You did not do that!

[Gaspar]

This was released yesterday.  Very interesting depending on how you read it.  If you read from top to bottom (at lead the top 8 ), you see a representation of candidate Romney's platform.  If you read from the bottom up (the bottom 5) you see a representation of President Obama's platform. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156347/Americans-Next-President-Prioritize-Jobs-Corruption.aspx



So, as I indicated above, many liberals agree with the presidents current platform and choose not to fault him for his performance because they have admiration for his intentions.  That does not change the fact that his important issues are out of line with the important issues that the American public puts priority in.  According to the electorate, his primary focus should still be (just as in 2008) jobs & the economy, but just like in 2008, he is choosing to run on his social platform.

Now, he has chosen Bill Clinton to travel around and talk about the economy, hopefully to bolster his shortcomings in this arena, but I perceive grave damage from that because he has never subscribed to Clinton economic policy and continues to refuse the Clintonian model to this day.  Bill will only serve to remind President Obama's constituency that "He's no Bill Clinton."  Plus, Bill Clinton has never edited his views on President Obama's economic policies, so when the question comes up, you can be assured that Mr. Clinton will provide additional sound-bytes to be used by the opposition.  Bill is not a very good second-fiddler.

I assume that it was not the Obama campaign that sought out Bill Clinton, but rather the other way around.  It's an excellent opportunity for the Clinton team to marginalize through faint praise, and set the stage for Hillary's 2016 run.  Like Superman, Bill swoops down to try and save a failed presidency.  No matter wether he succeeds or fails, he sets the stage for Hillary.

[Townsend]

No matter wether he succeeds or fails, he sets the stage for Hillary.

So we're looking at at least 12 more years of Democratic presidency?  I'm not surprised.

[Conan71]

It takes a village to govern, Gassy.  Especially when it's idiot is in charge. 

[Townsend]

It takes a village to govern, Gassy.  Especially when it's idiot is in charge. 

Romney's village hasn't done very well by him so far.

[Gaspar]

It takes a village to govern, Gassy.  Especially when it's idiot is in charge. 

I don't think President Obama is an idiot.  He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues.  The problem with this is that without an economic engine, social movements do not move.

The idiots are the ones that believe believe him. You can sine up the car, polish the windows, and hang a pine-scented air freshener, but if you don't fix the engine, you're not going anywhere.

[Conan71]

I don't think President Obama is an idiot.  He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues.  The problem with this is that without an economic engine, social movements do not move.

The idiots are the ones that believe believe him. You can sine up the car, polish the windows, and hang a pine-scented air freshener, but if you don't fix the engine, you're not going anywhere.

Come on, give me my props, that was quick-witted 

[Townsend]

He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues. 

Conservatives aren't pushing for social change?

[Hoss]

Conservatives aren't pushing for social change?

DERP.

Abortion reform.
Christian Nation.

I can go on, but I have to train people to do my job....

[carltonplace]

This was released yesterday.  Very interesting depending on how you read it.  If you read from top to bottom (at lead the top 8 ), you see a representation of candidate Romney's platform.  If you read from the bottom up (the bottom 5) you see a representation of President Obama's platform. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156347/Americans-Next-President-Prioritize-Jobs-Corruption.aspx



So, as I indicated above, many liberals agree with the presidents current platform and choose not to fault him for his performance because they have admiration for his intentions.  That does not change the fact that his important issues are out of line with the important issues that the American public puts priority in.  According to the electorate, his primary focus should still be (just as in 2008) jobs & the economy, but just like in 2008, he is choosing to run on his social platform.

Now, he has chosen Bill Clinton to travel around and talk about the economy, hopefully to bolster his shortcomings in this arena, but I perceive grave damage from that because he has never subscribed to Clinton economic policy and continues to refuse the Clintonian model to this day.  Bill will only serve to remind President Obama's constituency that "He's no Bill Clinton."  Plus, Bill Clinton has never edited his views on President Obama's economic policies, so when the question comes up, you can be assured that Mr. Clinton will provide additional sound-bytes to be used by the opposition.  Bill is not a very good second-fiddler.

I assume that it was not the Obama campaign that sought out Bill Clinton, but rather the other way around.  It's an excellent opportunity for the Clinton team to marginalize through faint praise, and set the stage for Hillary's 2016 run.  Like Superman, Bill swoops down to try and save a failed presidency.  No matter wether he succeeds or fails, he sets the stage for Hillary.

Huh? Are you saying that President Obama doesn't care as much about Jobs, Social Security Security or Public Schools as Candidate Romney does?

[Hoss]

Huh? Are you saying that President Obama doesn't care as much about Jobs, Social Security Security or Public Schools as Candidate Romney does?

