scott, just as long as Romney is using a American teleprompter not the communist teleprompter Obama uses.

So now it's a "communist" teleprompter? Oh, ok.

A stick I tell ya...a STICK !!!!! Haaaaa!!!! FOMOFO-O !!!

anyone who refers to obama using "hussein" might as well hang a sign aroun dhis neck saying "I'm a hater, I have no credibility". lol.

vermontguy, what is wrong with using Obamas middle name, Hussein? Is there something to be ashamed of?

Carl Hubert: Have you forgotten that Bush Jr created this mess or are you looking for a reason to stay stupid and in denial on purpose? Whats the matter do you have the Ann Coulter hang up because if you do that is not good for your mind.

Common Man--Nothing wrong with using the President's middle name, per se. However, those who use it most often use it as an epithet. You know that and I know that.

vermontguy,

and, "muslim" and "Kenyon" and "birth certificate", etc, etc....

here is my new world order...2 cheese burgers with everything and a side of fries and a chocolate malt...not shake !!! Malt....haaa..sounds good huh? Made ya hungry didn't I ??

HERE HERE !!!

Obama is leading America to its darkest days of the Age of Enslavement by proliferating Class Warfare and poverty.

Obama is destroying the value of the dollar by his uncontrolled spending and will bankrupt America which will lead to a one world currency followed by a one world government. The New World Order, which I also refer to as the New World Chaos, the Old World Chaos or the Old Moon Chaos, which is my favorite, because all the globalists that want a one world government should move to another planet like the Moon.

and do have black helicopters on you lawn too? You're paranoid.

Don't get Jeffy going on the smoke coming from the grassy knoll!

Jeffrey: Great piece of sarcasm!

Go away racist.

What personality ???

WHAT ideas. 2012,2011,2008, 2004,2000, 1996, 1992. Can I just pick a year I like?

Oh, what a daring and innovative thinker! Save Social Security by increasing the retirement age for younger workers who can expect to live longer. Well, duh . . . ! Offer private options to traditional Medicare for the next generation of senior citizens. Not a bad idea, but isn't this just an extension of Obamacare into retirement?

One thing I just don't get. Shouldn't the traditional pro-business Republicans be delighted with Obamacare? It funnels a tremendous amount of money into private insurance companies and keeps the federal government out of the health care business. Whatever is Romney thinking in saying he will end Obamacare? He may lose half his support on Wall Street!

yes/no--You mean like a tax plan that, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute, will raise taxes on the poor, lower taxes on the very rich by 6.5 percent, and increase the deficit by $600 billion? Now that's a good idea, but for whom?

Charles,

Dissing Mormons just doesn't become you. Yes, their religious beliefs seem pretty kookie to most of us, but what is the end result? A set of conservative pro-family values that are good for America. When have you ever met a Mormon who wasn't hard working, who didn't value education, who didn't treat his family and his ancestors with caring and respect, who drank, smoked, and gambled? A little zealous application of these same values across a broader spectrum of the population couldn't hurt.

Charles 41...They were polygamist.

At what, selling popsicles on the corner? GET REAL

I think he proved that when he signed the Constitution.....

I hope you feel better. Now put your tinfoil hat back on and go off to Neverland.

Eric: Great piece of sarcasm! It must be sarcasm. No one could post anything so pitifully stupid, and call it an intelligent analysis of the American political scene.

Eric,

Nice to see that you have such respect for the Office of the Presidency and such respect for yourself.

You'd do the same on your side so please. Really?

Old Vet: Honestly, have you ever read anything any more pitifully pathetic than these right wing posts??!!?? I'm just astounded by the political, historical, and economic ignorance of these people? Why on earth would anyone post such ignorant BS and believe they've written something intelligent?!? Palin and Beck have made fortune off the backs of these poorly educated saps. They're so pitifully poorly educated they cannot grasp the fact they're supporting people who have and will continue to support policies that are directly aimed at keeping them down and out. Geeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz..............

TJefferson--Karl Marx was wrong in so many ways, but he was right in saying that the proletariat would be suppressed by their own false consciousness. I'm trying to figure out why these folks keep voting against their own best interests. Perhaps it is because the country is changing so rapidly from a manufacturing to a service-based economy, from a country dominated by Euro-Americans to a nation in which people of color are the majority, and so on that they are scared of losing what little status they have. Because they are ignorant they are insecure about their status and the far right will exploit that insecurity. It's sad.

I agree completely. Right wing media knows its audience well, and its effects are plainly visible to see in this forum.

I am profoundly glad we have the best and brightest leading us during difficult times, and am just as glad the ignorant right will NOT get their way in this presidential cycle. Demogogues like Palin, Beck, et al promote anti-intellectualism, which is the LAST thing this country needs. What self respecting individual would prefer that for America? Not me, and I look forward to helping secure a second term for our fine president, he is going a great job.

