the video that I watched prior to making my post. I thought it was funny that sofla said I did not know what I was talking about but then again he knows everything right. I mean seriously, we have a video of Obama stating what I said as clear as day and then we have sofla saying, "I know what he said about that, and apparently you do not." LOL, maybe he will tell us that at 1:03 into the video Obama did not really mean what he was saying and then sofla can go into one of his convoluted speeches where he will continue to speak until he turns it around and agrees with us that Obama made the declaration as I had stated in my post originally.

eg8r

llotter
08-31-2012, 12:03 PM
Softie seems like a really intelligent guy which makes it all the more amazing how people can be sucked into becoming an Obamatron. It is the Milgram experiment in the real world. In fact most on the Left seem pretty smart but as Hayek talked about in his analysis in The Road to Serfdom, in the chapter called, 'The End of Truth', the lie is easier to promote than the truth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hayek believed that liberty was the main thing that is destroyed first. It is destroyed in the name of some greater good or freedom or right promised by the government. In fact politicians create something called “collective freedom”. That is a broad freedom give to policy makers and planners but the rights of the individuals are sacrified. The government planners make the decisions for the people about economics. </div></div>

Qtec
08-31-2012, 05:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama was specifically asked about the promise in an interview in February 2012 with Atlanta’s WAGA-TV. (His campaign pointed us to those comments when we asked for response.) He said he wasn’t able to keep the promise because the economic downturn was <u>much more severe than was commonly understood in 2009.</u>

"Well, we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized. Everybody who is out there back in 2009, if you look back at what their estimates were in terms of how many jobs had been lost, how bad the economy had contracted when I took office, everybody underestimated it. People thought that the economy contracted 3 percent. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It turns out it contracted close to 9 percent. …</span>

"So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn't understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we're helping states more so they don't lay off teachers, etc. </div></div>

Add to that the total lack of co-operation and the deliberate sabotaging of the economy by the GOP.

He was wrong but there was a reason for that.

Q

Soflasnapper
08-31-2012, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My understanding what the The Moron promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term in office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8 </div></div>

I hadn't heard that clip, which appears to be from within a week or two of his taking office.

A pledge is not a guarantee, exactly, and neither is something said upon taking office a campaign promise.

He had not yet seen the revisions of the gdp collapse numbers to realize how bad it was free-falling, not only in the 4th quarter but the 3rd as well. The 3rd quarter, which had previously been thought to be a period of slight growth, was as bad as the 4th quarter was thought to have been before it was revised as twice as bad as originally reported.

Since that is a hot mess of an explanation, let's put it into numbers. Originally the 3rd calendar quarter in 2008 was thought to be about a 0% real growth rate, or maybe 0.5%, essentially flat, not going up by much of anything, and also however not declining. Originally, the 4th calendar quarter was thought to be declining by -3% or so, which was considered real bad.

Then the revisions showed the 3rd quarter came in at -3% instead of flat, and the 4th quarter was -9% (rounding, really maybe 8.8%).

And even on this evidence, there isn't any reference to a one term agreement if it isn't done.

I'm sure eg8r appreciates your attempted help, however.

As THIS is the one he says he saw, where is what he claims to have heard? Do you know? Did you edit it out, LOL!

Qtec
08-31-2012, 06:50 PM
That's because its not there. A one term proposition...is what he says. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmRgaKfWMPA&feature=related)

Q

eg8r
09-01-2012, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He said he wasn’t able to keep the promise because the economic downturn was much more severe than was commonly understood in 2009.
</div></div>LOL, it is funny to hear the excuses after the fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Well, we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized.</div></div>His entire presidency has been worse than anyone realized. Plus we had idiot lefties here on the board championing the end of the recession when the truth of the matter is that was their "mission accomplished" moment and now they look like idiots.

eg8r

LWW
09-01-2012, 10:22 AM
Klinton and Karter used the same excuse.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2012, 10:41 AM
all the more amazing how people can be sucked into becoming an Obamatron

There are plenty of criticisms of Obama I'd agree with. I see few of those here. I voted against Obama in his first primary bid, and haven't sent his campaign any money, in 2008 or subsequently, even as I have supported the party monetarily. (Although I'm about to max contribute to him now.) I did not succumb to the historical moment, I was not overcome by emotion, and I suspected such a man with so brief a history in Washington would have much to learn. I was right.

