Growing voter confidence in economy lifts Obama

CHARLES BABINGTON and THOMAS BEAUMONT, Associated Press

Sunday, September 30, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are growing more optimistic about the economy and President Barack Obama's leadership, creating a significant obstacle for Republican rival Mitt Romney five weeks to Election Day.

Even with unemployment above 8 percent for a 43rd straight month, polls find voters taking comfort in modest signs of economic progress, from a solid jump in consumer confidence this month to steady gains in home prices. Surveys show Obama opening up leads over Romney in several key states, thanks to voters such as Jim Young, 62, a retired engineer from eastern Iowa.

A political independent, Young says Obama's policies have eased the nation's pain as the recovery plods along. "The markets have been doing quite well," Young said. "So, personally, things are going well and we can't complain."

Interviews with voters in vital swing states and opinion polls suggest Romney inadvertently played into Democrats' long-running efforts to paint him as an out-of-touch plutocrat when a secretly recorded video showed him saying 47 percent of Americans consider themselves victims who depend on government care.

"Romney seems fake, especially after the 47 percent comment," said Kurtis Nash of Cincinnati. "I've always voted for Republicans," he said, but now he's leaning toward Obama.

"I think Obama understands the importance of a strong middle class and he wants to do more to build the middle class," said Nash, 33, a chef at a downtown restaurant. "Maybe he didn't at first, but I think he does now."

Whether the video played a big role or not, Obama is leading in polls in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and elsewhere. Romney's backers are struggling to change the momentum in a race shaped in large part by voters' perception of the economy and their overall view of who would do a better job for the middle class.

"Sometimes there is a tipping point in politics where the cumulative effect of several things — and one singular defining event — can flip voters in one direction," said Republican pollster Steve Lombardo. "I think that was what did happen with '47 percent.' It came after two bad weeks for Romney and crystallized voter perceptions, driven by negative ads, that he only cares about rich people."

Such happenings, Lombardo said, are "lethal in politics."

Obama aides are quick to note that the election is far from over, and any number of unforeseen events could shift the tide. The Romney team hopes Wednesday's presidential debate in Denver — the first of three in October — will enable the former Massachusetts governor to alter the campaign's dynamics.

Analysts in both parties point to several likely reasons for Obama's leap in the swing state polls, including:

— Rising economic optimism.

From the start, Romney said voters should fire Obama chiefly for his handling of the economy. But Americans are feeling somewhat better about the economy, and less inclined to see Romney as the needed fixer.

Associated Press-GfK polls conducted in May and June showed voters about evenly divided between Obama and Romney on the question "who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy." Romney held a narrow edge in August.

But a September survey showed Obama opening up a clear lead on the question, 50 percent to Romney's 43 percent. Among those voters most likely to turn out, who were first measured in September, the two candidates were about even.

The latest poll also showed more adults approving rather than disapproving of Obama's handling of the economy, for the first time in more than a year.

Meanwhile, consumer confidence rose to its highest level since February, the government reported. And the median price of homes sold last month increased by a record amount as mortgage rates remain at an all-time low. The once underwater housing market is showing signs of a modest recovery.

A Washington Post poll of Ohio and Florida voters found more confidence in an economic rebound under Obama than under Romney.

— Romney's struggle to connect with voters.

Romney, who made millions of dollars heading the private equity firm Bain Capital, has never had a breezy rapport with voters. But Democrats — and some GOP rivals during the primary — have worked to portray him as something worse: an unfeeling "vulture capitalist" who doesn't mind laying off workers to increase profits.

Romney's team hoped the Republican convention in August would present him as a caring and competent leader. Polls suggest it didn't help much.

A new Quinnipiac-CBS-New York Times poll found that substantial majorities of likely voters in Ohio and Florida think Obama "cares about your needs and problems," while solid majorities think Romney does not.

The Washington Post poll of registered voters in three battleground states found Obama far ahead of Romney on the question of "who better understands the economic problems" of Americans. Obama bested his Republican challenger by 53 percent to 39 percent in Florida, 54 percent to 37 percent in Virginia, and 57 percent to 34 percent in Ohio.

Strategists say Romney's "47 percent" remarks — secretly recorded at a May fundraiser and released this month — have wounded him at a crucial point in the campaign.

"In one moment there was this crystallization for a lot of people about how he viewed them," said Jim Margolis, a top ad-maker for Obama.

Numerous Democrats say Romney blundered by airing few TV ads during the two weeks of the parties' back-to-back nominating conventions, which bracketed Labor Day. It gave Obama's team free range to depict Romney as a tone-deaf mogul, just when many voters were starting to pay attention, these Democrats say.

