Willard's foreign policy advisor doesn't even have enough knowledge to know that Czechoslovakia & Russia were split in the early 1990's;

Feisty - I'll "betcha" he can see Russia from his front porch, though....

Obama/Biden - 2012

- Mitt Romneys message is going to get through.

Robert in Mass - What kind of msg is that? The one that says "Vote for me, I'm an Idiot"....

By the way - Where's your cousin Bob? Did the police finally catch up with after that little issue he had with the neighborhood kids.

robert in mass-Damn son talk about kissing some a$$. Your head is all the way up old mitts a$$.

"Mitt believes in striving for ones goals. Mitt believes in being persistent, hard work, determination, desire,"

Mitt also believes it doesn't hurt being born to parents who can float you a loan for $20,000.

Feisty - Heard on the news last night that 17 of the 24 foreign policy advisers on Romney's staff were former Bush advisers. Talk about Back to the Future.

A bit of humor - Jason Sudeikis from Saturday Night Live (the guy who impersonates him on the show) described Romney as a "butter sandwich - unsalted - with the crusts cut off".

Didn't Rmoney in this lecture tell kids to just have their parents pay for their college? Truly pathetic.

Mickey!!!!!!

Best of the worst? Now I know you are all about the GDP today, right my man?

Oh man. Circling to to old toilet bowl are we.

What's up with you always calling others out as 'others'?

Who really is 'little'?

Interesting, right? You bet it is.

Which foreign policy message is Romney going to Etch & Sketch this time?

Seems like he's held all of them from Obama's "lesser footprint & strong diplomacy" to Cheney's "Total Cold War & more Middle East involvement"

OH-IO FOR ROMNEY & RUBIO !

How many times does Rubio have to tell you he doesn't want the job?

@ jim: OH-IO for Romney and Anybody-O !

Watch Romney pick an Iraq War Hawk out of the Bush 43 administration... He needs someone with strength that will pull republicans back & not some one nutty or too inexperienced

Romney will be looking for another Cheney

"Words are easily malleable"

Mr. Etch-A-Sketch would know. Electing a vulture capitalist to save the middle class has to be a good idea. You got to give it to the GOP. They always seem to find the most bat crap crazy individual to lead their ticket. He's almost as crazy as his father George Romney. Remember him? The guy who said he was brainwashed by the CIA into supporting the Viet Nam War.

Scott - You gotta be brainwashed to support the borderless drone war but most people seem to.

"Billionaires for Romney (or Obama)". They got'em both.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012

You can't completely blame the Romney's for their mental illness. I'm sure that descending from the inbreeding of a polygamist colony in Mexico contributed greatly.

BTW, the current admin's foreign policy has been brilliant. They were handed a pile of sh*t and have done pretty darnned well with it.

You have to addMITT ....

At least Romney can add and subtract ....

One of those students listened to Romneys amateurish economic gibberish, then complained about how much debt She would have after College, but, said She was going to vote for Romney. I fear college won't help this one much. Definitely deficient in normal spatial summation. Gwad! Dumber than a cadaver!

I don’t think Romney’s crazy.

I do however think that he is convinced coddling the rich really will bring about a Utopic vision for all Americans. He is not deliberately evil, nor deliberately stupid. It is all he knows. He can’t NOT do it. He is hard-wired for it. He is a one-trick pony. Romney has been programmed. He has been programmed since he was an embryo that the wealthy and privileged are ENTITLED to yoke the middle class and exploit them as serfs, cattle and breeding stock for wealth attainment. He is the corporatists’ Manchurian candidate. I really do not think that Romney is capable of a cogent, independent thought beyond corporate worship. To Romney the pursuit and retention of wealth is the only thing worthy of man’s attention. The most noble mission. A Jihadic quest.

Romney really sincerely wants to help America in the only way shown to him during his privileged, insulated upbringing. After all,….pampering the rich worked for him,….did it not? To Romney the populace are myrmidons born to shower his feet with tribute and lucre; their rightful role. To Romney Unions should have their windpipes torn out for corrupting his good work. They should be brought under his heel along with their membership. It would be for their own good.

To Romney, government is merely an incidental annoying impediment that can be easily brought to the bidding of the wealthy by precision bribes to malleable politicians. Romney’s government is a perverse accomplice to fascism masquerading as the people’s ally. Thus are removed regulations and other encumbrances to his wealth accrual: taxes, and environmental concerns.

And the “Fourth Estate”? They are simply useful pawns used to spread the Holy Gospel According to Republicanism. Validating Romney’s philosophy is Fox News, the all-powerful propaganda arm of the Republican Party. They help to make it all sound so,……right,……. to so many Stepford Americans: “Why yes Mabel,….tax breaks to billionaires is just what we need to deliver us from that black Socialist in the White House,…….Bill O’Reilley said so.”

This is a turning point in American history that future historians will chronicle.

America has become a fascist state without Democratic representation for We the People. All the nation’s wealth has been funneled to the wealthy ruling class, and left people without homes and jobs while leaving a trail of betrayed kids with useless diplomas bought with irredeemable loans. It is this that has driven the Occupiers into the streets. Our futures outsourced and offshored by a long line of Romney’s; some were even Republicans. America’s people are chafing under their new fascist yoke; and the discomfort of enslavement has made formerly non-engaged people rabid with unexpressed rage.

Now the fight for America is in the offing. The battle is joined.

Whose side you gonna’ fight on?

Yeah..........I'm gonna vote for a guy whose family tree has no branches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_colonies_in_Mexico

Obama's father was not polygamous. He had two wives, BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME!

What was so favorable?

Romney's grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children owing to the federal government's prosecution of polygamy

While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and fell behind Richard Nixon in polls. Following a mid-1967 remark that his earlier support for the Vietnam War had been due to a "brainwashing" by U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Vietnam, his campaign faltered even more, and he withdrew from the contest in early 1968

When asked about "foreign policy", Romney said that he has moved his capital and business operations to foreign countries so he can take advantage of the sweat shops to make more 'blood diamond'.

Wow, here is Romney again promoting his "restaurant" success stories, Jimmie Johns and Papa John, that employ so many people at minimum wage. It's the Bain Capital mantra, succeed with businesses that don't pay a living wage, and buy those that do, close them down, lay the workers off, and sell the assets for a profit.

That kind of fits with the thought that 90% of Republican voters make very low wages, and the other 10% are those that take advantage of them.

And, given that Romney loves Paris so much, I kind of think that he doesn't eat at his "buddies'" establishments. More likely, he dines at a very expensive French Restaurant.

