I'm not quite sure how it is that Mitt thinks Obama is somehow magically responsible for bumping up in-state tuition at four-year colleges. If I had to speculate, I'd say the costs have risen largely because of price hikes at state schools, which have had to hike tuitions to meet state budget cuts, which have been organized by austerity measures at the state and federal levels, driven largely (though not solely) by Republicans.
But never mind, Mitt. Using their own advice, if "young Americans" can't afford college, they should just get a loan from their parents … (h/t +Koushik Dutta)
Reshared post from +Mitt Romney
We can’t afford four more years of President Obama. SHARE if you agree. http://mi.tt/RafJXn
Google+: View post on Google+
66 view(s)
I actually managed to sneak a comment in on this post before it hit the limit to make the same point. Noticed that many others were saying the same thing.
I will be curious to see if he brings it up at the DU debate tomorrow night.
His tactics are working, He has offended 47% of the population, This he has reversed, 74% now feel the same about him.
On the flip side, this isn't saying it's specifically Obama's fault….just that it happened/is happening during his watch.
Just like the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Obama didn't do it, but it happened on his watch.
Well, +Mark Means, Obama was, at minimum, the CinC — and if it had gone pear-shaped, he'd've been held responsible, you can bet.
And, to get back to the title, to blame this ("can't afford four more years of") on Obama is akin to blaming him for tornadoes, spiders, and your favorite TV show being canceled.
It’s implicit in the statement. Otherwise, they would have said “in the last four years” instead of “[s]ince President Obama took office.”
Also, I’d like to know where they got their figures. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “the average total cost of attendance in 2010–11 for first-time, full-time students living on campus and paying in-state tuition was $20,100 at public 4-year institutions and $39,800 at private nonprofit 4-year institutions.” That doesn’t jibe with the graphic Romney posted.
If things did go wrong in killing OBL, I'd really have to wonder if we'd even hear about it, after the way the White House handled the embassy killings.
One has to ask what policies, if any, under Obama were the cause for the tuition hike. If there were, in fact, Obama policies, then he would be responsible.
Not to belabor the point and I can look up my own info on it but, on a personal level, I don't think we can afford four more years of Obama.
From what I’ve heard Romney say, I’m sure we can’t afford four years of him. I don’t see how the country is going to be able to pay for anything if he cuts income tax by 20% and eliminating several taxes on the wealthy. That’s going to make the deficit worse, and he apparently has only nebulous plans concerning “loopholes” to make up any of it.
We saw in Colorado Springs what happens when you don’t have a sufficient tax base. His business experience at Bain doesn’t reassure me that he can stave off a national fiscal crisis. I don’t see how offshore blocker corporations can help the Federal government cut costs.
I remember when Obama called the president of our university and told him; "Raise tuition!" And our guy was all like; "But mister president, what about the poor students?" and Obama was like, "Heh, like I care!"
Wait, Obama is responsible for canceling House? That's it, I'm voting for Romney.
Because, of course, the embassy killings were in fact kept a deep dark secret.
I've already noted a plausible explanation for tuition increases (not even considering how tuition increases have outstripped inflation for decades). If Romney has some rationale to actually connect it with Obama, I'm sure … we'll never hear it, because it's a secret and we should just trust him that it's true.
+Mark Means : Re OBL – By this argument, Stalin didn't send anyone to the gulag. After all, he never was the engineer on the trains. It just happened on his watch.
Re Benghazi: You might want to look this over, from a longtime CIA analyst: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-critics-of-obamas-libya-response-profoundly-misunderstand-intelligence/263139/ Or this, from a longtime observer of the State Dept.: http://diplopundit.net/2012/09/30/now-comes-the-accountability-review-board-created-by-congress-but-dammit-congress-cant-wait/
tl:dr version, from both: First-contact intelligence tends to be wrong; impatience and partisan maneuvering usually doesn't yield factual results.