President Obama: The Radical Moderate

The Radical Moderate
The Radical Moderate
Mitt Romney and the Republicans Will Try To Convince Americans that President Obama is a radical socialist intent on destroying America.
Mitt Romney and the Republicans Will Try To Convince Americans that President Obama is a radical socialist intent on destroying America.

The Radical Moderate

With the general election coming up in November and the Republican Party finally selecting its candidate in the form of Mitt Romney, the rhetoric has already started. Actually it started long ago during the Republican Primary with every Republican candidate bashing President Obama at every turn. However, the new rhetoric coming from the right is both a replay of their favorite hits and a new strategy. Generally, the Republican Party will try to convince the American People this November that President Obama is a Socialist Muslim Terrorist who hates America. Some will even try to convince the American People that President Obama isn't even an American.

The troubling part of the Republican strategy is that it might work despite the fact that none of it is true. President Obama is not a radical socialist. He is not a Muslim. He is not a Terrorist. He is not even a liberal. President Obama was born in Hawaii and is, in fact, an American. The toughest argument that Republicans can make is that President Obama is a radical moderate and strangely would have been a Republican himself in the early 1990's.

The Individual Mandate Was Supported by Republicans in the 1990s.  Now, many of the same Republicans oppose it.
The Individual Mandate Was Supported by Republicans in the 1990s. Now, many of the same Republicans oppose it.
President Bush is probably telling Mr. Romney that he should support Cap & Trade.
President Bush is probably telling Mr. Romney that he should support Cap & Trade.

Don't Believe it, Check The Record.

Newt Gingrich is quoted as calling President Obama the "most radical Leftist President in History." Senator Marco Rubio, someone who may run as Vice President with Romney and is certainly a Presidential contender in the future, called President Obama the "most divisive figure in American history." Mitt Romney as of late refuses to call President Obama a socialist. However, he has gotten the wrath of those that run the Republican Party these days, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The core Republican constituency, namely Fox News, has tried to scare the American People since the President took office by claims of death panels and Muslim law.

But a look at what the President has done shows a much different story. In fact, the President's record is hardly socialist. Its not even liberal. In today's standards, it is moderate. In the standards of 20 years ago, it is Republican. In 1994, then Senatorial Candidate Mitt Romney told the New Republic that he supported a national mandate for health insurance. Mr. Romney was not alone as the individual mandate was also supported by Newt Gingrich and President George H.W. Bush. Cap & Trade environmental policy was first supported by President Ronald Reagan, and then by President Bush. In fact, The Clean Air Act of 1990, signed by President Bush, included a Cap & Trade system to reduce sulfur pollution from power plants. This bill was supported by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich. Were these efforts lefty policy destroying American when New Gingrich did them in the 1990s? Of course not, so why are they no destructive now?

So, What Exactly is the Problem?
So, What Exactly is the Problem?
This is the Person Republicans are Running Against despite the fact he doesn't exist
This is the Person Republicans are Running Against despite the fact he doesn't exist
Is this better than a radical moderate?
Is this better than a radical moderate?

So, why the outrage?

Bill Maher has stated, correctly, that Republicans are trying to label President Obama as a radical leftist because they need him to be a radical and not because he actually is. A true liberal would have fought for Universal Health Care. A true liberal would have pulled troops out of Iraq sooner and Guantanamo Bay would be closed. A true liberal would have supported marriage equality sooner. A true liberal would defend the environment. A true liberal would try to regulate guns. A true liberal would have raised taxes. A true liberal would have ordered an investigation into this Country going into war under false pretenses.

President Obama has not done any of this. President Obama has not raised taxes, he has lowered them. President Obama has not protected the environment, in fact, there is more drilling going on today than ever before. President Obama not only still has troops in Afghanistan, he ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden. President Obama has decreased the size of the federal government. President Obama has cut spending. Oh, and the economy is better than it was when he took office. Yet, despite these facts, Republicans are trying to convince Americans otherwise. Why?