Yeah, you gotta' give it to Romney, he certainly does know how to get rich off the destruction of others.

And you're done.

@GOPisextinct#1.28: One of the best, most lucid, and articulate dissertations concerning Romney, the country, and our people I have read. I salute you! Hope you come back. I, and many others will be watching for you. Best regards.

The point is that Romney's history of "success" in business is only with companies that don't pay a living wage and is in no stretch of the imagination "elitist". I'm not saying that those jobs aren't valuable, what I am saying is that Bain did not want to deal with the complexity of a company that produces quality and paid a living wage. Why? Because the people at Bain had no experience with real business, they wer just typical Wall Street con artists looking for a quick profit with no risk for their extremely wealthy clients. Weery, you would not have the $$$ for the buy-in at Bain.

Your "hundreds of thousands" is a gross exaggeration at best. do the research. Bain Capital repeatedly trashed and shut down companies that employed people in good jobs, and tout as their success stories, bad chain fast food and big box stores selling cheap imports. They have not contributed to the American economy in any substantial way. Their best contribution is that they spend some of the riches they reap in with their back room deals on houses, cars, dining, servants, nannies, etc. for themselves.

Romney and Bain Capital represent the worst, not the best, of American capitalism. If you want examples of the best, look at Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs. Those three might be like the Roman empire, while Bain is like Attila's Huns that did nothing but destroy.

Bain were basically corporate raiders investing for the extremely rich is a way that promissed high returns, with no risk. Job creation has never been figured in the equations that type of company uses. Employees (and jobs) are simply another commodity to be bought at the lowest possible price. And when you are buying at the lowest possible price you end up with the lowest possible quality. Walmart succeeds with this business model because their customers don't bother to figure out the product they just bought for half the price of a better quality version of the product last only 30% of the time of the better one. So the Walmart customer doesn't realize that over the life of the better product, they have just payed 50% more, by having to buy the same thing three times. That is the lesson that Americans really need to learn about the marketplace.

@weery one: Hate to tell you, but, the flies have already made off with your pile.

John

Bain buys into everything from the lowest wage companies to the Highest wage companies. Most companies they buy are ones they think they can make profitable. They only time they sell companies is if they fail to make them sustainably profitable.

Most of the ones they fail to maintain the profitability on are industries that they failed to see a shift in the industry such as a Photo album company they bought, the industry shifted to electronic over printed photo's

Another was a steel company that they got to profitability only to experience stiff foreign competition that lowballed prices with the help of their governments.

DB, you are very naive. Just think about the examples you site. the Photo album company could have done all right with a good manager, which Bain could not provide. The history of Steel in this country is: any company with the balls to modernize their plants, go for quality via specialized steel, rather than bulk production, not only survived, but thrived. That's how plants that unions bought from the mentally bankrupt US Steel corporation turned into successful enterprises when US Steel decided shopping centers were a better investment in the very neighborhoods where the customers were all employees of US Steel that they would soon be laying off, rather than investing in modernizing their plants.

This is exactly the thing that I say is the business knowledge that is completely absent in Mitt Romney. There are different ways to invest when you are rich, and believe me, Romney in the business world was solely serving his mega rich clients, not workers, and not our country. One is to understand the business and find the methods that will build a successful business that delivers benefit to society as a whole, the greater good, or whatever term you choose to define it. This is not something Bain did. Bain's sole purpose was short term gain with minimal risk, by whatever cannibalistic method necessary. They were, in short, job destroyers, not job creators. Their sole purpose was to generate wealth for people that already had more wealth than they needed, and that club would never include you, DB.

Companies like Bain do more to demage a capatalist ecomomy than they do to perpetuate it in a stable fashion. Romney is exactly the oppposite of the experience we need in a President.

weery - Frankly I'm weary of you - definition of weary - exhausted - not worth the effort

My definition - get lost - "you know not of what you speak"

The only job Romney created was his - all the others if any were where minimum wages - and by the way there were five hedge fund companies involved in Sports Authority - Bain Capital being a minor player

And as far as Staples goes - all minimum wages - no benefits

Point of fact weery - do you hold a sheepskin at any college?

DB-Check out Ampad and how Romney raped this company-ruined the lives of the workers-made $100 million for Bain. I think you would see that as a happy ending.

We differ. I think people matter and that $$$$$$ is not speech.

So sue me-just don't use one of those Democrat trial lawyers. Gotcha.

Whose side you gonna’ fight on?

That's an easy choice, considering what the GOP would do to this country if they had the chance!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

This is exactly the thing that I say is the business knowledge that is completely absent in Mitt Romney. There are different ways to invest when you are rich, and believe me, Romney in the business world was solely serving his mega rich clients, not workers, and not our country. One is to understand the business and find the methods that will build a successful business that delivers benefit to society as a whole, the greater good, or whatever term you choose to define it. This is not something Bain did. Bain's sole purpose was short term gain with minimal risk, by whatever cannibalistic method necessary. They were, in short, job destroyers, not job creators. Their sole purpose was to generate wealth for people that already had more wealth than they needed, and that club would never include you, DB.

Companies like Bain do more to demage a capatalist ecomomy than they do to perpetuate it in a stable fashion. Romney is exactly the oppposite of the experience we need in a President.

I totally agree. This is what MBA's are taught to do: maximize short-term shareholder value. Period.

Compare the focus of Romney's life (making megabucks by busting up companies) to the focus of Obama's life (serving his community and his country).

Romney would be a terrible president! His own party cannot embrace him. He can say whatever he wants to say, but it's mostly lies and flip-flopping to get votes. He's completely phony.

Heard on the news last night that 17 of the 24 foreign policy advisers on Romney's staff were former Bush advisers. Talk about Back to the Future.

Kim,

If they liked "W" they're gonna ♥ Willard Bush 2.0

George Herbert Walker Bush was not re-elected, so his son George W. Bush decided to make up for it. George Romney was not elected, so his son Mitt Romney has decided to make up for it.

That's about the extent of it.

Money is never enough. The sons want power. For no other reason other than it was denied their fathers.

Think Progress:

President Obama announced today at Ft. Stewart in Georgia that he will sign an executive order to protect veterans, members of the military and their families from deceptive and predatory marketing practices by some for-profit higher educational institutions.

Mitt Romney’s campaign tried to get out front of the news today by issuing press releases suggesting that the president hasn’t done enough for the nation’s veterans.

