Even the Fox News Poll Shows Obama's Lead Growing: Is Romney Losing the Attack Ad War?

He was winning until Matt Taibbi and Bill Clinton jumped on him: Matt Taibbi: So what did they talk about? The line that astonished me most from Mitt's speech was this one, where he talked about the changes Americans "deserved" and should have gotten during Obama's presidency:

You deserved it because you worked harder than ever before during these years. You deserved it because, when it cost more to fill up your car, you cut out moving lights, and put in longer hours. Or when you lost that job that paid $22.50 an hour, benefits, you took two jobs at $9 an hour…

Are you kidding? Mitt Romney was the guy that fired you from that $22.50 an hour job, and helped you replace it with two $9 an hour jobs! He was a pioneer in the area of eliminating the well-paying job with benefits and replacing it with the McJob that offered no benefits at all. One of the things that killed him in the Senate race against Ted Kennedy were Kennedy ads that reminded voters that Mitt's takeovers resulted in slashed wages and lost benefits. He was exactly the guy that eliminated that classic $22.50 manufacturing job, like in the case of GST Steel, where Bain took over with an initial investment of $8 million, paid itself a $36 million dividend, ended up walking away with $50 million, and left GST saddled with over $500 million in debt. 750 of those well-paying jobs were lost.

What kinds of jobs were left for those fired workers to look for? Well, in the best-case scenario, you might have found one at Ampad, another Bain takeover target, where workers had their pay slashed from $10.22 to $7.88 an hour, tripled co-pays, and eliminated the retirement plan.

So a guy who eliminated hundreds of $22 an hour jobs and slashed hundreds more jobs to below $9 an hour blasts Barack Obama for not giving you the better life you deserved, after you lost your $22/hour job and had to take two $9/hour jobs. Are we all high or something? Did that really just happen?

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/p...

Bill Clinton: Then Clinton single-handedly dismantled the Romney campaign's central talking points. Of the charge that Obama had watered-down Clinton-era welfare reforms, he said, “the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true.” Clinton explained: “when some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent. You hear that? More work.” He continued with a sharp elbow, saying, “But they keep running ads on it. As their campaign pollster said 'we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself.”Of the other Big Lie employed by the Romney-Ryan campaign, Clinton said, “When Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama’s Medicare savings as 'the biggest, coldest power play,' I did not know whether to laugh or cry.” He noted that the Ryan plan featured the same “cuts” – they aren't cuts in Medicare benefits – that Obama enacted and Romney called a "raid" on Medicare, and added, “it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.” http://www.alternet.org/elect...

Its been four years since Bush, almost 30 since Reagan. Give it a rest. If you want to reach back, it was Clinton, in conjunction with ACORN that started our present RE-Bubble-and-Burst economy with sub prime loans to irresponsible borrowers. (RE:The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act, 1999, repealed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removed market barriers between banks, securities, and insurance companies, and started the move toward illogical sub-prime lending). And, you are partly right, Bush did not FIX the problem, he went lib and refused to let the SENILE businesses die by proposing the bail outs... which Barry implemented.

But then BO had two years with full control of both houses, and was fully free to help the situation. Despite the bail out, and all his glorious Campaign Promises, his policies did not begin to make the unemployment situation better, or lower the national debt, or anything else. . Everything got steadily worse for those two years. It was in a downward spiral, just because of those high tax, overspending, anti-business policies. (His policies scare the &*%$ out of small business people. I am a SCORE Counselor so I hear it first hand).

His failures in the financial arena was why the GOP won the House in 2010. And as you so clearly point out, they have successfully stopped his putting in even more destructive, socialist 'laws' designed to strangle small business with more taxes and regulations. (He now campaigns with claims to have reduced taxes on businesses 18 times?? Seriously??? Name ONE! My small business clients can't.)

Like Barry, You seem willing to constantly blame those leaders from thirty years ago, from twelve years ago and now from just two years ago, with No Blame for the man in the middle, the guy who has been in charge for four years. Nice logic.

What BS, back to history class for you. Every economic problem we have today is directly a result of the failed economics of the conservative named Reagan.

In 1982, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was passed, which removed restrictions on loan-to-value ratios for Savings and Loan banks. Reagan's budget cut also reduced regulatory staff at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. As a result, banks invested in risky real estate ventures (sound familiar?). Reagan's deregulation and budget cutting contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989. It also allowed Wall Street to get into the speculation business in the area of real estate.

"...For the role that America and Ronald Reagan played in that, it represented to many a moment that came to symbolize the best of what America had to offer. There's another side though, the economic one and specifically deregulation of the financial industry, where the aftermath of the transformational presidency that was Ronald Reagan hasn't exactly gone as planned. In regards to the current financial crisis:

"...The cause of the current troubles dates back to 1980, when U.S. President Ronald Reagan and U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher came to power. It was during this time that borrowing ballooned and regulation of banks and financial markets became less stringent. These leaders believed that markets are self-correcting, meaning that if prices get out of whack, they will eventually revert to historical norms. Instead, this laissez-faire attitude created the current housing bubble, which in turn led to the seizing up of credit markets...""

to understand and fix the problem you first must understand the cause. We are living with the effects of Reaganonmics, but you still negate that his policies are the root cause.

You also speculate that the obstructionist TPer's and GOP's NOT passing of legislation made things better by not making them worse- This is a big assumtion of your part, and we will never know, but you still don't want to accept any of the underlying causes as the fault of conservative economics and in that, you are narrow minded and short sighted.