Just as with Clinton, there are ample critics of Obama from the left. The left does not agree with even moderate Republicans, as both Clinton and Obama have been in policy terms.

Meanwhile, these center-left (at most, maybe just center) politicians are attacked by the right as the most leftist pols ever, and as allegedly at the far extreme of the left of the Democratic Party. False. They are what used to be moderate Republicans, now a vanishing breed which cannot be found among those claiming to be Republicans, only now found in the more conservative Democrats.

So, when these guys the left would otherwise be criticizing are subjected to what we consider either fairly insane or more likely just dishonest attacks, it rallies those far to the left of these men against their far-right attackers and their false and likely knowingly false, mendacious attacks.

It's a very simple thing to understand and to explain. Only those whose jobs depend upon denying such facts can really duck the clear truth here. I consider anyone who doesn't need such opinions as part of their job description to be well and fully duped by somewhat clever lies and liars.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2012, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Klinton and Karter used the same excuse. </div></div>

In what respect? This is an idiotic comment, embellished with the 'K' and all. Hater, much?

Clinton and Carter are among the best Republican presidents of all time, pretty much down the line.

If you want to find someone alibiing their performance by blaming their predecessor, I don't think Carter or Clinton are good examples, although Reagan is.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2012, 10:48 AM
Plus we had idiot lefties here on the board championing the end of the recession when the truth of the matter is that was their "mission accomplished" moment and now they look like idiots.

Anemic or sub-par growth is a recession in what respect? Are we in a recession, according to you?

After GHW Bush's recession ended, by the return of real gdp growth, UE went from 7.1% to 7.8% in 1992, although his recession (decline in real gdp) had ended in '91.

Gayle in MD
09-01-2012, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama was specifically asked about the promise in an interview in February 2012 with Atlanta’s WAGA-TV. (His campaign pointed us to those comments when we asked for response.) He said he wasn’t able to keep the promise because the economic downturn was <u>much more severe than was commonly understood in 2009.</u>

"Well, we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized. Everybody who is out there back in 2009, if you look back at what their estimates were in terms of how many jobs had been lost, how bad the economy had contracted when I took office, everybody underestimated it. People thought that the economy contracted 3 percent. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It turns out it contracted close to 9 percent. …</span>

"So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn't understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we're helping states more so they don't lay off teachers, etc. </div></div>

Add to that the total lack of co-operation and the deliberate sabotaging of the economy by the GOP.

He was wrong but there was a reason for that.

Q </div></div>

IIRC, it came out that Bush refused to admit that we were even in a recession for a whole year. I recall arguing with those who kept insisting there was no recession.


The reason that the President didn't realize how bad things were, is because the NEOCONS lied to him about how bad things were. Bush lied to all of ut about how bad things really were, for over a year!

Another Set-up. Let's Obama think we're not doing as badly as we were right up until the day his people had to figure it all out for themselves!

I also recall all of the name calling I received during the pre-crash years, back when I was posting about the emergency statements being made by numerous Economists about the coming crash.

It's funny now, reading these posts, same people who were bashing me for suggesting that the Bush Administraton was lying about the so called "Fundamentals of our Economy" years ago, are still living in total denial! Still writing the same old insults. Still posting the same old reverse reality. Still throwing up all over eveyone, posting their usual lies, demanding that WE PROVE that THEIR fantasies aren't true! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Such a scam. Eight years of Bush's non-stop scams, lies,, law breaking, disgrace and ugly dishonor, just like the preview of more of that same sort of Repiglican **** slinging which we watched for three days last week.

Pathetic!

eg8r
09-01-2012, 12:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anemic or sub-par growth is a recession in what respect? Are we in a recession, according to you? </div></div>The actual definition of recession maybe not, however are we any better off than we were while during the recession, nope. Are we in a place that according to Obama would deliver him the second term, nope. Should he step down because he did not meet his self-defined requirements for a second term, YEP.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-02-2012, 12:00 PM
however are we any better off than we were while during the recession, nope

That's ridiculous, of course. We've had 25 months of increased job numbers in the private sector, averaging six figures of increase per month. This is not better off than when we were LOSING 750,000+ jobs a month, for months at a time? Are you retarded?

Are we in a place that according to Obama would deliver him the second term, nope. Should he step down because he did not meet his self-defined requirements for a second term, YEP.

He didn't put a number on it, and didn't say he'd self-limit his terms to one if he didn't meet the number he didn't state.

