What America Needs to Return to Normalcy

[Politico]

We need a president who will inspire confidence in Americans that we need not worry about the future. Until consumers have regained their confidence, there is not going to be a healthy economic recovery that significantly lowers unemployment (i.e., firms are not going to amp up hiring, try new and different things in attempts at growth, etc., until consumers start spending with confidence again). After nearly three years of malaise, Obama is clearly not the president to restore confidence in Americans, so clearly we need a new president instead of continuing with the incumbent. It is not complicated. It is a process the country has undergone many times in the past, most recently in 1992. Getting rid of an incumbent during a malaise is cathartic for the American consumer. Yes, you may personally like President Obama as I do (I have personally shaken hands with the man, supported him in 2008, and think he is a good guy) and you may not agree with any of Obama's opponents on everything or even most things (I certainly do not agree with Romney on everything), but surely we can all agree at this point that a change in leadership is needed. Nothing will change for the better until that happens, so should we wait until 2013 or 2017 for a change? I would choose sooner rather than later. Mr. Obama and his campaign staff might have their feelings hurt, but I am sure they will be fine.

Among the current field, it is obvious that Romney is the most presidential in every way, shape and form. I also believe he is the most likely to restore the type of confidence that has been lacking for many years now. I am really impressed by how much he has come along since first running in 2008, and I feel like this is his time and his turn. He is somebody who understands how the real economy works, and he will send clear signals to firms that he is not going to increase the level of regulations upon them nor dramatically increase taxes to fund pie-in-the-sky ideas and/or unsustainable spending levels. This will eliminate much of the current uncertainty among firms/investors that is adding to the woes we have because of pitiful consumer confidence. But again, the most important thing is restoring confidence in American consumers. It is almost everything. If we can do that and send clear signals to firms that the executive branch of the federal government is not going to get in the way of business, not try to stick its nose where it does not belong, we will see a return to normalcy. Or you can choose more of the same, but do not be surprised when America is still on the decline in 2016. I think the choice is pretty straightforward...

[Politico]

What is the alternative? Re-elect Obama and hope things change for the better? I say, "no we can't" to that.

Personally, I like a growing, confident America, not an America that is mired in malaise and decline.

But feel free to continue to delude yourself into believing that things are getting better with a president who failed to live up to promises/expectations. I have no idea how anybody does that.

[Politico]

[Politico]

What America needs is to get through her thick skull that there is no such word as "normalcy".

The word "normalcy" has been in English dictionaries since at least the mid-19th century. Normality is not rhetorically pleasing to the ear.

[Politico]

We need a president who will inspire confidence in Americans that we need not worry about the future.

There is very little a politician can do for that.

Reagan and Clinton were pretty good at it.

[Politico]

Do you work for Romney's campaign? Not intending to be disparaging or anything here, just genuinely curious.

I am currently abroad. While I have connections, I am not going into specifics, and obviously whatever I say is my opinion and my opinion alone, blah, blah, blah.

[Politico]

What is the alternative? Re-elect Obama and hope things change for the better? I say, "no we can't" to that.

So your solution is to return to the policies that put us right where we are in this mess? Ok.

Of course not. Romney's proposal is like a Clinton/Reagan-style proposal for the 2010s. It is like taking the best of Reaganomics along with the best of Clintonomics, and fusing them together for the 2010s while shedding the parts that do not make sense for this decade.

Obviously that is not what got us into this mess. I can assure you that there will never be another housing bubble.

[Politico]

What is the alternative? Re-elect Obama and hope things change for the better? I say, "no we can't" to that.

YES, WE CAN!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of the fear seems to have been generated by bureaucratic elites who serve as enforcers of tycoons. The Hard Right idea of 'good' competition is that in which working people compete to determine who will be most productive while being squeezed most. Such, if successful on its own terms, ensures 'decline' through degradation of the work force... and something nastier than any 'malaise' that we have known at any time.