On the substance, it doesn’t seem like the Romney campaign has been paying much attention to what the Obama has been doing. CAP’s Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman noted in February that “President Obama has made much progress in tackling veteran unemployment” while urging Congress to pass the president’s $6 billion vets jobs corps program. Last month, Obama announced a housing plan to help military vets who were victims of illegal foreclosures and First Lady Michelle Obama said earlier this month that companies had pledged 15,000 jobs for military spouses as part of the administration’s “Joining Forces” program.

Romney has also said he supports Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget proposal. That budget “would cut $11 billion from veterans spending.”

Feisty is no doubt sitting at her computer right now shaking with anticipation for the next story to come out so she can jump on it and start spewing garbage immediately. Her first comment here had nothing to do with this story and usually doesn't. She / he / whatever is obviously a minimum waged paid troller for barack who makes it her mission in life to be the first poster on any political story...but I don't think she reads the stories. Oh well, you're transparent to me Feisty.

Now Robert in Mass, I find it interesting that you voiced an opinion about Romney's business credentials, and how you felt he was going to resonate in this campaign process. But you've been collapsed for absolutely no reason other than liberal crybabies who don't like that you like Romney. Typical of people like Feisty and the likes. They can't argue a point so they simply collapse opposing points.

Lastly, and more relevant to THE ACTUAL STORY! Who's the jack-ass reporter Garret Haake? Nice slanting and getting your little digs in on the headline and throughout the story. Again typical. I'd like to see a story quoting barack in any of his non teleprompter interviews (I think there's one or two that he's done) and have you quote every time he says "uh", "uh", "umm", "uh". When it comes to his ad lib speaking ability you could make a career out of reporting the number of times he sputters and says "uh". So again, nice job being an absolutely Sh&*ty reporter.

I love the way libs try to demonize the fact that Romney has done something productive in his life. Yeah, damn right he made a lot of money and he created thousands of jobs as well. Keep bashing the American dream because that's what liberals love to do.

Last thing: Oh Feisty, what is baracks foreign policy? Oh I know some things like:

• Diminish the power of the US across the world,
• Diminish the importance of the US across the world
• Bow down to foreign leaders as if we owe them that
• Bring more international ruling onto US soil
• Weaken the borders of our ally's that we have pledged to help protect
• To become indebted to as large a degree as possible to communist countries because hey, it will never come back to bite us right?

I'm sure there's some I'm missing but since you want to go that path...what's your presidents foreign policy? Other than those things I've mentioned of course. Hey do you get health benefits which that barack campaign job?

You just can't believe anything Romney says, because he will say anything to be president.

He wants to be President, to say he is President. The ultimate bragging right. When you are that wealthy there are two paths to take. Help those who need it and make a difference in the world. Or get more power and become King. It's a chess game for the wealthy.

I don't feel he really has a passion to serve anyone, let-alone the majority of the Americans that are struggling.

His "business experience" is of no value to the country, because it didn't produce anything of value.

Venture Capitalists see a wounded animal and then eat it.

This lecture circuit Romney is on will last until Nov. After that ... the sheep will stop attending and Mitt can fade into obscurity from whence he came, never to be heard from again. We can only hope. Surely the ignorant and unhonorable republicans will ramp up the shameful politics through to the election. Why wouldn't they? Have already shown it for 3 yrs. now. I expect this election to be a doozy with republican crap flying far, high and wide. Honor simply no longer resides within them.

I would be a tad nervous if I were Jimmy John or Papa John. The eyes of the corporate vulture are upon you. He may speak fondly of your sandwich or pizza, but we all know where his true heart lies. He could have both of your companies for lunch and polish off The Waffle House for dessert.

Repost for all the collapse cowards:

Mickey, NY [Comment collapsed by the community]

Robert in mAss,

So, have you decided to vote for Romney? I guess when voting for the best of the worst is all you have to go on...maybe you and Mittens can share "drug store" stories...

Oh, and be careful Raab...shilling for Bill O'Lie-ly is advertising...just saying...wouldn't want to see your post get deleted or anything...I mean, where else would we get a a laugh besides looking in your pants?

...hi de hi de hi de hoooooo little man...tick tock...

My, seems the @!$%#s are working overtime today...

Walmart succeeds with this business model because their customers don't bother to figure out the product they just bought for half the price of a better quality version of the product last only 30% of the time of the better one. So the Walmart customer doesn't realize that over the life of the better product, they have just payed 50% more, by having to buy the same thing three times. That is the lesson that Americans really need to learn about the marketplace.

WalMart buys cheaply-made Chinese products as well, so their business model costs many Americans their jobs.

This is typical of how many big international corporations have benefited their wealthy owners and investors at a high cost to the future of our country.

How does someone with two harvard degrees makes dumb comments?

Romney is doing it to make imprint of Romney in America's mind! He has a short time to do it and he wants result. In conclusion, Mr. presidential candidate Mitt Romney is not sincere to deliver a campaign to share his belief to the American voters. His agenda is to maximize imprint of romney in the voters by saying anything to that make people think and talk about romney.

If this behavoir is allow during presidential election, future candidates can just blantantly lie and lie and misdirect voters to circle back to an unnerving truth. A skill that americans have not seen yet.

When that actually happens y'all thinkers wont have what to make a comment to post on msnbc. Unless you start to figure out why Romney doing it like that. He got two degrees from harvard.... :)

So I want to know why the RWNJ's demonstrate a common symptom, that being the publishing of rabid INCOHERENCE ?
EXHIBIT 1

"Rightwingwac

I'm sure there's some I'm missing but since you want to go that path...what's your presidents foreign policy? Other than those things I've mentioned of course. Hey do you get health benefits which that barack campaign job?"

Illiteracy or a medical problem ?

Yeah, he's going to make things better. The man is a corporate raider who buys then rapes companies and sends jobs overseas. But he's going to improve the economy believe that and there's bridge I can sell you.

If anyone ought to know about that, Mittens, you are surely that guy.

NDD,

Having had the ultimate displeasure of watching it live - the dude looked like the Chief Undertaker at a morticians convention!

So his game plan for next week is to " re=introduce" himself to the voters??

Why would he want to do that?

We all got to know him during the various primaries and the debates.

Oh that was when he was trying to be more conservative than Santorum...

Now he will be... pick a image ,any image...

Feisty -

Wow, the excitement in the room was just spine-tingling!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pey-Y-sFwa0

JoAnne - I wonder how many fell asleep before he was finished?

He always does, Feisty. Jaysus, Romney is so wooden he ought to watch out for woodpeckers.