Old Vet: I believe you are right on the mark. To that end, I think a great deal of the emotional, anti-Obama hatred is centered around pure racial hatred. A good many right wingers tell us that racism is dead in this country, but that is pure BS. Let me give you a few reasons why I say that.

1. The KKK currently (today) is openly recruiting in Arkansas, and David Duke, the American Nazi said he received a good many calls from TEA Party members wanting him to run for President.

2. The FBI reported after the 2008 election that the numbers of far right, wing, racist organizations grew dramatically.

3. What do people believe happened to the violent element that lost the great civil right struggle of the 50s, 60s, and 70s? Do they think they just became good little intergrationists??!!?? I live in the south, and I can tell you for a fact racism is not dead down here. Racists will not publicly attack Obama as an African-American because they know they'll be put down in the press. So, they use ANY other excuse, i.e., don't tax the wealthy, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a socialist, Obama is a communist, Obama was not born in this country, etc. etc. etc. The attacks are laughable and they may even know it, but they simply don't care how foolish they look because everyone knows exactly what they are saying and why they say it.

4. Then, there are those folks who are NOT violent, but who will tell you quietly, "I cannot vote for a black!" That is the beginning and end of the matter.

There are those people who oppose the President for other reasons, but most of them simply do so out of habit. They'll vote Republican no matter who is on the ticket.

It may or may not be related to race, but threats against the President have risen by 400% since Obama took office. That's according to a recent book about the Secret Service. People threaten Obama because he epitomizes "the other." That's how the rightwing media and, sadly, rightwing politicians portray him. At least John McCain had the courage to tell that woman during the '08 campaign that Obama is an American. It benefits today's rightwing politicians to play upon the hatred while, of course, defending family values.

3trdparty: Yes, we are aware of "anyone but Obama." David Duke, the American Nazi, said he received many calls from TEA Party members who are urging him to run for the presidency. Like you said, "anyone but Obama, geniuis!"

3rdpartyadvocate,

Please tell me why "Anyone but Obama." I really don't get it. Why all the vitriol aimed at this man? What has he done that is so horrible to you people? Killed Osama bin Laden? Introduced a private sector-based health care plan? Saved the Detroit auto industry? Provided some relief to laid off workers and people in mortgage difficulties? Can you offer a rational explanation of why you hate him, something I can actually understand?

1) Guided us into a less than AAA credit rating

2) Created a class of people that believes they should "own" everthing that others work for and labed those people the "1%" (not true)

3) Started a new war in Libya still unfolding into anarchy.

4) Proved that government cannot "spend' it's way into a Nation's prosperity - but the money only adds to the National Debt.

...that's just to start pedag...but really, I don't expect to change your mind. Just go on and name-call. It seems the best thing that opposition can do at this point.

Thank you,

Those are reasons, rational ones. It's nice to hear an intelligent argument coming through the din of hatred and vitriol. We may disagree, but at least we're thinking.

Just--They may seem rational, but there not terribly true. Moody's was rather clear that it was the general disfunction in Washington that led to the credit downgrade, not just Obama. The war in Libya started without the US. If you check on the history of it, it started as an indigenous uprising and the French led the call for international intervention.

justoneguy: Well, at least you're not screaming "socialist," "communist," "Maoist," but I still want to challenge your thinking on the items you list. I'll take them in the order you listed them.

1. Guided us into a less than AAA rating by S&P. Yes, S&P reduced the U.S. rating from AAA to AA, but that move has been shown to be highly questionable. Review the following information about S&P:

CRAs such as S&P have been subject to criticism in the wake of large losses beginning in 2007 in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite being assigned top ratings by the CRAs.

Credit ratings of AAA (the highest rating available) were given to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans. Investors trusting the low-risk profile that AAA implies, purchased large amounts of CDOs that later became unsaleable. Those that could be sold often took staggering losses. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of CDOs issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million, despite being rated AAA by S&P.^[18]

Companies pay S&P to rate their debt issues. As a result, some critics have contended that S&P is beholden to these issuers and that its ratings are not as objective as they ought to be and that, in fact, this "pay to play" model makes their ratings meaningless at best and perhaps would more accurately be compared to the role of the "shill" in a game of three card monte.

