It's Still About The Economy, And We're Not Stupid

[Politico]

Somebody needs to tell Joe Biden that this election is not about gay marriage and Bin Laden.

Somebody needs to tell the Democratic talking heads that this election is not about religion, contraception, abortion, gays, etc.

This election is about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEPTzurLLhE

This is why Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee instead of a far-right social conservative like Rick Santorum. This is why Barack Obama will be joining George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter among the ranks of one-term presidents.

[Politico]

Well, I called it: Obama is now following Biden's lead by trying to make this election about gay marriage instead of the economy.

If America gives Obama four more years, how many couples, including gay couples, will be able to afford a wedding ceremony, let alone a honeymoon?

Sorry, Obama, but America wants to divorce you.

[Politico]

I'm sorry, is there a huge economic downturn I'm unaware of? I thought we were on a 'slow recovery'.

Team Obama: "The Obama 'Jobless' Recovery??? *Silence while thinking...* LOOK! IT'S GAY MARRIAGE!"

That's right, folks: From now through November, the 2004 weapon of mass distraction is BACK with new and improved rhetoric to help get an unworthy incumbent re-elected!

[Politico]

Romney wants  to cut the safety net,

Not true. Romney wants to strengthen Social Security and Medicare so that they are solvent for the foreseeable future. People on SS/Medicare are not the ones struggling right now, by the way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. Romney is cutting taxes for everybody who pays taxes, including those in the poorest brackets. Why? Because working people need tax relief to help stimulate their financial position, and because tax cuts will ultimately be employed in consumption/investment, which will boost growth and create jobs in the process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. The federal government will have a largely hands-off approach to state affairs under Romney. States, that is their voters via their legislative branch/governor, will decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Obviously police, fire-workers and teachers are essential. Paying two people to do a job that one person could do in 2012? Well, some states might be fine with funding that while others will not. It's their choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The richest and the poorest are basically where they were four years ago. It's the rest of America that is becoming worse off, and there is no reason to believe this trend will stop if Obama is given four more years (regardless of the state of gay marriage).

[Politico]

Romney wants  to cut the safety net,cut taxes for the rich and raise taxes on the poor.Romney
would let GM and Crysler go bankrupt and states would have had to lay off police,Teachers,
Fireman without the stimulas.If your rich you would do fine under Romney.The rest would be
worse off.

Has anyone ever suggested we raise taxes on the poor?

Of course not. Romney is suggesting a 20% cut across the board for ALL BRACKETS. It's an EQUAL tax cut in every way imaginable, and is ultimately a moderate proposal by virtue of it maintaining the so-called "progressive" structure of the tax system. If we had done this a few years ago, coupled with a stimulus package that actually focused upon real infrastructure rather than pie-in-the-sky solar companies, perhaps we would be enjoying a real recovery today.

Divorce Obama 2012

[Politico]

If the GOP really wants to focus on the economy for votes, perhaps they should stop waging class war on the people outside of Romney's class.

Is this to 2012 what "Hope," "Yes, We Can," and "Help Is On The Way" were to 2008? It is about as well-grounded in reality as those faded bumper-stickers...

[Politico]

Look, I realize that this election will be primarily about the economy,as it should be since it effects all Americans. And maybe some of the other issues brought up have been diversions.

But if offends me when Romney refuses to talk about anything other than the economy, brushing off issues like the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage as unimportant,

Well, clearly Romney opposes gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. What more is he supposed to say? I disagree with Governor Romney on these issues. He has stated his position, and wants to talk about the economy because that is the most important issue facing America and the rest of the world. I do not see much of a problem with this, really.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is always willing to speak about his record as Governor. And he is on the record on all issues, including gay marriage, which is not something he wants to talk a lot about because if somebody is overly interested in gay marriage and a discussion about it, they should see Obama or Santorum, not Romney. Romney is in the middle on this issue, and the Obamas and Santorums of the world can duke out that fight while Romney focuses on the economy.

[Politico]

Afghanistan is ending, Libya was a success, defense spending has been cut by hundreds of billions of dollars, only silly libertarians on the internet are mad about NDAA, Congress didn't let Obama close Guantanamo. I guess you wanted him to somehow get a PATRIOT Act repeal through Congress also?

there is a serious disconnect between your increasing interest in radical thought and your persistent Obama fanboyism.

Obviously I grade Obama on a curve, and on that curve, his foreign policy has been pretty good.

Even I will admit that Obama has been good on foreign policy although I do think we could use a harder stance on Iran and North Korea. To a lesser extent, I think we could give China more grief with regards to currency manipulation. In addition, a strengthening of the Mexican border along with more free terms of trade with Mexico would probably be beneficial for both Mexico and us. Perhaps even covert support for Mexico's BIG problem, which is starting to trickle into some border cities.

But Obama's foreign policy success doesn't makeup for his poor domestic policy. In a way, Obama is a reverse Clinton. Bill was pretty woeful on the foreign policy front, especially in retrospect, but he delivered the goods, for the most part, on the economy with a relatively pragmatic, respectable and moderate approach to policy. In other words, what Obama should have been on domestic policy instead of being somebody who provides quasi-socialist signals and class warfare rhetoric.

[Politico]

Once again, is there any particular reason an election focusing on the economy is a plus for Romney? Outside of gas prices, it's fairly solid.

Employment growth is not keeping pace with population growth. In other words, this is a jobless recovery. Good jobs are not readily available. We have many productive workers who are sidelined (and many times more productive workers who are employed yet afraid of joining this group), younger adults who are discouraged by weakening prospects, and some unproductive workers who are clogging up parts of the public sector. We need much stronger growth, especially with Boomsday (i.e., retirement of most of the Baby Boomers) on the horizon.

Bernanke and Co. have done their job and can do no more. Obama could have done worse, of course, but he also could have done a lot better. The phrase "not good enough," comes to mind.