The answer is simple. Republicans want to win and they know by questioning the legitimacy of President Obama's election, birth, and his motives, they will tap into their core constituency: the radical right. Yes, the overt and closet racists. The ones that hate President Obama.

The Republicans also know that many Americans are still struggling. So instead of advancing ideas that will help ordinary Americans, they appeal to their patriotism. They appeal to the American dream and claim that the President won't let you dream. But if Americans aren't careful, they will wake up in a nightmare with Gordon Gecko at the helm. And they will miss the radial moderate Barack Obama.

More by this Author

  • The Story of Tellico Dam and The Snail Darter
    20

    The Snail Darter is a tiny little fish that is native to the waters of Tennessee. In 1975, the Snail Darter was placed on the newly created Endangered Species List. In 1984, its status was lowered to threatened. Even...

  • The Republican Fear Machine
    60

    President Franklin Roosevelt said that "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself."  Since September 11, 2001, the Republican Party has done everything in its power to make sure that Americans have feared...

  • Why Sacramento Is The Capital Of California
    40

    Ask any grade school student in New York or Chicago what City is the capital of California; most would likely say Los Angeles or San Francisco. As amazing as it may seem, however, the Capitol of California is the City...


Comments 49 comments

Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

You have a good handle on the facts!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thanks Wizard, I try


mperrottet profile image

mperrottet 4 years ago from Pennsauken, NJ

You're so right - Obama has been painted unfairly as radical, and not "one of us". Fortunately, Romney, as one of the elite one percent that is right now unpopular, is a good target for the Democrats to label "not one of us".


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Fair enough. Thanks for reading.


r31009 profile image

r31009 4 years ago

Cool.:)


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Thank you very much


Dolores Monet profile image

Dolores Monet 4 years ago from East Coast, United States

The not so subtle labels that the Republicans have placed on Obama, socialist, radical, someone born outside of the US are intended to mark the president as The Other. In other words - black. It's fear mongering and total nonsense. We need realistic political discourse here, the discussion of real issues instead of the lies.


Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

This is a humorous and informative bipartisan look at just how bad the toxic political environment and governmental dysfunction has gotten . . .

Part 1

[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-4-2012/...[/url]

Part 2

[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-4-2012/...[/url]


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Dolores,

Agreed. Plenty of blame to put on the President. But at least be honest. Thanks for reading.

Wizard,

Good stuff. Thanks for reading.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

He is trying to regulate guns, however, since he can't get it through Congress, he's decided to try to take away your 2nd Amendment right by treaty: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-tr...

He has raised taxes. I don't know who you think will be paying that mandate, but it certainly won't be the rich nor the poor. It will be the middle class sitting on the edge of poverty who cannot afford to purchase Health Care.

Further, he and the Dems in Congress are trying to raise your taxes with simple inactivity. How's that for pulling the wool over your eyes? Just let the current payroll tax benefit expire. Then we can say we didn't raise taxes. To date, they have blocked any vote on an extension. It will expire at the end of this year, conveniently AFTER the November election.

President Obama has increased our National Debt by an unknown before margin, after having how horrible the debt is for our nation as one of his campaign points in 2008.

He DID NOT end the War in Iraq as his campaign is trying to claim as one of his accomplishments. He promised to have them home within 3 months but instead, stuck to the original time table that was set up in April of 2008 by President Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/middleeast...

Now his campaign has called Romney a felon. Say what?! And President Obama has said he will NOT apologize. I'm pretty sure, with absolutely no evidence, that's slander, a crime. He is a corrupt Chicago politician who will do anything to win. So please, don't even talk to me about the Republicans or Romney's campaign trying to "say" anything about President Obama. It is quite the other way around.

He bullied the Supreme Court about the Health Care law. When Congress wouldn't do what he wanted about illegals, oh well, he just issued "executive orders" which stopped deportations. Arizona made him mad, oh well, we won't help them enforce any immigration laws, the ones that are actual LAWS, they will NOT enforce.