Nothing could have been more dishonest than Romney's claim that as of when Obama came in was when we all thought glory days of the economy would return, everyone would get good jobs, and we'd be not only to balance the budget, but pay down the debt.

Pay down the debt? BALANCE THE BUDGET??? In the worst recessionary times since the Great Depression? Romney knows better, even if his fact-challenged early Alzheimers and amnesiac audience may not.

Gayle in MD
09-02-2012, 12:09 PM
And during unprecedented obstruction, as well.

Yet, look at how much he did accomplish.

al Qaeda smashed. bin Laden dead. Our automoble indistry saved, and growing.

I can't see any reason for these continueing attacks other than racism, penny pinching tax greed, and just sheer hatred of all things Democratic, or Liberal in the hearts and minds of the right.

And how long was it before he actually had a filibuster proof majority of Dems behind him? At least six months or more, IIRC.

G.

Sid_Vicious
09-02-2012, 01:40 PM
"That's ridiculous, of course. We've had 25 months of increased job numbers in the private sector, averaging six figures of increase per month. This is not better off than when we were LOSING 750,000+ jobs a month, for months at a time? Are you retarded?"

Yea Ed, remember YOUR president came on TV in September of '08 ans said. "We are on the edge of the next Great Depression if we don't immediately bail out the banks." That asshole said, "Our country's economy is STRONG" just months before.

Obama has been great considering the residing pres, your guy Bush, stated a looming great depression. I do hope that you can breath with your head stuck up your "Bush-zone." What a sad excuse for American education and up-bringing you are. sid



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And during unprecedented obstruction, as well.

Yet, look at how much he did accomplish.

al Qaeda smashed. bin Laden dead. Our automoble indistry saved, and growing.

I can't see any reason for these continueing attacks other than racism, penny pinching tax greed, and just sheer hatred of all things Democratic, or Liberal in the hearts and minds of the right.

And how long was it before he actually had a filibuster proof majority of Dems behind him? At least six months or more, IIRC.

G. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-02-2012, 04:18 PM
Hey Martin,
You might want to post a copy of this to Ed. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Think you meant to send it to him?

eg8r
09-02-2012, 07:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's ridiculous, of course. We've had 25 months of increased job numbers in the private sector, averaging six figures of increase per month. This is not better off than when we were LOSING 750,000+ jobs a month, for months at a time? Are you retarded?</div></div>Am I retarted because I thought you might have a brain that you intended to use during these discussions? I guess so. This country is in no way at all any better off than we were when Obama got here. 25 months of increased job numbers. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif You freaking crack me up. Unemployment is higher now than when Obama took office. That doesn't sound like we are doing "better". Obama takes office unemployment below 8. Obama takes office and it skyrockets to 10 then settles in the 8's. That is NOT better by ANY stretch of the imagination. Gayle has the biggest imagination on the board but you are trying crazy hard to usurp her.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He didn't put a number on it, and didn't say he'd self-limit his terms to one if he didn't meet the number he didn't state.</div></div>LOL, with all the math you try and throw around on the board, I thought you would be able to figure it out. Let's see if I can help you out. Take the deficit of 12/2008 and divide that in half (that is what Obama said). Now let's say your math sucks and you fall off by a million or a billion left or right, who cares because surely no matter how you try to slice it in half you will surely not be ADDING trillions like Obama actually did.

eg8r

eg8r
09-02-2012, 07:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama has been great considering the residing pres, your guy Bush,</div></div>LOL, you fool, Obama IS Bush. He has been the best clone of them all.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-02-2012, 08:14 PM
Am I retarted [sic] because I thought you might have a brain that you intended to use during these discussions? I guess so.

No, but perhaps retarded to blame Obama for the 3 months of 2009 it took to get his plan passed into law and begin to take effect. Perhaps retarded not to look at all the indices, and see them go from very sharp downward slopelines (falling off a cliff, in free fall) to sudden upward slopes, all at the time his stimulus plan was put into first action.

There is absolutely no reason on earth one could point to as an explanation for all these things to have turned around, except Obama's stimulus and other programs he put in place. Such as giving everybody a $400 annual tax break, meaning $800 for a couple, within a month of taking office, iirc.

If a ship's master mechanic, faced with a stalled engine, tells the captain, 'based on what is usually the problem, this should take about 18 hours,' but then finds this is not the usual problem, but a seized piston requiring tearing down the whole engine and thus will take a week, that does not show the master mechanic is doing a poor job. He may be doing an expert job as no one else can do it, and far faster than most, and still seem very slow at it, if all you know is how this problem is normally caused and solved.