Romney's latest efforts to show a more compassionate side are getting mixed reviews. He told NBC on Wednesday, "don't' forget, I got everyone in my state insured" when he overhauled Massachusetts' health care system. The comment seemed at odds with Romney's repeated vows to repeal "Obamacare," whose central feature is mandated health coverage for everyone.

— Election seen as a choice, not a referendum.

Starting last year, Obama's campaign did all it could to frame the election as a choice between two candidates with sharply different visions, and not as a referendum on the president's problematic economic record.

Romney's team took the opposite tack. It worked to couch the election as a verdict on high unemployment and economic anxiety on Obama's watch.

The theory that Obama would sink from his own weight now seems questionable, and Romney has adopted Obama's terminology.

"This election, in my opinion, comes down to a very dramatic choice between two different courses for America," Romney said Wednesday in Westerville, Ohio.

Matt Bennett, a veteran of Democratic campaigns, says Obama's recent rise in the polls "is the result of the race changing from a referendum on the incumbent to a real choice between two candidates."

"Now that voters are taking a harder look at their two choices," Bennett said, "they simply do not like what they see from Romney."

Interviews with voters in key states suggest that Romney still has time to gain ground, if he can convince Americans he will do a better job than Obama.

"I lost my home during his administration," said Thomas Lenner, a commercial real estate broker from Las Vegas who voted for Obama in 2008, and won't do so again. "Obviously, he's not the man for the job," said Lenner, 57. He said Obama could have done more to limit foreclosures.

Lenner adds, however, "I don't think Romney is the answer, to be honest with you. I don't think all the actions he's going to take are going to help all the American people."

Greg Sayabalian, 47, is another struggling Nevadan who has given up on Obama, but is not sold on Romney. He co-owns Hamdog's Restaurant in Gardnerville, a popular spot for construction workers until the 2008 recession hit.

"Overnight, they just stopped coming in," Sayabalian said. "My take-home pay is $595 every two weeks. My waitresses make more than I do."

Sayabalian said he's probably leaning toward Romney, but he hasn't ruled out Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Some Republicans have urged Romney to woo such wavering voters by offering more details about how he would cut tax rates without reducing the government's revenue, and how he would start balancing the budget while hiking military spending. Obama has begun taunting Romney for the relative lack of details in his proposals.

"No matter how many times they try to tell you they're going to start talking specifics real soon, they don't do it," Obama told supporters last week in Kent, Ohio. "The reason is because the math doesn't work."

It was the jibe of a confident-sounding incumbent, buoyed by encouraging polls in nearly every toss-up state. Romney has five weeks, and three big debates, to try to knock the swagger out of Obama.

Associated Press writers Sandra Chereb and Ken Ritter in Nevada; Daniel Sewell, Amanda Lee Myers and Thomas J. Sheeran in Ohio, and Todd Richmond in Wisconsin contributed to this report. Beaumont reported from Iowa.

More like this story

Graceful 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Lies are lifting Obama's hopes. American know better. There is no good news. Family income has dropped precipitously. Unemployment is actually worse than reported by the media. There are huge tax increases coming in three months. The value of dollar is falling. Income is not keeping up with inflation. Our ability to repay debt has been downgraded, The CBO projects will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession, with real GDP declining by 0.5 percent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013 and the unemployment rate rising to about 9 percent in the second half of calendar year 2013.We are headed south and any American with any sense knows this.

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Where and what is Romney's economic plan? Where are the specifics? We hear lots of goals and platitudes but we want to hear what Romney would DO! He's running out of time.

I can easily see that he's not Obama and wes have heard plenty of negative from you, and Connor, and John, and clingingredneck, and him. Where is Romney's plan?

him 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Where is Obama's plan? Haven't heard it.

newone 7 months, 3 weeks ago

So when Obama win's its going to be because of lies? Funny how the only lies I see have been coming from Romney, just face it Graceful the American people are seeing Romney for what he is, a lier and a cheat and while Obama is not perfect by any means Romney is MUCH worse and people know that!!

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 3 weeks ago

From the article:

"Some Republicans have urged Romney to woo such wavering voters by offering more details about how he would cut tax rates without reducing the government's revenue, and how he would start balancing the budget while hiking military spending."

Indeed! Lots of Democrats would vote for Romney if he could explain how that would work. There are publications readily available that explain the impact of the various exclusions and deductions, and the impossibility of adopting those conflicting goals is simple to understand once you grasp sheer size of the mountains of money involved.

So, overall, maybe I was wrong, It sounds more and more like Romney would need to wave a magic wand and VP Ryan would have to get out the blue smoke and mirrors if any of that is going to work out. Ryan has already said the math is "too compliated to explain".

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Truth? It's in all the newspapers every day. Even Fox has had to admit that things are getting better for the country and for Obama. Obama needs no defense - the facts are good enough. I'll take bitter and angry over desparate and deluded every day.