Nonsense that is not even worthy of a response. Then again, you are from Michigan, so I am not surprised you are fine with Michigan-style malaise contaminating the rest of America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again:

[Politico]

So after finding out that Obama cannot magically make things better because, alas, he is not magical... you have concluded that Rhymney... is... magical... and will magically make everything better.

This is more like it: After finding out that Barack Obama was unsuited for the executive position that probably should have gone to Hillary Clinton, I have concluded that Mitt Romney is far better suited for the executive position that should no longer belong to Barack Obama. With the right executive in the White House, we will get the right results. I believe Romney has a chance of being that right executive while Obama clearly does not.

[Politico]

We need a president who will inspire confidence in Americans that we need not worry about the future. Until consumers have regained their confidence, there is not going to be a healthy economic recovery that significantly lowers unemployment (i.e., firms are not going to amp up hiring, try new and different things in attempts at growth, etc., until consumers start spending with confidence again). After nearly three years of malaise, Obama is clearly not the president to restore confidence in Americans, so clearly we need a new president instead of continuing with the incumbent. It is not complicated. It is a process the country has undergone many times in the past, most recently in 1992. Getting rid of an incumbent during a malaise is cathartic for the American consumer. Yes, you may personally like President Obama as I do (I have personally shaken hands with the man, supported him in 2008, and think he is a good guy) and you may not agree with any of Obama's opponents on everything or even most things (I certainly do not agree with Romney on everything), but surely we can all agree at this point that a change in leadership is needed. Nothing will change for the better until that happens, so should we wait until 2013 or 2017 for a change? I would choose sooner rather than later. Mr. Obama and his campaign staff might have their feelings hurt, but I am sure they will be fine.

Among the current field, it is obvious that Romney is the most presidential in every way, shape and form. I also believe he is the most likely to restore the type of confidence that has been lacking for many years now. I am really impressed by how much he has come along since first running in 2008, and I feel like this is his time and his turn. He is somebody who understands how the real economy works, and he will send clear signals to firms that he is not going to increase the level of regulations upon them nor dramatically increase taxes to fund pie-in-the-sky ideas and/or unsustainable spending levels. This will eliminate much of the current uncertainty among firms/investors that is adding to the woes we have because of pitiful consumer confidence. But again, the most important thing is restoring confidence in American consumers. It is almost everything. If we can do that and send clear signals to firms that the executive branch of the federal government is not going to get in the way of business, not try to stick its nose where it does not belong, we will see a return to normalcy. Or you can choose more of the same, but do not be surprised when America is still on the decline in 2016. I think the choice is pretty straightforward...

EVERYONE WANTS YOU TO SHUT UP

Another county heard from...

My name is prominently listed below the thread title in the forum. If you do not wish to see one of my threads, I recommend not clicking on them, let alone wasting your time responding. It is rather simple, really.

On a side-note, I do find it amusing how many American supporters of Obama are allied with Europeans who are quietly enjoying their view of America in decline under the Obama Administration. I wonder why Obama is so popular in Europe yet not respected like Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy were...

[Politico]

3rd Quarter numbers just came in.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-20126370/spending-lifts-economy-2.5-after-near-stall/?tag=breakingnews

This is great news and shows how Mitt Romney is saving America. Clearly America is anticipating that Mitt Romney is such a great American that they are starting to believe in America again to get America working for America.

A very disturbing trend has been emanating from the current administration: GDP growth figures are being revised significantly downward in revision after revision as one moves further away from the quarter evaluated. In other words, we will not know what really happened for another six to nine months.

[Politico]

I'm sick of hearing about "confidence" and consumer spending. How about we not return to acting the way that got us here in the first place? Overconfidence and overspending has screwed us long term. I think a knock back down to reality was just what we needed. It's fairly sobering to be forced not to be able to spend wildly on extremely unnecessary overpriced crap. We shouldn't have been for the last decade, now we literally can't. Pretending we can is impossible now. This economic disaster is just like every other problem in modern America; Ignored until you're absolutely forced to acknowledge it. Then it's too late. We wouldn't be faced with these massive problems all at once if we addressed them before they became dire. But alas, Congress is much more content to make absolutely no waves by taking absolutely no action just to protect reelection. After all, the only thing that matters in American politics is winning the election to protect your special interests.

