Many people are unhappy with Obama's Administration for various reasons. But it's primary season. So I try to find the pro's and con's amongst the Republican field not the other side. Unfortunately many posters here are, for whatever reasons, totally incapable of doing that. They drift off into Obama rants instead of comparing the republican field. The only thing I consider regarding Obama is whether I think a candidate can beat him in the general election. Otherwise its primary season. I'm not interested in Obama rants. I'm interested in comparing republican candidates because that is what I'm going to the polls for next time.

There is plenty of propaganda there. However, some of the campaigns do have various degrees of actual plans, goals, and "promises" that they would like to at least try to accomplish. Generally you have to click past the "donate here" and "propaganda here" links to get to them.

Even though we have known oil reserves here in the US, we are importing oil primarily from our 2 neighbors...Canada and Mexico.

And this is another stark difference between Obama and the GOP candidates are all for domestic drilling and developing those thus making us more self reliant and create jobs.

Besides bowing down to the Saudi king, Obama is bowing down to the radical Green environmentalists.

It's a very complex situation. Mexico's reserves are lower than ours so they won't be #2 for long. A lot of Canada's come from tar sands which is much  more expensive to produce.  So we average the cost of expensive sources with inexpensive sources. Otherwise you would be paying a lot more at the pump. Canada does the same thing. They import oil from the U.S. as well as many of the cheap sources we get our Crude Oil from. Well guess where the inexpensive sources are? (Hint:Its not the U.S. and you won't find the answer in your bible)

The energy issue is very complex. I would suggest you start reading because US news outlets only give you political propaganda.

lol..speaking of which, I've read HCs contributions went up with the accusation of sexual harassment.

Good point.  And smart.  ~Note to self.  Don't get side tracked!~



I agree.

As for the rest of your post, we have had career politicians and they have been abject failures.  Indeed, the best in the past 40 years was one with just a little experience in Politics.  We just elected one that was pure politics, and he is the worst.  Whether Cain will be good is a crap shoot, as it is with any unknown.  But I would like to give it a try.  Historically (pre-20th century) many presidents were newbies.  Some were good, some were not. It is time we checked out a real person.

He was on those committees but absentee. He was in the senate 143 days before declaring, and he was campaigning for those 143.  He had 0 experience, and it shows.

Cain does not have foreign experience, but he has something that puts him a lap up on Obama should he win - he knows how to delegate and take advice.

Wise words!  I have looked at the majors (Newt, Bachmann, Perry, Romney, Paul and Cain).  I like Bachmann because of her minimal experience, plus lack of a lot (see previous comments).  I like Cain mostly for his ideas (very similar to Bachmann) and the fact he is not afraid to lay it all out for all to see.  Perry is too fragile, Romney too saddled with baggage, and Newt mainstream.

But when the dust settles, I can easily support any of them over Obama.

That does not factor into my decisions at this time.  Both in 92 and 08, the democrat candidate did not have a prayer at this stage of the game.  Yet they both won.  A year from now, all else being equal with the economy - any of these can beat Obama.  Regardless of what the polls say today.

Romney has the problem that he had to run campaigns in Mass., most recently for Gov. The people there are fairly liberal on some social issues so at that time he had to assure them he wouldn't go against the popular opinion of the residents of that state on certain issues. Polls suggest that he has the best chance to get the centrist vote in the general election. I tend to agree. I personally like Jon Huntsman. He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win the primary but he has business, governing, and diplomatic experience. He lacks money, media exposure, and is a moderate to start with so I don't think he had a chance from the get-go.

Hard to say there. Usually depends on swing voter sentiment. This isn't the normal sort of recession cycle so I don't know that prior election sentiments would apply. IMHO neither side is addressing the jobs issue. The construction sector will start to grow only as the housing market bottoms and the manufacturing sector is screwed because China keeps pinching down on rare earth exports. Those are the two sectors that need to be fixed to get the unemployment numbers down. Then there is the Greece issue. That could cause everything to start to unravel.

Hard to say. He's had campaign staff quit because they said he wouldn't listen to them. He looks hard-headed to me.

Ideas? Most have been the same old crap the pundits throw out on a daily basis. I would consider his tax plan an idea however I think by next fall the tax issue will be whether or not to extend the Bush Era tax cuts again.

Newt is going to debate Cain tonight on CNN at 8pm EST. 

