I have yet to hear an answer other than he is not Obama.
1. Romney has a proven record of handling economic problems... Olympics, Bain, Massachusettes. In all three examples, economics was in a mess and he fixed it. Obama has no business experience and it shows by any economic measure you care to take a look at.
2. Romney's position on international trade is pro US business. He intends to open up new trade agreements with monitoring for fairness. Obama has neglected new trade agreements.
3. Romney intends to promote energy production not stifle it. He favors permits for the pipeline. Nuclear permits, and off shore drilling subject to high safety standards. Obama rejects these things.
4. Romney will repeal certain socialist aspects of Obamacare and replace them with free enterprise. Nearly every policy action taken by Obama has been socialist.
5. Romney will classify small business and the "rich" separately as it relates to tax policy thereby allowing small business tax breaks without extending tax discounts to the personal rich. Obama treats small business and the "rich" (over 250k) as the same thing thereby threatening to raise taxes on small business if his policies were ever passed in Congress.
6. In every economic entity led by Romney, he has a balanced budget and it worked. Obama has never once had a budget.
That's all I really care to consider since it's more than enough for me to say time for someone like this to have a shot, rather than expecting that anything would be different with the economy if Obama got another shot. In my book, he had his chance and failed miserably.
2. Romney's position on international trade is pro US business. He intends to open up new trade agreements with monitoring for fairness. Obama has neglected new trade agreements.
3. Romney intends to promote energy production not stifle it. He favors permits for the pipeline. Nuclear permits, and off shore drilling subject to high safety standards. Obama rejects these things.
4. Romney will repeal certain socialist aspects of Obamacare and replace them with free enterprise. Nearly every policy action taken by Obama has been socialist.
5. Romney will classify small business and the "rich" separately as it relates to tax policy thereby allowing small business tax breaks without extending tax discounts to the personal rich. Obama treats small business and the "rich" (over 250k) as the same thing thereby threatening to raise taxes on small business if his policies were ever passed in Congress.
6. In every economic entity led by Romney, he has a balanced budget and it worked. Obama has never once had a budget.
That's all I really care to consider since it's more than enough for me to say time for someone like this to have a shot, rather than expecting that anything would be different with the economy if Obama got another shot. In my book, he had his chance and failed miserably.
-- Modified on 9/11/2012 8:49:55 AM
...you're incredibly uninformed. Where the hell are you getting your news?
Point 1) Running a nation's economy is a whole different ball game than running a business. The objective for running a nation's economy is not to make a profit. It's to make sure the economy is serving the economic needs of the people. The CEO of Walmart might be very good at increasing profits for shareholders by supressing the wages of his workers or the costs of his suppliers, but how does that translate into working Americans getting higher wages, and lower unemployment rates? I would argue that a President's job, economically speaking is quite the opposite of a CEO. Furthermore, I think there's enough evidence to say that business experience in the White House has lead to economic disasters. We've had two Presidents who were CEOs before serving in the White House. Bush and Hoover. Both created economic depressions.
Point 2) You're simply wrong. Obama has expanded free trade. He's signed free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
http://tinyurl.com/3lslp6f
For some reason, people keep saying free trade agreements are "pro US business" or "pro jobs" or some other such nonsense. The fact of the matter is that free trade has gutted the US economy. To deny this at this point is utterly delusional.
Point 3) Under Obama, there's been an explosion in off shore drilling, particularly in the Gulf. Obama has supported the expansion of nuclear power (stupidly), "clean" coal (stupidly), has allowed fracking to happen all over the place, despite mounting evidence that it's causing earthquakes and could be poisoning water aquifers. The US today produces more oil than it did 4 years ago. It is not progress that we continue to use an old technology from last century when fossil fuels are running out.
Point 4) What are the socialist aspects of the Affordable Care Act? Is it socialist to require that companies not drop you for getting sick? That's a simple business regulation. Does that mean that it's socialist to require that companies that produce televisions don't catch on fire? Is Underwriters Laboratory a socialist gestapo enforcement organization? Nearly every policy action taken by Obama has been socialist? Like ignoring the 78% favorability of a public option and excluding it from health care reform? Was cutting taxes on small businesses socialist?
Point 5) Republicans have been calling multi-million dollar corporations "small businesses" for years as a cover to give the rich more tax breaks. When I think of a small business, I think of a guy who isn't clearing a million bucks a year.