The one thing that is unaffordable right now is the federal budget. How consumers and companies you do not have a stake in spend/invest their earnings is their business, not yours or mine or anybody else's, so I would suggest avoiding value judgments about people "overspending" on "overpriced crap." Although I am as frugal as most anybody you are likely to encounter, such negative sentiments among the population at large is not going to produce economic growth moving forward. As Adam Smith once put it, "the purpose of production is consumption." Put another way, no consumption = no production = no economic activity, let alone growth (or, if you prefer, no production = no consumption = no economic activity, let alone growth).

Consumers and companies have the means to spend far more than they are, but they are not doing so because they are afraid of the future. We need to eliminate this fear if we want the economy to recover, grow, and create new jobs.

This is the road to recovery. Continuing the madness of $1,000,000,000,000+ deficits for much longer, coupled with a tax-and-spend-and-over-regulate-things-we-do-not-even-understand mentality in the executive branch, is the road to serfdom.

[Politico]

And... one idea that you conveniently don't mention.

The fact that there is an entire party out there telling everyone how awful the economy is and how "that" man is responsible... it's not just the president's responsibility to reassure the people.

He had his chance, and I do not blame people for calling him on his failure. It has almost been three years since he was inaugurated. There is not much of a leg to stand on when this happens:



And I am somebody who likes the president, has personally shaken hands with the man and believe he is a good, honest guy. But that does not matter when you do not get the job done right. And you know what, it is not always the most popular person who gets the job done. I think that is a fitting proverb to associate with Mitt Romney.

[Politico]

Now, I accept that the President early-on chose the wrong priorities and need to move on jobs. But that doesn't excuse that this is Act III of a play that started before he got there.

It's the responsibility of ALL political leaders to promote confidence in the economy - and to use it for political gain (especially when there is decent economic news floating around) is an intellectually dishonest thing to do... sometimes there are more important things than winning.

I fully agree with these sentiments, but disagree that the GOP is not giving Obama a fair shake. This is late 2011, not early 2009. We are almost in 2012. The GOP is simply stating the obvious, which has been on the mind of the vast majority of Americans for quite some time: Obama was not ready to handle this job, he has failed in most areas of domestic policy, and he does not deserve four more years.

[Politico]

The one thing that is unaffordable right now is the federal budget. How consumers and companies spend/invest their earnings is their business, not yours or mine or anybody else's, so I would suggest avoiding value judgments about people "overspending" on "overpriced crap." Such negative sentiments among the population at large is not going to produce economic growth moving forward.

Consumers and companies have the means to spend far more than they are, but they are not doing so because they are afraid of the future. We need to eliminate this fear if we want the economy to recover, grow, and create new jobs.

It's not negative, it's realistic. I'm also sick of that garbage. As soon as criticisms come out, it's negative and unproductive. What's negative and unproductive is false positivity. Trying to pretend the problems we face aren't real is far more detrimental than acknowledging that we have problems. A negative rate of savings in the country is an unbelievably shocking and disturbing figure. That's overspending no matter how you cut it. An average of Americans spending more money than they have. I don't know how anyone can say it's inappropriate to call ourselves out there. Same goes for the housing market. I don't see how anyone could argue that wasn't overpriced. And most of the stuff we buy is marked up by astronomical proportions. It's getting cheaper to make things and more expensive to buy them. A lot of crap we buy is also designed to be low quality so we're forced to buy new crap sooner rather than later. Not negative. Realistic.

Please see the edits I made while you were responding (sorry, I did not know you would respond today, or I would not have done the edits).

The only points I would add is that a high savings rate among most of the population does not necessarily lead to desirable results (See: Japan).

Secondly, most things are cheaper or of better quality today versus thirty years ago when you adjust for inflation (my personal recommendation is to do your research if most of your stuff is failing before a year is up. I definitely know where you are coming from because I have fallen victim to that myself. The best you can do is not re-buy the same product by the same company. Try another company's product until you get the value you deserve. That is how this sort of thing gets corrected. Research, and learn from mistakes/bad purchases/investments). Also, let's not forget how many goods/services are available today that were not around 10, 20, 30 years ago. We are progressing.

