Who do you think won Thursday night’s GOP debate?

How do you know what Romney really thinks? He bends and stretches and flexes in whatever direction he thinks will play to the majority, and I fully expect that if he's the president, he'll do exactly what he thinks will satisfy the majority. That's me thinking for myself. He's on the record for having flip flopped on abortion rights, on mandatory health insurance, and on various other issues.

I dont need for you to think my thoughts "FEEL HONEST." They are still my thoughts, and my thoughts are that if a GOP needs to win, I prefer Romney, because I expect that he'd be the least painful to me and my general wishes for the country. I think a lot of Dems feel that same way.

How is Obama's whoring himself out to big business any different from the GOP shilling to the corporations for massive donations and repeating over and over like zombies that "tax cuts on job creators will kill job growth and kill jobs" even though such tax cuts have created no jobs and there exists not a shred of empirical evidence that such a statement is true in any way? Do you actually intend to assert that this bull only floats one way?

I hardly think that Obama's or anyone's wish for a higher tax on the highest earners should be read as wishing to punish them. We're at historical lows in terms of taxation on the highest earners. The cuts that are being proposed by congress are primarily and almost solely cuts that would hurt middle and lower economic classes of people, and not overly have an effect on the highest earners. You call it punishing, and I call it sharing the sacrifice.

Feel free to hold out and try growing a business later, but recent profits are at historical highs, and taxes on individuals' income is at the lowest levels of our lives. You're just repeating the Fox mantra with your last paragraph. Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney, or whomever from the right are not going to suddenly make you able to run a profitable business.

I think Newt is the most qualified to clean up our government and Mitt is the most qualified to get our economy back on track. As a matter of fact it would be a good thing to kick all of the Obama jokers out and put all of the above in their place and get this Country back on track.
Remember this: nobody will go back to work until OBAMA and all of the DONKEYS are out of office.

Let me tell you what the Webster Dictionary definition of DONKEY reads:

Share
Noun, A person LACKING in JUDGMENT or PRUDENCE.
Nothing else needs to be said.

Share

Well you asked, so here is your answer. You may be SHOCKED again! read this.
And please stop getting your information from the lying Liberal news ABC, NBC, CBS, MSMBC, NPR, CNN, and all of the rest. One more thing WAKE UP! our Country is dying under OBAMA and the Democrat Party.

Let’s look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

During the Bush presidency, net total employment went up by 1.08 million jobs. So far, during the Obama presidency, total employment has been reduced by 3.3 million jobs.

Under Bush, private employment shrank by 673,000 jobs, federal employment grew by 50,000 jobs, and government employment grew by 1,753,000 jobs.

Under Obama, the private sector has shed some 2.9 million jobs while the federal government has grown by 40,000 (after growing massively, the federal workforce shrank throughout the summer). Total government jobs, however, shrank by 357,000 jobs, mainly because of cuts at the state and local levels.

Deceptive Jobs Comparison: Obama Vs Bush
May 18, 2010 | By BoomerJeff In ObamaNomics Deceptions |
In politics a deception often becomes accepted truth through continuous, unchallenged repetition.
With less than six months left before the mid-term election, President Obama and the Democrats appear to have contrived a deception they hope will overcome two major negatives:

1.The gargantuan “stimulus,” jammed through Congress before it was even printed, let alone read by the Senators and Representatives who voted for it, will add a Trillion dollars to government debt. But it did not deliver the immediate job creation results that were promised. Instead, job losses continued for eleven months and the unemployment rate has soared much higher than promised.
2.Massive tax increases, especially on small businesses, the engine of job creation, are set to begin next January.
The disinformation campaign targeting voters who don’t have the time or the inclination to pay close attention to political news or to dig out the truth behind the soundbites has begun. Over the weekend we saw a preview as talking heads repeating a new soundbite, paraphrasing a claim first made last week in the National Journal:

There will be more job creation in 2010 than in the entire eight years of the Bush Presidency

The intended message is that tax cuts – Bush’s job creation initiative – didn’t work, while the borrow-and-spend stimulus did. But the facts presented below contradict this deceptive message. First, a quote from the source of the sound bite the National Journal article:


From February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, total U.S. nonfarm employment grew from 132.5 million to 133.5 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s an increase, obviously, of just 1 million. From January through April of this year, the economy created 573,000 jobs. Over a full year, that projects to 1.72 million jobs.

