Footwedge;1225811 wrote:And that question pretty much summarizes the difference between what you think is good for our society, and what I think is good for our society. You admit to seeing nothing wrong with America's economic demise. Romney feels the same way as you do, except he's too cowardly to admit it.

No, the problem is you blame America's "demise" on the outsourcing of mostly crappy, overpaid mfring jobs...and I know better. And the other difference between you and I is you believe people are entitled to overpaying jobs and I think they should create value and earn their salary. I didn't spend $100k+ on 3 degrees because I expected shit handed to me.

But please answer the question. What criteria would you use to determine that a mfring job is a "good" job that belongs in America? And should countries like France, Germany, etc use the same criteria to not buy US imports?

Footwedge;1225863 wrote:Tell me what policies that Obama implemented in his tenure that caused the rise in unemployment. Keep in mind, since 1972, every president, whether right or wrong, has addressed high unemployment in 3 ways.

A. Reduce interest rates (presently at record lows)
B. Deficit spend (5 trillion and rolling in Obama's reign)
C. Print fiat money. (Ibid)

Some have kept taxes low as well..

Obama did all 4 of those things.

So again, what policies did Obama put in place that shot up unemployment?

Don't forget that the economic collapse happened in September of 08...when Bush was in power.

A. You can reduce interest rates all you want, but if people don't have jobs and banks don't lend money to people, that is not going to work.

B. Deficit spending, he has done that like a poor guy who just hit the powerball lottery and now is broke. He has killed the coal industry with his EPA restrictions, like no other president. He has given millions of dollars to his buddies companies that have taken the money and then filed bankruptcy after creating no jobs. He has forced a health care program down peoples throats that will cost billions of dollars that will hurt companies, so they are not that eager to hire. He has given amnesty to millions of ILLEGAL immigrants so they can take American jobs, but we all know that was not his intention, his intention was to increase the Hispanic vote for his re-election. Tell me one thing he has done to create jobs for the American people, let alone the black community.

The economic collapse may have started in late 2008, but this guy has done nothing to change it. He has had 4 years to change it and has done nothing, but make it worse and if he gets elected again and can't fix it in another 4 years will he ask that the constitution be changes so he can run for a 3rd term?

gut;1225901 wrote:No, the problem is you blame America's "demise" on the outsourcing of mostly crappy, overpaid mfring jobs...and I know better.

Partly correct. Not too many people think manufacturing falls in the crappy job department. You do. I don't.

And the other difference between you and I is you believe people are entitled to overpaying jobs and I think they should create value and earn their salary.

Excuse me for caring about the people of our country. You don't. Nobody has suggested any reduced value for working hard to be successful. At least I haven't.And secondly, the outsourcing of jobs is just one part of the equation. World hegemony is the other part. Another subject that you are inept at grasping the consequences.

I didn't spend $100k+ on 3 degrees because I expected shit handed to me.

What a load of crap. You equate keeping America working in the private sector with good paying jobs to "having shit handed to me". There on display for all to see is your mindset..and true feelings regarding your country and your fellow Americans. And stop with the degree crap. People with degrees have also seen and felt the American demise. Economic analysis now asserts that getting a degree is no longer worth it in this country. I think that's truly a sad commentary on what America has evolved to.

But please answer the question. What criteria would you use to determine that a mfring job is a "good" job that belongs in America? And should countries like France, Germany, etc use the same criteria to not buy US imports?

It's called making "things" here in this country. "Shit", "widgets"...as in tangibles. Things you hold, things you wear. We have become a society of worthless paper shufflers and contract pushers. Intangibles encompassed 9% of our country's GOP a short 20-25 years ago. Today that number has swelled to over 20%. Mostly...as you would call it..."shit jobs".