I can see T-Shirts now - Got Wood?

Guess that's why Mrs Woody wants to let ol stiffy loose.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED & Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Still with the insults and nothing serious to say.

Guess that puts you two right where everybody thinks you should be - in the toilet.

What happened? Faux drinks and faux food run out at the faux DDI?

Have any conservatives noticed that Mitt is "re-introducing himself", and not appearing to be very conservative? That has to tick a few of the people he pandered to off. First he promises them one thing, now he is promising something else. He's even (gasp) agreeing with Obama on issues like student debt and violence against women.

Whichever way the wind blows, Mitt, whichever way the wind blows...

Romney touts his business experience, which is only his time at Bain, ad infinitum.

But is there any evidence that he got his position in Bain due to any qualification other than he was the son of a former governor, who ran for President, and would be good at drawing in the very wealthy people who were the only investors that Bain would accept?

Did Romney ever run a company that produced a product? Producing more wealth for those that have enough wealth to distort the market is not business. When smaller amounts of money are involved, what Mitt did usually results in a prison sentence, being labelled as fraud.

scottyhomer

Have any conservatives noticed that Mitt is "re-introducing himself", and not appearing to be very conservative?

It's called "etch-a-sketch"

Jon: But is there any evidence that he got his position in Bain due to any qualification other than he was the son of a former governor ....

Romney earned a JD, cum laude from Harvard's Law school and an MBA, top 5% and Baker Scholar from Harvard's business school ... SIMULTANEOUSLY in only 4 years.

A joint JD cum laude and MBA /Baker Scholar from Harvard might not “qualify” for something in liberal la-la land (unless you are a liberal that works for the government), but in the real world, it does …. a lot.

Romney was heavily recruited and took his pick of companies, choosing to stay in Massachusetts and work for Boston Consulting Group as a management consultant. As a rising star in the industry, Bain and Company hired him away from BCG in 1977. Romney, as one of the best and most talented consultants, became a vice president by 1978 after helping companies such as Monsanto, Burlington Industries, Corning …

In 1983, Bill Bain offered Romney the opportunity to head a new venture, a private equity company. Romney left Bain & Company and co-founded Bain Capital. One of Bain Capital’s first big successes was Staples. Bain Capital realized an internal rate of return of 113% over the years helping companies such as Sports Authority, Domino’s Pizza, Accuride, Sealy, Brookstone as well as lesser known companies.

In 1990, Bain & Company was facing financial collapse and Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company in an effort to save it. Romney returned, restructured the employee stock-ownership plan, real estate deals, bank loans and rallied the firm’s thousand employees, imposing a new governing structure that included Bill Bain and other founding partners giving up control. Romney took an annual salary of one dollar. In a year, Romney turned the company around returned to Bain Capital.

Romney left Bain in February 1999, by then one of the top and most envied private equity firms in the nation managing over $4 billion in assets, to serve as the President and CEO of the 2001 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.

Want to compare that Obama ... let me know.

Had a glitch and lost part of the above post, Jon. Here's a sketch of what Obama was able to etch out during the same time ......

Obama was a community organizer who helped set up a job training program and a little tenant’s rights organization. He traveled to Europe, traveled to Kenya. He entered Harvard and upon graduating was given an advance for a book about race relations. He ended up writing a book about himself … “Dreams from My Father.”

Obama lectured as a Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago. Obama directed a voter registration drive and also served as an associate for a civil rights law firm.

Bottom line Jon, any imbecile, (non liberal imbecile), can see that Romney is much better educated, much more experienced, more accomplished and more qualified to address America's economic problems than Obama.

Time to go back to your inane, vacuous hyperbole, Jon.

Speaking of inane vacuous hyperbole ....

One is to understand the business and find the methods that will build a successful business that delivers benefit to society as a whole, the greater good, or whatever term you choose to define it.

When the union morons at GS Technologies were shooting bottle rockets at security, seeding roads and drives with nails, slashing tires, rocking / beating cars ..... were they doing it for the "greater good" of society or were they pretty much striking for their over inflated pensions?

And seriously ... you really think everybody gets up and goes to work everyday for the benefit of society like a good little socialist, or do you think they just might enjoy the benefit of their new flat screens, new cars, nice houses etc for themselves and their families? How about illegal aliens ... they come all the way to America to serve the greater good of American society or do they come to provide for their families here / back home in Mexico?

Sheesh ... you libs are really detached.

You left Ampad out of your glowing praise for nitmitt, not to mention the other companies and Americans destroyed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. That's a difference between Romney and Obama that you will try to hide. Romney was a corporate raider and a destroyer of American Companies and American workers lives-and he didn't care-it's all about the benjamins. He is a disgrace who helped destroy thousands of American families and now is the "family candidate". "Corporations are people, my friend" is what Romney believes. People are only people if they are rich or perforn services for him.

Feisty, okay now you're going down the path of how someone looks? Oh alright we can play that game, I'll go with you on any elementary school level you want to go.

One guy looks like a stiff businessman who by the looks of it probably knows a thing or two about money and how it works, he probably knows how to not only produce but read a balance sheet, and balance a budget. The other looks like a half/black (that's not racist that's fact) Edward E. Newman from Mad magazine. You know the clown-like mascot that was posed as many things but never a real anything...just an image.

Yeah, that's how barack looks and to top it off when he speaks he uses his voice like a mocking teenager in primarily a smart assed way. He doesn't show confidence but he certainly shows arrogance when he's speaking and delivering fully scripted redundancies.

So if we are being fair here on MSNBC's site we must keep it fair. You set the ground rules by being the way you are and I'll play along at whatever tone you'd like.

The Republicans are not upset with Obama - Obama is only the scapegoat. Republicans are upset because 'trickle down' economics - the policies of subsidizing and supporting 'job creators' - have been proven wrong.

This recession proves, beyond doubt, that the economic policies promoted by Republicans do not work - that Republicans really do not know anything about economics.

Romney is the poster child for Republican 'free enterprise', 'trickle down' economics. Romney's lecture was about the failure of 'free markets' - and - complaints that Obama has failed to do the impossible - make 'trickle down' economics actually work.

Giving more money - more power - to Republicans like Romney will wreck our economy again. That is what the recession has proven. The results of favoring people in Romney's class is undeniable disaster for the rest of us.

Mitt Etch A Sketch flip flopper was inspired by "W" and what he did for our Country ! Lets not make another mistake like "W" again !

realist -

I also forgot to mention that 50% of the US steel companies failed during this period - all were union. WHO IS IT THAT IS THE REAL DESTROYER OF JOBS?