Point 6) Romney balanced Massachusetts budget by raising taxes :::cough, cough::: I mean fees, on blind people or children with developmental disabilities. Balancing a budget shouldn't be a top priority right now. Getting people jobs should be.
pwilley, the last time a Republican was in the White House, they left the country in ruins. Since you're unhappy with Obama's ability to clean up that mess, you want to give the reigns back to the people who created the mess in the first place?
That's like a Democrat saying in 2004 that the War on Terror hasn't been going very well. Iraq's become a quagmire, and Afghanistan a lost cause. So, to defeat al Qaeda, we think we should elect Osama bin Laden President of the United States. After all, who would know more about terrorism than bin Laden?
Willey, as in most debates, neither side actually has a perfect offense or defense. You raise a few exceptions, but on the whole, I'll still stand by what I said. But, I cannot let your last comment slide so easily regarding the implication that Bush destroyed things and then left it for the dems to clean up.
I recall your comments last week wherein you argued the housing bubble is what got us into the mess. And I agreed. But having reached that accord, now you seem to forget who caused the housing bubble... alas, Mr. Clinton owns that one by gutting banking regulations and then in exchange pressuring those same banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them... Remember the dems bantor about "affordable housing for all". Clearly Bush owns some pretty bad policy decisions himself; I'd probably say he was overzealous with Iraq and shouldn't have done it. And I'm not so sure about that prescription drug program although he certainly made a lot of folks happy at the time. But on the bigger issue of where our current economic problems began, that clearly goes to Clinton.
...and I have never denied that. Hell, I was the one who brought it up.
But while Clinton does deserve blame for gutting Glass-Steagal, giving rise to the housing bubble, the people who should get the bigger blame is the guy who wrote that legislation, Phil Gramm, as well as the Republican Congress who voted for it.
Bush deserves blame for not addressing the problem before it become a nightmarish housing bubble that had nothing left to do but pop. Bush could have fixed the fuck up before housing got out of hand. He didn't.
Again, the sub-prime market was an afterthought in the housing bubble. Even at it's peak, the sub-prime market was only worth 1.3 trillion, while residential home values lost 6.8 trillion. The sub-prime market didn't even become a significant factor until after the 2004 election.
But the housing bubble isn't the only mess Bush left. He left a diplomatic mess. He left Obama with the worst foriegn policy blunder in US history. He left him bogged down in not one, but two perpetual wars, he left us with our reputation around the world destroyed, and allowed the nations that are under our influence to go their own way.
In short, Bush left the country in ruins. Hell, he even tried to appoint his cleaning lady to the Supreme Court.
Given what happened last time around, I don't think we should be electing a bunch of know-nothings to the White House. I'm not sure this country could recover from that.
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act passed The House 362 to 57 and the Senate 90 to 8, but only after the Democrats held out for stronger anti-redlining provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act. And we know what that accelerated, right. An acceleration of sub-prime mortgages.
3. Romney intends to promote energy production not stifle it. He favors permits for the pipeline. Nuclear permits, and off shore drilling subject to high safety standards. Obama rejects these things.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/07/23/cnoocs-nexen-deal-shows-how-obama-pushed-canada-toward-china/
That's because America loves Saudi Arabia. and wasn't the deal a no go?
Just too many to list here, so just go to the link! I'm surprised some of you have not picked up on the basic fact that Mittens is a FLAWED candidate.
Dude, first of all... STOP HIJACKING A THREAD. Your post has nothing to do with the OPs topic.
Secondly, flip flops as the media calls changes in positions means absolutely nothing. Makes great media sound bites but truth is that no politician should be so rigid as to think that they cannot modify their position on something based on changing circumstances, environment, maturity of the issue. To call this out in a negative manner is just absurd.
Now, tell you what.... wanna show us how freaking informed, smart, logical, you are? Go start your own thread and tell us why you are voting for Obama. Or, if you prefer, start one telling us why you are not voting for Mitt. Or if neither of those appeal to you, or you don't know what to say, they just go watch TV and spare us your ignorance.
Poor Mitt!
George Will to GOP: If the Republican Party cannot win in this environment, it has to get out of politics and find another business."
Laura Ingraham: 'If You Can't Beat Obama With This Record, Then Shut Down The Party'
same reason people voted for Bush..insanity..
You like a President who has no core convictions, and change his opinion to match the situation.