Finally, what you call positivity I call optimism. And America definitely needs to rejuvenate itself with a good dose of it soon. This malaise is not how things need to be.

[Politico]

The one thing that is unaffordable right now is the federal budget. How consumers and companies spend/invest their earnings is their business, not yours or mine or anybody else's, so I would suggest avoiding value judgments about people "overspending" on "overpriced crap." Such negative sentiments among the population at large is not going to produce economic growth moving forward.

Consumers and companies have the means to spend far more than they are, but they are not doing so because they are afraid of the future. We need to eliminate this fear if we want the economy to recover, grow, and create new jobs.

It's not negative, it's realistic. I'm also sick of that garbage. As soon as criticisms come out, it's negative and unproductive. What's negative and unproductive is false positivity. Trying to pretend the problems we face aren't real is far more detrimental than acknowledging that we have problems. A negative rate of savings in the country is an unbelievably shocking and disturbing figure. That's overspending no matter how you cut it. An average of Americans spending more money than they have. I don't know how anyone can say it's inappropriate to call ourselves out there. Same goes for the housing market. I don't see how anyone could argue that wasn't overpriced. And most of the stuff we buy is marked up by astronomical proportions. It's getting cheaper to make things and more expensive to buy them. A lot of crap we buy is also designed to be low quality so we're forced to buy new crap sooner rather than later. Not negative. Realistic.

Please see the edits I made while you were responding (sorry, I did not know you would respond today, or I would not have done the edits).

The only points I would add is that a high savings rate among most of the population does not necessarily lead to desirable results (See: Japan).

Secondly, most things are cheaper or of better quality today versus thirty years ago when you adjust for inflation (my personal recommendation is to do your research if most of your stuff is failing before a year is up. I definitely know where you are coming from because I have fallen victim to that myself. The best you can do is not re-buy the same product by the same company. Try another company's product until you get the value you deserve. That is how this sort of thing gets corrected. Research, and learn from mistakes/bad purchases/investments). Also, let's not forget how many goods/services are available today that were not around 10, 20, 30 years ago. We are progressing.

Finally, what you call positivity I call optimism. And America definitely needs to rejuvenate itself with a good dose of it soon. This malaise is not how things need to be.

Your points didn't add anything. Our consumption is our biggest fault. I'm not saying the singular cure to our problems and all problems is saving, it's a huge first step in solving the US' problems.

What do you think is going to happen to demand for goods/services within the entire economy if EVERYBODY starts saving at a dramatic rate? Again, the purpose of production is consumption. To keep things as simple as possible: If everybody is consuming less, firms are going to produce less in response. Generally, firms need fewer inputs when output is lowered. What is usually the largest input and the easiest variable cost to lower? Labor. In other words, and not to sound like a broken record but you really need to realize the linkages, if everybody is consuming less, firms are going to produce less in response and they will lay off workers in the process. More unemployment in the short-run, which is not what we need right now. Exporting will not pick up the slack either, so do not waste my time trying to bring that up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to have a fundamental problem with people being free to choose how to spend their income. Why is that? One man's "useless novelty good" is another man's sole source of happiness, to put it one way (Trust me, the vast, vast majority of people on the planet would find this website useless and completely unnecessary, but we derive pleasure from it. Who should have the right to say, "No, we're not going to allow you to enjoy this website anymore"?). Do you not realize that you really have no idea what is best for anybody other than yourself and perhaps your family? What is wrong with allowing people to buy and sell whatever it is they wish? Why should we restrict individual freedom?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are plenty of great goods/services out there from my vantage point. It is unfortunate that you think the entire global economy is a piece of crap. Perhaps you should write a letter to Ted Kaczynski about it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I am aware of planned obsolescence, but you are forgetting something: Nobody in America is forced to buy any product by any company. Just go visit an Amish community sometime if you do not believe me. In fact, you might feel happier among them since you are apparently so distraught with our current society. You are more than free to join them if that is what you desire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not fall into that trap, and it's really not a problem for our economy either. If anything, it keeps the economy growing as more and more products are produced and consumed. It also presumably makes those who consume these products happier otherwise it does not make sense for them to engage in the activity of buying a new iPod, iPhone, Mac, or whatever every year or two.