Btw - Bain had another steel company, non union that thrived.

The total average hourly compensation for a GM worker in 2006 was $73.26.

The total average hourly compensation for a US Honda worker was $48.00.

The US national average for total average hourly compensation was $27.31.

And people wonder why private sector unions are dying - dropping from a peak of 35% of the work force in the 50s to around 6% today.

Unions not only destroy jobs - they destroy entire industries.

That is the reality, realist.

@bob-1805084 -- US steel 'failed' because of increasing supply from Europe and Asia. Steel production in Europe and Asia were heavily subsidized by their governments.

The US failed to either subsidize our own steel industry - or - control imports from foreign producers.

The steel industry collapsed in the United States because Wall Street was making big profits from the subsidized foreign steel - and - pressured the government to not interfere.

'Free enterprise' - 'global free trade' - economics always favors subsidized industry. Under Republican control - Wall Street profits are always more important than Main Street jobs.

Bob - you go boy! But you won't find any of these libs (especially someone like Feisty) giving you legitimate argument because when presented with facts they predictably resort to rhetoric, name calling, stand by lies about the GOP and opinions based on blogs that they've read from people like racheal maddows or some liberal underground wanker on baracks payroll.

Great job on the reality. But again, libs can't fight when presented with reality.

@ Bob: The reason the steel companies failed was Reagan deregulated them. Unions where not the death nail. Reagan's leadership was. Get your facts straight damnit. Unions are here to stay. Like it or not. The more you try to end them...the stronger they get. The unethical people in unions that are allowed to be leaders are guilty of all you accuse them of (like politics). But the basis of unions in america will never die. EVER. You are complete and utter idiot if you think ANYONE man or entity will see an end to them. The rightous reasons unions ever came into excistance is why.

nerm -

Sheesh ... you are so clueless.

First ...

This recession proves, beyond doubt, that the economic policies promoted by Republicans do not work - that Republicans really do not know anything about economics.

The recession was caused by a credit problem in the housing sector that treatened the collapse of the financial market. It was all precipitated by big government social engineering - government mandates on lending tresholds.

It had nothing to with tax rates, fiscal or monetary policy - again it was a credit issue.

Do you even understand the difference?

And btw - the recession started in December of 2007, peaked in September 2008 and ended in June 2009. We have been in a "recovery" every since.

Do you even understand the difference between a recession and recovery?

And one more thing, under this "recovery", the worst recovery since FDR, most economic indicators are literally worse than they were during the actual recession!

How pathetic is that?

The US failed to either subsidize our own steel industry - or - control imports from foreign producers

All you are saying is that heavily unionized companies / industries can't stand on their own feet without the tax payer propping them up.

And don't tell me America, the greatest economic power in history before Obama, can't compete.

rocky.. -

Unions are here to stay. Like it or not.

Wow ... I even gave you the numbers on private sector unions decline. I left out the fact 2011 was the lowest point since the 30s ... despite Obama's pathetic protectionism.

I don't care about private sector unions in right to work states .. that's fine if they find their place. Union states are dying and business is moving to the other states, the people are wising up - unions are doomed.

The only sector were they are healthy is the public sector, but the reality is that they cannot exist without the political protectionism of the dems. The dems cannot maintain power without the forced dues, the union money and union political machine.

Good for unions and dems, but it sucks for the rest of America.

But again, with the abuses of Obama and unions in these difficult times - America is waking up.

We'll see.

@bob-1805084 -- Lehman was not a mortgage lender. Bear Sterns was not a mortgage lender. AIG was not issuing credit default swaps on mortgages. Fitch, Moody, and S&P were not rating mortgages. TARP 'loans' were not made to mortgage lending banks - TARP was directed solely toward investment banks.

Investment banks collapsed - not commercial banks (mortgage lending banks). Deregulating commercial banks so they could sell derivatives is what collapsed the economy. Derivatives allowed commercial banks (mortgage lending banks) to assume far more risk than allowed by law - allowed commercial banks to hide the amount of risk they were assuming from regulators and the public. Investment banks bought and sold those derivatives because they were making tons of profits and thought they had little risk. The economy collapsed simply because the investment banks got too greedy.

-------------------

Using your own arguments - Unions are bad because they allow concentrating too much power and influence over the economy and politics. Why is the concentration of power and influence over the economy and politics by banking and finance any different?

Unions use their power and influence to expand rights and benefits to workers. If unions fail to do that, then unions lose that power and influence. Banks and finance use their power and influence to benefit the wealthiest among us. You are playing the pawn in maintaining the power and influence of banking and finance.

If unions do not actually care about workers - then why do you think banks and finance actually cares about you?

bob-1805084 -- Banks and finance enjoy a government created monopoly on your investment, saving, and borrowing options. Banks and finance provide 'services' that benefit you because the government favors them with large amounts of power and influence over the economy and politics.

Unions also provide a service to their members. Unions also received some favoritism in order to sustain power and influence that allowed unions to benefit their members. You point out that ending that favoritism allows workers more options and allows business to operate more freely. However, the workers that were benefited by the favoritism do lose benefits of the union services.

Ending the favoritism to banking and finance should have the same effect on the economy as ending favoritism toward unions. But those that receive the benefits of that favoritism will lose benefits.

Your argument is simply to 'take' benefits from one group - and - 'give' the benefits to you. Corporate welfare is not any more sustainable than social welfare. You are representing the 'welfare queens' of banking and finance.

Just as Mitt Romney does.

Jon-1321288 -- Agreed that Mitt like Dubya had the family name, money, and good looks to get through life with less effort than the average Joe.

Bill Bain started Bain Capital. Mitt headed up the expansion but negotiated with Bill to do so without any personal risk -- no capital, no putting his job on the line, even his reputation was guaranteed by Bill. Mitt didn't even have to borrow money from his parents!

Mitt Romney is a dweeb and a lame one at that. The first responder who puts his life on the line, the teacher who prepares a child for the future, and President Obama who overcame all odds to hold the highest office in the land are the truly successful who should be congratulated.

I would be a tad nervous if I were Jimmy John or Papa John. The eyes of the corporate vulture are upon you. He may speak fondly of your sandwich or pizza, but we all know where his true heart lies. He could have both of your companies for lunch and polish off The Waffle House for dessert.

@bob-1805084 - Here is a simply thought exercise to prove to you that Reagan/Romney 'free enterprise', 'global free market' economics cannot work - and - will inevitably result in another economic disaster.