I disagree that neither side is addressing the issue. The Chamber of Commerce has already stated what is needed, and most of the republicans have jumped on board.  Eliminate red tape.  Obama just cannot seem to do it.  He is too in love with the power it brings.  Even with China surging, until this year, America was still the #1 manufacturer in the world.  I think if you take the shackles off of Business, they will take care of the recovery.  And I see all the Republicans doing that.

Perhaps some have paid lip service to Cain's ideas, but Cain knows what it takes to get Businesses going.  His tax plan is not perfect, but it is a PLAN.  Which is more than we have gotten from anyone else.  For the past 20 years, we have had politicians running the country - and not doing it very well.  I would like to see a successful business man give it a shot.  At least he knows how to run one, which is something the current president has no clue on.

Tommorow CNBC is going to host the next GOP debate. 8PM EST. It will focus on Economics and jobs. The candidate's business ideas should get a good vetting. 

The Chamber of Commerce is a lobby group, its OPINIONS are very one sided. They represent only one side of the story. There are certainly areas where regulation is hindering certain businesses however this does not fix the job problem. There is a lack of demand. That is the crux of the problem. Big business is sitting on record amounts of capital and are not investing it because there is a lack of demand. History has shown it can take a decade or more to recover from a major financial crises.  All the good economists have stated this over and over and yet so many people in this country still think the panderers are offering them real solutions.

There is still no demand. China is playing unfairly so we end up creating jobs in China to serve their populations demand. Not all bad it does create profits for US companies however the problem is creating jobs domestically and none of the candidates are addressing the issue to the public honestly. 

Wednesday night eight GOP candidates faced-off for the CNBC-hosted debate at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. With questions focused exclusively on economic issues, the debate drew more media attention with the recent sexual harassment allegations against businessman Herman Cain.

To a throng of boos from the audience for the question being asked, Cain responded to "why the American people should elect a president who has character issues?"
 
After stating that he values his character and integrity "more than anything else," Cain said: "Over the last nine days, the voters have voted with their dollars -- and they are saying they don't care about the character assassination. They care about leadership and getting this economy growing and all of the other problems we face."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich got high marks when he said the current administration, the media, and the Occupy Wall Street protesters are unfairly demonizing corporations that make large profits.
 
"I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy that would lead them to say, for example, Who's going to pay for the park you're occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?" commented Gingrich.
 
Carol M. Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University and author of Be the People: A Call to Reclaim America's Faith and Promise, believes Gingrich is quickly gaining the confidence of the electorate.
 
"I like Newt, and I think that he comes across as one of the most knowledgeable of the candidates," Swain tells OneNewsNow. "... He inspires confidence based on the fact that he does have experience [and he] comes across as a person also who would be able to tackle a wide range of issues confronting the nation."
 

Texas Governor Rick Perry had the worst blunder of the evening when he could not name the third agency he would want to cut as part of his overhaul of the federal government.

The Chamber of Commerce is echoing its members.  Yes, it is regulations.  If you know it is going to cost you X to hire a worker, you see if he can produce Y, and if so, you hire him.  If you do not know X, then the equation does not work. Small business does not know X because of the regulations.  Washington cannot hire workers. They can only get out of the way and let business do it.  But they are not doing that.  Interest rates are low.  There is moderate demand, but there is no certainty of the costs. hence no hiring.

No, business (not necessarily big) is like the ant.  The uncertainty is why they are not hiring.  If they spend that capital, and the cost of the capital goes up after the commitment to buy it, then they go bust.  Some do that.  You may know of some of the names - Solyndra, Enron, etc.

That is patently false.  The ones you chose to read may be saying that, but I will put up a Walter E. Williams with any you pick.  And he is not alone.  Many economists are saying exactly what I am saying.  There have been worse crises in the past.  The difference today is that government got out of their way in the past.  And it took months, not years to recover.

#1 - China is not playing unfairly.  It is playing hard ball.
#2 - I have not heard from all 8, but I do know most of the republican candidates have indeed addressed the issue honestly.  you do not like their answer, but that does not mean they have not done so.  And the answer is still - less regulation.

It's lack of demand. You need to stop listening to pundits and start listening to economists. Demand will only rise substantially when the housing market bottoms out and recovers.

Everything they say is perfectly crafted to appeal to who they think they can get to vote for them. So if you think they are actually addressing the issues honestly you are Ignorant. And if they think they are presenting the issue honestly then they are the ignorant ones.

Unfortunately most of the candidates address the issue dishonestly. Mostly what I've seen is them wanting to dismantle oversight. That won't work. There are way too many dishonest people in this country. The housing bubble is the perfect example of that.  There are certainly places where less regulation would be beneficial but there are also regulations which not only protect labor, or the air you breath and the water you drink,  but also create jobs. The issue of deregulation is not black and white. There are two sides to this issue and both extremes got it wrong.

For the most part I agree it is hardball. I would say their pirating of technology is unfair but that is all culture. Our society is based on property rights and theirs isn't so even this is really hardball as well.  The only candidate I've seen address this issue intelligently is John Huntsman.

Then name a single financial crisis worse than this one that took months to recover from?

Unfortunately Newt is all about Newt. It should be obvious by now that he will argue the side that gets him elected but what he actually does is based upon who pays him the money. He is the poster child for what is wrong with our government, he is the epitome of an influence peddler. It was his own caucus that put him up for ethics violations when he was speaker and his own caucus that dumped him because he is so corrupt. Sure he looks intelligent. It's not hard when you're debating against the likes of Cain and Perry. But are people really that blind to what Newt is really all about?

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=39868

Tonight at 5PM EST Frank Luntz will be hosting a GOP debate in Iowa. I think it's going to be centered on social issues. At this time Romney isn't expected to be there. 

Yes. Absolutely. You've got Romney pegged. 

When he was running in Massachusetts, he was pro-abortion. In his 2008 run for President and now this one, he calls himself pro-life.  (Unlike AlGore, at least Romney changed his views in the right direction). 

Romney says he's pro traditional marriage, but his actions in Massachusetts proved he's soft on homosexuality and not going to rock the boat with his wealthy homosexual "marraige" supporters.

In the debates, Romney likes to say how he's different from Obama but if elected, he'll just continue Obama's homosexualization of the US government. 

Romney promoted the homosexual agenda as indicated in the "Romney Report" and the book, "The Romney Deception", as president he would homosexualize all schools, courts and other institutions. His lawyers would sue clergy, churches and synagogues which say that homosexual conduct is sinful and would charge them with "hate speech" and "discrimination".

Have you noticed the media has gone after all the other front runners, but not a peep about Romney?  

The pro-homosexual media is coddling him for this very reason.  

I strongly oppose Romney. 

Your bigotry and ignorance truly shine here.

He's a moderate so those on the left and in the center have fewer problems with him. He will govern more from the center than from an extreme.....just like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan....etc.

Romney hasn't changed his views. He's simply pandering to social conservatives. He is moderate on some the social issues. He has his religious beliefs on abortion and sexuality but chooses not to impose them on others because we live in a secular society. If you don't want others to take away some of your rights you better learn to let them have theirs.

I wouldn't expect otherwise of you. Instead you will probably vote for the most dishonest, biggest influence peddler in the race.

I am an economist.  There is no "robust" demand, but there is demand.  The housing market will not recover for years, but yes, one thing that will help is when it bottoms out.  But it still is those pesky regulations.

Ok, now we are rending bugs bunny.  That is all politicians ever do!  If you are expecting some sort of magical plan, then the closest thing you are going to find is Cain's plan.  He is not a politician, so speaks the truth more often than not.  They are exactly appealing to the masses.  The more specific they get, the more they will be hammered.  But all have at least given lip service to the core of the problem.

just a question - how long have you been working?  For me, the answer is a long time so I have seen good bosses and terrible ones.  The bad ones always have one thing in common - micromanaging.  They are not talking about removing ALL oversight, just freeing business from micromanagement.  And that is basically doing away with a lot of regulations that accomplish nothing, except to stifle businesses from functioning.  Democrats are trying to make life into a rubber room - completely safe.  That is impossible.  Spending $1 to save a thousand lives is a good thing.  Spending a billion dollars to possibly save one life is not.  There is a saying in my field.  Nothing is fool proof because fools are so damn ingenious.  And the corollary - genius is limited, but stupidity is limitless.  There is no way to save every fool from harming themselves, even if money was limitless.

Ok, you got me on that.  Yes, that is clearly "unfair", but even more so, it is illegal.  And yes they are doing that.  But that is more for their own people as none of the can be sold over seas.

S&L - Late 80s.

Quoting yourself?   But I agree with you on Newt.  That does not mean he is all bad, but as I said at the beginning of the thread, he has gone too mainstream to be my first choice.

True - but it also means he is the one they want to campaign against.  Axelrod is saving his fraud for the general for him.