BMaple 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@"Him": Would you care to propose why Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan would be a better option?

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Grace and Conner have been asked all summer, and they have no plan? Please continue to ask the questions, because they have no answer, to what Romneny, and Ryan can do for them, or us. I continue to push on SS, MC, and HealthCare. With no answer from the Conservatives. ROB

connor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I am only interested in one plan and that is reduced spending period. Something which Obama has not done and never will do no matter how many supporters say he will.

Sequoia 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I just don't see why "reducing spending" is the end all and be all.

We should spend on things that have value. We shouldn't spend on things that have no value.

Just saying "no taxes" or "no spending" completely takes value out of the equation. Value is the most important thing.

Take care of what we have (that's conservative). Invest for the future (that's liberal).

We need both views. Only one candidate has shown himself capable of looking at "value" instead of just "spending" or "taxes." Obama

Obama is the conservative choice in 2012.

Obama is far more fiscally conservative than conservative heros like Ronald Reagan. Check it:

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-greatest-trick-obama-ever-pulled-is-convincing-the-world-hes-a-socialist/260318/

and

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/obama-most-fiscally-conservative-president-in-modern-history/254658/

You keep drumming the narrative of "Obama socialist" and "Obama big spender," because that's what the celebrities on Fox tell you to think.

Read something. See what's really going on.

connor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I don't even own a television nor have I watched any in years (other than Netflix) except on the computer.

Spending is the end all. You cannot spend and borrow until the in coming revenue is less than what you are spending and expect the ride to continue. Staying within a budget, in fact getting a budget passed is conservative. Operating without one while basing your justification on feel good emotional politics is liberal.

We have reached the point where taking every dime of every working person in the U.S. rich or poor cannot pay the bills. By 2018 we won't even be able to pay the interest at the current revenue stream.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You need to come on into the 21st century, go out to the money tree, and get a TV for the DEBATE. Rob

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Stay on them BMaple, it is all about compromise, both parties are short on compromise but you have to come to the table to say you tried! Rob

MO4LIFE 7 months, 3 weeks ago

thats just a boldface lie Obama has given republican ideas right back to them to pass and they say Nope should of did it when we wanted to do it!! Childish uncompromising and treasonous.!

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I am interested in reduced spending as well, but not on the BACKs of what hard working people have paid into their entire lives. Rob

JCLifer 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Who else besides the working people will pay for the spending? The rich will always buy influence to protect their wealth, and the poor are all on the government teat. The working people always pay for everything.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You hit it on the head JC Lifer, all I am trying to do is protect what I have paid in for the last 40 years, I expect my country to honor their Promise to me and all who have worked. I am not willing to let people who don't own TVs, dictate policy towards SS, MC, and Health Care. You have to engage in society, I watch TV, Internet , 2 News papers, several magaziness of a wide variety of subjects. I have said before I am willing to pay my fair share of whatever tax burden. The Rich need to pay their share , and the poor theirs. Unlike some on this page who would rather drop out and walk on dirt paths, with none of the comforts of society,except Netflix. Rob

JCLifer 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm with you all the way on this one, Rob. I think everyone should have a little skin in the game, even the poor.

The rich supposedly already pay a bigger percentage of their income than everyone else, but I think that needs to be looked at. How much more they should pay is the question. If you tax folks too much, they will not strive to be rich. (Tax me at 80%, and I'll probably just quit working.)

We need to get back to defining our promises and what is important and what is not as important. We need to keep past promises to those folks, and if changes are needed, the changes affect the new ones coming in. Sorry, but that is only fair.

Reading a wide range of media is probably important. However, it would help if the readers would get together and tell the media (with their wallets) what is allowed and what will not be tolerated. The extreme polarization and extensive reporting on the outliers is not helping anyone except the media.

I think we are our own worst enemies. Our own greed, corruption, and lack of morals is what is dragging this country down the toilet. I don't see anything improving in the near or long-term future. We may have to burn down before we can rise from the ashes and put it back together again.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks JC Lifer, all one can do is to try to take in as much information as possible, and make a informed decisions. I like your last pargraph, in my view that is a perfect description of the Boomer Generation, and which I to am a part of! Rob

JCLifer 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Me too...

online_editor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Please remember to stay focused on issues, rather than directing personal insults, name calling or other accusations at other forum participants. The latter tends to derail topic-oriented discussion by leading to back-and-forth bickering. On the other hand, labeling a political group "clueless," for example, is arguably a political opinion instead of a direct insult to another participant, and thus we hesitate to quell political opinions, but it too can become problematic if it prompts a series of name calling in response. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 2 weeks ago

At this point, I am going to call on you to moderate a little more moderately. Here is a sample of the trash talk from multiple posters in this thread alone that you have allowed to be considered "arguably a political opinion".