Your way has been tried over the past 30 years. And your way has failed our once great country. Failed miserably in fact. It's time to rethink our ways and our macroeconomic thinking. It is time to bring back civic pride and civic prosperity....in lieu of international carpetbagging of third world countries for the pleasure of the few. You boast of your multi degrees, but you've learned nothing. You complain of Obama's economic record, but never cite his specific policies. You cry about Keynesian policies, but never address possible alternatives. You cry about government rampant expansion, but have economic views that are consistant in more Keynes intervention, in order to keep the masses employed. Tragic.

Moreover, you bitch and complain about the high unemployment, yet espouse the very practices that have produced the connundrum. Where are your solutions?

For a guy with 3 degrees, you have offered nothing of substance on these boards to alleviate the American economic demise.....other than "let's put an R in office". What will an R do exactly? Where is Romney and his elixirs? Where are they? Still waiting for Romney to list specifics. Where is your plan? What is your plan? I've read your murmerings about deregulations. We deregged in 1999. How did that work out?

Now....back on topic...of this thread. Why is Romney so defensive in distancing himself from Bain Capital? An American success story to the nth degree? Shouldn't he be bragging about how successful he was? What is he afraid of?

Nope. Not at all. Instead pick apart his economic plan he put out.

password;1225919 wrote:A. You can reduce interest rates all you want, but if people don't have jobs and banks don't lend money to people, that is not going to work.

The whole idea behind lowering interest rates is to encourage entrepreneurs to borrow and invest...thus creating private sector expansion. For years now, the interest rates have been at record lows. Obama's policies are exactly the same as any other president as it relates to fiscal/monetary policies. There is nothing that Romney can do in this area to stimulate business expansion.

B. Deficit spending, he has done that like a poor guy who just hit the powerball lottery and now is broke.

The incredible expansion of deficit spending undertaken by Obama is the exact same measure that was undertaken by previous administrations to "kick start" a really bad economy. Deficit spending creates for the most part "non producing" jobs to keep the masses employed. The real question is why can't the private sector employ the masses? You can thank the pro outsourcing crowd as the primary culprit. You outsource the private sector, then in insource the "non productive" government expansion...as we now see...in both the welfare state and the warfare state. Don't act like Romney would behave any differently. Since I've been alive, Republican administrations have exceeded Democrat administrations in adding to the national debt as a percentage. So don't even go there with Romney would be more responsible in this area. Because history clearly shows that he won't.

He has killed the coal industry with his EPA restrictions, like no other president.

Show the link proving that he killed coal. Making companies like Massey comply with safety regs is hardly killing anything.

He has given millions of dollars to his buddies companies that have taken the money and then filed bankruptcy after creating no jobs.

I will agree that a lot of his grants and such have not panned out at all. But to call these investment projects as simply "giving money to his buds" tells me that you read a lot of radical right winged sources for your "facts".

He has forced a health care program down peoples throats that will cost billions of dollars that will hurt companies, so they are not that eager to hire.

You have absolutely no proof of that. Show me a link specifying that in the 2700 pages of his healthcare plan doing such. Nobody is forcing businesses to shell out more money for health care. Nobody. Moreover, Obamacare isn't even in operation yet...and won't be for years. How does this argument float in reflecting what has happened in the previous 3 and a half years?

He has given amnesty to millions of ILLEGAL immigrants so they can take American jobs,

Nice try. Your buddy W did the exact same thing. I repeart...the exact same thing. Do you think Bush cared about the illegal immigration problem? Because he didn't....

but we all know that was not his intention, his intention was to increase the Hispanic vote for his re-election.

LOL. What was Bush's excuse for allowing illegal immigration then? I think you probably listen to Rush each and every day. Only he could sequence these things in such a fashion.

Tell me one thing he has done to create jobs for the American people, let alone the black community.

are you Black? What exactly does race have to do with it? Why does skin color matter so much to you?

Point blank...right at you. I'm looking for specific answers from you, or any other Romney fan.

Tell me what Romney's ideas are for stimulating a completely failed economy...that Obama hasn't already tried.

Go.

