Cardinal Dolan to Romney, Obama: Pledge to Play Nice

[CMatt25]

Money, the root of all evil

And that pretty much sums it up. Amen.

 

[RACJ]

Or you can watch Michael Moore to know exactly what the healthcare industry and corporate America is up to. Btw I’m fully awake. I’m so awake that I have no interest at all in returning to deregulation and continuing tax cuts for the rich and increasing defense spending. While we cause harm to the poor and middle class by requiring them to make their severe sacrifices. Nor do I want to repeal healthcare. I want to strengthen it. Not gut it. Bottom line I’m so awake I’ve no interest in going back to the same policies of the past, many of which got us into the mess in the first place. Nor to a day when the sick could be denied adequate health care. I simply ask myself WWJD? And for Someone Who had what He had to say about the rich and the poor and the sick, in my faith I have believe I know whose side He’s on in this. Peace.

Matt, Moore is a liar and propagandist. Notice that NO ONE enters Cuba when they need a serious operation, but millions come to America. The “same policies of the past” have given us the greatest health care system in the world, despite it flaws, many of which have been CAUSED by endless government regulations. I am truly sorry that so many of your generation trust the vile Michael Moore, a man so loathsome that he treats his own subordinates like garbage. uch:

 

[scipio337]

Is pro-lifiness the single compelling issue which differentiates them for you?

We know that his economic policies are likely to make matters much worse, simply by looking at what similar policies did to our economy under Mr. Bush.

In spite off the promises for smaller government, every republican from Reagan and beyond (except Obama) has increased the deficit spending as a ratio to GDP more than any democratic president. Mr Reagan and Mr Bush were the biggest budget busters in history by that measure… until Mr. Obama. Given that republican presidents traditionally drive us deeper into debt than democrats, it is not clear that Mr Obama’s opponent would have done any better. Given the very poor judgement shown during the campaign, it is safe to say that he would have made some very poor decisions. So, that leaves is with Mr.Romney.

He has a history of parlaying his family wealth to an even vaster fortune. That took some smarts and skill, even though he did have the advantage of starting out rich. It appears that he may have broken the law to avoid paying his share of taxes,however. Mr. Bush and others have shown us that vast wealth, and a privileged education may not result in even a barely competent president. The republican party was too embarrassed with him to even let him show his face at the convention.

While the party line is that Mitt’s life has lead him inexorably to the presidency, that appears to be a lie. He has no experience in foreign diplomacy or foreign affairs. He is not an attorney. There is no indication that he understands history or geography in depth. He has no experience with federal government. He has no military experience. These all seem to be basic qualifications to be a good president. We have suffered Mr Obama’s first term while he tries to learn these things. Do we start back at square one, with someone who doesn’t come close to his intelligence? (or so it appears from his writing and speech).

Just what do you seems his qualifications? I wish someone would make an argument as to why he would be qualified to be president of the US.

What did you see, qualification wise, in a former “community organizer” with less than one full term in the US Senate, with no private sector experience whatsoever?

I do love the aside (“except for President Obama”).

Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2

Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5

George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

The fact that President Obama has DOUBLED the deficit to GDP would automatically beg the question of “why give him a 2nd term?”

 

[qui_est_ce]

Matt, Moore is a liar and propagandist. Notice that NO ONE enters Cuba when they need a serious operation, but millions come to America. The “same policies of the past” have given us the greatest health care system in the world, despite it flaws, many of which have been CAUSED by endless government regulations. I am truly sorry that so many of your generation trust the vile Michael Moore, a man so loathsome that he treats his own subordinates like garbage. uch:

To be sure Hugo Chavez went to Cuba for cancer treatment.

 

[rlg94086]

Is pro-lifiness the single compelling issue which differentiates them for you?

Not the single compelling issue. No.

We know that his economic policies are likely to make matters much worse, simply by looking at what similar policies did to our economy under Mr. Bush.

We do? Your premise is incorrect, because Romney’s economic policies are not similar to Bush’s. Since your premise is incorrect, your conclusion fails.

In spite off the promises for smaller government, every republican from Reagan and beyond (except Obama) has increased the deficit spending as a ratio to GDP more than any democratic president. Mr Reagan and Mr Bush were the biggest budget busters in history by that measure… until Mr. Obama. Given that republican presidents traditionally drive us deeper into debt than democrats, it is not clear that Mr Obama’s opponent would have done any better. Given the very poor judgement shown during the campaign, it is safe to say that he would have made some very poor decisions. So, that leaves is with Mr.Romney.

