Posted by bistiza on 11/7/2012 8:41:00 AM (view original):
Romney lost because he made stupid comments (see 47 percent) and didn't give more than lip service to the middle and lower classes of incomes, whose votes - much to his chagrin I'm sure - count just as much as a vote from a wealthy person. It's the one way in which those who aren't wealthy can stand on equal ground with those who are, and that is to vote down rich guys who favor policies for the wealthy.
The economic struggle is not Obama's fault, neither is high unemployment. Those things were there under Bush and were what helped him win so dominantly in 08. Change for the sake of change is NOT a smart policy, especially when that change says he has a plan but gives no information on how to implement it. When that change is a wealthy man without a clue, then it is a bad thing.
This comes from a guy (me) who was undecided until he took a good long look at how foolish Romney's stances were on key issues. This comes despite the fact that I lean more conservative, particularly on social and moral issues. I voted based on the economy (Obama actually is better for it in the long run), taxes (I don't want a wealthy man cutting taxes for the wealthy) and education (neither was great but Obama was better).
Obama was the clear less of two evils here, and I'm glad Romney wasn't able to buy the election the same way he bought his nomination. The people have spoken and they have said the wealthy and clueless are not the right choice.
Regarding economics in my earlier post - example A above....
The high unemployment is a result of a lack of job creation. Jobs are created by business. When your policies are against business, the natural result is fewer jobs. Can government create jobs? Yes, but they have to spend money they take from job creators to do it. Did the stimulus create a net jobs increase? Debateable at best. The best thing for government to do is NOTHING.
You want more jobs? Get out of business's way and stop punishing them for creating weatlh (and by extension creating jobs)
. It's weatlh creation, driven by risk that grows the economy and creates jobs. Class warfare (as you demonstrate above hasn't created a single job. We reelected a man who's run NOTHING expecting him to do better at creating jobs than someone who has done exactly that for years and knows how business works. Yes, the unemployment rate is Obama's fault (as he said it would be back when the "stimulus" was passed). The crash had its roots as far back as the 70's and doesn't rest solely on Bush.
If people agree with Obama about killing unborn humans and letting gays get married and gun control and government provided heatlhcare and etitlements and all that stuff, fine - vote for him based on that. But voting for him because he supposedly "speaks for the middle class and lower class" shows how little people understand the engine.
The "rich guys" you allude to above provide the capital (and the risk!!). They also provide the most in charity. They are not evil for being wealthy. And we better hope they take their risks here as opposed to going to places freindlier to business. As an example of how the current policies stand against job creation, I know several owners who are limiting the size of their entities specifically because of the crushing weight of the "(Un)Affordable Care Act". Once he passes a threshold of a certain number of people, his costs skyrocket (along with associated reward relative to his capital risk). So instead of creating more weatlh for himself, which would in turn create more jobs, he'll stand fast until the reward is commensurate with the risk for the next marginal dollars.
If you believe the one who promised that "if you make less than $250,000 per year, your taxes will go up one dime" and has broken that promise in a big way, you get what you deserve.