"The left has no explantion for the CBO's outlook so they resort to fantasy and lies. They left lies to themselves about anything and everything. They are solely responsible for the demise of the United States of America."

"thats just a boldface lie Obama has given republican ideas right back to them to pass and they say Nope should of did it when we wanted to do it!! Childish uncompromising and treasonous.!"

"It is the same old liberal talking points attempting to be repackaged. Liberals are trying this because some have realized that conservatism is rational and that most people realize this. They must hide the policies they champion because they can't win any other way."

"By looking at the Forbes 400 list actually the rich are getting richer and increasing the gap more under Obummer than ever before."

"The rejected the experience argument in 2008 and are paying the price for it now. It is obvious to all that are honest. Obama is no more experienced now than before except in failure."

"When some one accuses someone of soemthing it has been the American way for the accuser to prove it. But in the twisted liberal, which is not American, that is not their burden. The left created all of the problems we have. That is fact. And it is time to deal with them but the left won't."

"That is all the Republican’s know how to do is spread lies and rumors, they have been doing it since before he took office, sad actually, because they would rather spend time trying to discredit the president instead of fixing what thier own party started years ago but it will never end, they hate Obama they will never work with him, they will never compromise and help him get this country back in order because they are too busy hating and making sure he fails!"

"Romney is doing fine in Ohio. The Atlantic is pure trash. This is some truth that people need to learn: foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/01/vilvilsack-reacts-to-republican-concerns-about-mexican-nutrition-awareness/"

"The left can't handle the truth. If they don't start soon there is only one place this can all lead."

I have previously commented on this, and when I highlighted a few of the jucier comments a few days ago, my posts were eliminated also. While I agree that it is not appropriate for me to point out name-calling, the current situation makes our posters seem like inmates in an old-fashioned lunatic asylum. Calling another person or group of persons treasonous, liars, and other names is more like playground bullying than political commentary. I could post trash at least as well as the others but life is too short.

JCLifer 7 months, 2 weeks ago

None of these posts are personal attacks. I see no reason why they should be moderated. They are just opinions, and everyone has an opinion. For sure, the personal attacks, name-calling, and comments against the other posters need to be removed. When it does get personal- that is when the problems start and they quickly escalate.

Maybe you are taking these opinion comments a little too personal? I don't see any of them directed at you or specificaly at any other posters on this forum.

online_editor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I believe it would be problematic for a moderator to expand his judgments to the level you're suggesting because it's frought with subjectivity. It delves further into judgment about the value of the author's ideas and the way they express those ideas than simply policing personal insults directed at other participants does. There's not always a bright red line with the latter either, but it's clearer than deleting a post for being too harsh in a general way toward a politician, political group or ideology. Is calling a politician a socialist a personal attack or a political opinion? How does a moderator judge when a criticism is too harsh or too sweeping? Does, for example, civil debate mandate that you describe the opposition party as "uninformed" instead of "dumb"? Where are those lines? I think the quality of discussion would be improved if people avoided such sweeping generalities and ad hominem statements in favor of discussing specifics of problems and solutions, and we try to encourage that, but I don't see how it's practical for a moderator to delineate the line between "trash talk" and political critique in cases like the ones you cited. It's best left for the readers to judge the value of that sort of commentary. IMHO. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks for the response. I don't envy you that job. My presence here will be reduced substantially since I will not go as far as others seem eager to go.

connor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

As a matter of fact the only plan I have heard coming from Obama and the left is taxing the rich more and letting the tax rate go back to the Clinton era and constant money printing.

If we let these socialist take all the wealth from the Forbes 400. No not just tax em on what they make a year mind you but take EVERYTHING they own we would be able to raise a one shot payment of 1.7 Trillion Dollars. That will not even take care of pensions and education for one full year and it would put some few millions out of work besides.

People like Maple, Paraquat and Rob can scream racism or whatever they want as loud as they want. Point any fingers they like as well but they can never make 1 + 1 = 3. This isn't about getting more pork for your particular ethnic or gender group or crying in your beer about some mythical kid who could have been a contender. NO people this is about the very fiscal survival of a Nation. Nit pic to your heart's content the end result will still be the same.