The economy is going to distribute $100 million among 1 'rich' guy and 99 'not so rich' guys. That money can be distributed by government or compensation or investment preferences - it does not matter. Whoever receives the money must spend the money. Spending the money will create $10 million in profits - $90 million will be cost of providing whatever the money buys.

If the economy gives $100 million to the 1 'rich' guy - he receives $100 million in goods or services or investments - however he chooses to spend the money. The $10 million profit is distributed among the 99 'not so rich' guys - each receives about $100 thousand. The 1 'rich' guy received 1000 times more than anyone else.

If the economy gives $100 million to the 99 'not so rich' guys - each one receives $1 million and change in goods or services or investments. The $10 million profit is distributed to the 1 'rich' guy. The 1 'rich' guy received 10 times more than anyone else.

What the exercise shows is that the 1 'rich' guy always gets more than anyone else. Giving all the money to the 1 'rich' guy does not increase wealth in the economy. Giving all the money to the 99 'not so rich' guys requires the 1 'rich' guy to produce goods or services or investment opportunities so that he can acquire his share.

This is not an exercise about 'rich' or 'poor' - it is about favoritism. If all 100 guys have incomes of $1 billion - the exercise ends the same way. If the economy favors the 1 'rich' guy in finance over 99 'not so rich' guys in manufacturing - the end results are the same.

Note the difference between 'working' for the share of the economy and simply being 'given' a share of the economy. If the inequality in results is large - the the economy is 'giving' money to the 'rich'. If the inequality is small - the economy is distributing money through work - the 'rich' are required to work for their money.

The Reagan/Romney economics favors the 1 'rich' guy over the 99 'not so rich' guys. That is demonstrated by the inequality of money distribution in our economy over the last 30 years.

Romney is campaigning so that guys that are as 'rich' or 'richer' than he his is favored in the economy. If you are not as 'rich' as Mitt Romney - his proposals will be an obstacle to you ever achieving that level of income or wealth. Romney's proposals are not about opportunity - they are about favoritism.

Obama's proposals are also about favoritism. Does Obama's proposals favor the 'rich' or the 'not so rich'? That is the decision we will make in this election cycle.

The problem with your example is that you are using a term that is extremely popular and directly tied to the liberal adgenda. "GIVE". In your statement you are saying that the economy is GIVING 100 million or GIVING 1 million etc. It's not the job of the economy and it's especially not the job of the government to GIVE any money to anyone. (don't go off on homelessness or the likes, we're all adults (except for patriot) so knock it off).

People make money in an economy when providing goods and services in trade for that money. If they are making money with investment dollars, that's still part of the economy because they are risking something. If the government is giving out money or services there is absolutely nothing at risk for anyone receiving the benefits. Hell there's not even mandatory work programs in place.

So although your example is cute it is far from a relevant argument because the system is set up to reward hard work, and smart maneuvering. It's not a welfare state (yet). You're acting as if someone has a right to say what someone else makes in a private venture. Take that away and you've taken away one of the most intricate parts of freedom that there is.

@Rightwingwac -- 'Giving' is a result of favoritism. A favored group or sector of the economy is 'given' opportunities to receive a share of the economy - that is not governed by economic mechanisms. That is why I used the word 'give' instead of 'distribute'. Since you do not like the work 'give' - replace it with the word 'distribute'. The exercise works the same way.

As I point out - the $100 million is 'given' through any number of mechanisms. It could be government redistribution. It could be how compensation is structured. It could be lowered tax liability because of favoritism in the tax code. Each of those mechanisms will favor someone - and - that favoritism allows someone to be 'given' more opportunity to receive a larger share of the economy. Favoritism is not earned through work.

The exercise is about running an economy on favoritism - instead of by distributing economic output to reward work. For example, a reduced capital gains tax is favoritism - and - does not reward work.

As I stated earlier, the 'conservative' Republicans are upset with Obama simply because he has not been able to make Reagan/Romney economics work. No one can make Reagan/Romney economics work without artificially subsidizing the 'rich' - the economy simply stops producing new wealth created by work.

Even you recognize that 'free enterprise' - 'global free market' - 'trickle down' economics operates by one of the models I presented. And you can clearly see that it is not sustainable. Because the economy is favoring the 'rich' - and - the 'rich' are not working for their share.

"Bob,"

Do you really want to compare ex-Governor Romney to President Obama?

Alright then. You've listed what you believe are Romney's achievements. Just to be fair, what are President Obama's achievements thus far, after he assumed power in the Executive, by winning a majority vote?

Mind you, this occurred long after Obama was teaching as a Professor of Constitutional Law in the University of Chicago Law School, as well as President of the Harvard Law Review, a difficult and impressive accomplishment, as he was the first black man to hold that office.

----------------------------------

Excerpts:

Florida Professor Robert P. Watson who teaches American Studies at Lynn University has compiled a list of 244 accomplishments by President Obama since he took office despite fanatical Republican opposition aimed at wrecking his presidency.

Prof. Watson, whose specialty is presidential history, began preparing his list back in Nov. 2009 to counter the lies and disinformation spread by the corporate media and the Republican right.

"The misinformation and venom that passes for political reporting and civic debate is beyond description," Dr. Watson wrote. "There is a need to set the record straight." His list then contained 90 plus achievements which he has now updated to 244.

He praised Obama for pushing through measures vital to the national interest not through a "heavy-handed or top down approach" but through efforts to "reach across the aisle, encourage vigorous debate, and utilize town halls and panels of experts in the policy-making process."

On the list (a few have been added by this reporter):

• Overhauled the food safety system;

• Approved the Lily Ledbetter "Equal Pay" for women rule;

• Ended "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" discrimination in the military;

• Passed the Hate Crimes bill in Congress;

• Appointed two progressive women to the U.S. Supreme Court including the first Latina;

• Pushed through the Affordable Health Care Act, outlawing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, extending until age 26 health care coverage of children under parent's plans, steps toward "Medicare for All;"

• Expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) health care for children;

• Pushed through a $789 economic stimulus bill that saved or created 3 million jobs and began task of repairing the nation's infrastructure;

• Overhauled the credit card industry, making it more consumer friendly;

• Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and used a recess appointment to keep it on track in the face of GOP attempts to derail it;

• Also outmaneuvered GOP in naming two members of the National Labor Relations Board blocked by the Republicans in their attempt to shut down the NLRB;

• Won two extensions of the debt ceiling and extensions of unemployment compensation in the face of Republican threats to shut down the U.S. government;

• Pulled troops out of Iraq and began draw down of troops in Afghanistan.

