Posted on 09/03/2012 8:01:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A day after fumbling a predictable and straightforward question posed by Mitt Romney last week — are Americans better off than they were four years ago — the Obama campaign provided a response on Monday that it said would be hammered home during the Democratic convention here this week: “Absolutely.”
The focus on the campaign’s handling of the question, after halting and contradictory responses from Democrats on Sunday, complicated the White House’s effort to begin striking a set of themes the president intends to highlight here and carry through the general election.
That effort starts with an argument that Mr. Romney, the Republican nominee, would raise taxes on the middle class while cutting them for the wealthy. It seeks to pitch forward to the next four years the case that Mr. Obama and his allies have made over the spring and summer that Mr. Romney’s business career showed him intent on profit even at the expense of workers and that his wealth has given him tax advantages not enjoyed by regular people.
“The problem is everybody’s already seen his economic playbook,” Mr. Obama said at a campaign stop in Ohio before a Labor Day audience largely consisting of United Auto Workers union members. “On first down he hikes taxes by nearly $2,000 on the average family with kids in order to pay for a massive tax cut for multimillionaires.”
The Obama campaign began running a new commercial making the same point, and asserting, “The middle class is carrying a heavy load in America, but Romney doesn’t see it.”
As delegates streamed in for the opening of the convention on Tuesday, Mr. Obama and his team were putting the finishing touches on a program that requires a different kind of political daring from the one they showed
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
gas has doubled, food is way up, unemployment way up, home equities wiped out, real personal income maybe half of four years ago....yep we are better off than we were 4 years ago...
I watched the “Hope & the Change Video”; very nice. Of course it begs the question: What change did these people want? What did they expect? Didn’t they listen to him when the said “we can’t have 5% of the world’s population and use 25% of its resources?” What about “Under my plan, utility rates would necessarily skyrocket?”
When I was in college, I read “Biedermann und die Brandstifter,” a German play that was an allegory for the passivity of middle-class Germans who refused to believe that Hitler would do exactly what he said he would do, and then were shocked when Germany and Europe were destroyed. I learned to listen carefully to what politicians say when you know they really mean it. Like 0bama’s quotes above.
These people are disappointed because they’re stupid. Sorry, but it is what it is.
Are you sure your post is directed to me?
Anyway, without even knowing what you are talking about and without even knowing what middle class is I have a hard time answering you. But I’ll try anyway -
I did hear that Romney was more interested in lowering taxes on those making under 250k than those making over 250k. I don’t think those making under 250k deserve to be treated better by Romney than those with higher income. I think Romney is full of Commie class-warfare against the high income producers.
He didn’t. And there is nothing to point at that signifies it will happen.
I hope they really beat that drum, because there’s WAY too many people who can see with their own eyes that such a claim is total BS, and if they had no doubts before about what liars the Obammunists mighgt be, then this one should give them serious pause as to what else the RatCommies have been lying about.
Better off? Yeah, four years ago Democrats owned every branch of the government. Now, they don’t, and they’re facing the real possibility of not owning ANY branch of the government.
I just scanned by them, but I could tell they were Obama Love Propaganda shows. The Media does not hide their ideology, they celebrate it.
The question should be are you better off now or if McCain had been elected?
The Bolshies try to make the argument that things would not be this good if DumBO had not been elected. The argument is would it be this bad if McCain had been elected. We would not have JackA$$care, $5 trillion added debt, Dodd-Frank, EPA regulations, oil drilling moratoriums, and wars lost among other disasters.
McCain would have destroyed what’s left of the Republican Party, and probably gotten us into WWIII over Syria or Libya.
From your Keyboard to God’s Monitor.
So, then, they are offering four more years of the same?
Democrats Don't Know Sh|t!
Our family is certainly worse off than we were. One person was laid off and is now making 2/3 what he was, another family member is underemployed, and a third is unemployed. And in spite of making less, we are all facing higher taxes next year. If this is better, I would hate to see worse.
On Face The Nation, Guv O’Malley [Dem from MD] said we are not better off than 4 years ago, then added that it was not what this election is about. He then proceeded to balme Bush ...
To which Bob Shieffer replied that Bush was not on the ballot ...
I live in MD - O’Malley is a lying sack of sh*t. He bullied the legislature into increasing taxes on those making $125,000 or more and also got them to pass a bill for a 6th casino in the state.
Like $125,000 goes a long way in MD [without the increase in taxes] and like we have enuf gambling population to support 6 casinos !!!
This is going to hurt, but you do realize that this might be exactly what NEEDED to happen?
I’m not promoting WWIII, that would be terrible, but instead of standing our ground in the middle east for something that might resemble moral principles we instead have an administration that is avoiding conflict by happily supporting the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the entire region one country at a time. McCain MIGHT have avoided taking this path.
And destroying whats left of the Republican Party? Having that happen four years ago and hitting rock bottom might have given us time to rebuild our platform instead of what we got this time: stuck with Romney when we could have done much better.
For example... Palin would have had 4 years of VP under her belt right now and would be next in line. If she could have gotten through that relatively uncorrupted we might have had another Reagan landslide on our hands right now.
And why are you saying things that force me to support McCain, whom I might dislike even more than Romney? I’m going to have to go take a shower now.
“Sadly, yes. An awful lot of brain dead Americans absolutely buy it.”
I agree, but this is a hard one to push on people. Anyone who wants to believe it gets kicked in the face every time they stop at a gas station or supermarket...
RE: So, then, they are offering four more years of the same?
Yes. That is why their theme this year is — FORWARD ( as in forward towards the cliff ).
OK, if Democrats think we are better off than we were 4 years ago, and if only about 33% of polled persons say they are better off than they were 4 years ago, doesn’t that translate into only 33% of the population [or less] are identifying themselves as Democrats?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.