| (Updated) Republican Presidential Candidate Romney in BG |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by By JAN LARSON McLAUGHLIN /Sentinel County Editor | ||
| Wednesday, 18 July 2012 14:29 | ||
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney wants to save the soul of America and the sanctity of its job creators. Romney’s commitment to business, lower taxes, fossil fuels and repealing health care reform met with rousing support during his campaign stop Wednesday at the Bowling Green Community Center. PHOTO GALLERY His opposition, President Barack Obama, is out of ideas, out of touch and out of excuses, according to Romney. “That’s why in November we have to get him out of office,” he said. Romney suggested that Obama should stick to his campaign promise to leave office if he didn’t turn around the economy in three years. “More time won’t make things better,” Romney said. The presumptive Republican nominee stopped short, however, of agreeing with an audience member who called Obama a “monster” during the town hall portion of his visit. The woman blamed Obama for her son having to layoff employees at the business he started. “It’s all because of what this monster has done,” she said. “I’m an angry mom.” Romney agreed that Obama has little appreciation for the ingenuity of American business owners. The president, he said, gives government credit that is actually due to business people. Romney pointed out a sign in the crowd that said, “I created my business — not the government.” He asked business creators in the crowd to stand, then said, “Take that Mr. President.” Obama attacks, demonizes and denigrates success rather than supporting it, Romney said. “I will celebrate success, and reward success and encourage it,” he said. And unlike the president, Romney said he has the benefit of 25 years in the private sector. “I know how to get this economy going,” he said. Ohio Gov. John Kasich praised Romney’s business experience, and criticized the Democrats for smearing Romney’s years in the private sector — “because Mitt Romney was in business and they’ve got nothing to sell.” During his speech, Romney outlined his five-point plan for rebuilding America. First, he plans to take advantage of the nation’s energy resources. “This president has done almost everything in his power” to slow oil and coal production, he said of Obama. “We’ve got to get ourselves energy secure.” “I’ll build the Keystone Pipeline, if I have to build it myself,” and he’d like to double the number of drilling permits issued by the government, he said later in his speech. Second, he plans to open up worldwide markets to U.S. trade. Third, he will balance the nation’s budget. Fourth, he will make sure workers and students have the skills needed to fill jobs. Teachers unions, he said, should get behind parents, children and teachers. And lastly, Romney said he will “restore economic freedom in this country,” by lowering taxes on small businesses and stop health care costs from steep increases. During the question-answer period, Romney was advised by audience members to listen to Tea Party members and pick a conservative vice presidential nominee. “I can assure you that person will be conservative,” and any Supreme Court nominees will be “believers in following the Constitution,” he said. Romney did not reveal who his running partner might be, though Senator Marco Rubio, of Florida, was mentioned once in his speech. Sen. Rob Portman, of Ohio, another possible vice presidential candidate, was not present. Romney also addressed the topics of plunging home values, retirement savings, job training and religious freedom. “This election is about the soul of America,” Romney said. The Republican frontrunner didn’t have to convince the crowd, which seemed firmly behind his message. “We need a new change. The other change wasn’t sufficient,” said Janice Jackson, of Maumee. “I feel like he has a good plan to get the economy back in order,” said James Hartz, of Findlay. Hartz said he likes Romney’s conservative values and commitment to revise health care reform. He said he isn’t troubled by the similarities of the national reform with the health care program adopted in Massachusetts while Romney was governor. “People can change their mind on things,” Hartz said. |
||
| Last Updated on Thursday, 19 July 2012 09:44 |
Front Page Stories
| Park position is natural fit 05/25/2013 | PETER KUEBECK | Sentinel Staff Writer 
Jim Witter, WC Park District Naturlist. (Photo: J.D. Pooley/Sentinel-Tribune) |
Honor Flight treats former Army cook 05/25/2013 | PETER KUEBECK | Sentinel Staff Writer  Honor Flight recipient Leroy Chamberlain is seen in his home in Bowling Green, Ohio on M [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles | ||
Comments
YTYK, were you telling me to get out of town? Awfully nice for you to offer your advice. I am curious, though, what is your opinion of the university presence in the town? Is it a good or bad thing?
