Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
What Does "He Looks Presidential" Mean?!
I hear people say "he sounded more Presidential" or "he looks more like a President". What exactly does that mean?
Re: What Does "He Looks Presidential" Mean?!
One of the purposes of debates is to show the American people that the candidate is qualified to lead. And last night, I believe Romney showed the American people he has the qualities necessary to be the commander-in-chief. He was respectful and knowledgeable. I find it unfortunate that Obama stooped to snarky, cheap shots which appeared to me both un-presidential and unlikable.
Two questions: 1) what did you think of Romney in the first debate? I can't imagine anyone would use the words, "respectful," in that instance. 2) what was Romney more knowledgable about in last night's debate over our president? The things he said that made sense he copied off Obama's test. So, not sure how he seemed more knowledgable.
Thanks!
ETA: these questions are for cincychick
1) I thought Romney was aggressive and passionate in the first debate. I did not find him to be disrespectful whatsoever.
2) Romney has not had the "baptism by fire" with regard to foreign policy as Obama has had. Romney has not had access to the kinds of classified information that Obama undoubtedly has. I am not saying he seemed MORE knowledgeable than Obama - I am not sure that is possible at this juncture. I am saying he seemed knowledgeable about what is going on in the world. Much more so than I would have expected for someone who has not had the foreign policy experience that Obama has had in the past for years.
Yes, Harding's administration was plagued by scandal and corruption but he was a fiscal conservative and managed to improve the economy. And how did he do it? By cutting taxes....
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1322&theme=home&loc=b
I prefered Calvin Coolidge, personally.
He didn't interrupt.
I agree with this. There was no stature gap between Romney and Obama. If Romney's a plausible president on foreign policy, and he is, the election becomes a) about the economy and b) a referendum on Obama.
Larry Sabato believes that the election is settling in to be not a choice, but a referendum on Obama. That's good for Romney, esp. since Obama is struggling to hit 50% and in fact Romney has hit 50 in a few recent polls.
Obama needed a big win and didn't get it. The momentum is still with Romney, and he has room to grow in the polls. Chuck Todd states that being at 47% is a great place for a challenger to be, a bad place for an incumbent. He also thought that at the end of the debate Obama seemed like he thought that he needed to do more.
If Obama's so much more knowledgeable, why was his campaign the one who was running to the media after the debate, trying to walk back Obama's false charges and claim that the congress was solely to blame for the sequestration? I think Obama may have won within the debate room but is losing the aftermath... again.
Interesting that the Obama campaign said that they had a lead in Ohio but are working on another way to win through NH, Iowa, etc.
That the face of the person could be on a piece of currency???
Appearances aside, I think that Romney's closing statement was more hopeful sounding than Obama's. Also it was encouraging, whereas Obama's sounded more doomy and gloomy. And, the language Romney used in it was in stark contrast to all the language both candidates have used the entire campaign period.
When I look at my credit card statements and see the cost of everything and how the pinch is happening, and I review that we have ceased DS's and DD's college contributions to their 529s just to pay for gas and groceries, I feel irritated and sick.
Last night, listening to Romney's closing statement, for the first time in a long while I felt some sense of order and peace.
Yeah, I liked when Romney said "hope of the Earth". LOL.
Do you really think that things will get exponentially better under Romney?
You realize it's going to be upwards of a decade before we see any real financial relief, regardless of who we vote for?
You know what scares me more?
The tax cuts going away.
And this. http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/20121022/NEWS08/310220041/Psst-taxes-go-up-2013-163-million-workers?odyssey=mod
Yes, I do think things will get better under Romney. Obama's stimulus hasn't helped grow the economy long term. I feel Romney's plan to cut taxes, which will not only stimulate the economy but also increase revenues to the government is the right way to go.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/opinion/miron-romney-economic-plan/index.html
No, a recovery doesn't have to take a decade. By this time in Ronald Reagan's administration we were seeing much more improvement than we are with Obama's policies.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
Check this out, cincy.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
We saw improvement because Reagan was spending us more into debt. You have more monies in your pocket, tho, so that's what matters right?
Reagan didn't balance the budget because his economic policies didn't work. Then he blamed the Democrats instead of taking responsibility.
