that's because ...
no president...
is totally responsible for the economy-
to the extent they are...
they should not be-
as the economy should not be run by govt-
Romney's claim that Obama is responsible for the economy isn't reaching the electorate's ears.
flaca BN-0
2012/08/09 02:25:43
Gallup poll this week shows that a majority do not blame the economy on Obama.
Should Romney concentrate on what he's going to do, with specifics, if he wants to change the dynamic which right now does not favor him?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gallup-poll-americans-still-bl...
Should Romney concentrate on what he's going to do, with specifics, if he wants to change the dynamic which right now does not favor him?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gallup-poll-americans-still-bl...
Top Opinion
-
rocat 2012/08/09 03:33:40


















Willard's only ideas? Profitize and privatize everything, and suck every last dime of public money for himself and the 1 %. His history clearly illustrates he's always been in it for himself, and himself only.
The Republicans have vowed to do nothing of substance until November. Okay, they are naming post offices and deciding if a handful of Olympians should pay taxes on money earned. This might very well be the most effort they have extended so far.
Some Con. was telling me yesterday that the first 10T of our deficit was created over the last 200 years, Then as typical he reminded me that our Country is over 200 years old..
Oh and another thought you won some game by telling me that the SCOTUS approved a voter id law..
I'm just curious what the best responce is to these kind of Assinine opinions..
Based on your comments below, what brought about the change of heart?
no president...
is totally responsible for the economy-
to the extent they are...
they should not be-
as the economy should not be run by govt-
especially when it is asserted ...
by a supposed conservative-
it is my understanding ...
that conservatives profess...
to believe in a policy of non intervention by govt-
have not found many cons who live that principle-
It's much more difficult to make the gov presence smaller.
They didn't because they would rather get the top job than help the country. If they came up with a brilliant plan Obama would jump on it. But they didn't, they haven't and they won't. Isn't is odd how not one leader of any country that is now suffering under the global collapse has come up with the answer? Could it be..............there isn't one?
Sure they did! They said "throw MORE money at the WEALTHY!!" And how well has THAT worked out?