New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Simple question...

Lukey

Lukey

Senator
Seriously, who do you think is more likely to adopt the kind of bi-partisan, government shrinking, business friendly, economy growing, job creating, wealth spreading policies that worked so well when Clinton was in office, Obama or Romney?
 
Lukey said:
Seriously, who do you think is more likely to adopt the kind of bi-partisan, government shrinking, business friendly, economy growing, job creating, wealth spreading policies that worked so well when Clinton was in office, Obama or Romney?
Click to expand...

Obama.
 
Lukey said:
Seriously, who do you think is more likely to adopt the kind of bi-partisan, government shrinking, business friendly, economy growing, job creating, wealth spreading policies that worked so well when Clinton was in office, Obama or Romney?
Click to expand...

Which Romney?

The one who said coal plants kill?
 
Yeah, Lukey......WHICH Romney? You have to pick one first, so we have some basis to answer your question?

Current Mitt?....pre-1st Debate Mitt?.....2012 Primary Mitt?....2008 Primary Mitt?....Governor Mitt?.....1994 Senate candidate Mitt?
 
GordonGecko said:
Yeah, Lukey......WHICH Romney? You have to pick one first, so we have some basis to answer your question?

Current Mitt?....pre-1st Debate Mitt?.....2012 Primary Mitt?....2008 Primary Mitt?....Governor Mitt?.....1994 Senate candidate Mitt?
Click to expand...

You could have said the same thing about Clinton in 1996.
 
You are aware of Romney's use of veto 800 times while governor aren't you? Did you hear Romney call himself a "Severe" conservative? Did you know that Romney intends to repeal the Affordable Care Act and Dodd/Frank? He says he'll replace them, but I have the same confidence that he'll do that as I do that he'll explain his tax plan math.
 
well, that's the ghostly nail they are always swinging at -- unawareness. It's why their questions and arguments are almost always premised on BS.
 
BTW, Lukey.....how much LESS a year did government spending get under Clinton? i.e. that "government shrinking" you're claiming occurred under him and Newt?
 
Lukey said:
Seriously, who do you think is more likely to adopt the kind of bi-partisan, government shrinking, business friendly, economy growing, job creating, wealth spreading policies that worked so well when Clinton was in office, Obama or Romney?
Click to expand...

Obama, obviously. Obama has bent over backwards trying to9 be bi-partisan. In fact, his mistake was that he threw out the Clinton carrot-and-stick approach (which included plenty of vetoes and executive orders, and even two government shutdowns, in hard-nosed fights with the Republicans) for an all-carrot approach. If he has learned his lesson even a little, and is willing to play rough with the Republicans when required, he's well-positioned to emulate Clinton's success on the bi-partisanship front. As for government shrinking, Obama has already exceeded Clinton on that front, with lower average spending growth than we had on Clinton's watch. And, compared with Romney, who is openly proposing large increases in our biggest area of discretionary spending, that one is a slam dunk. "Business friendly." If you mean operating in the long-term best interests of business, by supporting a robust middle class, obviously Obama is closest to Clinton on that. If you mean "business friendly" in the sense of maximizing next-quarter income for the benefit of the super-rich, I'd go with Romney, who will doubtless imitate Bush on that front... giving wealthy business owners what they want, to their long-term detriment. Obama is also the obvious stronger choice for growing the economy: he inherited an economy shrinking at a rate not seen since the Great Depression, and has since transformed it into an economy that has grown every quarter since his fifth full month in office. Romney, by comparison, wants to re-implement the Bush policies that gave us a presidential run noteworthy for its underwhelming economic growth and ultimate catastrophic economic collapse. Job creation is another reason to be hopeful about Obama. He inherited a job market that was destroying jobs at a rate last seen in the early 1930s, and has subsequently helped to create a job market that has been creating new jobs as a slow but consistently positive pace for years. By comparison, the last time Romney's policies were tried, we got the worst presidential era in American history, for average job creation rate. As for "wealth spreading" -- is that another word for "wealth redistribution"? ;)
 
Lukey said:
Seriously, who do you think is more likely to adopt the kind of bi-partisan, government shrinking, business friendly, economy growing, job creating, wealth spreading policies that worked so well when Clinton was in office, Obama or Romney?
Click to expand...

Simple answer. Clinton should know and he says Obama. Romney has many of Bush's people in his crowd so he will repeat the same bush mistakes.
 
Obama.

Romney's entire plan is to rerun the Bush administration, 17 out of 24 of his advisors are Bush people. His entire foreign policy team is made up of Bush people. His buget advisor is a Bushie. And given the Bush and Reagan record of deficits and governement, don't expect either to shrink under Romney.

In fact, I expect all talk of deficits and the size of government to disappear if Romney gets elected. None of the numbers in Romney's "plan" add up, and he knows it. It's the same old flim flam that Ronald Reagan and George W Bush ran. It was Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter",and Romney and his right wing allies will be true to that idea. We have 30 years of evidence.

If you think being "bi partisan" is having a Republican congress rubber stamp the will of a Republican president, Romney may be your guy. After this control freak performance the other night, and given his record with the Legislature in Massachusetts, where Romney "worked with legislators" by vetoing over 800 bills and having 750 of his vetoes overruled, that may be wishful thinking on your part.
 
So none of the partisan bullshit was the fault of Boehner, Cantor or McConnell? Mitch didn't really mean it when he said his number one priority was not jobs, was not a successful end to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, not fixing our dependence on foreign energy and certainly not our overwhelming debt.....it was the effort to make Obama a one term president. How do you suppose Mitch intended to do that? By helping Obama pass legislation? Nah....they set a record for filibusters. They used "secret holds" to stop legislation. The republians in the senate even stopped republican bills from the house from being voted on. A republican called Obama a liar in a joint session of congress. Several republicans in congress have said they don't think Obama is an American.

Of course, all of that was Obama's fault because he had the temerity to win the election.
 
1. he vetoed 800 bills while governor. the legilature overroad 700 of them.
2. What if the dems in the senate do exactly as the republicans have done to Obama? Then what?
 
Lukey said:
Seriously, who do you think is more likely to adopt the kind of bi-partisan, government shrinking, business friendly, economy growing, job creating, wealth spreading policies that worked so well when Clinton was in office, Obama or Romney?
Click to expand...

neither
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top