This is a President who thinks he's a King and can do whatever he wants, however he wants, without the approval of the people or Congress. Four years of this President without any need to worry for re-election and I shudder to think what kind of country we will be in 2016.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Wow, the amount of lies in your rant are amazing. First, no taxes have been raised. The mandate is a penalty that has not taken effect yet. Therefore, he has not raised taxes. The President has barely even mentioned guns, let alone try to regulate them. Slander is not a crime. By the way, everything you said is untrue, so therefore slander. Are you going to turn yourself in?

How does a President bully the Supreme Court? Your argument simply makes no since and is nothing more than talking points. By the way, if Romney lied on SEC filings, that is a felony.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

I provided the link for the UN Treaty that indeed would regulate guns. Perhaps you might read it instead of calling it a lie. The mandate is NOT a penalty. A penalty, as ruled by the Supreme Court, under the commerce code, would be unconstitutional. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled it a tax. So yes, it is a tax. Allowing the payroll tax benefit to expire will raise taxes on every single working American. So, yes. He is raising taxes. Slander is a civil matter, you're correct. So he should be sued. He stood up and said how it was not the place of the Court to judge laws passed by Congress. His words exactly ""I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said. "Well, this is a good example." Basically he said that if they overturned it, they had become activists, a label Roberts' very much wanted to avoid. It's bullying. link: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/po...

I've provided links to everything I've claimed here. They are not partisan stuff either but actual links to President Obama's own words, in his own voice. Therefore, I've committed no slander. All true. Try reading and clicking.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well, it is the commerce clause, not code. The Supreme Court called it a penalty, like if you pay taxes late, you suffer a penalty. Maybe read the case.

If commenting about the Court is "bullying" every Republicans who rails against "judicial activism" would be sued.

Providing links to Fox News isn't providing a link to facts. But here is the truth: The President wants to let the Bush tax break to expire for the top 2%. That is not raising taxes on everyone. Oh, by the way, you said in your initial post said the President "raised taxes," which he hasn't in any manner. So that is an untrue statement.

Again, get the facts right before you spew what Fox News tells you to spew. There is plenty to complain about with President Obama, I have written articles on it. But at least be truthful. At least state facts.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

Okay, now we simply have a miscommunication. I was not referring to the Bush tax breaks. I was referring to the payroll tax benefit. Here is a link to all the tax breaks set to expire this year.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42485.pdf

The Supreme Court did not rule it a penalty. They ruled it a tax. The Dems are just in denial.

"Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the key provision in question, the so-called individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance or pay a fine, failed to pass constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause, which was the heart of the administration’s arguments in favor of it. But the chief justice declared that the fine amounted to a tax that the government had the power to impose, and that the mandate could survive on that basis."

source: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopic...

As for sources, I use all manner of sources. If Fox News is not credible for their leaning toward the right, than one must discount CNN and MSNBC for their leaning toward the left.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

Oh and btw, here is another link for the UN Treaty. Already 12 Dems have joined the GOP in opposing it:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispe...

and yet another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u...

and another:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-un-arms-tre...


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was constitutional under the tax and spend powers of Congress. That is different than a tax. Judge Roberts, and pretty conservative guy by the way, said it was like a tax, that is still different than a tax. A bit of semantics if you ask me. I don't like the mandate either for different reasons. Too bad Romney thought of it.

I will discredit MSNBC as leaning too far left. Have to give you that. CNN just wants ratings. Hardly call it News anymore. But CNN leans towards sensationalism, not left or right. So no Fox and no MSNBC. And really CNN doesn't help anyone. News sucks. Iwill stick with TMZ.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

As a liberal, I am ok with gun regulations. But this is an international treaty. Not sure what you are upset about. Don't we want less violent crimes? Our military will be exempt. This isn't regulation by the way. It is like the nuclear arms race. The 2nd amendment will have to be adhered to so how does this treaty hurt?


SassySue1963 4 years ago

It is tough to find objective news sources these days no doubt. I usually try to read some from all sides to get somewhere near what is the actual truth.

While it is an International Treaty, civilian arms are included and it does not deal exclusively with international trade of such arms. It would be possible, under this Treaty, for the UN to attempt to control how guns and ammunition are distributed or not, within the US. I believe it says something when 13 Democrats, almost always in favor of gun control, have already come out opposing this treaty.


Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

This link seems salient and compelling to me at this point—I hope you find it so as well . . .

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/09-8


SassySue1963 4 years ago

@WizardofWhimsy

lol We've already discounted FOX, MSNBC and CNN. But you think we are inclined to believe a blog site that panders to the progressive (i.e. liberal far left).

Nice try.


Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

Sorry Sassy, I guess I gave you too much credit for having an unbiased and open mind.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

Oh I read it. I read anything and everything. I wasn't aware that unbiased had been re-defined to mean agreeing with what you believe.


Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

If you read it and didn't recognize any truth in Hedges' essay then it has nothing to do with my beliefs and everything to do with yours. I wasn't looking for any agreement—my motive was to share a thoughtful writer's insight into the human condition. Your responses are more revealing than you seem to know.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well Sassy, plenty of Democrats are members of the NRA. So I don't think is says too much.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

Oh but you were. Your responses are more revealing than you realize.

If I did not recognize any truth, in short if I do not agree with the conclusions of this essay, than naturally MY thinking is flawed. It could not possibly be YOUR thinking or that of Hedges. Or a mixture of both.

He speaks of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans as if we treat them as myths. Like we have not come out and condemned both atrocities nor accepted them as fact.

One does not have to be subversive in order to think and evaluate. One does have to realize the bias in all information put forth and examine everything. Only then can one have enough information to reach educated conclusions.

"my motive was to share a thoughtful writer's insight"

Your responses are indeed more revealing than you realize. Again, if I find Hedges to have a progressive agenda rather than find him to have profound insight, then it is my flaw. Could not possibly be a flaw in your thinking or his thinking or a combination of the two.

"I guess I gave you too much credit for having an unbiased and open mind."

Everyone is not going to agree on all aspects of anything in life. To suggest that someone is biased, unable to think, unable to form educated thoughts independent of your own as you attempt to do here, is truly more revealing than anything.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Fair point. Open discussion and debate is a good thing. I myself fall for the "you are obviously biased" line too often instead of giving good people who I disagree with credit for having genuine beliefs. The lies coming from the Republican party right now have me angry, because they are bold face lies that fly in the face of truth. But I can't argue that there is little unbiased news anymore. I also cannot argue that that there aren't genuine disagreement with the President on many issues. All I can do is try to facilitate an honest debate and it starts with me to welcome those I disagree with. Sassy, welcome.


Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

"Fair point?" You tell her that her post "is filled with lies" and I just said her post was "revealing" and then she goes ballistic on ME? WTF???

I did not TRY to cause offense.

Sassy: "It is tough to find objective news sources these days no doubt. I usually try to read some from all sides to get somewhere near what is the actual truth."

I sincerely thought the Hedges piece was about scary behaviors going on in scary times. I now see that I mistakenly thought that Hedges point of view was beyond politics by implying that we all needed to heed the warnings of the classics about human self-delusion.


Wizard Of Whimsy profile image

Wizard Of Whimsy 4 years ago from The Sapphire City

Sorry to offend you with my opinion—you should hear the ones I keep to myself!


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Wasn't talking about your post per se, just in general. I read the piece, wasn't objective in my opinion, but it wasn't Fox News either (the opposite of objective). But I want honest debate, not just name calling. I was actually calling myself out, not anyone else. But much coming from the Conservatives right now are lies, I will say it.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

lol In all fairness I went ballistic on the OP as well on the lies thing.

I read the "learning from the classics" part as well but what they want us to learn is to be subversive. At least in this particular piece. You would not get that from reading pieces of the blog only when putting it all together. As I always check out authors of blogs as well, there is also a chance I read it very closely for content after checking out some other blogs.