I'm all for the University being in BG. My mother worked there for 30 years and it gave me my college experience. I am only against people who bash BG and the people who live there that do not think and act the way you think they should or to your belief. I am one of those inteligent Republican, Consertive people you so fondly speak about from time to time.
2008 results per Wood County Board of Elections:
Barack Obama 34285 52.61%
http://www.co.wood.oh.us/boe/Election_Results/2008/Nov08.htm
But, you must admit that there is a racist dimension to this sort of discussion, and that is what makes people jittery.
.
I have known many of the same rich conservatives--and many like them--and agree with you. I am one of those intelligent, self-critical liberals with whom conservatives can work.
Oh Yeah a clean honest-to-goodness person can't run for office because they aren't dirty enough anymore.
Due to the time of the appearance, the Majority of Romney Supporters were "At Work" (Thank goodness someone is still working and paying into the "System")
I found it interesting that the FEW protestors that were interviewed by the media were concerned that their "Entitlements" might disappear if Romney is elected???
Actually those people should be supporting Romney because they are going to NEED Romney to turn our Economy around otherwise no one will be paying into the System that these people have become so dependent on.
I really think it is naive to think that the economic policies that led us over the cliff in the first place--no regulation for the financial sector, tax cuts without reinvestment or actual 'job creation'--are going to fix the problems of the economy. I predict that if Romney wins, his wealthy backers will go laughing to the bank, the public sector will be slashed, and the propaganda mills will have to work overtime to cover up the mess.
"Naive"? Naive is thinking that Mr. Obama has a "Plan" that has/will work at getting this economy going again.
We remember exactly who was in charge of the Financial Services Committee former Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd and the "Brains" behind the Fannie Maw and Freddie Mac fiasco, Democrat Barney Frank.
If Obama were to win again, we will continue down the road of high unemployment, market decline, higher and higher medical costs, and continued grid lock in the Congress.
Chris: If you believe that Dodd and Frank had NOTHING to do with the Housing Crisis then You are very "Naive".
I find it amazing that you want us to believe that the two individuals that were overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "Nothing" to do with the demise of the Housing Market. AMAZING RATIONAL?
“Dodd-Frank was run through Congress with very little debate [in 2010]”
Dodd-Frank was a hastily crafted response to the 2008 financial crisis, full of requirements that legislators did not take the time to read and regulators were unprepared to meet.
Critics of the financial reform have characterized Dodd-Frank as, “Too big not to fail,” and have cited the high cost of complying with new regulations as a potential drag on the economy.
Dodd/Frank is an example of legislation which the Democrats rammed through Congress that was passed without a thorough review of the impact it would have on the economy.
Excellent observation, (and good comeback) my friend!
"Congress" is often used as a shorthand for just the "House," even though it is technically inaccurate.
If you look at the Republican caucus, the number of people of color is shockingly small. And one of them, Allen West, is completely bonkers.
Have a budget and live within your means? Obama has a better plan "you did not earn that,someone else did" wealth distribution. Karl Marx is smiling!
And that "someone else did that" meme is based on taking a sentence out of context. It is very clear from just the preceding sentence (which is NOT shown or quoted on Fox or by Romney) that the "that" refers to infrastructure and inspiring teachers, not the business itself. You can debate about whether or not it is important for the public sector to invest in infrastructure, but it is a lie to say that the President claimed that people in the private sector did not build their own businesses. Funny how you get all hot under the collar when some network flunky misleadingly edits comments by Zimmermann but not when this is done by "your side."
It is very clear that "some else did that" is being used to justify even higher taxes and wealth redistribution.
The only way to do this fairly is to take the average pay for everyone in Wood county and tax those above it. Comrade this means you also need to pay in a lot more after all it was others that are responsible for your success not you.
Obama graduated with honors from Columbia and was named head of the Harvard Law Review--not things that happen to stupid people with poor grades, or to people who have gotten in dishonestly. Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard are all private institutions and would violate several privacy rules to release a student's grades.
And that would be a Problem?
Why?
If you or I started a business and eventually turned over the management of the business to others within the company (and we took a non-active role) why would/should that prevent you or I from receiving proceeds from our ownership portion of the business???
That would make NO SENSE!
Chris, you are far too intelligent and would not let that happen if it were you in the above situation.
If you wrote a book, would you stop collecting the proceeds from the sale of that book at some future point? I don't think you would.