In April 2009, the company called for "new faces" in the Irish government, which was seen as interfering in the democratic process. In a subsequent statement they said they were "misunderstood".^[19]

Some critics have pointed out that the company and other rating agencies were part of the cause of the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, for example when Moody's downgraded Freddie Mac^[20] or, to quote Time, when "both agencies granted AAA rating to Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that were chock-full-of crap mortgages, thereby helping to precipitate the 2008 financial collapse"^[21]). Ezra Klein wrote for The Washington Post that "Standard Poor's didn't just miss the bubble. They helped cause it," but he said S&P took the right action to downgrade the U.S.^[22] On the other hand, Paul Krugman wrote, "it’s hard to think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on America than the rating agencies," and, "S&P’s demands suggest that it’s talking nonsense about the US fiscal situation".^[23] Perhaps more revealing and supportive of Paul Krugman's comment, David Wyss, who was chief economist at S&P till July 2011 noted to a reporter on August 17, 2011: "The credit agencies don't know any more about government budgets than the guy in the street who is reading the newspaper."^[24] Such insider comments lay fresh doubts about the key ratings decisions by S&P. And, in a recent Wall Street Journal article, Mark Adelson, S&P's chief credit officer since June 2008, openly decried the quality of S&P analysis and analysts; yet the majority of them (including Clifford Griep, the former chief credit risk officer) remain employed by S&P. While Mark Adelson reviewed and edited the U.S. downgrade notice, he did not really question the reasoning, nor spot the $2 trillion error in the computations. Furthermore, on August 6, 2011, the CEO Deven Sharma publicly stated that he had no prior knowledge that such a rating change was even in the works for the prior day, but quickly went on to defend the move; in a surprise development, Deven Sharma left S&P in early September amid mounting criticism of the firm's ratings and research.

With the US downgrade some have accused S&P of causing further damage for its own agenda. S&P acknowledged making a US$2 trillion error in its justification for downgrading the US credit rating,^[25] but stated that it "had no impact on the rating decision".^[26] "A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself,"^[27] said a spokesman for the United States Department of the Treasury.

The SEC is investigating whether the intent to downgrade the U.S. was leaked prior to the public announcement, since the stock market fell sharply for no apparent reason a day earlier, fed by rumors of an impending downgrade. Another issue that has concerned commentators is that an S&P rating — for example, of the US government or any other national government — can have, and has had, a distinct effect on a truly global scale, but the decision on these ratings are made by the company's employees who are not elected by the public, and are not accountable for their decision making process. There is no appeals process against a credit-rating decision.

In August 2011, S&P filed a letter with the SEC in an attempt to water down a proposal requiring credit rating agencies to publicly disclose "significant errors" in how they calculate their ratings. The SEC proposal, issued in May 2011, would require credit raters to disclose more about their methods and strengthen internal controls to protect against conflicts of interest

2. Created a class of people that believes they should "own" everthing that others work for and labed those people the "1%" (not true) Where in the name of God did you get such an idea??!!?? Where did you even hear such BS? I challenge you to give me the quotation from the President that he EVER said such a thing.

3. Started a new war in Libya still unfolding into anarchy. The President didn't start a new war in Libya. There was a civil war or revolution going on for months and months. John McCain went to Libya and demanded the President get the U.S. involved in it. Sarah the Simple was demanding the U.S. get involved. The Europeans were sending fighter aircraft into Libya on the side of the rebels. The President sent in drone aircraft that took out much of Moammar Kadafi's military that, along with NATO aircraft, helped the rebels overthrow a dictator, a dictator that launched the 1988 terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Drone (unmanned) aircraft is the only force the U.S. used in Libya. We sent in NO troops! And, you are attacking the President for that action??!!?? Who's side are you on anyway???!!? Your own party leaders were encouraging the President to take action in Libya!!

4. Proved that government cannot "spend' it's way into a Nation's prosperity - but the money only adds to the National Debt. Do you realize what you're saying?? The money that you're talking about was TARP (Bush) and Stimulus (Obama). Let's go back to October 2008 when Henry Paulson, Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, said "...the American financial system was days maybe hours away from total collapse," unless the government pumped billions into the markets immediately. (Bush said last week that "he'd do it again!"" We joined every industrialized country on the planet and invested billions into the markets. Yes, capitalism was saved and a world-wide, economic depression was averted. Yet, you and your ilk preferred a complete collapse of the American and world wide economies that would have sent unemployment to 30% or higher for decades and decades said David Stockman, Reagan's Director of Management and Budget. Whose side are you on anyway??!!??

The S & P did drop the ball on the mortgage backed securities ratings. Although at the time hardly anyone knew what was in these MBS's and bonds.

The current downgrade i don't blame them. We are right at 100% debt/GDP. We have a massive deficit taking in 2.2 Trillion and spending 3.7 Trillion (or were) and have ZERO plans of slowing spending.

If my home finances resembled taking in 2.2Trillion, spending 3.7 trillion and owing 15+ Trillion i guarentee you a bank would "downgrade" me if i went in for a loan.