There are plenty of lies coming out of the President's front as well. Not to mention, the man who complained about the GOP running a negative campaign has done nothing but do so straight out of the gate. It boggles the mind that anyone, anyone, regardless of whom you are going to vote for in November, believes it is alright for a member of the President's campaign to say Romney is a felon, with not one shred of proof, and for the President to then come out and say he will not apologize for it. I do not like double standards. And our current President lives on them.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Well, considering Mitt wrote a book called No Apology, I find it odd he demands an apology. And if Mitt lied to the SEC or to the State Election Board in Mass, that is a felony. No saying he did, say if he did do it it is a felony - technically. I know very well no one will hold him accountable.

But this story has stayed alive because Mitt Romney refuses to answer questions about it. I don't like double standards either, but for a man and a party that demanded a birth certificate so many times, is turning over your tax returns that big of a deal? Why is it ok for members of the Republican Party to state that the President must be a felon too since he was from Chicago? (See John Sununu on talk shows yesterday?)


SassySue1963 4 years ago

He did answer it. He was the major shareholder, and the CEO on paper. But he had left to run the Olympics, which has been verified and is easily proven to everyone. Just because he leaves someone else in charge, and acting Manager, or General Manager, which is very common, that does not mean he is not still the CEO. So yes, he still has to sign the SEC filing. Just like I had to sign papers for my husband's business though I made none of the decisions regarding it. And you know what? There is still absolutely no proof to what they said and if it was the other way around, the left would be screaming bloody murder and "racist" like they do any time someone disagrees with President Obama. And really, the book? Which is about being successful in business, not slandering individuals. It is about not apologizing for being successful. Oh but our Great President thinks if you're successful, if you build a business, you didn't do it. lol


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

So not the facts. How many times have we hearde Mitt Romney say he left Bain Capital in 1999. Time and time again. Then, as part of the etch a sketch strategy, somebody from the Campaign said he retroactively resigned. What is that? This is a clip of the Meet the Press Interview with someone from his campaign. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/16/1...

I Understand that its Rachel Maddow's page. But the clip says what is says. Mitt Romney states that we should look at his business experience as a major factor about whether he will make a good President. Yet, whenever anyone asks about his business experience he won't answer questions about it and there is always some controversy. That is my problem with this. If his experience as a businessman is truly his greatest attribute as a candidate, then why is it unreasonable that he fully disclose information about it. Yet, Mitt says Bain Capital is off the table and believes he doesn't need to disclose his tax returns. I do care whether his company outsourced jobs, especially when his party is crying over the USA team's uniforms being made in China.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

And another question, when you sign papers for your husband's business, who is responsible for that business? Mitt was the CEO, President, sole shareholder, made a 6 figure salary during the times he was gone, yet believes he is not responsible for anything his company did? How does that work?


SassySue1963 4 years ago

But that is my point. You care if Romney outsourced jobs with no proof he did so but ignore that the President used your tax dollars to outsource jobs. Completely ignore it. As for record, the President's record on the economic front peaks for itself, failure. Yet you ignore that as well. Romney has to do this, but not the President. Romney has to do that, but not the President. President Obama refused to provide a simple birth certificate for how long? He did not even make it public until after he was elected among complaints that he was not born here, which is a law. . But Romney should parade his tax returns to the world? For what? What are you going to learn from his tax returns about what sort of President he would make? I mean, really, please enlighten me why his tax returns effect his Presidency.. President Obama outsourced our entire Space Program to Russia but that's okay?


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

How exactly did the President outsource the Space Program to Russia? As for the birth certificate, he presented a certified copy, which is all that was required. (Short Form) But no, the birthers wanted the original. Nobody has an original. You don't have the original. I don't have an original. The County keeps the original. (At least in CA, I don't know Hawaiian Law) When the State of Hawaii said he was born there, they still demanded originals. By the way, are you saying the President isn't a citizen? Wasn't born in the US? Really?

As for tax returns, every candidate gives tax returns. Why is Romney different? And yes, I would like to know if Romney made his Millions outsourcing jobs. Romney made it relevant. He boasts his business experience yet refuses to provide any information about it that hasn't been tainted by his campaign. I want to make my own decision. How


SassySue1963 4 years ago

Where did I say he wasn't a citizen? I said about the whining about providing it. They did not ask for originals, they asked to a copy with the State Seal. The one I had to order to get a job here in PA based on a Federal law so I don't really care if the President felt inconvenienced because he had to provide one as well. Romney did provide his 2011 tax returns. It is the one where he clearly claimed that money in those bank accounts that everyone keeps trying to say was "hidden". They want OLD tax returns. He is not required to provide them at all. In fact, no candidate is REQUIRED to provide tax returns.