Obama seems to be looking for anything to avoid having to answer for his inability to fulfill many of the campaign promises that he made in the last election. With unemployment still close to 10%, the economy in the dump, problems with his attorney general, etc etc, the democrats are looking for anything to deflect attention to the "REAL" problems that will decide this election.
The tax return issue is a "Joke". I look forward to the debates when both candidates have to answer the important questions and these childish Phishing attempts are put on the back burner.
Chris, the same argument could be made relative to the release of Romney's Records.
In both cases, someone will attempt to create a story line, TV ads etc that will be so biased that they will ONLY mislead potential voters, relative to the "Truth" and what is important.
You always seem to try and have us believe that the "right" is the group that is trying to mislead voters BUT the "left" is running ads that are VERY Misleading and UNTRUE!
Romney taxes will show he made a lot of Money and produced a lot of wealth for others, something we should all want.
Obama's will show he never did anything in the private sector not even run a lemonade stand.
The only reason libs want the records is for more smoke and mirrors and distortion. Pretty interesting that over 70% of Obama stimulus went overseas or to large campaign donors???
However, from what I have read, all documents relevant to that murder have already been released, among 10s of thousands of pages. The rest is just a shabby conspiracy theory about the 2nd amendment that has been cooked up by some pretty shady characters. In fact, many of the "talking points" of the Fact and Furious scandal have been discredited by independent investigation.
Your comments about Obama/overseas have also been debunked by fact checkers. And, I'll toss this out: it is only "cronyism" if you disclose your bundlers.
Looks like your wrong? It may be a good idea for the Dems to get out the Illegal vote!
(CBS News) President Obama and Mitt Romney are effectively tied in the race for the presidency, according to a new CBS News/New York Times survey.
Forty-seven percent of registered voters nationwide who lean towards a candidate back Romney, while 46 percent support the president. Four percent are undecided. The 1 percentage point difference is within the survey's three-point margin of error.
Please tell us of What importance is Mr. Romney's Tax Return OR ( for that matter - Mr. Obama's College Transcript) with regard to Electing a President???
In my opinion NEITHER is very important. I am tired of "Political Ads" that are FALSE and misleading.
What IS Important is who will get our economy going again and who has the background to "Lead" our Country in this challenging time?
Mr. Obama has had almost 4 years to "Create Change" and our Economy is worse off than when he took office and his "key" legislation is going to cost Trillions of dollars and add tremendously to our "Debt".
Cont.
The debates should be Very interesting. Mr. Obama will have to explain and answer for his "record" and neither candidate will be able to make False accusations without having to answer for them.
For those of you who are concerned that Mr. Romney may have investments overseas (or whatever your "tax return issue is) then you should also be concerned with Congresswomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others who have accounts in the Camen Islands etc?
If we make needed changes to our Tax Code and bring our Taxes in line "competitive" with the rest of the World, then People and Businesses etc WON'T have the desire to take their money and/or businesses overseas to avoid our "out of control" Tax System!
A Little Common Sense would do wonders!
Who's definition of "transparent" are we using? The President used that word in the last election and his reign and the practices of the Democrats have been anything buy transparent. Where was Transparency when they passed the Health Care (Obamacare) and NO one knew what was in it until after they passed it?
You can not toss words like transparent around and have us believe that this Administration has been transparent in their dealings the past 4 years.
Let me repeat: if a man runs for president on the basis of the wonderful things he has done with Bain Capital, then it is only fair to know what those wonderful things were. If a man runs for president on the grounds that he can do a better job with the economy than the incumbent, then it is only fair to understand how he has run his own personal economy. As a businessman, he would never invest in a corporation that revealed less than 2 years of its financial dealings. Why should we invest in him?
What Romney has done with his personal investments is NO MORE relevant/important to serving as President than Obama not releasing his college transcripts or releasing copies of the Harvard Review when he "was in charge".
The above examples are NOT important as all that will become of information from Romney's Tax Records or Obama's College records is some crazed attempt to create some more misguided propaganda.
I believe 3 years ago, that Mr. Obama, takling about the Economy, said: “If I don’t have this done in three years, then this is going to be a one‑term proposition.”
Now there is a Statement about Obama with which I would Totally Agree!
It is interesting how you respond to a quote of Obama but say nothing about the main point of the comment?