BMaple 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Connor, I am not sure where you get your information from but you are sorely lacking then. President Obama has been in office for four years. The White House has a wonderful website full of details of his policies that are incredible helpful and accessible to the public. Romney, on the other hand has no transparency. In fact, he won't even disclose his own tax returns. Even today, Ryan was asked point blank by Fox News what exactly their tax plan was and he replied that he 'didn't have time to explain'. That is not right. Connor, come on, it is simply not right. We are all entitled to our own opinions but how, on Earth, are we suppose to formulate our own opinions on things if we don't have the information to do so properly? I feel that this is why Republicans are often left with nothing but to criticize the other side...because they don't have anything to latch on to...they don't know what their leaders platforms are. How can they with leaders like this?

connor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Romney has submitted his returns, and it showed he paid more in taxes than Obama and gave twice as much to charity as Obama and Biden combined. Obama won't even show his college admittance records nor any other personal information. Not a one of Obama's promises short of the healthcare fiasco has ever been followed through on and your so called transparency is nothing but fluff his only plan is to tax the rich and spend spend spend.

Spend less get my vote it is that simple and it should be that simple for any intelligent American.

BMaple 7 months, 3 weeks ago

It has long-been expected that nominated candidates submit anywhere between six and twelve tax returns. Mitt's father released. Twelve. 12! He even stated that that should be expected of anyone in that position!

nationalmemo.com/six-more-republicans-who-want-to-see-romneys-tax-returns/

BMaple 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Further, there is a huge difference in income between Romney and anyone else who has ever run for office, ever. President or Vice - so of course their tax rates will differ, and of course their donation rates will differ! That is not a fair or logical comparison to make. And if "spend less" is all it take to get your vote than that is not very much! For example: what about social issues? Did you know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are hesitant to unveil their tax plan because it will undoubtedly raise taxes on middle-income families, or, that just today (literally, this morning) on Fox News Paul Ryan was interviewed about, and asked, point-blank about it and he refused to speak about it saying he 'didn't have time'? Further, did you know Romney/Ryan are opposed to equal rights for all Americans or that Ryan voted, on record, against American woman being able to be payed at the same rate as American men in the workplace? Or that they would forbid all funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood which provide free counseling, birth control and cancer screenings for at-risk youth across the nation? These are things that you really should know. Whether you support them or they anger you you should know them, so that you can have an opinion about them and they inform your vote.

connor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

For one you are making accusations that have no base. Your attempting to insert a proctor hoc scenario for several of your points such as voting against equal pay. The simple liberal "emotional" discharge of fear mongering.

In other areas, not funding planned parenthood would immediately get my vote anyway. PP promotes abortion before anything else, which since you like to tax people should really upset you since that is where millions of potential taxpayers were removed from the equation.

It's simple. I mean really simple now follow along....

WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY OR THE RESOURCES TO FUND THESE THINGS ANYMORE.

Your complaints about Republican's (Of which I am NOT a republican BTW) not caring is akin to pointing a finger at a construction worker who didn't help a cancer patient pay off his billion dollar car loan. Sure it would have been a sweet thing to do but where was he going to get the money? All the caring on earth isn't going to matter in the end when foreign central banks stop buying our debt or a loaf of bread costs $300.00. As a matter of fact the foreign governments have already stopped buying the debt.

Alas this is the final puzzle of Democracy as no one will vote away their own goodies.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

What would you cut Conner? Rob

Sequoia 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Speaking of emotional discharge, the idea that funding for Planned Parenthood has anything to do with our budget crisis is absolutely absurd. That's just ideological nonsense.

The drivers of the budget are military spending and health care costs.

Romney's plan on the military is MORE MORE MORE and INVADE IRAN. His plan on health care is DO NOTHING. His plan to cut taxes will blow the deficit wide open.

And you're saying Romney's going to change Washington. He's going to magically change the economy. NOW who's all "hopey changey"?

Don't be a sucker. Romeny's the same old Republican candidate. He's nothing new. Tax cuts for the rich while he laughs at the rest of us. The old school conservative movement's playbook got us in this mess. And you suckers are going to go right back to him?

When the Republicans put up a real conservative, instead of a true believing follower of the "conservative movement," then I'll take another look at them. Right now the only sane conservative choice is Obama and the Democrats.

True conservatives care about conserving what we have.

Sequoia 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Well, except for the fact that the people have seen Obama work, they've seen his policies, and they've seen Romney's. We know "supply side economics" doesn't work, because we've lived through the failure. There is nothing rational about the argument that you can raise tax revenue and increase jobs by cutting upper-income taxes, because it didn't work under Bush. It won't work under Romney. You can't just repeat something Reagan said 30 years ago and think it is going to work in a different time and place.

The world has changed since Reagan. The conservative "movement" has not. Nothing rational about that.

People see this. And the people are choosing Obama.

Sequoia's plea for Obama is coming from a pragmatist. Show me what works. Call it "liberal," call it "conservative," whatever. It's all noise to me.

Show me what works. Obama's policies have been working.

Romney's policies are about the rich getting richer. That won't work for me.

The policy I champion, as a conservative, is that we should pay attention to history: the U.S. economy has always worked best, and innovated most, when we look for creative, pragmatic partnership between the public sector and private sector.