You're joking right?  You're asking that question of Gas?   

[Townsend]

You're joking right?  You're asking that question of Gas?   

Right?

[AquaMan]

I don't think President Obama is an idiot.  He simply shares the view, with many liberals, that social change is more important than other issues.  The problem with this is that without an economic engine, social movements do not move.

The idiots are the ones that believe believe him. You can sine up the car, polish the windows, and hang a pine-scented air freshener, but if you don't fix the engine, you're not going anywhere.

You're so strange when you make remarks like that. Assuming others motives and ascribing false history to support your assertions. Then demeaning those who don't fit your little screenplay.

Where exactly was the economic engine during the French Revolution? Tremendous social movement occurred even though the economy, similar to ours, was top loaded. Haves....everyone else.

Or, during our own Revolution when the economic engine was functioning pretty badly for us, but great for the British. Seems there was pretty awesome social movement.

Or, when the depression hit in 1929 and change began to sweep the country. Social Security, repeal of prohibition, NRA (the other one, national recovery act), Union growth, and scads of other social movement when the economic engine was shut down that you seem to have missed.

On the other hand, during the tremendous growth of the economy in the 1950s social movement was blunted. Status quo and conformity ruled. Once the economy stumbled, and Kennedy was elected social movement resumed. It flourished during the growth of the sixties primarily as a reaction to the repressive conservative regimes of the the 1950s. Perhaps that is where your history lessons started.

[Gaspar]

Conservatives aren't pushing for social change?

Social issues are always. . .issues, but they currently carry less weight than economic issues.  The difference of opinion on social issues is vast, but both philosophies should understand that without jobs, and a vibrant and growing economy, social initiatives gain little traction, and in most cases actually suffer.  

For instance, green energy is the president's #1 panacea for all ills.  No one believes that renewable energy is a bad thing, but with 12% real unemployment, massive underemployment, and slow growth, the purchase of electric cars, and the very expensive investment in wind and solar cannot occur without a very high probability of failure.  That failure in turn causes renewed stigma against additional investment in those technologies.  

Until the economy is addressed, each social issue acted upon by the president will cause a negative net affect, because they can only be driven by debt, and in most cases result in failure.

Yes, conservatives have a social agenda.  All political philosophies have a social component, but the presumed candidate, Romney, is not pushing social issues as primary issues.  In fact, it upsets some Republicans that he seems detached from many of their pet social issues.  His primary focus remains economic recovery and he proposes achieving that result through typical monetarist policy.  In fact, he's proposing many of the same policies as Clinton, and Reagan.  The simple approaches of lessing government burdens.  Decreasing energy costs, and lifting trade barriers both foreign and domestic.  Basically opening up the valves and allowing the engine to run.

[Townsend]

For instance, green energy is the president's #1 panacea for all ills.

How so?

In fact, he's proposing many of the same policies as Clinton, and Reagan.

Which ones?

His primary focus remains economic recovery and he proposes achieving that result through typical monetarist policy

Monetarist - "An economist who holds the strong belief that the economy's performance is determined almost entirely by changes in the money supply." 

How's he wanting to change the money supply?

[Gaspar]

How so?
The stimulus focused significant spending in green energy.  Sure, some of those deals were just to give kick-backs to donors, but some were legitimate and important investments in real wind, solar, and bio-fuel endeavors, but because he was unwilling to address the bigger economic problem first, most failed spectacularly.  Since that time, with each speech, and each campaign appearance, the president has continued to push this agenda.  I'm surprised you've missed his dedication to renewable energy.  It's by far his strongest theme.



Which ones?
The echo's are defining.  A reduction in taxes, simplification of the tax code, loosening of trade regulations.  Heck, about 1 year ago today, Bill Clinton himself made a desperate plea for the president to take up a more common sense economic policy and was basically b!tch-slaped by the administration for being so bold.  Sure, he's a Democrat, and a liberal, but he knows that you don't raise taxes during contracted economic periods. It's sad too, because he was only trying to help the American people. http://roblorinov.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/clinton-proposes-recovery-plan-for-america/

Monetarist - "An economist who holds the strong belief that the economy's performance is determined almost entirely by changes in the money supply."  

How's he wanting to change the money supply?

Ah, you've chosen a simple definition, and I appreciate that.  For a more concise understanding you have to understand how the money supply can be changed or administrated, and the direction that Romney proposes is to stop the wild spending, and in turn the necessity for monitory expansion.  While we continue to "ease" we only kick the can down the road, and avoid the job of actually fixing anything.  It has become late in the game, but much of our debt is currently unspent, and we can at least partially reverse the path we are on.  We can't continue to ignore the problem to focus on trivial issues.  Perhaps "Reverse." would be a good theme for Romney?

[/size]