As for the space program. We don't have one anymore. You know, NASA cost too much in the grand scheme of things. If we want to go to space to fix a satellite or anything of that nature, we now have to hitch a ride with Russia. At a cost.

Is the President going to provide his tax returns for 1999? I doubt it. what has the President done in the last four years to make him qualified? Nothing. He's done nothing but make it worse. His policies have failed miserably. So...what are you asking President Obama to do in order to prove he can fix it? Anything? No. What is President Obama's business background? What makes him qualified? The last four years certainly have not proven him qualified on the economic front. It is beyond the pale to demand that Romney provide tax returns from over 10 years ago and then to call him a felon because he refuses. But, that is the double standard this Administration thrives on.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Nobody is calling him a felon because he is not providing tax returns. He will not speak or provide documents regarding his business experience but says that is the reason he should be President.

Really, Obama has done nothing as President. Economy is better than it was when he took office. American prestige around the world is better than when he took office. Sadly, Republicans refuse to acknowledge that it was their policies that caused the Great Recession. While even I will agree that the economy still needs improvement, jobs must be created, I give the President credit for stopping the free fals the economy was in.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

The economy is not better off. Where do you get that? We're in the longest run of unemployment over 8% than we've ever been. All experts agree that if you count the uncounted, those who are under-employed and those whose benefits have run out, it is closer to 13%. I don't know where you live, but outside of gas prices dropping some (I might add that they are still $2 a gallon higher than when he took office) everything is higher and continues to rise. What economic indicator is better?

He has already spoken about it, already explained it, but because he will not produce 10 year old tax returns, then he's a liar or a felon. It is a distraction by the Democrats so you forget that they've done nothing to turn things around. And apparently it is working for some people.

Your Democrats (as I told someone else) just said that if the Republicans did not agree to raise taxes, then they would allow the country to go off the proverbial financial cliff. Compromise? What's that? No, it's do exactly what we want or we'll take the entire country down with us. Yeah, they're real concerned about you and everyone else in this country. But, it's always the big, bad GOP. Whatever. The Dems talk about compromise, but their idea of it , is do everything I want and we'll talk about what you want later.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

How can you say the economy is not better. When Obama took office, the global economy was on the brink of collapse. Foreclosures were running rampant. Unemployment was free falling.

And really, you are going to say it is the Democrats who won's compromise. Republicans have been nothing but obstructionists. They have used the filibuster more than anytime in history. They have held the government hostage numerous times. And their answer? No jobs bills, whatsover voted on in the House. Republicans have said no to everything, even things that was their idea.

And Mitt's answer. Go back to the same policies that created the Great Recession. Tax cuts for the rich. No government regulation. But we can trust him because he has business experience. But we can't ask about his business experience. We can't ask if he made his millions by outsourcing jobs and firing American workers? Please.

To not admit that the economy is better than it was when Obama took office is being untruthful. You don't have to agree that the economy is great, it is not. But the financial markets are not free falling. The economic world is not about to end. And to say otherwise is simply not admitting the truth.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

There is not a single economic indicator that is better. Did you even check out the latest jobs report? We are not even creating half the jobs we need. The unemployment figure, as I already stated, as experts agree, in actuality is closer to 13%. You can't just say people suddenly do not exist because their benefits run out or they take part-time jobs, when they need full-time jobs. Those people still count.

The world isn't still on the verge of collapse? We aren't? Is that why city after city in America is now declaring bankruptcy? Because we're better off now?

You only prove my point with your "it's all the GOP". They've had one filibuster. They asked to vote on amendments. It was blocked by the Dems. So they asked to see the bill first. The Dems said no. So they said they would not vote on it if they could not read it first. Bad GOP! Go blindly vote how the Dems tell you!!!! No need for you to know what you are voting for! They had two years to do whatever they wanted. The President said "if I don't fix it in my first term, then I should lose my job." We should hold him to those words.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Wow, not a single economic indicator is better? Really? The Stock Market isn't better. Really? 1 Filibuster? Really? The last 4 years have seen a record number of filibusters. And I love how that actual unemployment rate (which I agree is too high) isn't good enough. The Right must inflate numbers. If Conservatives cared so much about people who are underemployed or unemployed, why does the right cut off benefits. Why do they celebrate outsourcing jobs?

So where is the Republican job plan? Oh, its tax cuts and more outsourcing. And tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.

The economy is better than it was 4 years ago. While not great, I will grant you that, going back to Bush's economic policies is not the answer.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

By the way, if you want to know why tax returns are necessary, please look to Ed Gillespie for the answer. He is a membre of Mr. Romney's campaign team and was the head of the Republican Party in 2004.

Here are a couple of links:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/17/53095...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1244977/p...

So, members of the Romney campaign were demanding that the candidate's wife disclose her tax returns, but now those same people are saying that ful dislcosure is not needed. Odd.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

You assume I supported that call for tax returns. I absolutely did not. I did not think she should have to provide them, and I don't think Romney has to provide them.

The Democrats and the President's more government, bigger government, more interference from government, and more control of your personal life by government plan is most certainly not the answer.

You may be ready to let the government dictate all aspects of your life for you, but I am not. Once they can "tax" you for NOT buying something, where do you think it ends? You did not buy an approved "green" car from our campaign contributors? Oh, here's a "tax" at the end of the year. You did not buy little Johnny Nike shoes? Oh, here's a tax.

Big Government never works. Never. It has never worked in the past and to believe it is going to work now is just, well, living in a fantasy world.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

I didn't assume you called for Ms. Heinz's tax returns. I was providing an answer to a previous question, why tax returns? But at least you are consistent, and commend you for that. But there is a difference between a candidate and a candidate's spouse. Apparently, Mr. Gillespie didn't think so until it was his guy in trouble.

Democrats want to control personal lives? Really? The old saying remains true, Republicans want a government just big enough to fit in people's bedrooms.

We are agreement about the mandate. I don't like it either. I don't like being forced to buy insurance from a big insurance company that cares less about me and my family than the government does. Of course, I already have insurance and am already getting screwed by insurance companies. God forbid that I actually got sick and had to use the insurance I paid for for years without ever using. They tried to drop me, sent me 20 page questionaires about my personal life, made my life a living hell, refused treatment after treatment. So tell me how government healthcare will be worse?

I agree, government cannot be too big. But no government is not the answer either. No regulations, no regulators, no taxes doesn't work. President Bush proved that. Ironic that it is Obama who has made government smaller in the last 4 years. Bush grew the size of government then refused to allow them to do anything. A Department of Homeland Security that did nothing for security. Director of FEMA who knew nothing about how to deal with natural disasters. SEC Chairman who knew nothing about economics. The list goes on and on. To show that I am not just spewing hatred, I like Condi Rice. Think she did a great job.


SassySue1963 4 years ago

I like Condi Rice as well. I really wish Romney would pick her as his running mate, but all reports are she is not interested in politics at this time. I liked Colin Powell, till he got odd and unsure where he stood on anything. I don't know about Homeland Security. I know of late it has not been that great, but it did serve a need and handle things early on. FEMA, yes, that guy was useless. Then again, FEMA has never really been efficient at all.

Insurance companies are demons. All types of insurance. Health, car, life. But I've dealt with the government. My son had a short term disability. So I was dealing with the health insurance company and the government at the same time. Trust me. The government is worse.

Yes, the Democrats want to control everything. I know to an extent that they all like to stick their hand in our cookie jar, but the Democrats are way worse when it comes to big government.