The economic collapse may have started in late 2008, but this guy has done nothing to change it. He has had 4 years to change it and has done nothing, but make it worse and if he gets elected again and can't fix it in another 4 years will he ask that the constitution be changes so he can run for a 3rd term?

LOL. Vote for Mitt...You'll get your Obromney for four more years...only worse.

Footwedge;1225942 wrote:...

Tell me what Romney's ideas are for stimulating a completely failed economy...that Obama hasn't already tried.

Go.

..

[/QUOTE]

A greater degree of certainty.

The President is not going to create a growing economy no matter who is in. Businesses will. Their willingness to invest and hire is based on a greater confidence in knowing or at east believing they know what their tax situation will be. Short-term growth almost always begins with small businesses. The chatter of raising taxes on individuals above $250,000 is going to continue to throttle that. Large corporations will invest and utilize cash when economic momentum and demand are looking to be positive.

Right or wrong Mr. Romney immediately injects a degree of business and tax certainty into the marketplace. That alone is more than the current President will have influenced this country with his ridiculous spending habits.

A greater degree of certainty.

The President is not going to create a growing economy no matter who is in. Businesses will. Their willingness to invest and hire is based on a greater confidence in knowing or at east believing they know what their tax situation will be. Short-term growth almost always begins with small businesses. The chatter of raising taxes on individuals above $250,000 is going to continue to throttle that.

To blame the growth stunt regarding microeconomics and small businesses since 08 on "idle chatter"... on tax increases is ridiculous. Obama only started this "chatter" in the past 6 months or so. What about the dirt cheap interest rates that he implemented? I'm sorry, your dot connections and Obama's policies don't hold a grain of salt.

Businesses...including small businesses have been stunted most directly by the huge economic collapse in 08. ameericans have collectively lost 39% of their aggregate wealth (equity} according to the USA today. Obama had nothing to do with what happened in 06, 07, and 08. Nothing. To suggest that an increase of the tax rate to those making 250K per year (still the lowest rate in over 100 years) is ridiculous.

Right or wrong Mr. Romney immediately injects a degree of business and tax certainty into the marketplace. That alone is more than the current President will have influenced this country with his ridiculous spending habits.

Once again, you cite a bogus assertion on taxes. Obama has not raised taxes since he's been in office. As for his "ridiculous spending habits". Come on man. Where is your logic in thinking Romney won't spend just as much to stimulate a dead economy? History is not on Romney's side as it relates to Republican's doing anything different.

I think this sums up Mitty in 60 seconds.

[video=youtube;Ud3mMj0AZZk][/video]

Willard is in it up to his knees right now.

His tax returns must show him having paid essentially no taxes that he is not releasing them because I saw Bill Kristol this morning saying he needs to get them out there pronto to change the subject. Take the hit and move on. They must be bad.

BHO is successfully swift boating Willard right now and only a blind man didn't see that it was coming.

Bankers and financial services types have passed ambulance chasers in America as one of the most loathed professions, and in the most crucial election in my lifetime that is what we nominate to oust BHO. It is truly mind boggling.

Footwedge;1225581 wrote:Then why is Mitt so defensive on the issue? Why is he so desparate in his attempts to separate himself and ties with Bain Capital? Why not reiterate exactly what you've said here?

International carpetbagging is a staple of "good business". The rules allow it and the corporate cartel embelish it. Bain Capital embellishes it. Conservatives view labor as nothing more than an expense on the balance sheet. Why even have minimum wage laws? Pay em what the market will bear...as in 2.50 an hour like they do in China. Oh, and make them stretch that 2.50 and hour and pay for their own health care.

So Mitt represented the class of corporate leaders that espouse a 2 class feudalistic society in the US. Come clean and admit it Mitt. This is what you envision and that's exactly what you want. To dance around the issue is silly. Come out and admit it.

Perhaps he is so defensive because the Obama campaign is misrepresenting Romney's position at Bain or flat out lying about Romney's role at Bain in a certain time period? I don't plan on voting for either of these canidates, but what the Obama campaign is doing is disgraceful. I have never seen a sitting president that is running for re-election run such a smear campaign and look so desperate. He can't even run on his record, which is why he feels the need to bash and boldly lie about Romney.

