(1) Aggressively promote domestic energy development, especially fossil fuels (Obama has delayed this at every turn, instead propping up failed green energy companies run by big donors).
Fossil fuels are a dead end. They're climate-negative, limited in availability, and don't do anything more than delay the problem. Funding research for alternative energy is critical. Frankly we need to be doing more of it than Obama is, but at least he's doing some.
(2) Expand the market for U.S. goods overseas by negotiating new trade agreements and standing up to China on intellectual-property and currency issues.
What leverage does Romney plan to bring to the negotiation that Obama hasn't? This is incredibly vague, and doesn't discuss the ACTUAL amount of opportunity. Platitudes don't boost the economy.
(3) Improve workforce skills by transferring job-training programs to the states and going after teachers' unions, which, he says, stand in the way of school choice and better instruction. (When has Obama gone after ANY union?)
He SAYS teacher's unions stand in the way of better instruction. He hasn't proved it. Why WOULD Obama go after unions? They're not the mafia. It's not a foregone conclusion to a majority if the populace that they're evil, like you seem to be blindly accepting.
(4) Attack the deficit through budget cuts, not tax increases. (Obama clearly has the opposite idea here).
Obama has given specific plans that favor budget cuts over tax increases by more than 2:1. So no, Obama does not "clearly" have the opposite idea.
(5), reshape the regulatory climate to "encourage and promote small business" rather than swamp it. (We have a metric ton more regulations now than when Obama entered office).
Really? What new regulations do we have? Most of the new ones that were heavily publicized the last 4 years have specific exemptions for small business, or actively contribute to them (ObamaCare, for example). The problem is, when Romney says "less regulation for small businesses", he really means "less regulation for large businesses." The USA is already fairly under-regulated in terms of what you can get away with compared to most of the 1st world. De-regulation in the way the Republicans want to do it generally means negative economic and environmental impacts for all but a select few.
You may not like some of Romney's plans but at least HE HAS ONE. At this point I'll be happy to vote for someone who just picks a direction and goes there. Democrats had four years, two of which they could have clearly driven direction with zero intervention by anyone and instead they just sat, apparently befuddled. Well screw that, the debt is too high to keep playing around.
This is the most asinine thing I've heard in a long time. A plan to screw things up is absolutely not better than no plan, and even that's a straw-man. Obama has clearly had a direction, and he's been fought by Republicans at literally every turn. Do you remember the health care debates in 2009? Despite being in minority control, they were invited to the discussion because Obama wanted to be inclusive. They chose to drag the process out as long as possible, kicking and screaming like spoiled children, and using every dirty trick in the book to try to derail the process. This was back around the time that Mitch McConnell was saying openly in press conferences that their top priority was to deny Obama a second term. Despite that, they passed a sweeping health care reform bill, and a number of other items. He absolutely executed on a plan. To claim otherwise is just thickheaded.