So, you’re reasoning is that we should excuse Obama’s huge deficits because Republicans have traditionally had larger deficits than Democrats, therefore McCain probably would have done the same, therefore…Romney? What kind of reasoning is that?

He has a history of parlaying his family wealth to an even vaster fortune. That took some smarts and skill, even though he did have the advantage of starting out rich. It appears that he may have broken the law to avoid paying his share of taxes,however. Mr. Bush and others have shown us that vast wealth, and a privileged education may not result in even a barely competent president. The republican party was too embarrassed with him to even let him show his face at the convention.

So, Romney is a criminal (funny how no one has ever brought charges and the IRS haven’t gone after him), and…wait for it…BUSH!!!

While the party line is that Mitt’s life has lead him inexorably to the presidency, that appears to be a lie. He has no experience in foreign diplomacy or foreign affairs. He is not an attorney. There is no indication that he understands history or geography in depth. He has no experience with federal government. He has no military experience. **These all seem to be basic qualifications to be a good president. **We have suffered Mr Obama’s first term while he tries to learn these things. Do we start back at square one, with someone who doesn’t come close to his intelligence? (or so it appears from his writing and speech).

It is truly telling that you believe that being an attorney is a “basic qualification” to be a good president. There have been some good, non-attorney presidents with no federal government or foreign policy experience. Obama’s on-the-job failure on the latter are not indicative of presidential qualifications.

Just what do you seems his qualifications? I wish someone would make an argument as to why he would be qualified to be president of the US.

His abilities in business as a CEO, demonstrated ability when he turned around the Olympics and fiscal and bi-partisan record as governor show he has leadership ability and a keen sense for reorganization and problem-solving. These are excellent qualifications in my books. A smooth-talking (when the TelePrompTer is working) lawyer who doesn’t play well with others, is spending us into oblivion and holding back our economy is our other choice.

This, along with the clear differences on abortion, marriage and religious freedom, are compelling reasons for me to vote for Romney over Obama.

 

[RACJ]

To be sure Hugo Chavez went to Cuba for cancer treatment.

That’s great! How does the ordinary Cuban subject get treated? People aren’t escaping America to go to Cuba, but millions of Cubans would like to flee tyranny and come here. Perplexingly, even Moore himself has remained an American, despite Cuba’s wonderful Communist political and medical systems. Rob

 

[qui_est_ce]

That’s great! How does the ordinary Cuban subject get treated? People aren’t escaping America to go to Cuba, but millions of Cubans would like to flee tyranny and come here. Perplexingly, even Moore himself has remained an American, despite Cuba’s wonderful Communist political and medical systems. Rob

Well it says a lot about where a 1st world country like Venezuela is going under Chavez when he has to go to Cuba for medical treatment! Chavez also asked Castro’s advice on Venezuela’s energy problems!!

 

[eightandsand]

It was a mistake for the Cardinal to associate with either of these two imposters.

Both Obama and Romney have supported and support the intrinsic evil of abortion and both have stabbed the Catholic Church in the back in public.

Hopefully the Cardinal will take the opportunity to publicly admonish both of them and publicly encourage both of them to repent and convert.

 

[epan]

Epan, it was OBAMA who sued Citibank in Chicago to FORCE it to give bad loans to unqualified people. NOT Bush. NOT Romney. It was Democrat policy regulations which caused the tragic mortgage catastrophe.
It is the Democrat Party which facilitates culture rot as well. Not just the fact that they want unfettered abortion with taxpayers paying for them, but the fact that they have written tax and welfare legislation which eliminates the need for fathers in children’s lives. Money is given to “mothers” without regard to their lifestyles. You could be a crackhead lush and still retain parental rights, thanks to leftist Democrats. Inner city pathologies are horrifying. Thanks Democrats! :ehh: Blessings, Rob

Can you not remember where we were five years ago? If we elect someone who tries those policies again, then… as my 90 year old neighbor just pointed out… we will get to see what a real depression looks like.

Where is the morality of killing children by driving them into poverty?

 

[scipio337]

Can you not remember where we were five years ago? If we elect someone who tries those policies again, then… as my 90 year old neighbor just pointed out… we will get to see what a real depression looks like.

Where is the morality of killing children by driving them into poverty?

Can you not see where we are NOW?

And where does even the most ardent Keynesian propose raising taxes in the middle of a recession?

Obama is an on the job failure with no excuses except to blame everyone and everything for his failed economic policies.