The false choice between "government" and "private enterprise" is not rational, because these are not independent, self-contained institutions. They grow toegether and depend on each other, just like all of us. The rich depend on the poor and vice versa.

This is just practical reality. Obama is the only candidate who will acknowledge this. Romney is so busy trying to play to the base and convince us that we're all living in some stupid Ayn Rand novel.

But this ain't no fairy tail about Galt's Gulch. This is real life.

In real life, conservatives know that liberals are not the enemy to be vanquished. Liberals look to the future. Conservatives remind them to remember the past. We need both. We don't need any ideology that makes enemies of half our fellow Americans. We don't need an ideology that jumps to the answer (tax cuts, for-profit war) before we know the actual facts of the question.

Reject polarizing ideology. Reject the conservative "movement." Vote Obama, and tell the Republicans to start living in reality.

John 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Actually, one of your statements is absolutely incorrect; supply side economics DO work. They built this country.

Sequoia 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Just to be clear, "supply side economics" refers to the idea that tax cuts increase government revenue because more people make higher wages.

Even in theory, this is true only to a point: The Laffer curve has a midpoint... that is, even according to the theory of supply side economics (and that's all it is, a theory), there comes a time when cutting taxes begins to decrease government revenue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The problem with the Laffer curve is that, like most economic models, it is based on so many assumptions that the models never work out in real life. There might be something to them, but you can't go around saying "supply side economics works," because the evidence is to the contrary.

THE BUSH TAX CUTS DIDN'T INCREASE GOVERNMENT REVENUE. IT BLEW A HUGE HOLE IN THE DEFICIT!

You can't say "supply side economics works" and not explain that.

Why don't you look at the tax rates after WWII, when this country had a population, economic and development boom, and tell me what really built this country:

nytimes.com/2012/03/18/business/marginal-tax-rates-and-wishful-thinking-economic-view.html

I'll tell you what built this country: Cooperation between the public sector and the private sector for the general welfare.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks Sequoia, Today Supply side economics is refer to Trickle Down Economics, which brings us back to less Taxes and Regulation. Everyone knows where that has led us from the last 8 years of BUSH2. Rob

TomScooterJones 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Are you saying less taxes and regulation are bad? WOW. What is wrong with the person who earned the money keeping more of it? And less government wrapping up its citizens with red tape (current tax codes) is not helpful either. Less fed, more freedom, more personal responsibility, and less nanny state is what we need. Both "sides" are to blame, and it's time to quit the bickering and star the fixing....how about beginning with the perks Washington politicians get for the honor of serving? Then, after they prove they can tighten their belt we move onto some of these departments that are out of control on spending. You want a BIGGER federal govt, by all means vote Obama.

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Bad choices were made over the twelve years since the last time we had a federal budget that was anywhere close to balanced. We tried lower taxes and less regulation, and they might have worked if things were different. Reality has come to pay us a call and it is time to make some changes to accommodate that reality.

The United States government currently takes in about two-third of what it spends and primarily because of massive tax cuts in the Bush II era. Those tax cuts were supposed to lead to economic growth but they did not, and that's why less taxes are bad.

One of the primary casues of the massive banking and insurance industry failures in 2008-2009 was the elimination of supervision and relaxation of regulations in those industries. That's why less regulation is bad.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Black smoke belching into the sky, red sludge poring into the creek, big banks doing what ever they wish, and Wall Street? Personal Responsibility, you might trust them, I don't, I would pay my fair share, whatever it may be! How about you Tom Scooter Jones, where would you make the cuts, plese tell us, I would like to know? I would fire all the congress, they can not get it together, starting with Hartzler, anyone who pledge to Norquist should go right now. that would serve as the warning. Rob

connor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

By looking at the Forbes 400 list actually the rich are getting richer and increasing the gap more under Obummer than ever before.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Under Bush 2s Tax Cuts, and their trickle down part of that seem to really be trickle up and hold. Rob

spelchek 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Too bad W. hasn't been President the last four years with Democrat super majorities to boot. Otherwise, your argument (or lack there of) might make sense.

connor 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Even though I read the whole thing I could have stopped at.

"Drivers of the budget are military spending and healthcare cost"

You obviously have not looked at overall government spending totals.

Pensions, Education and healthcare individually overtake defense spending almost every year. Sometimes defense spending will creep up above one of the big three but is almost always back down before the fiscal year is over.

Right now. Pensions are at 1 trillion, healthcare is 1.1 trillion, education is .9 trillion and defense is .9 trillion.

usgovernmentspending dot com

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Romney's returns showed just a hint of the massive amounts of offsh ore investment that he has hidden. What he admitted as income and what he paid taxes on are just a fraction of what he has going on. It's all legal, but why are we supposed to let someone run our country when he has moved so much of his investments elsewhere? Stupid language filter!

spelchek 7 months, 2 weeks ago

"It's all legal, but why are we supposed to let someone run our country when he has moved so much of his investments elsewhere?" -- Better yet, not paying taxes at all, that's illegal too. That said, let's talk about presidential appointee Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and his contributions to tax revenues.

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Nice attempt at a diversion, but no thanks. Instead, let's stick to something relevant. We have two guys running for president.

spelchek 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Yep, and each one has the power to appoint a tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury. President Obama has and Governor Romney has not. Whatever right? Who cares? Let's divert back to Romney's illegal activities you have overwhelming proof that allows you to make such outlandish accusations. Which law has he broke? Why isn't he being prosecuted? Who wrote the tax laws he's not being prosecuted for complying with? He's proven he's given millions to charity and taxes already, how many more millions do you think he should give and why?

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I had previously written that it's all legal. Sorry I can't help you with whatever it is you are trying to say.

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Conner, I have never posted about Racism, on this blog or any other for that matter, but you are the second one on NT site that has brought me into a post. The first one was about club motivation, I do not understand the point you are trying to make so please elaborate? Rob

him 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem.

Any American living through this economic crisis will immediately recognize the severity of the break that Mitt Romney proposes from our current course. He is calling for a fundamental change in Washington’s view of how economic growth and prosperity are achieved, how jobs are created, and how government can support these endeavors. It is at once a deeply conservative return to policies that have served our nation well and a highly ambitious departure from the policies of our current leadership. In short, it is a plan to get America back to work.

tonto_goldberg 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Those are goals, and vague ones at that. How will he do those things? Wave a magic wand, while dressed in his magic underwear? If I thought it would work, I'd encourge him to do that but I don't believe in such things.

BMaple 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You see, it all sounds so great. So full of buzz words, but no specifics. No plans. No references, or details, or plans, numbers or graphs. No proof or evidence or witnesses or anything! LIKE A POLITICAL UNICORN

eileen10 7 months, 3 weeks ago

By now you all probably know I'm not well versed in politics but everything I read about Romney smells fishy. He could maybe do well at something but not as our President. He's vague and like it or not his being a mormon comes into play. He's all for the rich because they stress this and as far as how charitable he is he has to give 10% of his income to the church or he won't be in good standing and will be unable to have more children in heaven when he dies and he won't be able to be a God of his own world. Theres plenty more and I for one do not want him as President.

nozepicker 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You would think that with the anti elite feelings in the country right now, the GOP would have the sense not to send an out of touch rich guy as their candidate. Heck yeah, we all send our dancing horses to the olympics in their own private jet. This guy is going to hand Obama another four years. Its Palin in 2008 all over again. Get your act together GOP leadership!! Ron Paul and Herman Cain only suspended their runs, unlike the rest that quit. To late??

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Romnenys Taxes for 2011 took 379 pages to complete his rearrangement for President. I do not need someone who can fix the books, I need someone to be President! 34 off sh o re corporations, or partenerships should keep any body busy enough. Rob

TomScooterJones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Had enough of this guy. Not thrilled with Romney, but he does have a record.....and a successful one, and he has run something (businesses, a state). O's biggest problem, he never had a worthwhile job that translated into being a good president, and it showed. Not sure where folks are getting confidence from, I sure don't see.

newone 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Running a business is nothing like running a country, that is Romney's problem if he runs it like his business he will ship jobs over seas, hide money from the goverment in off sh*re accounts, lie on his taxes and God knows what else.

spelchek 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Romney at least ran a state before applying for the job. And Obama ran what exactly? Produced what exactly? How many people did he employ before coming POTUS? Looks to me Obama is doing just fine killing jobs and HE is currently the POTUS; but don't tell that to libs, they think Bush still is president. Romney lied on his taxes? Are you Harry Reid newone? You're one to talk about lying.

Sequoia 7 months, 3 weeks ago

...and he ran that state like a liberal. Is that what you're voting for?

The people rejected the experience argument in 2008, which is when it had relevance. Now Obama is more experienced.

The government is not a business.

newone 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Well if Harry Reid is wrong why doesn't he prove he is, sorry but if someone is calling me a liar and I am running for such an important office I sure as heck would prove it which he refuses to do, that only leaves me and millions of others to believe he is a liar.