Did Obama make his 'cut the deficit in half pledge' as a campaign promise? Not if the only tape or record of this dates from Feb. 2009 (as the one you show does). In Feb. 2009, did he have the revised numbers on how badly the economy had tanked in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008? No, he did not.

Given that it was so much worse than anyone thought or even reported until the revisions, is this recovery really so slow, and should it obviously have been far faster, and in fact, as fast as a typical recession's recovery? YOU DON'T KNOW (on the first question), no, and no, on the next.

Did anyone know that the financial contagion had spread to the banks of Europe, and that the aftermath would threaten the Eurozone and depress our trade there because of their own house of card collapse? Or that the Chinese would suddenly have a slowdown, and the Japanese, a disaster of biblical proportions, so that mainly the entire world was simultaneously slowing down everywhere? No, and THAT hasn't happened since 1929.

eg8r
09-02-2012, 10:29 PM
LOL you can defend all you want but the fact of the matter is that Americans are not better off. UE is worse no matter what you think, the numbers are the numbers. Obama failed on this but he was quick to tell us he was stupid and the numbers were worse than he thought.

As I was reading today I did see the Governor from Md disagrees with you. I have no idea if there are more or not from the left but he happened to be the first one I saw and, admittedly, I just stopped looking at that point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On CBS's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked: “Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?”

Responded O’Malley: “No, but that's not the question of this election. The question, without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits, the series of desert wars -- charged for the first time to credit cards, the national credit card.”
</div></div>Might I draw your attention to the first two letters of his response. The rest of his response is your normal weenie whining about Bush. His direct answer was NO!

So basically what we have is Obama failing the American people and surely not delivering and hope and change. He failed himself on the deficit but won't be man enough to step down.

eg8r

DiabloViejo
09-03-2012, 12:51 AM
Regarding Obama...I don't think of him as a hero. I don't picture him as a rock star. I don't see him as a 'messiah'. I just see him as just a good, decent, hard-working American who loves his family, loves his job and loves the country he has sworn to make a better place for all. That's why I'm voting Obama/Biden in 2012, and it doesn't make a difference what you, or anyone else, has to say about it

Soflasnapper
09-03-2012, 10:42 AM
Might I draw your attention to the first two letters of his response.

The governor has to make a political response. That is a political response, based on a calculation of likely reactions.

Had he said they were better off, it would have ignited a firestorm. It's just the same way we don't hear that the stimulus succeeded.

People don't want to hear any of that, and so, certain true defenses are not made. If some make them, they are quick to add that it is far from good enough. Because any positive sound bite, however true, can be attacked by lying partisans as saying the speaker is saying everything is fine.

The conditions of the economy coming in was that millions of people had just lost their jobs in the prior months, and another close to 3 million extra lost their jobs in the first 3 months of 2009. The banks were going bankrupt by the hundreds a year, and it appeared the really big banks would fail and destroy the financial system. UE was steeply rising, and achieving double digit unemployment was baked into the cake.

Perhaps some moronic assessment blames the guy who turned all of that around for not reversing the momentum of all those bad conditions, turning them immediately around on a dime. But that would have been impossible-- no one can do that. Consider that even Superman stopping a runaway railroad, or saving a plane falling out of the sky, gets pushed by that railroad or plane further along its path toward disastrous consequences before he can stop it. Once it is stopped, it is still a fair distance just to get back to where it was he first started to stop it, let alone to make progress past that point.

Facing some $15 trillions in financial losses, somehow this president stopped the economy's freefall, reversed the loss of millions of jobs to the creation of nearly 4 million new jobs in private sectors, beat the 8-year total of Bush for private sector job creation, and has reduced both the budget and the deficit, while cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes.

He and his surrogates cannot much tout these accomplishments, for the political messaging reasons I pointed out earlier. It could too easily be massaged into a false claim that they think things are great, couldn't be better, etc. And yet these are real accomplishments that apparently are invisible to many,

who wear their OBD sunglasses at night,
So they can't so they can't
See the light that's right before their eyes

(apologies to Corey Hart)

Soflasnapper
09-03-2012, 10:47 AM
The governor has revised and extended his answer, as it were.

