Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder
I expect that my vote in November 2012 this time around will be cast on the assumption that getting Barack Hussein Obama *OUT* of the White House is far more important than who replaces him.
The other part of the equation is that the Democrats HAVE to be removed from power in House *AND* Senate.
|
I am curious to know why you think such a lopsided government would be an improvement. Having watched the two debates so far, it doesn't appear to me that any of the GOP candidates have anything even remotely resembling a plan to bring back the 9 million jobs we've lost, or pay off the $14 trillion in debt we currently owe. Nor do I hear anything from them resembling a long-term plan to fix the internal problems we have with energy, education, healthcare, or infrastructure.
We know for a fact, as evidenced by the Reagan administration, along with the last 12 years that tax cuts are not only useless for job creation, but they've done nothing but increased our national debt by over $3 trillion to date. You're certainly not going to make up a $1.4 trillion deficit every year by further reducing revenue. The only real plan(s) I am hearing from any of the candidates with perhaps Ron Paul being the exception, is cut taxes, less regulation, and drill every last crevice in the United States for oil. All of which are tried and proven loosing propositions.
I don't see Obama as an ideal choice, but he still seems a far better option that any of the GOP candidates thus far. Does someone have a different take on these GOP candidates, or is there something I am missing?