Since he prepared the list, it has been posted and reposted on the Internet hundreds of times with scores of bloggers commenting on it and adding to the list.

Writing in Washington Monthly's Political Animal column, blogger Steve Benen, points out that many of Obama's achievements have been won through painful concessions he was forced to make with intransigent Republican obstructionists on Capitol Hill.

The tendency has been to focus on his concessions while ignoring what he won in return. Benen cites the lame duck session of Congress in December 2010 following the disastrous elections a month earlier in which the Democrats lost majority control of the House.

There were predictions that nothing would be achieved in that lame duck, Benen said. "But for all the grief he's gotten over this, its worth keeping in mind that Obama got a helluva lot.... In the end, he got a Food Safety bill, passage of the START Treaty, a stimulus package, repeal of ‘don't ask/don't tell' and a First Responder bill" that provided health coverage for firefighters, police officers and other workers injured during the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack. Incredibly, the Republicans tried to block it.

Obama was forced to make the same concession just before Christmas, yielding on his repeated demands for termination of a trillion in tax cuts for the rich in order to win approval of an increase in the debt ceiling and extension of jobless benefits for five million unemployed workers.

Yielding on tax cuts for the rich hurt those fighting for tax justice. But there is little doubt that those hard pressed, if not desperate unemployed workers, viewed this as an "accomplishment" and Obama deserves full credit.

Under a headline, "Who is Washington's Most Effective Politician?" Benen scoffs at those who pick Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY). McConnell's job was "easy," Benen writes. He twisted Senate rules to make himself "Obstructionist in Chief." No, he says, Obama is the most skillful, "perhaps the most effective politician since LBJ" for winning that long list of victories in the face of unprecedented obstruction, lies, and misinformation.

Plenty of voters are now preparing lists for themselves of Obama's accomplishments as they work to insure he wins a second term next Nov. 6.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/professor-lists-obama-accomplishments-over-244-and-growing/

Ohio, huh? I know Homer Simpson is a Democrat, but whenever he sees a Democrat from Ohio walking down the street, he says "You're a D-OH!"

"FIRST READ": I have always known it was a propaganda paper slanting everything to the left, but when it came out with "Professor Romney", and went far beyond the line of even semi-responsible reporting of the "facts", I decided to check it out. Guess what, "FIRST READ" is not some independent political publication as MSNBC would like you to believe. It's owned by NBC just like MSNBC. None the less MSNBC has no problem with quoting it as a collaborating source for MSNBC's political "facts" and views. Strange, isn't it?

The recession was caused by a credit problem in the housing sector that treatened the collapse of the financial market. It was all precipitated by big government social engineering - government mandates on lending tresholds.

And Bob, whose fault was that? I am sure you are referring to CRA. Sorry, it ain't so! CRA was enacted in 1977. Why in the hell would it take 30 years for its effect to be felt? Fact is, the default rate on home mortgages was steady from 1998 to 2005 at very low levels. Starting in 2005, levels started to rise dramatically: why?

Well, look no further than George W. Bush. Starting from the moment he took office in 2001, he was pushing for his "American Dream Act". Here's an excerpt from a speech given less than 6 months after he took office:

For instance, while the rate of homeownership amongst all Americans is nearly 68 percent, the rate among African-American and Hispanic families is under 50 percent. One particular program, the American Dream Downpayment Fund, will provide $200 million in downpayment assistance to help 130,000 low-income families buy homes.

All legislation is documented on government websites. Look this one up; it is quite interesting:

American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) - signed into law on Dec 16, 2003.

Sponsor: Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]

Co-sponsors: Samuel Brownback [R-KS]; Conrad Burns [R-MT]; Ben Campbell [R-CO]; Michael Crapo [R-ID]; Michael Enzi [R-WY]; Charles Hagel [R-NE]; Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]; Richard Santorum [R-PA]; Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]

Note that there was not one Democrat co-sponsoring this bill. The bill was sponsored by a Republican, co-sponsored only by other Republicans, passed by a Republican majority in the House and Senate and signed into law by a Republican president.

This legislation reduced the downpayment required for any GSE (Fannie Mae, Freddi Mac or FHA) loan to 3%.

Now, take a look at this graph that shows loan delinquency versus downpayment during the time that America's recession started, here.

Fact is, the entire housing meltdown was George W. Bush's fault, aided and abetted by Republican majorities in both houses. It had nothing to do with CRA and everything to do with social engineering practiced by the Republican party.

Now, explain to me why we should put these idiots back into power to do it all over again...

Let us look at what happened at Freddie and Fannie. During the mid 2000's President Bush thought that these two quasi government agencies were headed toward trouble based on poor lending decisions. he asked the congressional oversight committee to investigate the lending practices.

At the time Barney Frank was in a powerful position on the House Banking committee. Frank's file partner was a top executive at one of the two agencies and made millions each year from the bad lending practices. Frank stonewalled attempts by the Republicans to investigate.

Also, the investments banks that bundled the bad loans from commercial banks into CDO's were mainly headquartered in NY. At the time Tim Geithner (the current secretary of the treasury) was the chair of the New Federal Reserve Branch. He did not act on the bundling of CDO's until Lehman collapsed and Merrill Lynch had to be sold to BOA; which, Merrill and its own bad loan portfolio almost took down.

Where was Geithner's oversight as all these toxic assets were accumulated and bad loans made?

The bad housing loans were never the problem, our economy could easily have handled them.

The problem was the way private, unregulated, hedge funds packaged the bad loans, by infinite subdivision and repackaging, into derivatives, then convinced the bond rating agencies to rate these new derivative collections of junk as triple A, sold them to gullible investors, and took out credit default swaps that bet against the very investments they had created and sold.

When the fraudulent derivatives went bust, the Credit Default Swaps became due, and the investor who held the derivatives had to pay multiple times the original investment. That caused a financial collapse.

And if you don't know, in a Credit Default Swap, when you bet against a fund, you never even have to own a single share of that fund. It is like taking out fire insurance on you neighbors house, and the way the hedge funds behaved, after they took out the insurance, they started a huge bonfire in their own backyard when the wind was blowing directly at their neighbor. When the neighbor's house burned down, they collected the value of it. In a moral world, it's called fraud.

For those not in the know, Mitt Rmoney's life consisted of losing elections, badly, before finally serving as a one term governor, when he took the state down to 47 in job creation and ran up a huge debt. He didn't run for reelection because he knew he would lose.

