Mitt Romney to make major announcement

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Redboard

What? The crowd loved it. They were overflowing out the door. I thought he put Mitt in his place and gave the people an entertaining time.

You have top admit, his rallies aren't boring.

Most of the time he makes Sarah Palin seem articulate, but as you say the crowds love him.

[_______]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Deja vu all over again.

Seriously, who would you find electable?

I see no republican who can stem the rising tide of liberalism. The numbers are not there.

I think the difficulty the party faces is that it has defined itself for the last 8 years as "Not Obama" without offering any vision of what it would do differently (other than "not whatever the Democrats just said").

We have wasted too much time coddling idiots who want to dismiss actual election results with down the rabbit hole theories about an elected President's birthplace and religion instead of working to persuade voters with a conservative vision that works for them.

The "rise of liberalism" you perceive is entirely the result of failures by conservatives to engage with actual voters. The Hispanic vote in this country (although by no means the unified bloc a term like "Hispanic vote" implies) is a socially conservative cohert which SHOULD be open to messaging about personal and fiscal responsibility.

But it's difficult to get that message out over loudmouth rhetoric about rapists and farcical walls that won't ever get built but will energize voters who perceive those words as grounded in antipathy toward them.

The short answer is that I don't know who might be a good candidate in 2020. I hope someone comes forward with a positive conservative vision. And I won't give up just because we get blown out in 2016.

[Stillriledup]

Did mitt speak yet? I'm busy losing money at the track, haven't been paying attn

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by clocker

President Obama has presided over an economic recovery — now more than six years old — that is far worse than all the previous 10 stretching back 70 years.

Even President Bush’s recovery from the 2001 recession — widely derided by Democrats and the press for being far too tepid — was stronger than Obama’s. After 24 quarters, Obama’s GDP is up a mere 13.3%. By this point in the Bush recovery, GDP had grown 18%.

All of which ignores the unprecedented obstructionism of Republicans in Congress.
Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but, at the insistence of Republicans, it cut $30B in funding for school construction. That cost 250,000 additional jobs. Republicans insisted on extending the Alternative Minimum Tax "patch." If the money spent on that had been used for stimulus, it would have created 750,000 jobs.

In Feb. 2010, Senate Republicans blocked cloture on the HIRE Act (H.R. 2847) and managed to strip down stimulus provisions, paring the bill to about $15 billion in poorly targeted economic stimulus; the bill originated as the House-passed Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion package of infrastructure investments, aid to state governments, and other job creation measures.

Also in Feb. 2010, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) filibustered the House-passed Temporary Extension Act (H.R. 4691), which would have extended emergency unemployment benefits, COBRA health insurance subsidies for the unemployed, and expanded Small Business Administration loan guarantees, among other provisions.

The following month, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) filibustered the Continuing Extension Act (H.R. 4851), a similar package of economic stimulus targeted toward the unemployed. In June 2010, Senate Republicans repeatedly blocked cloture votes on the House-passed American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213), which would have provided infrastructure investment incentives, business tax credits, a summer youth employment fund, and a six-month extension of emergency unemployment benefits, among other provisions. By July 2010, more than 2.5 million workers had lost unemployment benefits for at least a spell of time because Senate Republicans continued to block the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program, objecting to typically pro forma emergency designations for routine economic support (i.e., demanding offsetting “pay-fors”).

In Sept. 2011, Obama proposed the AJA, a $447 billion package of infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits, funds for rehiring teachers and first responders, and tax cuts for households and businesses, among other provisions. Senate Republicans filibustered the full $447 billion AJA, and subsequently blocked smaller subsets of the AJA that would have put a dent in the unemployment rate, notably funds to rehire teachers and first responders as well as $56 billion worth of infrastructure investments. All variations of the AJA would have been financed with surtaxes on millionaires—meaning that long-run deficits would actually be reduced by the AJA. President Obama proposed another variation of the AJA in his fiscal 2013 budget, which we estimated would have lowered the unemployment rate roughly half a percentage point. Congress only enacted a scaled back extension of the payroll tax cut (the AJA would have expanded it for workers and employers) and EUC (Congress unwisely lowered the maximum duration of benefits in high unemployment states from 99 weeks to 73 weeks in the midst of a long-term unemployment crisis). We estimated that full passage of the AJA would have boosted real GDP growth by 1.4 percentage points and employment by more than 1.6 million jobs by the end of 2012, relative to the scaled back extension of ad hoc stimulus that made it through Congress.

Throughout the recession and subsequent attempts at recovery, the Republicans have been motivated by an obsession with proving Obama is a failure. Without regard for the effect on working, middle class Americans, they have blocked every proven tactic for dealing with the situation. What they could not block they have watered down.

They are also motivated by the foolish idea that it is a good idea to cut spending in a recession.

The information above was found at the following:
http://www.epi.org/blog/congressiona...omic-recovery/

Note that the article is from January 2013, which means that the Republicans have had three more years to screw things up. And they have done a great job of that.

[MutuelClerk]

Mitt Romney is about as relevant as disco. Don't these dinosaurs realize they're unifying everyone? This is how out of touch these people are.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by _______

when what you are actually talking about is the will of just over 1/3 of the people.

Right now he's got a little over 46% of the delegates. The gop establishment is trying to deny what a large percentage of the party wants. The gop is not listening to their customers -- they are in denial.

[ArlJim78]

Good thing Trump signed that GOP unity pledge.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

All of which ignores the unprecedented obstructionism of Republicans in Congress....

...If the money spent on that had been used for stimulus, it would have created 750,000 jobs. ....


....Senate Republicans blocked cloture on the HIRE Act (H.R. 2847) and managed to strip down stimulus provisions, paring the bill to about $15 billion in poorly targeted economic stimulus....