Last time I checked Obama saved a LOT of jobs with the auto dealer bail out, if Romney was in office all of those people would be part of that 47% that Romney is calling losers. And no Bush isn't running this country anymore (thank God) but created this downfall, his policies which are a lot like Romney's is what started this horrible shape this country is in right now, it took him 8 years to get us in the mess we are in yet you people expect Obama to get us out in 4, sorry but this is real life it takes time to rebuild the disaster that the Republicans created!!

newone 7 months, 3 weeks ago

lol, you are too funny Graceful, but like I said and will always say if he has nothing to hide he will prove to this country he isn't a crook! The only reason he has not shown them is because he knows what it will show and it will show he is a liar and a cheat, period! And I am sorry but the Democrats did not start the problems this country is in, that is a fact you can't seem to accept, Republicans started this mess and no matter how much you say they didn’t we all know it’s true except for you. Let me list some facts: Unemployment Rates Bush Jan 2001 4.2%
Aug 2003 6.1% Increase of 1.9%

Obama Jan 2008 7.8% Aug 2012 8.1% Increase of .3%

Gas prices under President Bush was as high as $4.12 in 2008, highest gas prices under President Obama $3.90 in 2012. But I am sure you will say these are all lies and the US Department of Labor is lying right?

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

and President Obama only had January 2008 for 10 days! Rob

spelchek 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Historical amounts of Americans on food stamps = voter confidence? Who are these "voters"? Obamaphone anyone...

obamaphone.net/

Sequoia 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Here are these voters:

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/meet-the-ohio-voters-who-are-killing-romneys-campaign/263061/

Don't you realize the "obama phone" website you linked to actually debunks the rumor you're trying to spread?

Slow down, dude. Read something. You might learn.

newone 7 months, 3 weeks ago

That is all the Republican’s know how to do is spread lies and rumors, they have been doing it since before he took office, sad actually, because they would rather spend time trying to discredit the president instead of fixing what thier own party started years ago but it will never end, they hate Obama they will never work with him, they will never compromise and help him get this country back in order because they are too busy hating and making sure he fails!

newone 7 months, 3 weeks ago

wow Graceful, you truly live in your own little world if you think Romney is doing "fine" in Ohio..

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Grace, he is not doing fine in my world. Rob

yamahamian 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Rob - you say youre unemployed - how fine are you doing with the status quo?

RobHunterJohnson 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I am waiting my turn to go back out! Rob

spelchek 7 months, 3 weeks ago

"Don't you realize the "obama phone" website you linked to actually debunks the rumor you're trying to spread?"

From the website:
"The free Obama phone is an important program, especially for low income families that would otherwise not have access to basic communications. There are different plans to choose from. Some plans offer fewer minutes and more texting and some even include rollover minutes. Make sure you check out all the plans before choosing the one that is right for you. Get Started Now

Click Here to learn how to qualify. If you have further questions about the Obama Phone, visit our Obama Phone FAQ."
No rumor that "obamaphone" exists. The link is right there for you to sign up. I have read and learned; learned that you are a habitual sycophantic liar.

JMO 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You are aware that the phone program wasn’t started by President Obama, right? It was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that was an extension of a program that began in in the 1980's. That someone decided to call it "Obama phone" doesn't make it an Obama administration program. He had nothing to do with it. In fact, I'm pretty sure the expansion to cover cell phones, instead of landlines, occured prior to the 2008 election.

spelchek 7 months, 3 weeks ago

"You are aware that the phone program wasn’t started by President Obama, right? " -- Show me where I said the program was started by BHO. He didn't start two wars in the middle east but he spent $600,000,000 to take them over in 2008. He owns those wars just like this subsidy that is apparently popular in Cleveland, OH.

JMO 7 months, 3 weeks ago

So, the fact that he, nor any other president since Reagan, nor any member of congress until just this year, introduced any bill to repeal this law, makes it his? Is that what you are saying, because I really don't get the logic there.

Not trying to be a smart aleck...really trying to understand how he's to blame for the money being spent on a program from 1985 or so.

Sequoia 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Yeah, the "rumor," is that Obama started the program as way to buy welfare votes. You presented the information as something Obama had done, and YOU are the one who posted in the thing about Obama phones in a post about welfare and votes. So don't pretend like you're all innocent. You know exactly what you were doing. I called you on it. Don't lash out at ME. You're just trying to be cute.

Below you can read about the forwarded email that this junk comes from, which attempts to link the program to Obama. It is part of the manufactured narrative that Obama uses the welfare system to buy votes, the same manufactured narrative Spel indulges in, because its easy for him.

freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone

TomScooterJones 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Obama had his chance, and two years with a majority in the house and senate. Name calling and false accusations will not change Obama's record of failure, a record he owns, and neither will putting blinders on. Adding debt to our children and grandchildren at a record pace is not noble, not change, and sure doesn't instill hope in anyone but our creditors. And how come Reagan, Clinton, Bushes, and Nixon can work with opposition and get things done, but Obama cant? Is he incompetent, lazy, or is the GOP just dominating him?

Or login with:

OpenID