Why Romney Will Win

Do you note the contradiction in your statement and the fallacy at the end? He was a full voting member of a Democrat congress that created the economy, he didn't inherit it and he did NOT turn it around. The jobless rate bottomed out the month he took office and was in a full rebound before his stimulus even took effect. What he has done is prevent us from entering a full recoveryu.

And then you have to post fallacious strawman arguments. The fact is minority unemployment has been at it's least under Republican pro-growth polices.

 

McCain did not offer any solutions to the economic problems created by a Republican adminstration. Personally I disagreed with both the McCain and Obama proposals in 2008 which is why I didn't vote for either one of them.

If Republicans want to address the economy today based upon "are you doing better" then they should vote for Obama because unemployment for "White Americans" which are what the Republican party represents is down to 7.2%. Only the unemployment rate for minorities, which are not represented by the Republican Party, are above 8%.

Romney has promised to "repeal" the ACA and replace it with Romneycare which is fundamentally the same thing as the ACA. The Romney (Ryan) budget doesn't balance the US budget, period. Romney's flip-flop on civil rights (Romney ordered same-sex marriage as governor and now opposes it) is a fundamental reason for all Ameircans to oppose a Romney presidency. Protection of our civil rights is the foremost duty of the President of the United States.

I oppose all of the tax loopholes that only the wealthy can use which reduce federal revenues by an estimated $1.1. trillion per year. Of note, Romney who makes millions of dollars a year paid a lower income tax rate that Obama in 2011. In fact, Romney paid a lower income tax rate than I did and I'm only an upper middle class income earner making less than $200K/yr. Close all of these loopholes, period. Why should I pay a higher income tax rate than Romney?

Neither of these reflect executive foreign affairs experience and are non sequitor. Obama has three years of executive experience in foreign affairs as POTUS while Romney and Ryan have ZERO years of executive experience in foreign affairs.

YES because the real threat is the increasing national debt. In 2009 the CBO project that the increase in the national debt to $12 trillion would result in a 1/3rd decrease in the historical increases in the GDP by 2019. That means instead of the historical 3.5% average increase in the GDP we'd only have a 2.5% increase in the GDP. With the additional debt being incurred the future growth in the GDP is going to be supressed even more and if it drops below 2%, which is likely with our current debt, then not enough new jobs will be created to employ new workers entering the work force annually. When that happens then every year there will be more unemployment than the preceeding year. Because of the excess number of eligible potential employees it will drive down wages based upon the supply and demand for labor as supply will exceed demand. That results in a continual reducting in the standard of living for future generations. Instead of future generations having a better standard of living over their parents they will have a lower standard of living.

While balancing the budget in 2013 would result in a temporary short term 1% contraction of the US economy according to the CBO the long term effects of the national debt are far worse. The CBO for the last three years has repeatedly warned that the deficits cannot continue and that the national debt must be paid down as the entire future economy of the United States will suffer very serious long term negative impacts.

Red herring showing that a valid argument is completely lacking. Gary Johnson is the only candidate offering solutions to the problems in the United States. Romney and Obama are offering no solutions, period.

 

What economic problems "created by a Republican administration"? Don't you mean the problems created by Democrat Senators and Congressmen and a Democrat Congress?

First I would note what a bigoted suggestion as if overall unemployment doesn't effect EVERYONE, second that 7.4% unemployment 3 years after a recession ended is HORRIBLE and third the 7.2% is about double what is was under Republican governance. So why exactly should "Repbulicans" vote for Obama? What about Black Republicans. And have you also suggested that Black Democrats vote for Romney since Black unemployment is so horribly high?

 

Dick Morris predicting John McCain's victory in 2008-


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/undecideds_should_break_for_mc.html

 

While many like to cite the incompetence of Congress related to regulation the fact is that departments and commissions under the adminstration of the Executive Branch failed to carryout their primary responsibilities between 2000 and 2007 which lead to both the mortgage crisis as well as the automotive crisis. The SEC, FTC and FDIC all failed to address the systemic problems that lead to the mortgage crisis.