Again, you seem to have a fundamental problem with people being free to choose how to live their life. Why is that?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only ignorance is believing that trillion dollar deficits are sustainable, and believing that putting government agencies in greater control of our economy is going to produce real growth. It does not work because the government is not very good at doing much of anything, let alone everything, outside of the areas it is best suited to specialize (i.e., law/order, basic infrastructure). I mean, if the government cannot even get something like Afghanistan under control in the matter of a decade, what in the hell makes you think they should have an extremely firm grip over something as complicated as a national economy consisting of 300+ million people, and literally billions of transactions/variables?

[Politico]

I have been a lurker for sometime, but even I had to sign up and say something on this massive delusional post by the OP.

Seriously, Mitt Romney is going to restore the "America" brand around the world, the same man who waffles on simple domestic issues like the Ohio union bill, and he some how is going to be a strong leader?

Give me a break! Romney is a rich, pandering fraud who will say anything to get elected. He isn't strong or a decisive leader, he is a good-looking rich guy who believes who only core belief is "I should be president".

Barack Obama may not the strongest leader, but Christ I would take my chances with him then Willard.

Agreed.

First Obama has a 200,000 campaign rally in Berlin as a senator!  Next he collects a Nobel Peace Prize then went on to take out Bin Laden and a slew of other baddies.  After that he toppled Gaddafi without losing a single US soldier.  He sealed the deal on the South Korea trade pact.  He sealed the deal on the Columbia trade pact.  Iraq war ended.  I could go on.

I wonder what "restoration" needs to go on with the American brand?   The world is handing our president a Nobel Prize and having huge rallies in his honor.  What more do Republicans want?

The OP is a partisan hack.

If you think it's morning in America again, you have not spoken to any of the millions of Americans who are looking for work. And you certainly have not had private conversations with foreigners abroad as I have, who are laughing at America's troubles and who think Obama is great because America is on the decline and he has been ineffective in helping to turn the tide.

Things have not been this bad in a long, long time. Obama had his chance, and now it's Romney's chance. That does not make me a partisan hack. I am still a registered Democrat, in fact, and have never been a registered Republican.

Romney has been a successful executive everywhere he has been his entire life. I have no reason to believe he will not be a successful executive in the White House. I do know that Obama is not a successful executive, so he needs to be replaced. That is how progress is made in the real world. Giving incompetents a second chance is how you end up with nasty things like the second term of George W. Bush. I would rather not see the sequel to that mess.

[Politico]

I have been a lurker for sometime, but even I had to sign up and say something on this massive delusional post by the OP.

Seriously, Mitt Romney is going to restore the "America" brand around the world, the same man who waffles on simple domestic issues like the Ohio union bill, and he some how is going to be a strong leader?

Give me a break! Romney is a rich, pandering fraud who will say anything to get elected. He isn't strong or a decisive leader, he is a good-looking rich guy who believes who only core belief is "I should be president".

Barack Obama may not the strongest leader, but Christ I would take my chances with him then Willard.

Agreed.

First Obama has a 200,000 campaign rally in Berlin as a senator!  Next he collects a Nobel Peace Prize then went on to take out Bin Laden and a slew of other baddies.  After that he toppled Gaddafi without losing a single US soldier.  He sealed the deal on the South Korea trade pact.  He sealed the deal on the Columbia trade pact.  Iraq war ended.  I could go on.

I wonder what "restoration" needs to go on with the American brand?   The world is handing our president a Nobel Prize and having huge rallies in his honor.  What more do Republicans want?

And you certainly have not had private conversations with foreigners abroad as I have, who are laughing at America's troubles and who think Obama is great because America is on the decline and he has been ineffective in helping to turn the tide.