 

[estesbob]

Can you not remember where we were five years ago? If we elect someone who tries those policies again, then… as my 90 year old neighbor just pointed out… we will get to see what a real depression looks like.

Where is the morality of killing children by driving them into poverty?

5 years ago? Gas was about half the price it is now, unemployment was lower andnwe had 5 trillion dollars less in debt.

 

[Jeanne_S]

For those who continue to support Obama despite his abysmal record,this is beginning to look like someone in a lousy relationship. Better to stay with what you know,regardless of how miserable it is.Too scary to make a change.

 

[pete_29]

Can you not remember where we were five years ago? If we elect someone who tries those policies again, then… as my 90 year old neighbor just pointed out… we will get to see what a real depression looks like.

Where is the morality of killing children by driving them into poverty?

Where is the morality in killing children when you have no idea what their life is going to be like

 

[oldcelt]

5 years ago? Gas was about half the price it is now, unemployment was lower andnwe had 5 trillion dollars less in debt.

And on a fast downhill slide.

John

 

[epan]

Not the single compelling issue. No.

We do? Your premise is incorrect, because Romney’s economic policies are not similar to Bush’s. Since your premise is incorrect, your conclusion fails.

So, you’re reasoning is that we should excuse Obama’s huge deficits because Republicans have traditionally had larger deficits than Democrats, therefore McCain probably would have done the same, therefore…Romney? What kind of reasoning is that?

So, Romney is a criminal (funny how no one has ever brought charges and the IRS haven’t gone after him), and…wait for it…BUSH!!!

It is truly telling that you believe that being an attorney is a “basic qualification” to be a good president. There have been some good, non-attorney presidents with no federal government or foreign policy experience. Obama’s on-the-job failure on the latter are not indicative of presidential qualifications.

His abilities in business as a CEO, demonstrated ability when he turned around the Olympics and fiscal and bi-partisan record as governor show he has leadership ability and a keen sense for reorganization and problem-solving. These are excellent qualifications in my books. A smooth-talking (when the TelePrompTer is working) lawyer who doesn’t play well with others, is spending us into oblivion and holding back our economy is our other choice.

This, along with the clear differences on abortion, marriage and religious freedom, are compelling reasons for me to vote for Romney over Obama.

Unfortunately, the premise is correct. His core platform is that he will cut taxes by 20% and reduce spending and the size of government to balance the budget by 2020. This was essentially, Mr. Reagan’s platform, and it was also essentially Mr. Bush’s platform As we saw, the tax cut part is easy. But with the other promise to increase military spending, republicans have always increased debt more than democrats as a percentage of GDP. Mr Romney may be sincere in his promise, if he is that naive. However, I doubt that he is so naive, which unfortunately means that he may be intentionally lying. I don’t know which is worse in a president. No republican who has ever promised to reduce spending, or to balance a budget has done so. Every republican who has promised to reduce the size of government has increased the size of government more than democrats have. Mr. Reagan proved to us that “trickle down” does not work. Mr. Bush re-affirmed that failure to regulate, coupled with massive debt increase and corruption in government can result in economic collapse, just as Herbert Hoover showed us.

His ability as a CEO is useful. I am sure he is a good manager and executive, even if he is dishonest with his taxes. He is not the only cheat who ever got into the presidency. Remember the illustrious Mr Nixon? Even as governor of Massachusetts, Romney avoided opportunities to hone his foreign diplomacy skills. He failed even when he had the opportunity to try to get the experience which might qualify him better to serve as president. He lacks the other preferred experience, as I have pointed out.

Being able to run a business does not qualify someone to be president, any more than being a nurse qualifies one to be a computer designer. Mr Romney is not qualified, just as Mr Obama was not qualified.

But, at least Mr Obama has his first term under his belt. As we saw with Mr Clinton, Mr Reagan, Mr Bush… etc… presidents are often ineffective in the first terms, compare to how they perform in the second term. Why would we throw out four years of presidential experience, only to fill the position with another novice at the job? That would be foolhardy.

I disagree with the Republican practice of eliminating the middle class through trickle down, among other policies. I disagree that the Republican idea the driving people further into poverty is both moral, and for their own good, as long as the rich grow richer. I disagree with the assessment by his party that the vice presidential candidate is good with budgets. His proposal to give medicare recipients a $6,000 voucher proves his incompetence. No senior could cover their healthcare costs with that. He proposes betraying our parents and grand parents, just as this generation of students have been betrayed. They are picking their targets one group at a time, and presenting the agenda in a deceptive way. Those who buy into it are being deceived.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Can you not remember where we were five years ago? If we elect someone who tries those policies again, then… as my 90 year old neighbor just pointed out… we will get to see what a real depression looks like.

