The GOP does have a problem with coming up with a candidate that can both mobilize their base enough to want to vote for him, and also be able to appeal enough to everyone else.  To end up doing a 9-9-9 plan, get excited about it, and then it is shown to end up raising taxes on most people, while slashing them on the top, isn't going to fly.  People may be angry at Obama, but without a viable alternative, the GOP will face major issues.  2004 showed you can't just run anyone against a sitting president and win.  Cheering on statements like, "if you don't have a job or are rich, it is your fault" won't get a lot of votes either.

And there is a problem regarding the new sectors.  Anyone want to put a pool together to guess what the next new sector would be?

By "pretentious" I assume you mean "someone who disagrees with me and I lack the information to argue against him" ...

What i find funny about people who blame Unions for economic demise:

For every 1 lazy scrub there are 99 hard working people in safe conditions working hard, being protected. Yet they point out the one lazy scrub to demolish everything unions have done for this country.

For every 1 millionaire....excuse me "job creator" that invests money in his company there are 99 who pile money into trust funds, yachst, vacation homes or savings accounts. Yet they love and point to that 1 as reason why trickle down works.

Supply side economics is utterly wrong. Giving the widget maker more money to make widgets doesnt work when there is no one to buy the widgets. You give the consumer money to buy, businesses need to produce, you give the CEO money why would he/she waste it on excess stock and production costs when the consumer isnt in a better position to buy the goods?

Why would the consumer waste money on excess stock and production costs when the consumer's demand is artificially inflated by the government and therefore going to disapear at some point forcing them to basically fall of a cliff when that happens dooming their company?

Supply side economics is right... it's just OLDSCHOOL supply side economics that are right.

IE:  Tax cuts to the rich don't really help in the long run.

Wealth is only created by the actual creation of wealth.

AKA creating new demand.  Not stimulating false demand.

Which is why MOST wealth is produced by new entrepuners and inventors.

These people get money from banks.

As there are more products that people demand, the prices will go down as the products compete direct and indirectly with each other., people will be able to afford more products they want.  Which will raise their standards of living and their wealth.

Of course the problem is that laws have basically gone out of their way to HURT new entrepuners,  whether it be further complicating and screwing up IP laws, BOTH partes helping out their expensive corporate lobbyists and taxes that end up targeting entrepenuers and small buisnesses the hardest.  (IE Millionaires tax.)

I

Additionally.... rich people don't use savings accounts on any significant level... which makes me question your credentials in how rich people use their money.

Outside that you've mentioned consumer goods, which are EXACTLY what you claimed helps the economy grow.... (though it doesn't) and then Trust Funds...

Which are pretty much always largely stocks and or bonds....

aka investments.

I think you have your numbers mixed up.

Go look at union v. non-union data in the public and private sector in similar industries. Look at public education costs by state and compare union v. non-union. Look at car company profitability and car affordability among companies who do and do not work in unions.

Additionally, look at Forbes list of billionaires. I think you won't see  awhole lot of people that piled money into trust funds. Or are you just appealing to emotion and wanting to ignore any data that is available?

As for your last paragraph, you are looking at it quite wrong. You don't nor should give anyone more money. Allocation of capital must come naturally. If a business cannot make a widget cheaper, then it shouldn't increase its sales. If a consumer cannot create enough goods or services to afford something, then that is their issue (and the businesses as well). If the CEO cannot improve a company, then they are going to get fired, or the company will implode. It *should* be the natural order of things. Unfortunately, when you change from supply-side to Kenyesian economics, you begin to incentivize many industries and you create many, MANY problems for an economy... Much of which we've seen during the housing bust which was largely created by government incentives via the sub-prime crisis.

I would argue that it isn’t the union workers people have a problem with, it is the union management that works against the interests of the workers, the company and their consumers  that has eroded people’s opinion of unions; and is a major contributing factor to the downfall of the manufacturing sector in most western developed nations. To fully understand what I mean you would have to have experienced the “joy” of trying to implement productivity increasing software for a large union shop that was designed to optimise the customer’s experience; and when you see every stakeholder (management, workers, and customers) except union management thrilled by the system.

Oh, and the problem with some unions isn't that they protect workers rights...

it's they protect ALL workers rights.

I saw a lot of good hardworking people at GM get laid off while other people who would of been fired at any other job for blatantly disregarding saftey standards and leaving their post for most of the day got to keep their jobs because they had seniority, even though they were making the job a hell of a lot harder for everyone else.

Why the 9 good workers out of 10 put up with union bosses protecting that 1 jackass i'll never know.

I mean hell, I got trained by a guy who literally caught falling sharp metal without protection sleeves, with one hand, while he was on his cellphone.

Blaming Unions in 2011? Yeah, all those pesky health and safety laws, environmental protections and retirement benefits sure put Apple out of business Mr Jobs.

Im glad people like him are dead, were moving past that whole "corporates are always right, even when they're fucking you in the ass" stage of human evolution.

This.  But hey, what do you expect?  They constantly bash on companies, yet look the other way when large companies get handouts from the same poloticians they support.  Plus, they don't really have anything else to run on.  Can't really run on how Obama has made things "better."