"What Romney has done with his personal investments is NO MORE relevant/important to serving as President than Obama not releasing his college transcripts or releasing copies of the Harvard Review when he "was in charge".
The above examples are NOT important as all that will become of information from Romney's Tax Records or Obama's College records is some crazed attempt to create some more misguided propaganda."
Do I assume that you agree with the main point?
Quoting Christopher Williams:
As Obama stated almost 4 years ago while talking about the Economy: “If I don’t have this done in three years, then this is going to be a one‑term proposition.”
Now we need to make Mr. Obama's statement a "truism".
Different Scale???
If it is wrong(?), then it is wrong regardless of the amount one is investing/holding in off-shore accounts. If Wasserman Schultz is also doing it, she is also "guilty"(?)
The problem is WHY people are getting advice from their accountants to move their monies off-shore. If our system of taxation were more competitive with the rest of the world, the incentive to move one's money off-shore would NOT be there. Until we revise our tax structure, individuals and businesses will continue to use the current tax codes to maximize their holdings. This is not "Rocket Science"!
If the Tax Rates in the US as so GREAT/LOW, then why are Corporations like GE (CEO/Obama's Job Czar) moving their Companies overseas? Why would Schultz, Romney, you or I consider investing monies/holdings in "off-shore" accounts?
The ONLY reason is that the Corporate and Personal Tax Rates in the USA are NOT competitive with the rest of the Industrialized world.
When half of the people in the USA pay NO personal income tax, then it is obvious that there is a Major imbalance that MUST be addressed. We cannot continue down this road of "Entitlements". We have to create an economic environment where business can and will expand and provide JOBS for ALL able bodied citizens.
Actually the people who you refer to above pay considerably MORE gas and other consumption taxes than you or I. They own larger and more homes than you or I and I am certain have more vehicles etc and as a result pay far more in consumption taxes than us.
You, I and everyone else STILL in America have that opportunity to create an idea, product or service than could allow us to become "wealthy". Other than our creativity ther is nothing keeping us from being the next Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Bill Gates, Ray Kroc or any number of other entrepreneurs.
"Actually the people who you refer to above pay considerably MORE gas and other consumption taxes than you or I. They own larger and more homes than you or I and I am certain have more vehicles etc and as a result pay far more in consumption taxes than us."
a late night response. Sorry for any confusion.
The second is a nice statement of the Horatio Alger myth. But really, when people criticize income inequality, they are not talking about the brilliant innovators. They are talking particularly about those fairly shadowy figures in the financial sector who have successfully decoupled the creation of wealth from the creation of jobs or the creation of...anything. It's what investigative journalist Chris Hedges has called the "culture of death." Packaging toxic debts into derivatives and trading them as commodities, knowing they were toxic, is what caused the economic crisis. Not Dodd, not Frank, not the ripped-off mortgage holders.
And who was, from the government, was in charge of the Financial Services Committee (former Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd) and the person from Congress who was overseeingt Fannie Maw and Freddie? (Democrat Barney Frank)
You again make a great point but you seem to fail to acknowledge who, in the government, should have stopped this rather than allow it to happen?
They were mismanaged, certainly, and their scope is far reaching. However, it is highly disputed how culpable or even involved Frank was in the process. I am not saying that he couldn't have done more, but when you have Bush's Treasury secretary claiming as late as 2008--AFTER Lehman Bros' collapse that they were still sound--it is hard to make the case that the blame lay more with democrats i congress than with Treasury's oversight and their own proven mismanagement. One thing that cuts government's culpability down somewhat is how much information was hidden from those in charge of oversight.
Fannie and Freddie allowed and encouraged the bundling to take place.
The bigger problem was that Fannie and Freddie set up a system of loaning Trillions of dollars to people who had NO chance of repaying loans on homes they had NO business buying. Anytime you loan money with little or NO down payment and loan up to 125%+ of the market value of that home, you have set those individuals up to "Fail". As a result, those individuals were unable to make the mortgage payments and the snowball started.
Dodd and Frank whole heartily supported the above practices and that was the problem that caused the whole scenario to take place.