Here's what he could have said if he had not been so politically cautious on the first extemporaneous answer, and what he has now in fact actually said, upon further consideration:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Here's the reality ofur situation as a country," O'Malley told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "We are clearly better off as a country because we're creating jobs rather than losing them."

Pressed by O'Brien, the potential 2016 presidential contender elaborated.

"We have not recovered all that we lost in the Bush recession. That's why we need to continue to move forward. Is there anybody on this panel that thinks we've recovered all we lost in the Bush recession? I don't think anybody can say that. But clearly we're moving forward and creating jobs. Unemployment is down and job creation is up. And those positive movements would not happen without the president's leadership."
</div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-03-2012, 11:57 AM
Josh Marshall, at his Talking Points Memo site:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would seem that the big question being pushed going into the Democratic convention is the classic: Are you better off than you were four years ago?

For every incumbent this is an inherently fair question. Whether it is you or the country, it’s the most essential question on offer. It is also an inherently tricky one for President Obama since the economy remains anemic and job growth has yet to approach the levels necessary to really get the country fully back on its feet. Indeed, job growth fell back after briefly appearing to be in take-off mode in late 2011 and early 2012.

But there are some basic facts required to put this question in perspective.

Remember four years ago?

Q3 2008: GDP -3.7%
Q4 2008: GDP -8.9%
Q1 2009: GDP -5.3%

The country and the world were in the midst of a massive global economic crisis the likes of which the planet hadn’t seen in some 80 years. Q4 2008 on its own was the second worse quarterly contraction in recorded history (quarterly GDP data goes back to 1947). There was a very real chance the global economy would go completely off the rails, touching off a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The chance of that didn’t fully lift until the spring of 2009.

Remember this chart?

In Q3 2008, the US economy shed a net 967,000 jobs. In Q4 the number was 1,801,000. Almost a million more (net) jobs were lost in January 2009.

That was four years ago. The facts speak for themselves. The operative political question President Obama has to tackle is whether, three and a half years on, things shouldn’t have improved a good deal more than they have. That is likely the question the election will turn on. But if you’re asking, are we better off now than four years ago, the facts are clear.

And it wasn’t that long ago. People remember. </div></div>

That's not even to mention that we are far better off now by having ended the deployment and hostilities of the Iraq war.

Extricating ourselves from that quagmire makes us phenomenally better off on that measure, and prospectively down the road, as we no longer throw more good money after bad down that rathole. Not to mention the lives and well-being of our military personnel. Too long delayed, but we are also on schedule to get out of Afghanistan, another sucking chest wound that needs to be staunched, cauterized, and packed in.

eg8r
09-04-2012, 08:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's what he could have said if he had not been so politically cautious on the first extemporaneous answer, and what he has now in fact actually said</div></div>You chose to use the words "what he has now in fact actually said", well news to you, what I quoted was what he actually said also. So what we have here is another backtracking Dem who is quickly trying to save face because his initial honesty did get him the response from his peers as he was hoping. So to clear this up for you because you clearly have fallen for it, when pressed for an answer the truth came out, no Americans are not better off. After he had time to think about how to answer that question if it ever comes up he is now able to better tow the party line.

eg8r

eg8r
09-04-2012, 08:59 AM
LOL, I love how you continually try to point this in the direction of GDP and totally ignoring a more direct impact to the American people as UE. I totally understand why you do it and that is because you are trying to rally the troops on your side and frankly they all keep drawing the short stick. Much easier for you to talk to them about things they know nothing about instead of real things like UE which they can respond to. The fact of the matter is, less people are working now than before Obama took office so his policies have failed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's not even to mention that we are far better off now by having ended the deployment and hostilities of the Iraq war. </div></div>I haven't heard a single person say they are voting for Obama because he was forced to comply with the agreement that Bush had already signed into place with the Iraqi government to remove US troops by 2011 (even though Obama fought to keep 10,000 troops there for a longer stay). I have heard people complain about being out of work due to a bad economy and that is solely on Obama's shoulders as the leader of our nation.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Extricating ourselves from that quagmire makes us phenomenally better off on that measure</div></div>What was so difficult with complying to the signed agreement that we would leave the country? Maybe you thought it was difficult to leave because Obama was actually trying his darndest to extend the soldiers time there and he got shot down. But all this is besides the point. Obama declared UE would never go above 8% or something to that effect and he also declared that he would pay down the deficit by half during his first term. Those are two things that the American people can see and understand. He failed to do what he said he could do.

eg8r