Where is the morality of killing children by driving them into poverty?

You can ask Obama that, since he has put more children on welfare than any other president. I believe he doubled the numbers.

 

[rlg94086]

But, at least Mr Obama has his first term under his belt. As we saw with Mr Clinton, Mr Reagan, Mr Bush… etc… presidents are often ineffective in the first terms, compare to how they perform in the second term. Why would we throw out four years of presidential experience, only to fill the position with another novice at the job? That would be foolhardy.

This sums up the basic illogical reasoning of those voting for Obama that know he has done a terrible job. When you have someone who has done a terrible job, you don’t keep them around for fear of “throwing out four years of presidential experience.” That, my friend, is foolhardy.

The last time we had a 1-term failure was Jimmy Carter. We tossed him out for another “novice,” Ronald Reagan, and it worked out pretty well.

 

[Carlan]

What did you see, qualification wise, in a former “community organizer” with less than one full term in the US Senate, with no private sector experience whatsoever?

I do love the aside (“except for President Obama”).

Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2

Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5

George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

The fact that President Obama has DOUBLED the deficit to GDP would automatically beg the question of “why give him a 2nd term?”

One very important fact you failed to consider concerning our former President.
He failed to pay as you go.Unlike the case of wars before his time.
The debt to China and India alone is going to be a struggle for more than one President to deal with.
If you don’t give him four more years, according to what I hear from his opposition and the neo-cons, they are going to continue to bomb, bomb, bomb. Who out there is going to loan us the money? Short memories!
Peace, Carlan

 

[epan]

You can ask Obama that, since he has put more children on welfare than any other president. I believe he doubled the numbers.

He put them on welfare? The question was do you remember what happened five years ago? Apparently, amnesia or denial is preferable to accountability and integrity. This is a common human trait, even though a sign of weakness at best, and dishonesty at worst, which is how ethical people characterize the current republican agenda, in my opinion. Why would any decent person embrace the party of human weakness and greed, at best, or denial and dishonesty, at worst? that is the mystery to be answered. It may boil down to the essential moral turpitude of the current republican party, which has duped its constituency by hijacking the religious rights verbiage, but not its actual values. It proclaims a few bullet points, and key issues, like the abortion issue, while double crossing the basic goodness of Christianity by putting greed above all other values, and rejecting social justice.

The economy collapsed under the weight of republican leadership. That is what put more children on welfare. Repeating those policies would be even more catastrophic now. Mr. Obama has not made as much progress to reverse the republican financial collapse of 2007-2008 as we might like, but he has also been blocked whenever possible by republicans. But we can be sure that continuing the Bush insanity would have driven us in even deeper into worldwide financial collapse. Afterall, those policies created the collapse in the first place. There is a definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result. It is insanity to vote for Romney by that definition.

Our economy collapsed in 2007 in the leading sectors. This rippled through to more widespread collapse in 2008. Mr Obama did not assume office until 2009. Why do you blame him for events which occurred 2000-2008? Your point of view seems dishonest to me.

 

[rlg94086]

He put them on welfare? The question was do you remember what happened five years ago? Apparently, amnesia or denial is preferable to accountability and integrity. This is a common human trait, even though a sign of weakness at best, and dishonesty at worst, which is how ethical people characterize the current republican agenda, in my opinion.

The economy collapsed under the weight of republican leadership. That is what put more children on welfare. Repeating those policies would be even more catastrophic now. Mr. Obama has not made as much progress to reverse the republican financial collapse of 2007-2008 as we might like, but he has also been blocked whenever possible by republicans. But we can be sure that continuing the Bush insanity would have driven us in even deeper into worldwide financial collapse. Afterall, those policies created the collapse in the first place. There is a definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result. It is insanity to vote for Romney by that definition.

Our economy collapsed in 2007 in the leading sectors. This rippled through to more widespread collapse in 2008. Mr Obama did not assume office until 2009. Why do you blame him for events which occurred 2000-2008? Your point of view seems dishonest to me.

IOW…it’s still all Bush’s fault after almost 4 years of an Obama presidency.

That’s okay though…he has 4 years experience at being a failed president, so I’m sure he’ll be much better at being a failed president the next 4 years. We wouldn’t want to throw away all of that failure experience. :whacky: