Posted on 10/04/2012 10:06:19 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Obama never claimed that, based on his record, he deserves four more years. Rather, he said that he’s been fighting “every single day on behalf of the American people, the middle class, and all those striving to get into the middle class.” He continued, “I’ve kept that promise, and if you’ll vote for me, then I promise I’ll fight just as hard in a second term.”
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Is Obama still running against George W. Bush for President in 2012 ? just wondering...
CAN'T defend his own record
What is Obama’s plan for anything? All his commercials and speeches are are anti-Romney. Romney should embarrass him in the second debate by asking him what his plans are for a second term.
An impassioned Romney reinvents himself — again---For Obama, it’s just the facts — not the fire (??)
IMHO, the deleterious affects of all that coke and all that pot are showing more than ever.
Historically, campaigns that only attack their opponents and not promote their agenda loose.
Historically, campaigns that only attack their opponents and not promote their agenda loose.
Just to be fair, it isn’t only Obama that can’t defend his own proposals. Romney also promised an across-the-board 20% cut that would be revenue-neutral by either eliminating deductions or capping withdrawing, though he has ruled out the deduction that most greatly benefits the wealthy: preferential treatment of capital gains. Many economists say this is a mathematical impossibility, that only by eliminating deductions enjoyed by the middle class - which would in effect raise their taxes - can this be achieved. Romney says no but offers nothing concrete. Ryan says, if push comes to shove, lower taxes trumps deficit reduction.
Boy, did he dance and dance around that point. He answered nothing - in fact, all his dancing simply raised more questions, one being: His whole act may well be a red herring to divert attention from the need that most serious politicians acknowledge to balance spending cuts with revenue increases to balance the budget. Even if he managed to make his proposed tax-cuts revenue neutral, the budget would be no closer to being balanced than it is today unless he adopted draconian spending cuts.
Instead of serious discussion of the budget, he dangles 20% magically self-paid for tax breaks and eliminating Big Bird. He may have been smiley and avoided major gaffes, but he hardly made his case on that point. IMO.
What budget? There has been no budget in over two years.
As well, we need no balanced approach to continue funding big government. The problem is not funding -the problem is spending! Your analysis is premised upon a statist persective...
Government is not the answer -Government is the problem!
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.