He's a lobbyist and political talking head. He may have a plan but it is a lousy plan. He is paid for spinning tales not telling the truth.

I'm not. I'm expecting the Bush era tax cuts to expire and not be renewed at some point in time.

Doesn't even come close to comparison in size and scope. However its a good case study because the republican party was and is against using the same types of solutions which were used to resolve that crisis. Not to mention the same type of deregulation helped cause this crisis as well.  You stepped in your own shit on this one. The sad thing is it is not a Rep vs. Dem thing. It is the influence of monied interests on politicians from both sides that led to the changes in regulations and lack of oversight that caused both of these crisis. You are so blinded by the propaganda that you can't see through it. And you want people to think you are an economist? Yea Right! LOL LOL

It is the crux of the problem not just something that will be helpful. Real Estate is the major asset used to start many small businesses and to use as collateral for other types of investments. A large percentage of the mortgages in this country right now are underwater.

Actually they are talking about getting rid of the regulations for the companies and industry lobbies that are paying for their campaigns.

The problem is he is all about monied influence in politics and that is what this country truly needs to get rid of.

Debate Night

Tonight at 8 p.m. ET, eight Republican presidential candidates will take the stage at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., to tell America where they stand on foreign policy and national security in a special debate hosted by The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, broadcast on CNN and moderated by Wolf Blitzer.

The debate marks the first time that either Heritage or AEI -- both nonprofit, nonpartisan research institutes -- has sponsored a presidential debate. Businessman Herman Cain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Representatives Ron Paul (TX) and Michele Bachmann (MN), former Governor Jon Huntsman (UT), and former Senator Rick Santorum (PA) will square off, addressing an issue that should be central for these contenders for the White House: Which presidential candidate will best protect our nation and amplify American leadership, and how will they do it?

That question is vitally important for the eight candidates in the spotlight this evening. Ensuring our country's defense is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government, as set forth in the Constitution. And it is up to the President to take the lead in crafting American foreign policy while also serving as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Over the past weeks, Heritage has highlighted some of the central foreign policy and national security issues confronting America today: the threats to defense spending, a continually rising China, the war in Afghanistan and against terrorism, the failed attempt to "reset" relations with Russia, and the increasingly dangerous, hostile, and emboldened Iran. Each issue poses serious questions and choices for the man or woman who sits in the Oval Office.

This week in particular, defense spending has been in the headlines. Yesterday, the congressional "super committee" that was charged with developing a plan to reduce the federal deficit by more than $1.2 trillion announced its failure. As a result, funding for our military could be in jeopardy, with automatic cuts that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described as "devastating." President Obama has already slashed military spending, and Congress cannot solve the overspending problem by gutting defense. How the federal government funds our men and women in uniform is a vital issue that deserves attention.

That funding is necessary for America to adequately guard its interests at home and abroad. But spending is not the only issue. Building the right strategy is just as important to confront America's challenges abroad. China has increased its defense budget by double digits every year for the last 20 years, while the United States is winding down its defense budget at a similarly rapid pace. Terrorist threats continue to emerge, and the International Atomic Energy Agency recently released a report confirming that Iran has made substantial progress in its nuclear weapons program. Though Osama bin Laden is no more, the gains the United States has made in waging the war in Afghanistan could be squandered if we continue on our plotted course. Likewise, our current posture toward Russia has failed because we have expected more from the Russians than they are willing to give under any circumstance.

Tonight, the eight Republican presidential candidates will have an opportunity to address questions surrounding these issues and how they would conduct American foreign policy and national defense. Join us as we watch the debate tonight at 8 p.m ET. Learn more about the issues and read our post-debate reaction and analysis at our blog, Foundry.org. Follow our Twitter account (@heritage) for real-time updates about the debate and the issues. Throughout the day and during the debate, join the discussion on Facebook with our more than 388,000 fans. We want to hear from you and what you think.

The U.S. Constitution creates a government of the people to, among other things, "provide for the common defence." The Founding Fathers believed this to be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the federal government, and they agreed that when America was threatened, the nation had to respond clearly and forcefully. It follows that the President of the United States must play a central role in executing this responsibility. We hope that tonight the eight Republican presidential candidates address the serious question of how they would carry out that duty, and we invite you to join us in watching and discussing this important debate.

The Republican presidential debate will air nationally tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on CNN and CNN en Español and worldwide on CNN International, CNN Radio, and CNN.com.