Romney's Tithing

[Coach McGuirk]

So, to me, the way you frame the question above implies that Obama is responsible for whatever is "broke" and that Romney can "fix it." Which to me is not remarkably different than Romney blaming Obama for Utah Basketball sucking and claiming he can restore our former glory.

That is very remarkably different. Holy shit is that different.

[smokymountainrain]

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the political season dumbs things down so much that candidates and incumbents take credit for things that only had to do with them in indirect ways and blame each other for things that they had to with in indirect ways. They also claim to be able to "fix" things it is not remotely in their power to. Someone said this above, I think, but beating the 8% unemployment drum is very facile. Does any serious person think that the President of the United States has any more than an indirect impact on that number, particularly when the Congress controls so much? Of course not. The question is, is he setting the right policy so as to help as much as he can with the part that the executive and/or federal government generally does influence. That is a fair question, of course.

So, to me, the way you frame the question above implies that Obama is responsible for whatever is "broke" and that Romney can "fix it." Which to me is not remarkably different than Romney blaming Obama for Utah Basketball sucking and claiming he can restore our former glory.

No, I'm not saying Obama is solely responsible for the poor economy, nor do I think Romney presidency will surely improve it. But what I do know is that the Obama presidency - whatever impact it may have on the economy, big or small - has not worked in regard to our country's economy. Will a Romney presidency have a more positive impact? I don't know, but I think we need to at least try.

Perhaps you're saying Obama/Biden/Romney/Ryan have absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of the economy, and you may be right. But if you are correct, there sure is a lot of smoke being blown up our asses by Romney, Obama and the media.

[byu71]

given the recent comments of certain republican candidates on women's issues I think it's safe to say that both parties' unhinged elements are becoming more unhinged.

I could be bias.

Unhinged comments I have heard from dem. politicians and surrogates.

Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Biden, the gal who talked about a felony, B. Burton, Wasserman Shitlz. Except one all current elected officials. None of these people have been denounced by more than a few of their colleagues.

Now the other side.

Akin, Trump. Neither an elected official and one of them soundly repudiated by fellow republicans.

[Moliere]

This thread even has the exact same title...

[UtahDan]

Perhaps you're saying Obama/Biden/Romney/Ryan have absolutely nothing to do with the success or failure of the economy, and you may be right. But if you are correct, there sure is a lot of smoke being blown up our asses by Romney, Obama and the media.

"Absolutely nothing" is too strong a phrase, but otherwise that is very close to what I think. Especially the blowing smoke part. I think the affect they have on larger economic forces is comparatively small and I don't believe that even the smartest folks are able discern with any level of confidence what impact what one president's policies have or what another with different polices might have. They know this, but they play the game because the reward is so big. It's the gamble that is made every single election year where the economy is struggling. The challenger blames it all on the incumbent's policies and then prays that the winds don't shift before election day. The incumbent is praying they will.

If people want to challenge a President or challenger on foreign policy, federal regulation, the appointment of judges or a whole other list of things they actually directly control, that is fine. But the global economy? Might as well blame them for the weather.

[Pelado]

If people want to challenge a President or challenger on foreign policy, federal regulation, the appointment of judges or a whole other list of things they actually directly control, that is fine. But the global economy? Might as well blame them for the weather.

They already have...

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=60715

[smokymountainrain]

"Absolutely nothing" is too strong a phrase, but otherwise that is very close to what I think. Especially the blowing smoke part. I think the affect they have on larger economic forces is comparatively small and I don't believe that even the smartest folks are able discern with any level of confidence what impact what one president's policies have or what another with different polices might have. They know this, but they play the game because the reward is so big. It's the gamble that is made every single election year where the economy is struggling. The challenger blames it all on the incumbent's policies and then prays that the winds don't shift before election day. The incumbent is praying they will.

If people want to challenge a President or challenger on foreign policy, federal regulation, the appointment of judges or a whole other list of things they actually directly control, that is fine. But the global economy? Might as well blame them for the weather.

Makes sense.

[snowcat]

If people want to challenge a President or challenger on foreign policy, federal regulation, the appointment of judges or a whole other list of things they actually directly control, that is fine. But the global economy? Might as well blame them for the weather.

[UtahDan]

That there is funny!

[YOhio]

That there is funny!

Thanks, Larry the Cable Guy.

[Moliere]

"Absolutely nothing" is too strong a phrase, but otherwise that is very close to what I think. Especially the blowing smoke part. I think the affect they have on larger economic forces is comparatively small and I don't believe that even the smartest folks are able discern with any level of confidence what impact what one president's policies have or what another with different polices might have. They know this, but they play the game because the reward is so big. It's the gamble that is made every single election year where the economy is struggling. The challenger blames it all on the incumbent's policies and then prays that the winds don't shift before election day. The incumbent is praying they will.

If people want to challenge a President or challenger on foreign policy, federal regulation, the appointment of judges or a whole other list of things they actually directly control, that is fine. But the global economy? Might as well blame them for the weather.

I think the president has more impact on the economy than you probably give him credit. Presidents appoint Federal Reserve board members, set tax policy agendas, set regulation agendas, etc. All of this impacts the economy both directly and indirectly, so I'd probably say the president has more than a comparatively small impact on the economy, but how big that impact is is difficult to tell. I would also say that a presidents impact on the economy is likely not felt until 1 to 2 years into a presidency, which is why the stagnation we are in right now is disconcerting with Obama potentially being reelected. The stagnation stems from uncertainty of so many things that are coming up in the next 12 months.

The best thing any president could do for the economy is to make a long term solution and stick to it. Obama waffles on financial/economic solutions like Romney waffles on social issues and frankly Obama's waffling scares me much more than Romney's flip flopping. I can't take 4 more years of 6-12 month solutions on debt ceilings and spending.

[UtahDan]

Can he get away with saying that he will or won't do things for religious reasons but that he's not going to talk about his religion?

Rachel Maddow is reading my posts.

[byu71]

Rachel Maddow is reading my posts.

You watch Rachel Maddow's show?

[creekster]

The best thing any president could do for the economy is to make a long term solution and stick to it. Obama waffles on financial/economic solutions like Romney waffles on social issues and frankly Obama's waffling scares me much more than Romney's flip flopping. I can't take 4 more years of 6-12 month solutions on debt ceilings and spending.

This.

I have heard this precise complaint from several of my clients. Some of them are former Obama supporters but have found it is possible to plan for their businesses under Obama.

[pellegrino]

Rachel Maddow is reading my posts.

I would say great minds think a like, but I don't feel that Rachel Maddow really has a great mind, even though she thinks she does.