Printable View
the CBO said Obamas plan never balances the budget. If things were so bad when he took over why did he add 5.3 trillion to the debt? If he couldnt do it in the last 4 are we really to believe now all of a sudden he can ? Its worse now than it was when he took over . Unemployment 8.3% 23 million out of work and things are getting better? Excuse after Excuse maybe he will have more beer summits that will solve everything just keep people drunk and they wont know whats happening to them.
You act as if a republican will balance a budget....only president that has was Clinton. Look at what unemployment was when Reagan was president...at its best it was 7+%Quote:
Originally Posted by gmhr1
Well one thing I know for sure it will never get balanced if Obama stays in . I dont only vote republican I vote for the best person for the job, But he's all you have. Paul Ryan is the only one smart enough to ever balance the budget. Im all for saving medicare and Romney/Ryan will do that. Obamas big plan extends it 8 more yrs. Just put a bandage over it and turn the other way thats the Obama plan.
Clinton wouldnt throw obama a life raft if he was drowning what a joke for him to speak. Talk about going in reverse what does Clinton have to do with the theme forward, he's yesterdays news. He hasnt been any help the last 4 yrs, We still dont have a budget. You cant go back to the Clinton days and you cant go back and keep blaming Bush for everything Obama made a mess he cant clean up, its time to go
Ryan's buget calls for an increase of 5 TRILLION in our Debt Ceiling over the next ten years, Obama's is 8 TRILLION.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/201...budget-details
Hopefully, that is why Romney said he would NOT use the Ryan plan. Cuts is future spending is nothing more than politics. Cuts need to be made NOW and a balanced budget needs to be in place NOW. One major problem with the Ryan plan is there are no major cuts to Defense spending where there is a huge amount of waste!
Anyone find it odd that that in Romney's acceptence speech that he made no mention of the troops, yet he wants to be Commander In Chief?
Not really, this election is all about the economy and jobs... Even Obama and the media have been trying to hide the war and the carnage to our troops. He could have spoken about it, but the media is in radio-silence mode about the war anyway these days to protect Obama... I probably would have talked about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
I have no doubt he will respect our troops more than Mr. Form Letter-in-Chief.
I would hope so but, why not take the high road and screw the media?Quote:
Originally Posted by huntinman
No one is perfect. No matter what his speech was, somebody would find something to nitpick about it... Overall, it was pretty darn good and the bamster is in trouble.
seriously...you of all people know how the media works now..You are in the media business....even with you candidate the media decided what was newsworthy and what was not...Even I have to agree they did not cover RP with the same objectivity as the other candidates....Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
The candidates and their campaigns walk a tightrope, one misstep and the media and the internet is all over them like stink on dog poop...look how closely they scrutinized Clint Eastwood...look how some on here are still convinced that Beck and Limbaugh are the mouthpieces of the party
Besides Clint talked about it he said Obama set a target date to bring the troops home, and Romney had the best question why set a target date why not bring them home in the morning. I agree if Romney had picked on Obama that would be bad, dont say enough bad things about obama thats bad. There is no way to win with the media, cnn msnbc, cut away when the fomer olympians were on stage and most of the speakers. They are so one sided it hurts.
menmon, if you think 23 million people out of work is positive job growth you must be smoking some good stuff. Obviously you are uninformed or not watching the job numbers.