The selling and parceling of toxic debt in the form of derivatives was at the heart of what was going on at the big banks. Much of that debt came from the realty sector, but the willful and fraudulent selling of toxicity was not much different than Enron writ large. It's all about the idea of not regulating the financial sector. Fannie and Freddie are huge and merely symptomatic of the bigger problem. But they didn't start it.
In the earlier response, my reference was regarding the "1%" you refer to.
With regard to the above quote, is this "greed" or just making use of a good accountant and "smart business" for those individuals like Schultz, Romney and others?
This "Problem", as you seem to see it, could be eliminated if we get our tax rates in line (competitively) with the rest of the industrialized world. There is NO reason that business and personal taxes for citizens of the USA are not in line with the rest of the world.
I think the US birth is part of the qualifications for running.
Obama didn't make his birth records an issue. The people accusing him of not being born in the US did. Hawaii authorities had answered inquiries prior to his running, and he only started publishing photocopies of the birth certificate in order to shut up the insanity. Despite multiple official confirmations about the birth certificate, there are still people who don't believe it.
Has any presidential candidate be subject to so much nonsense about his citizenship before? No. But it doesn't make it his fault.
Bowling Green is in Wood County.
Clinton won Wood County twice.
Bush won Wood County twice.
Ted Strickland won Wood county twice.
Obama won Wood County.
Wood County is a true 'purple' county and in the state that picks Presidents, it is one of a dozen swing Counties that will choose the next President.
Most governments supply infrastructure, To use your logic the Soviet Union should have been a big success! Nice try we all know what Obama stands for.
And, as to the Soviet Union--it had ridiculously poor infrastructure. "We all know what Obama stands for"? Really? No. You have just decided that there are a bunch of things that you hate and then decided (with the support of your favorite media sources) that Obama stands for them. Whether he does or not. It is a childish and incompetent way to approach dealing with issues that are really quite important.
Seriously, Romney and Obama WORK FOR THE SAME FEW CORPORATIONS!!!
I cannot WAIT until your inane little system collapses so you all can start starving like the rest of us. Maybe then you will get with reality.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
1-5 are also only relevant if you view the economy as a "pie" that never increases its capacity.
Let's pose a different scenario:
1. when more people have access to prosperity without having to fend off basic needs, they increase demand in the economy, helping everybody.
2. dollars spent on infrastructure, education, and health care are not spent on you directly help you in the long run because you don't have to pay through the nose for crisis management. (Emergency-room health care not only does not involve preventive care for the individuals but hits you in increased cost).
Let's pose a different scenario:
1. when more people have access to prosperity without having to fend off basic needs, they increase demand in the economy, helping everybody.
2. dollars spent on infrastructure, education, and health care are not spent on you directly help you in the long run because you don't have to pay through the nose for crisis management.
Comrade
The welfare state has failed and the promoters of the"Great Society" have no proof of it lifting up the poor, take off your blinders and look at the inner cities. It is safer in the Middle east then Chicago which has been ruled by your Obama theology for more then a century.
More of the same will not help!
I have just described Germany. A successful mixed economy with plenty of private entrepreneurshi p, universal health care, a functional and effective public education system, and the most stable economy in Europe. You have once again proven that you can't think past your talking points.
Once again: based on his policies, the president is not even a socialist, let alone a communist. Any assertion to the contrary has repeatedly earned the "pants on fire" from Politifact.
Calling a person "comrade" doesn't make them a communist. So, please take your sandbox McCarthyism, your shovel, and your pail, go home, and read a book. You might learn something.
I guess you are arguing that an up-to-date infrastructure and vital public education system are just pie-in-the-sky communism or "welfare state" theology. Because that's as much sense as I can make out of this drivel. By your reasoning, even Romney is a Marxist.
quote Margaret Thatcher
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."
And yet Thatcher never touched the national health care system.
1. The president is eligible to be president, excelled in school, and is not an idiot.
2. Romney is an intelligent and rational human being.
3. the president is not a Muslim, and Huma Abedin is not a threat. Nor are other American Muslims.
4. All American citizens are protected by the constitution, not just conservative Christians.
5. Personal profit does not equal job creation. A mixed economy is not communism.
There are important debates to be had about the extent of public investment in infrastructure, how to handle ongoing war and the changes in the middle east, how to reform entitlements without shredding the social safety net, how to create jobs and ensure long-term growth.
RSS feed for comments to this post.