Some, but not all the data that make this claim far less profound than it seems are mentioned later in the article. Of course none of the details will ever be supplied by propagandists who will repeat the soundbite a thousand times between now and election day.

To present the whole story we begin with a review of the Bush Administration jobs record

◦The dot-com bubble burst early in 2000, triggering an economic downturn. The Nasdaq, home of most tech stocks fell 45% in ten months. The predictable job losses began in January, 2001, the month Bush was inaugurated.
◦A total of 1.8 million jobs were lost in 2001 as the recession continued and then the 9-11 terrorist attacks forced thousands of businesses to cut back or shut down completely.
◦Bush responded by pressing Congress to enact the tax cuts he had promised during his campaign. Congress finally agreed to a schedule of tiny incremental reductions in tax rates to be phased in over several years. This proved ineffective and job losses continued through 2002 and into 2003.
◦In May of 2003 Bush persuaded Congress to abandon the incremental tax rate reduction schedule and enact large, comprehensive tax cuts all at once, retroactive to January, 2003.
◦Job growth began in September and continued for 51 months for a total of 8.1 million new jobs.
Another recession and the financial crisis hit in 2008 and 4.4 million jobs were lost by January, 2009 when the Bush Administration ended.

So without trying to either promote or criticize President Bush, an objective summary of his eight years would be:

◦32 months of job loses, totaling 2.6 million, caused by the dot-com recession and the 9-11 terrorist attacks,
◦51 months of job growth following the 2003 tax cuts, totaling 8.1 million new jobs.
◦13 months of sharp job losses, totaling 4.4 million, due primarily to the financial crisis.
Obviously, Bush made plenty of mistakes, and the final year of the his Administration was an economic nightmare with soaring unemployment. The debate continues over the cause of the financial crisis, whether it was government malfeasance through the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the simplistic “greed on Wall Street” we hear from Obama. But nobody can possibly make a case that the tax cuts of 2003 somehow caused the banking crisis and job losses of 2008.

The Bush tax cuts of 2003 demonstrated, for the third time, that reducing tax rates is an effective action the government can take to help the private sector generate more jobs and more prosperity. The first time was under President Kennedy in the Sixties. The second time was under President Reagan in the eighties.

But Obama and the Democrats are invested in raising, rather than lowering tax rates, and expanding the power of government through huge spending increases. Their hope is to exploit the generally negative public attitude toward George W. Bush and prevent voters from examining the data or remembering that more than four years of continuous job growth followed the tax cuts of 2003.

Another point of dishonesty in the National Journal article is the apples to oranges comparison. The article judges the Bush jobs record from the beginning of his administration, when the economy was already in recession. If Obama were judged on the same standard he would now be at minus 3.4 million jobs. But the National Journal scores Obama at Plus 573,000 by starting the count in his 12th month, even though his policy response, the trillion dollar stimulus, was enacted in third week of his Presidency, on the promise that it would, in his words, “immediately jumpstart job creation.”

You are so delusional and out of touch with reality that it is ridiculous. You need to copy and pasted from some article because you can form your own thoughts and opinions to begin with. You probably don't reallly know what you just copied and pasted, did you?
Because of the Bush recession, there were a total of around 8 million jobs LOST, genius. The cons in the Bush administration did not really want to regulate Fannie and Freddie. They had control of the Congress from 2000 to 2006. Where was no legislation passed and signed by idiot Bush. The 2005 Act co-sponsored by McCain was not put up to vote in the Senate even though it passed the House. And it’s unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.

"Never mind the fact fact that due to reduced by 3.3 million jobs. "

That's what happens when you're in a recession. Learn some basic economics, sir.
I don't care what you're heard/read in the right-wing media, Recovery and Reinvestment Act saved and created between 2.6 million and 3.5 million jobs. Where is the GOP jobs plan again? Oh, wait, it is more tax cuts?!

You must be out of your mind iff you think that flip-flopping SOB, Mutt Romney, is going to be nominated in 2012. I can go all day describing how big a flip-flop he is.

Mitt Romney Flip-Flops on hunting, abortion and iraq and dog


For every Republican who hates Romney, here are the same amount or more who hate Perry. Your party cant decide on who to pick.in 2012. Cain, of all people, won the last straw pol, for God's sake!

You are a waste of time if you think Mitt Romney has a chance. Obama is going to have a second term, period.