Romney, IMO, is a weak canidate; the fact that Obama feels like he needs to smear, bash and lie about what Romney has or hasn't done shows me that Obama is a weak man and weak president.

Footwedge;1225951 wrote:...
Businesses...including small businesses have been stunted most directly by the huge economic collapse in 08. ameericans have collectively lost 39% of their aggregate wealth (equity} according to the USA today. Obama had nothing to do with what happened in 06, 07, and 08. Nothing. To suggest that an increase of the tax rate to those making 250K per year (still the lowest rate in over 100 years) is ridiculous.

Once again, you cite a bogus assertion on taxes. Obama has not raised taxes since he's been in office. As for his "ridiculous spending habits". Come on man. Where is your logic
in thinking Romney won't spend just as much to stimulate a dead economy? History is not on Romney's side as it relates to Republican's doing anything different.

There is no assertion on taxes. It's a mindset. The taxes could even be higher. It's a mindset of knowing. Knowing what if any change will take place will have an immediate impact. There's a belief that a Republican President will support the comments made by the house republicans that simply taxe the top 5% is unacceptable. Even thought those making over $250,000 may be taxed more there's a belief that the support of them exists.

Footwedge;1225951 wrote:To blame the growth stunt regarding microeconomics and small businesses since 08 on "idle chatter"... on tax increases is ridiculous. Obama only started this "chatter" in the past 6 months or so. What about the dirt cheap interest rates that he implemented? I'm sorry, your dot connections and Obama's policies don't hold a grain of salt.
....

There is nothing in my comment which blames economic growth stunt on tax increases. I didn't even reference President Obama's policies in the post you copied. In fact I have stated no matter who the President is they will not grow the economy. That's not where economic growth comes from. It's the known costs of the near future or at least the believed known costs that a business will be willing to act based on.

Footwedge;1225942 wrote:The whole idea behind lowering interest rates is to encourage entrepreneurs to borrow and invest...thus creating private sector expansion. For years now, the interest rates have been at record lows. Obama's policies are exactly the same as any other president as it relates to fiscal/monetary policies. There is nothing that Romney can do in this area to stimulate business expansion.



The incredible expansion of deficit spending undertaken by Obama is the exact same measure that was undertaken by previous administrations to "kick start" a really bad economy. Deficit spending creates for the most part "non producing" jobs to keep the masses employed. The real question is why can't the private sector employ the masses? You can thank the pro outsourcing crowd as the primary culprit. You outsource the private sector, then in insource the "non productive" government expansion...as we now see...in both the welfare state and the warfare state. Don't act like Romney would behave any differently. Since I've been alive, Republican administrations have exceeded Democrat administrations in adding to the national debt as a percentage. So don't even go there with Romney would be more responsible in this area. Because history clearly shows that he won't.

Show the link proving that he killed coal. Making companies like Massey comply with safety regs is hardly killing anything.


Nice try. Your buddy W did the exact same thing. I repeart...the exact same thing. Do you think Bush cared about the illegal immigration problem? Because he didn't.... LOL. What was Bush's excuse for allowing illegal immigration then? I think you probably listen to Rush each and every day. Only he could sequence these things in such a fashion.

are you Black? What exactly does race have to do with it? Why does skin color matter so much to you?

You have not answered anything asked of you. It seems that you point out Obama has done exactly the same as other presidents, but he promised change. Here are some examples of the change he has delivered,


Now for the question of race, this man has used race since day one of his first election campaign and continues to use it. His attorney general goes to the NAACP and tells them that the republicans are trying to put a slavery poll tax on them like the days of slavery because they want to verify voters. He comments that his son would look like the thug Trayvon Martin, but he has slowed down on that one because Zimmerman is half Hispanic and he don't want to piss them off before the election. Read some of his books about his family and his beliefs, that he published before being elected, he is a racist.

dwccrew;1225969 wrote:Perhaps he is so defensive because the Obama campaign is misrepresenting Romney's position at Bain or flat out lying about Romney's role at Bain in a certain time period? I don't plan on voting for either of these canidates, but what the Obama campaign is doing is disgraceful. I have never seen a sitting president that is running for re-election run such a smear campaign and look so desperate. He can't even run on his record, which is why he feels the need to bash and boldly lie about Romney.