My girlfriend is European.  We have a lot of very private conversations.

I suggest increasing your sample size, and conducting your conversations off American soil.

[Politico]

I don't know what I've done to insult you, Politico.

I have never felt insulted on here. I just feel like you have a fundamental problem with people being free to choose how to live their life. That is not something that insults me, but it is certainly a position that I will always oppose wherever I see it. I also believe nobody knows what is best for anybody other than them self and perhaps their family. I may be wrong, but I feel like you believe you know what is best for other people. There are certainly plenty of people out there who think that. It does not insult me, but again: I will oppose it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and guess what that would also mean: The savings would leave us worse off than we were before. Who cares if some people have savings if unemployment is over 20%? And what do you think is going to happen to all of the savings of those who are not fortunate enough to maintain employment? Yep, it is going to vanish during the course of their unemployment. Do you really think this sort of scenario leaves anybody better off? It's very destructive what you are proposing, although you no doubt have good intentions...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What you are not comprehending is that companies do not force anybody's hands. Once again: No company in America forces anybody to purchase their product. Americans are free to choose how to spend their income or invest their savings, and that is the way things ought to remain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again: The government is not very good at much of anything, let alone everything, outside of areas it must operate and should specialize in (i.e., law/order, basic infrastructure, defense). If you really think otherwise, I would suggest explaining why you think the government should have a firmer grip over our national economy when the government cannot even get Afghanistan under control in the course of a decade.

The government is very adept at ensuring antitrust laws are enforced, and economic competition is promoted to a large extent. You are not right in believing that the government is anti-competitive and engages in corporate cronyism. Take a trip abroad anywhere else in the world, including our closest allies (UK, Canada, Australia), if you really think the US government is less committed to a competitive economic environment than other nations. It is just not so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, people are free, and they're free to choose what they purchase to bring them happiness. It's not really right of me or you or anybody else to tell them, "No, you are wrong in deriving happiness from your purchasing patterns," or what have you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they were meaningless, why did you purchase them? Surely you thought these would enhance your standard of living, or else you would not have purchased the products, right? Or perhaps you made a mistake and have discovered these items do not bring you utility. In that case, why don't you sell the products, and spend your money on other things that will perhaps bring you better utility? There are literally billions of ways to spend your earnings/savings, and nobody is forcing you how to spend it (other than the government when it levies a tax on you with threat of punishment for noncompliance).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a value statement that one should only make about them self and perhaps their family, not anybody else. You really cannot make the argument that "people are getting precisely what they want right now, without anybody forcing them to behave as they do, but I disagree with them getting what they want, so I think they should be told what to do," and be in support of freedom. This is what you are engaging in whether or not you realize it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody is forced to view anything nor purchase anything. People are free, not slaves. Again, people are free to join Amish communities if that is what they really want at an extreme level. People are free to choose, and I do not believe that is a problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, people are free to work at the local level to prevent this sort of thing from happening. If people really want nothing to do with modern technology, I present the Amish alternative. There are plenty of other communes to satisfy this desire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prices are the determined by the laws of supply and demand, and many markets are largely free of government manipulation in the form of subsidization, so these low prices you speak of are the result of individuals pursuing their own, separate self-interest. It's emergence, or emergent order if you like. Nobody is really controlling it, nobody is forcing it upon anybody, and it is the best state possible (or, if you prefer, the worst state until you consider the alternatives).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to get into that nonsense, AMERICA IS PART OF THE 1% OF THE WORLD! Are we really going to whine about whether one is less than 0.01% of the world or 0.99% of the world? The reason why we have what we have, why things are so good compared to the rest of the world, why the vast, vast, vast majority of America lives better today than King George III did in 1776, is because we do not have excessive government interference, or at least in comparison to most other nations. It is the miracle of free enterprise!

[Politico]

The differences I'm talking about are in the sense of disagreement, not personality or beliefs. You're not critiquing the people around you, you're critiquing a hypothetical person you've never even met. A thoroughly lazy and insincere task. It's easy to hurl insults at people you don't know. The people that surround you are the people you see every day. The people that live where you live and do things you do.