Now, I'm not being argumentative, I'd really like to know, how has President Obama reduced government? Unless you are referring to defense as reducing government. He has more Czars than any President in history and his plan only calls for more government jobs.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Actually, the size of the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security has increased under Obama, not decreased. Other agencies, such as Agriculture have either remained the same or decreased. Further, state and local governments have seen dramatic cuts in jobs due to a cut in Federal Spending. Now many, incluidng me, do not think this is a good thing. But tax cuts certainly won't help. But overall, the size of governmetn is smaller. The size of government under Bush ballooned, and he didn't pay for it.

I like Colin Powell too. He made too much sense for the Bush White House. Good guy and great American. Like John McCain too when he is not running for President. I actually like many Republicans. Bob Dole (honor of meeting him a couple of times) and George H.W. Bush. My problem with the current Republican party is that these gentlemen would not be welcome. I don't think Ronald Reagan would be welcomed by the likes of Bachmann, Limbaugh and Hannity. They claim to love him, but you notice they would call many of his policies "socialism."


NC4Life078 profile image

NC4Life078 4 years ago from United States of America

First off I would like to state that I don't follow a political party. This being said I believe we should vote for the man who can fix America. After Obama's term in office, I think many Americans see that Obama hasn't done much for the nation.

There is the whole UN Gun Ban: (make sure you watch the video at the bottom too) http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7080

Next, more Americans are now on food stamps than ever before.

His party attacks Romney affiliating with Baine Capital when he was clearly the chairman for the Salt Lake City, Olympics.

Obama created 85,000 jobs and says it’s a step in the right direction. This was after he opposed Bush's creation of 315,000.

The new health plan will "Tax" Americans that do not get onto a health plan. I'm glad to know many Americans that can't afford health care will be punished.

All though Romney was booed at the NAACP, what they didn't report was that he had a standing ovation. While Obama is "Unable" to go, in other words he probably believes they will vote for him because of the color of his skin. Sadly, many people will do just that.

And Obama has put what is it now? 5 trillion dollars onto the national debt and the unemployment rate is still 8.2% for "Civilians" and 12.1% for Veterans. Remember, with the end of a recession we have an economic up rise. Where is this booming economy that always follows a recession? Recovery is slow, I am no economist by any means, but, this could be attributed to Obamas years in office.

Sure Romney is rich, but, who cares. It doesn't affect me any, if he knows how to run the country better than Obama, he has my vote. I may dislike him as the republican candidate but he is the lesser of two evils. I will give him a chance over another 4 years under Obama.


bgpappa profile image

bgpappa 4 years ago from Sacramento, California Author

Fair enough. There is plenty about Obama that can be pointed out. In fact, I don't believe I am a part of any political party anymore either as the Democratic Party left me and became the Republican Party of 1996. But at least be fair to Obama. The economy is better than when he took office. The economic world was ending in October 2008. Remember, John McCain postponed his campaign to try to fix it. People forget how scary it was.

While the economy is not booming, everyone is arguing about how slow it is improving. That is an admission that it is improving. And this is done with an obstructionist party saying no to everything, even things they themselves supported before January 20, 2009.

And where is Romney's plan? For heathcare? He has offered nothing of substance. Instead he will allow those without insurance to remain without insurance or any means of getting it. I'm not a fan of the mandate either, but at least as part of the plan those who cannot get coverage can get covered. As someone with a pre-exisiting condition I appreciate this.

For the economy? He offers tax cuts for the richest Americans without saying how he is going to pay or it. If Republicans are really into cutting the deficit, shouldn't they at least pay for the tax cut they propose? No, same old Republican line. We saw how it worked.

My problem with Romney isn't that he is rich. Good for him. But he got rich by outsourcing jobs and destroying companies. He is the current days Gordon Gecko. While his type of business is a must in a Capitalistic society, it does not mean he can run a Country. And he won't even talk about his experience or tell Americans what his company did. He says it is off the table. That is a problem when he also states it is the reason for voting for him.

Yes, he chaired the Salt Lake Olympics, but apparently he remained in control of Bain at the same time. This was an ethical violation (apparently, I honestly don't have enough of the facts yet). But the problem is he refuses to clarify the issue.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working