Romney, IMO, is a weak canidate; the fact that Obama feels like he needs to smear, bash and lie about what Romney has or hasn't done shows me that Obama is a weak man and weak president.

Yeah, unlike the noble venture that was all the birther bullshit. :rolleyes: They both blow.

A greater degree of certainty.

The President is not going to create a growing economy no matter who is in. Businesses will. Their willingness to invest and hire is based on a greater confidence in knowing or at east believing they know what their tax situation will be. Short-term growth almost always begins with small businesses. The chatter of raising taxes on individuals above $250,000 is going to continue to throttle that. Large corporations will invest and utilize cash when economic momentum and demand are looking to be positive.

Right or wrong Mr. Romney immediately injects a degree of business and tax certainty into the marketplace. That alone is more than the current President will have influenced this country with his ridiculous spending habits.

I call bullshit on this. It's nothing more than speculation.

Businesses will not suddenly begin to hire and spend (spending here is what I mean) if Mitt is elected. That is a fantasy.

Edit: What I mean is I hear the argument a lot (no not from you before you go asking) that for example manufacturing jobs won't return under Obama/Dems because of the "uncertainty" the give in regards to things like the Bush tax cuts. But if it holds that they're causing that problem shouldn't we see evidence of that? We don't though.



Before someone comes crying about it, no, this isn't a "see it's Bush's fault" thing. Just showing that having a Republican in the White House isn't some magical business confidence pill so stop acting like it is. That is not the problem.

I Wear Pants;1226043 wrote:I call bull**** on this. It's nothing more than speculation.

Businesses will not suddenly begin to hire and spend (spending here is what I mean) if Mitt is elected. That is a fantasy.

Edit: What I mean is I hear the argument a lot (no not from you before you go asking) that for example manufacturing jobs won't return under Obama/Dems because of the "uncertainty" the give in regards to things like the Bush tax cuts. But if it holds that they're causing that problem shouldn't we see evidence of that? We don't though.
Before someone comes crying about it, no, this isn't a "see it's Bush's fault" thing. Just showing that having a Republican in the White House isn't some magical business confidence pill so stop acting like it is. That is not the problem.

I don't expect manufacturing jobs to every return no matter who is in the White House. There's not a great economic reason to have them here with the alternatives that exist.

You can call bull all you want. The reality is there's a greater belief that the cash businesses are sitting on will be invested and positions will be filled with a greater certainty on what may or may not be the tax position of those in the White House and in the legislative branch. That doesn't exist today. It's not a Democrat / Republican thing. It's an incumbent challenger thing overall, however, the perception that a conservative is more pro business than a liberl is enough to gain votes when it comes to people looking to see who is a greater asset to an economy.

" Show the link proving that he killed coal. Making companies like Massey comply with safety regs is hardly killing anything. I will agree that a lot of his grants and such have not panned out at all. But to call these investment projects as simply "giving money to his buds" tells me that you read a lot of radical right winged sources for your "facts"."

The massey coal stuff is a non-issue. By far the bigger issue facing coal plants are things like CSAPR, CAIR, the ghg endangerment rules, the long-term concerns about cap-and-trade, etc. The Obama absolutely has made it tougher for coal plants to operate in this country, and but-for the Obamacare mess that killed his cap-and-trade proposal, things could've been much worse.

I Wear Pants;1226043 wrote:I call bull**** on this. It's nothing more than speculation.