And as this conversation also spirals towards irrelevance, I'd ask above all else; What totalitarianism? That of the corporate world we now live under? Or the one I'm suggesting where the people hold the power? And who is lazy? The protesters? Every single one of them? How so? And who cares even if they are? How does that change anything? Pinning ideas to the messenger is laziness, since we're focusing on that aspect. It's avoiding the issue at hand and targeting a much more easy concept to oppose.

I'm personally finding it more and more difficult to live among a people so closed-off and hostile. Comments like "creating a special place set aside for themselves" are bizarre. I don't want to withdraw from society, I want to be a part of a society that has interest in itself. Telling people to go away and do their own thing is ridiculous. Why would I want to separate myself from the people I've grown up with and live with now? And why would people want to suggest I do so? All I've suggested is that we come together and let our similarities highlight the greatness of our differences. It is possible, I've lived it in a very real place. Yet I'm talked down to like some societal parasite for thinking I should be able to connect with my peers and neighbors. This country in general has some deep, deep problems that I'm losing faith we can fix. The hostility towards positivity makes it impossible.

I am sure there are plenty of neighbors/peers who would connect with you, but you cannot force anybody to connect with you. And it is antithetical to American freedom and individuality to try to force a certain way of life upon everybody. You are free to pursue happiness however you see fit within the confines of the law, but nobody is free to deny the pursuit of happiness to others.

Perhaps you need to come to the realization that we are NOT in this together, and you cannot change the way things are. You certainly cannot suggest restricting freedom without consequences, including opposition from neighbors/peers. The world does not care about you or me or anybody else, but it's no big deal, buddy. You need to take care of yourself and your family, and find ways to connect with others who wish to connect with you in the same way you wish to connect with them. Trust me, you will be a lot happier.

[Politico]

I have been a lurker for sometime, but even I had to sign up and say something on this massive delusional post by the OP.

Seriously, Mitt Romney is going to restore the "America" brand around the world, the same man who waffles on simple domestic issues like the Ohio union bill, and he some how is going to be a strong leader?

Give me a break! Romney is a rich, pandering fraud who will say anything to get elected. He isn't strong or a decisive leader, he is a good-looking rich guy who believes who only core belief is "I should be president".

Barack Obama may not the strongest leader, but Christ I would take my chances with him then Willard.

Agreed.

First Obama has a 200,000 campaign rally in Berlin as a senator!  Next he collects a Nobel Peace Prize then went on to take out Bin Laden and a slew of other baddies.  After that he toppled Gaddafi without losing a single US soldier.  He sealed the deal on the South Korea trade pact.  He sealed the deal on the Columbia trade pact.  Iraq war ended.  I could go on.

I wonder what "restoration" needs to go on with the American brand?   The world is handing our president a Nobel Prize and having huge rallies in his honor.  What more do Republicans want?

And you certainly have not had private conversations with foreigners abroad as I have, who are laughing at America's troubles and who think Obama is great because America is on the decline and he has been ineffective in helping to turn the tide.

My girlfriend is European.  We have a lot of very private conversations.

I suggest increasing your sample size, and conducting your conversations off American soil.

Here is a partial picture of the degree I earned while living and working in Europe...



In case you didn't realise it you just got owned.  Please disengage from this futile line of attack and recant your obviously false statements.

I am willing to cede that it is possible your conversations abroad have been more amicable than mine. However, I am not making false statements. My experience leads me to belief that Europe loves Obama because America is failing under him. I certainly do not see the level of respect among Europeans that was there for Kennedy, Reagan or Clinton. The difference between those three and Obama: Again, America is failing under Obama.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hear you.

[Politico]

So Politico, I take it you support volunteerism?

I volunteer and I donate to charities. But I am not in favor of forcing that sort of thing upon anybody, and I am not going to judge others who do not engage in such activities. It is not my place.

[Politico]

Perhaps you need to come to the realization that we are NOT in this together

Well with that attitude...

I'm a realist, not an idealist.