For example, Fannie Mae uses mortgage securities which are under the scrutiny of the SEC and the SEC should have identified these mortgage securities as junk securities but it didn't do that. Had President Bush been paying attention to the US economy he would have known that a systemic problem existed related to the junk mortgage securities that were being dumped on the markets but he was preoccupied with Iraq and torturing people instead.

Had the FDIC, which is responsible for insuring depositor accounts, done it's job then zero down loans would not have been allowed except for overly qualified applicants that had other real assets. That didn't happen and the FDIC had that authority.

Had the FTC not allowed mergers that made some banks "too big to fail" then that problem would not have existed.

All of these fall under the direct or indirect authority of the President as Chief Executive and all of these agencies failed in their fundamental responsibilities.

 

Can willard win without women, racial minorities, gays and now millions of old white people "who believe they're entitled to healthcare"?

 

Even Republicans are jumping ship to vote for Obama.

 

Fannie and Freddie came under Congressional control not Executive branch and the Democrats made sure of that. The Bush administration warned repeadly during that time that they were getting out of control and would collapse, it was Congress because of Democrat opposition that failed to act.

But guess what, it doesn't matter. This administration has failed to deal with it, this Congress has failed to deal with it. Time for a change.

 

Very interesting interpretation, and it is very well put together and you clearly know what your talking about.

I must say I've so very impressed because you are one of the first few intellectual people that understand how polling is done, and most of the polls, as you stated, are in fact based on the 2008 turnout, which was historic by many ways.

The first, and most obvious, is the African American vote; which set the record for highest turnout.

The second was the independents overwhelmingly supporting President Obama. This was predicted by many but the Republican party still held out for hope even though there was none to be found.

The third, and hardest to notice, was the collage vote. The President was able to pull young voters out in droves to support the first black president. He sold them a chance to be part of American history, and they bought it like crazy.

However, will all three of these groups really show up for him again?

If you remember correctly, the President did not the election in a landslide. He won by 10 million votes, yet the election saw a spike in 5 million voters that was never seen before this election. 2 Million more Blacks plus 2 million more Hispanics voted as well, and the percentage of voters ages 18-24 increased by 2 percent to 49 percent. (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html)

Can the president really get that kind of dreamland turnout after four hard years in which voter enthusiasm has dropped significantly? I tend to lean on the side of a no in this case.

Furthermore, it is very unlikely that he will be able to win a landslide independent victory with any unemployment rate above 8%.

Finally, to further back up my point of view, three recent polls were released that all show Romney winning in a close election.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mit...residential-election-shown-by-three-key-polls

It all depends on what happens in the time from now to the election. At this point, either side can either win or loose the election.

 

Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were dealing in security transactions which fall under the authority of the SEC which is under the Executive Branch of government.

At the same time Romney is promising to reduce federal regulations, not strengthen them, so we would expect less regulation and not more regulation under Romney. But even that doesn't work because the underlying problem remains the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve that is not being required to comply with federal law. Title 12 states that Federal Reserve notes are to be redeemed on demand with "lawful money" which are American Eagle coins at any Federal Reserve banks but the Federal Reserve refuses to do that. If it did we wouldn't have the inflationary monetary problems that were an underlying cause of the mortgage crisis. Neither Romney or Obama will hold the Federal Reserve to compliance with the law.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/battleground-...ar-vote-win-160144289--abc-news-politics.html

People keep getting wrapped around the axel on the popular vote polls but ultimately they don't matter. Only the Electorial College vote matters and Obama is winning the Electorial College vote which relates to the battleground states. Of note the vote for Gary Johnson is very likely to give the advantage to Obama in the battleground states as they are likely to take votes away from Romney. While Johnson only polls in the single digits in the battleground states it is more than enough to determine the eventual Electorial College vote. Republicans like to believe that Libertarians are conservatives, which we are when it comes to fiscal issues of government, we also know that Romney is not a conservative. Romney is a "social conservative" which is not a "conservative" by any of our definitions.

 

They were insulated by Congress and the loans were guarantied by F&F.

Of private business while reigning in F&F and other government departments.

 

The guy who's been president for 4 years.

 

you obviously didn't know what you were talking about

 

And YOU believed it. Hahahahahahaha!!!

 

You're probably STILL saying it too. LOL!

Did you record last night's election returns on DVR? Watch them again tonight and tell me if anything has changed. LOL!