Businesses will not suddenly begin to hire and spend (spending here is what I mean) if Mitt is elected. That is a fantasy.

Edit: What I mean is I hear the argument a lot (no not from you before you go asking) that for example manufacturing jobs won't return under Obama/Dems because of the "uncertainty" the give in regards to things like the Bush tax cuts. But if it holds that they're causing that problem shouldn't we see evidence of that? We don't though.



Before someone comes crying about it, no, this isn't a "see it's Bush's fault" thing. Just showing that having a Republican in the White House isn't some magical business confidence pill so stop acting like it is. That is not the problem.

My understanding is that manufacturing employment is dropping, but manufacturing output is booming (a la agriculture in the early 20th century). Does anyone really think it's catastrophic that we have so few farmers today, that it has somehow robbed America of its soul? I don't get the fetishization of manufacturing jobs, per se.

fan_from_texas;1226059 wrote:"...
The massey coal stuff is a non-issue. By far the bigger issue facing coal plants are things like CSAPR, CAIR, the ghg endangerment rules, the long-term concerns about cap-and-trade, etc. The Obama absolutely has made it tougher for coal plants to operate in this country, and but-for the Obamacare mess that killed his cap-and-trade proposal, things could've been much worse.

These are they types of things that create the perception that the current administration isn't as beneficial to industries as the possibility of a new person being in there.

I Wear Pants;1226043 wrote:I call bullshit on this. It's nothing more than speculation.

Businesses will not suddenly begin to hire and spend (spending here is what I mean) if Mitt is elected. That is a fantasy.

Edit: What I mean is I hear the argument a lot (no not from you before you go asking) that for example manufacturing jobs won't return under Obama/Dems because of the "uncertainty" the give in regards to things like the Bush tax cuts. But if it holds that they're causing that problem shouldn't we see evidence of that? We don't though.

Before someone comes crying about it, no, this isn't a "see it's Bush's fault" thing. Just showing that having a Republican in the White House isn't some magical business confidence pill so stop acting like it is. That is not the problem.

What businesses are looking for is some certainty in the future. They need to know how to plan and contrary to academic's and statist's visions, these plans arc over several years. The Bush tax cuts were made for 10 years in order TO GIVE businesses and the country tax certainty. If the Bush-Hating-Society would look back to his economic record prior to 2008, you'll find we made some very good progress economically. Yeah, I know someone will write these same tax cuts caused the 2008 financial collapse. Really? If that's true, then why pass them again for 2012? But I digress.

My point about certainty is that we can't continue down the road of yearly tax rate discussions. To wit: We STILL don't know what the total ramifications of the government takeover of the healthKare industry will be. The new regulations placed on the power companies/coal suppliers are still to be felt as plants close over the next 6 months. The Obama Administration has provided nothing BUT uncertainty. If Romney is elected, he will provide this far better than Barry ever has.

Con_Alma;1226063 wrote:These are they types of things that create the perception that the current administration isn't as beneficial to industries as the possibility of a new person being in there.

Correct. And the utility is based on multi-billion dollar investments with a useful life of 40+ years, where investment is recovered on the backs on ratepayers only if deemed prudent. You can imagine the bind the Obama administration policies have put utilities in.

BGFalcons82;1226065 wrote:What businesses are looking for is some certainty in the future. They need to know how to plan and contrary to academic's and statist's visions, these plans arc over several years. The Bush tax cuts were made for 10 years in order TO GIVE businesses and the country tax certainty. If the Bush-Hating-Society would look back to his economic record prior to 2008, you'll find we made some very good progress economically. Yeah, I know someone will write these same tax cuts caused the 2008 financial collapse. Really? If that's true, then why pass them again for 2012? But I digress.

There was no economic prosperity under Bush....outside of the incredible wealth created by a housing bubble. (16 trillion or so) All the economic bluster was just that...bluster. People borrowed against their new found wealth with their rising home prices and fueled the economy.