This is from Wikipedia, but it's more succinct than posting 11 billion links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
From 1981 to 1989, nominal debt held by public nearly tripled. On the one hand, President Ronald Reagan increased military spending and lowered tax rates. (Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, although bills passed in 1982 and 1984 later partially reversed those tax cuts.)[7][9] On the other hand, congressional Democrats blocked attempts to reverse spending on social programs.[7][10] Because of the budget deficits that resulted, debt held by the public as a share of GDP increased from 26.2% in 1980 to 41% by the end of the 1980s.[8]
Federal spending under President George W. Bush remained at around 40% of GDP during his two terms in office; however; the combination of less tax revenue, two wars, a financial meltdown in 2008, the Stimulus and increased federal spending sent the public debt skyrocketing to 63% during Barack Obama's first two years in office (2009-2010). Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February 2012,[17] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession and stimulus spending.[18]
Yes, Wikipedia puts it all in one place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Growth_rates
True, but Reagan's spending averaged 22.4 of GDP and under Bush it was worse (40% of GDP). Tax cuts alone won't do the trick, spending has to be cut as well. Romney's plan is to cut spending to under 20% of GDP.
Reagan's plan was not perfect, and I will never claim it is. But it DID grow the economy.
Well, it was positive. And these days, positive is good. I think this earth can use a little hope. Like I said above, I could use some. And, watching that statement last night was hopeful. Also, Obama is familiar with that word too (but he didn't really use it last night as well as Romney did). His entire 2008 campaign was built on "hope" and "change," though.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're basically doing the same thing that Obama supporters did in 2008 (and slamming them for it) but this is totes different because it's Romney?
Talk about having it both ways. When Romney uses "hope", it's great! When Obama uses "hope" it's uninspiring?
What's "everything" that you're having to charge to your credit card? Why did you have to stop contributing to college funds to pay for gas and groceries? Weren't you paying for gas and groceries before in addition to adding to the funds? I understand the cost of stuff has gone up, but that's going to happen regardless. Being able to pay for your kids' college education is a luxury. If you were saying you can't afford your basics - rent/mortgage, utilities, food, gas, and clothing - it would be one thing but if your problem is that you don't have all the "extras" you desire then you're still better off than a lot of people.
Preppin' ain't cheap.
Not what I said. Just said they both used this language. I listed Obama's campaign words to note that fact, not as a slight against him or them. Romney just used this language too and I liked it and it meant something to me similiar to how others in 2008 liked Obama's hope and change rhetoric.
Obama was elected when DH was 29. We had a goal to have $100k in our retirement accounts by the time DH turned 30. We reached that goal. DH is now 33 and we have over $300,000 in our retirement accounts. That $200,000 in 3 years! Obviously, we still eat and pay our mortgage (in fact, we are able to pay extra on it now b/c I want it gone by the time DH turns 40). Are we just outliers? I don't understand how people are not doing better now than they were 4 years ago. We have made some tough choices...well FWP tough...(ex. changing jobs to one with less vacation time but more pay, taking less vacations, cutting cable, etc.) but we have prioritized what we want and retiring early is a big desire of ours. I basically think Obama has propelled us to be in the upper middle class as opposed to just middle class. I worked hard but I know I didn't do it alone (ex. the mortgage program allowed us to refinance our house for a lower rate, making the payoff date much faster).
PLEASE TELL ME YOUR FINANCIAL SECRET, JAN08.
xoxoxox,
the person with $200 in savings right now.
I can't tell if you are serious but if so, I would be happy to share somethings I have learned over the years. Nothing is going to shock you...
I know this is a few post ago in this thread, but I have been thinking about it for awhile and it's semi-relevant.
If you look at the recessions/depression we've had in recent history (let's say 20th century til present), the way we've gotten out of them is by increasing government spending. It works. I'm big on learning lessons from history (must be the teacher in me). So let's look at a few examples.
Great depression: Common thought is that we spent ourselves out of this because of WWII. Economy was heading up before the war too due to the New Deal, despite it's being very controversial at the time (sounds like now!)
The 80's: Reagan spent our way out of the recession with increased defense spending, etc.
Tightening fiscal policy is not the way to solve a recession/economic turndown. It is the way to cause one.
my read shelf:
http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu
Financial Peace University (my guess). Dave Ramsey has some pretty cool ideas...I just can't seem to talk myself out of my Triple Venti Mocha every morning.