Blah, blah, blah.

Nitpicking about minor cuts to a stimulus package of almost $1 trillion that accomplished jack-shite. As Obama himself said, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected."

Stimulus spending doesn't work. Keynesian economics doesn't work. This government, led by the tax and spend Democrats, have been trying it for over 50 years, and it just doesn't work. Never has, never will.

And the excuse, as put forth by the likes of the patron saint of stimulus, Paul Krugman, is always that it would have worked, but there just wasn't enough spending. It has never worked because we have never spent enough.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by mostpost

...They are also motivated by the foolish idea that it is a good idea to cut spending in a recession.

Yeah, increasing the National Debt from 10 to 19 Trillion was certainly a "cut" in spending.....

Mostie, I thought a well-educated feller like yourself would know that increased spending in a recession is ONLY a good idea when surpluses are collected during non-recession years. But then again, your elementary math skills are revealed when backing all those wealth re-distribution bills by the Dems. Please. At best government spending has a neutral impact, and at worst is a significant drain on the economy. It's ECON 101 for crying out loud.

But I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you still <pretend> to think there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans....

But I will agree with you on one thing - Obama did inherit a bigger mess than Reagan - and Ronnie gets way too much credit for raising defense spending, lowering oil prices and crushing the Soviets. The Soviets didn't go away, the cold war really didn't end, communism is alive and well, the world political stability is far less today because of it....

[Flysofree]

Good thing Trump loves the uneducated. The other 60% of the Republican party doesn't love him..

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Good thing Trump signed that GOP unity pledge.

I expect that will expire after the first convention ballot.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I see that you were born in October of 1968, so perhaps you can be excused for your ignorance of the Reagan years. Except that we now have a thing called the internet and all the information is at your fingertips.

Let's start with the Dow. In September 1978 the Dow stood at 3079.72. It reached a low of 2182.87 in August 1982; 19 months after Reagan took office. It dropped 29%.
In September 2007, the DOW stood at 15,757.69. It reached a low of 8401.72 in March 2009; two months after Obama took office. It dropped 46.7%. Obama inherited a worse mess.

Here are the unemployment numbers three years before to two years after Reagan took office.
Jan. 1978 6.4%
Jan. 1979 5.9%
Jan. 1980 6.3%
Jan. 1981 7.8%
Jan. 1982 8.6%
Dec. 1982 10.8%

The same for Obama.
Jan. 2007 4.5%
Jan. 2008 5.0%
Jan. 2009 7.8%
Jan. 2010 9.8%
Jan. 2011 9.1%
Dec. 2011 8.5%

So for Reagan we see that the numbers started out fairly high, dropped a little for one year then continued to climb every year until at least December of 1982.
For Obama we see that the numbers started out moderately low; climbed for the next three years, then started to fall and have fallen ever since.

Obama inherited a bigger mess and has been better at fixing it.

Seven of the ten largest Bankruptcies in US history occurred during or shortly after the Great Recession.
Obama had a bigger mess to clean up.

In the eight years prior to the Reagan Administration GDP growth averaged 2.9375% annually.
In the eight years prior to the Obama Administration GDP growth averaged 2.1125% annually.
Obama inherited a bigger mess.

The only area in which things were worse in 1980 was the area of inflation.
Inflation is under control thanks to policies which I am sure you disagree with vehemently.

You can't be serious, can you. Inflation hit 13.5 percent and interest rates were as high as 20 percent in 1980. Inflation and interest rates are much, much more of a problem than high unemployment. With unemployment high during this recession the fix was easy. Just extend unemployment benefits for 2 years or more. Whoever kept their job during this recession could and should have made out like bandits. Many people were not affected by this great recession. However, everybody was affected in 1980 with rising prices.

I would have loved to have seen Obama handle the economy with staggering interest rates and inflation. He got off lucky compared to Reagan.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Flysofree

Good thing Trump loves the uneducated. The other 60% of the Republican party doesn't love him..

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

YES!!! YES!!!

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Nitpicking about minor cuts to a stimulus package of almost $1 trillion that accomplished jack-shite. As Obama himself said, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected."
Shovel ready was stupid when Obama said it and even more stupid when Republicans used it to try and convince people that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't work. Some projects were delayed; none were canceled.

Stimulus spending doesn't work. Keynesian economics doesn't work. This government, led by the tax and spend Democrats, have been trying it for over 50 years, and it just doesn't work. Never has, never will.
Stimulus spending has worked. Just a few examples.
In 1933 FDR established the Public Works Administration (PWA) Rural Electrification Administration (REA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). I know it is dogma among conservatives that the Great Depression did not end until WWII, but here are some facts.
In 1933 unemployment was 24.9%. In 1937 it was 14.7%.

January of 1933 Dow Jones Average was 1116.60
January of 1937 it was 3099.00

Here are the annual GDP growth rate in the years following the official end of the Great Depression.
1934 10.8%
1935 8.9 %
1936 12.1%
1937 5.1%

In 1937/38 there was another recession, caused by the decision to reduce spending and try to balance the budget. Severe cuts were made to PWA, the newly established WPA and other programs. Unemployment went up to 19%.
The following year, the cuts were rescinded and additional spending was authorized. While the recovery was not complete until the war, the economy improved each year.
And the excuse, as put forth by the likes of the patron saint of stimulus, Paul Krugman, is always that it would have worked, but there just wasn't enough spending. It has never worked because we have never spent enough.

It has worked as I have pointed out. You are right about one thing though. When it hasn't worked it is because we have not spent enough.

Reducing spending is not a good way to get out of a recession. In fact at least five recessions since the Great Depression have "Reduced Government Spending" listed as a major contributing factor.