I don't blame Bush (other than his ridulous wars) for the economy. He had nothing to do with it. Not any different than Clinton claiming economic success...due to a different artificial inflation....the dotcom fiasco.

My point about certainty is that we can't continue down the road of yearly tax rate discussions. To wit: We STILL don't know what the total ramifications of the government takeover of the healthKare industry will be. The new regulations placed on the power companies/coal suppliers are still to be felt as plants close over the next 6 months. The Obama Administration has provided nothing BUT uncertainty. If Romney is elected, he will provide this far better than Barry ever has.

The tax rate discussions are not the problem at all. The tax rates have been as consistant as they could possibly be. Should there be a slight jump on those making 250K and above, it won't change anything. Remember, we have had extremely low rates for almost a decade. Blaming Obama for taxation policy is nuts.

People will vote for Romney because of Barry's inability to right the ship. I get that. But the reasons for electing Romney is fool's gold IMO. We have a systemic problem that transcends the political parties.

If Romney is elected, we still owe 16 trillion in national debt.

password;1226035 wrote:You have not answered anything asked of you. It seems that you point out Obama has done exactly the same as other presidents, but he promised change. Here are some examples of the change he has delivered,


Now for the question of race, this man has used race since day one of his first election campaign and continues to use it. His attorney general goes to the NAACP and tells them that the republicans are trying to put a slavery poll tax on them like the days of slavery because they want to verify voters. He comments that his son would look like the thug Trayvon Martin, but he has slowed down on that one because Zimmerman is half Hispanic and he don't want to piss them off before the election. Read some of his books about his family and his beliefs, that he published before being elected, he is a racist.

SMH. At all this. I answered everyone of your questions. Wish I could say the same for you. Why should I waste my time debating you? And really, you should stop it with the race issue. It cheapens anything that you claim.

Obama holds the exact same position as Alan West when it comes to Blacks and the need to work hard. If you want me to youtube his speeches, I will.

As for your chart and it's 10 points.....reread my post up above and you might understand the reasons for all of that. 2008....39% loss of American equity. When that happens, you will see really bad economic times. Neither Bush nor Obama caused the recession/depression....the housing collapse did.

dwccrew;1225969 wrote:Perhaps he is so defensive because the Obama campaign is misrepresenting Romney's position at Bain or flat out lying about Romney's role at Bain in a certain time period? I don't plan on voting for either of these canidates, but what the Obama campaign is doing is disgraceful. I have never seen a sitting president that is running for re-election run such a smear campaign and look so desperate. He can't even run on his record, which is why he feels the need to bash and boldly lie about Romney.

Obama is going to run his campaign on this nonsense, because he doesn't have a thing to hang his hat on. So I agree, it is distasteful to say the least. With that said, I would be careful at this point in laying the claim that Obama is lying. The SEC recent documents have indicated that Obama is telling the truth. How does one "retroactively" resign from a company? Pretty humorous if you ask me.

Also, how many conservative GOPers have now come forward asking Romney to release his tax records now? Like George Will put it..."what are you hiding?". And...what exactly is he hiding? People by and large don't hold successful people in contempt. But with the climate today (Bernie Madoff and countless others) it behooves Romney to come clean. The governor of Alabama is pretty disgusted with Romney's unwillingness to show transparency. He's a Republican BTW.

Romney, IMO, is a weak canidate; the fact that Obama feels like he needs to smear, bash and lie about what Romney has or hasn't done shows me that Obama is a weak man and weak president.

Better get used to it. Romney did the exact same thing in the primary.

fan_from_texas;1226061 wrote:My understanding is that manufacturing employment is dropping, but manufacturing output is booming (a la agriculture in the early 20th century). Does anyone really think it's catastrophic that we have so few farmers today, that it has somehow robbed America of its soul? I don't get the fetishization of manufacturing jobs, per se.

I agree with this, it's simply a common argument I hear so I thought that was an interesting graph.

But I definitely agree that there isn't some true need for us to be more based on manufacturing than any other type of business despite people saying that all the time.