[Politico]

What is the alternative? Re-elect Obama and hope things change for the better? I say, "no we can't" to that.

YES, WE CAN!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of the fear seems to have been generated by bureaucratic elites who serve as enforcers of tycoons. The Hard Right idea of 'good' competition is that in which working people compete to determine who will be most productive while being squeezed most. Such, if successful on its own terms, ensures 'decline' through degradation of the work force... and something nastier than any 'malaise' that we have known at any time.

Nonsense that is not even worthy of a response. Then again, you are from Michigan, so I am not surprised you are fine with Michigan-style malaise contaminating the rest of America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again:

Barack Obama has scrupulously avoided scaring markets, which is a good idea. What do you think he is -- a Marxist-Leninist?  His official prediction of the economy underestimated the severity of the economic meltdown of the year and a half that began in the autumn of 2007 (under Dubya and the result of economic policies that Bush and GOP majorities promoted before 2007) He also over-estimated the speed of the recovery, especially with respect to unemployment.

The economic meltdown was more severe than most people predicted.  I am one of those who predicted a 1929-style crash followed by a steep and protracted contraction. I couldn't predict how long it would be; I predicted that what would keep it from being as protracted as that of 1929-1932 was that we had stronger institutions (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, FDIC insurance, and welfare) that would create a higher floor for economic ruin.

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/markets/TotalReturn/4-bad-bears.html?4-bad-bears.gif

That graph is not made for political purposes. A claim that the stimulus made things worse is specious. It violates the mainstream in economic theory and analysis. Could it have been the wrong sort of stimulus? Absolutely! It was directed more at rescuing bad actors in the American economy instead of WPA-like and CCC-like job-creating and skill-developing programs. But if the financial sector had failed, then just imagine how much else could have failed. Many companies would have found no way in which to meet payrolls.

The Romney graph is a prime example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.  

As for malaise -- we could easily have gotten far worse.
  

I had confidence that the stimulus would have been the right sort of stimulus that would produce the type of projections that were made in early 2009, but now I am beginning to think it was a boondoggle for special interests in return for support in 2008. Solyndra does not inspire a lot of confidence, and may merely be the tip of the iceberg. Over $800 billion in fiscal stimulus with these sort of results is unfathomable.

As for "we could have easily gotten far worse," failure is failure, and failure should not be rewarded unless you want more failure.

Obama had his chance, failed and now it's Romney's turn.

[Politico]

I am willing to cede that it is possible your conversations abroad have been more amicable than mine. However, I am not making false statements. My experience leads me to belief that Europe loves Obama because America is failing under him. I certainly do not see the level of respect among Europeans that was there for Kennedy, Reagan or Clinton. The difference between those three and Obama: Again, America is failing under Obama.

A couple of things...

First of all you experience is purely anecdotal and so was mine.

Second point Europe is not monolithic.  I spent most of my time in a relatively small part of Europe.

Having said that my experience with Europeans is they are more cynical than Americans (Europeans please feel free to jump all over me about this broad generalization and stereotype).  Although they gladly allow more government involvement in their lives they don't see politicians as gods.  For example they have much less of a desire to have a "family values" politician telling them how to raise their children.  I routinely heard Europeans say cynical things about their own politicians and sometimes our president (although that was 95% of the time comments about Bush).

I frankly find people have a lot of admiration for Obama in Europe.  I find they have sort of a love hate relationship with America.  I think Americans take things way to personally.  My European friends do not wish ill upon America and they certainly never cheer if America is not doing well.  They do think we are fat war mongers but they admire our academic and business achievements.

To be perfectly honest you are the first person I have ever heard put forth this theory that Europeans are happy that America is having problems and that they think the source of the problems is Obama.

Not THE source of the problems, but a POTUS that is unable to turn the tide on the problems (our key problem being a lack of confidence among consumers, as previously noted in the thread).

Much of Europe enjoys watching America stumble and not recover like it does. America will eventually recover, though (under a new president, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because a new president implies that this is going to take a lot longer than anybody would like, whether it's two years from now under Romney or six years from now under somebody else if Obama gets re-elected).