Are you sure it wasn't lower than 47?

Feisty: look, Dolly is back!

Why, HELLLLLLOOOOOO DOLLY!

Hmmm, how do I help you with this. I know! Dolly, you simply can't make a point worth making unless you can say how your candidate will improve the nation.

It is impossible, I know. "Teabagger" policies have been tried since Reagan, and failed miserably.

Which is why all you are left with is middle school insults.

Poor Dolly.

It is hard to be left out of the fun at the Dew Drop Inn, isn't it? We welcome thoughtful conservatives. "Teabaggers will never get passed the bouncers. But, the party was lovely, everyone had a good time. I know that makes you sad.

MATT

With all due respect you are spouting lies!

Romney started in Mass with a deficit of 3 billion and turned it into a surplus of 700 million in two years and left the state with the same surplus. He had an 85% democratic veto proof legislature and balanced the budget every year.

When he took office unemployment was the worst in the nation, at the end of his first year it was 38th, when he left the state was 12th in the nation. That's called improvement, at least above a kindergarten education it is. Oh yeah, he didn't raise taxes to do it.

Instead of reading someones blog why don't you actually check a few facts before regurgitating them? But that's what uninformed liberals love to do. Spit out crap that other liberals will pick up on and then continue the lies. Unreal. Oh where do I get my information? The US bureau of labor statistics my friend.

So I ask you, Feisty or any one of you false profits to deny these FACTS and lie to the people on this site again and please tell me about his poor economic record as governor.

So on those points Hey Rod....why? You made a nice first grade statement. I've got an idea though; how about you provide anything to educate or back up your statement. Maybe something of value or at least some entertaining reading.

Romney balanced the MA budget by raising $500 million in 'fees',

- receiving an additional $1.3 billion from windfall capital gains taxes enacted before he was elected,
- raised $180 million in sales taxes (including applying sales tax to internet sales),
- closed $300 million of tax 'loopholes' (for a net tax increase),
- cut state distributions to cities by $700 million (transfer of taxing from state to city),
- made $900 million of cuts to state government.

Romney's budget record shows he made 3 times more tax revenue than spending cuts to balance the budget. If he does the same as President, he will be transferring Federal services to states (requiring states to raise taxes to pay for unfunded mandates).

Romney's budget record as governor of MA simply shows he applied fuzzy accounting to raise tax revenue and avoid major cuts to state programs.

I'm going with President Obama, the GOP/T-Baggers did enough damage to this Nation !

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Hey Dumba$$, nice to see you wide awake early. Guess the faux hangover you got drinking the faux drinks with your faux friends over at the faux DDI didn't hurt you too bad.

Running on his "business"... Experience?

"GOP Should Stop Rooting for our Economy to FAIL"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw05nRWHPHM

All of us, that is.

Poor Dolly, still so angry. One does feel so badly for you.

Here's an idea Dolly: if you have hopes and dreams and aspirations and work OH SO HARD, maybe you too can be welcomed at the Dew Drop Inn.

We do require a certain sang-froid, that one only develops through education, and native intelligence. I am sure it is frustrating to you that you are starting well behind the mark, but work ethic may yet win the day!

It will improve your mood greatly, and we are all for helping the less fortunate!

So if we are being fair here on MSNBC's site we must keep it fair.

Oh my, it looks like someone has an overly inflated sense of self-worth! lol

Sorry pal, rookies are soooo out of my league!

Run along and troll someone else, I am not interested in YOU or your condescending comments! ;o)

HEY Patriotic,

"TEABAGGERS"!!!???

Holy smokes! Hey everyone, the moral fiber of Patriotic American-USA has officially broken! This is the guy who states that his moral compass is so well tuned that he doesn't stoop to the level of calling names. Well this is the third or fourth easy find for me (and I'm just scanning the page) so I guess the mighty have fallen. Wow I'm so saddened because you were my moral mentor. We'll have to have a moment of silence for this tragic day. Now what am I going to do?

If I haven't proven my point meatball I can keep going. You are a typical hypocritical liberal (look out I called you an name but I can prove it's appropriate mr. moderator). so challenge me like that and I will call you out every time. Don't ever stand in your really, really fragile glass house and try to throw a stone at me, it aint gonna work pal. Take your fictitious morality and do whatever you liberals like to do with things. "I won't call you names because I'm better than that" yeah, Bull S&$%!

Feisty I know rookies aren't in your league...because you're a paid ficus. That's obvious but you got nothing on me sweetcheeks! Even though you're a paid "professional" I can play every game and beat you at every game you want to play. High road or low road, but people like me scare you so you quickly pretend that I'm not worth your time because you will lose against me.

So you don't want to play with me and I understand because if you're faced with facts and realism you will fold like a deck of cards and simply result to the same crap that you spew time and time again. When you can't fight with logic you will jump to the the brilliant posts where you start insulting topics or characteristics that don't mean a damn thing.

Self worth??? Who waits with baited fingers for nearly every MSNBC story baby cakes? Feisty Red Head that's who. So if you can pull yourself from the mirror you might want to take a look inside and see who's full of FALSE self worth. That's fine if you don't want to participate...you set 'em up and I'll knock 'em down. See you around Feisty!

That's fine if you don't want to participate...you set 'em up and I'll knock 'em down.

ROTFLMFAO - not even on your best day junior!

See you around Feisty!

So says Senior Stalker! lol

It is not too obvious I rattle your cage - you follow me around like a bitch in heat!

***BIG yawn** and I rest my case...

Little buddy, maybe some day you will be feisty worthy, until then.... ADIOS!

Strong intelligent liberal women intimidate impotent pricks like YOU!

I do, however, want to congratulate you for your dismal attempt at a smack down! It could not have been more entertaining!

PS: Quit voting for yourself - it's embarrassing... lmao!

I thought I wasn't worth your time. I thought you weren't going to respond because you're so superior. Who's in who's head...feisty?

Stalker? Don't flatter yourself, I'm sure you'd fantasize for that little scenario. Its just ultra easy to see you when your drivel stands out in the crowd like a sore (left) thumb.

"Strong intelligent liberal women"???? Sweetheart you may have just come up with the most contradicting line out here. There is no such thing! I think the words you were looking for are "bull-headed brainwashed leftist females"

"Pricks like YOU!" Huh? Yeah, I hear a cage rattling but I believe it's your own barnyard pen and if you're so full of civility and intellectual superiority how is it that you find yourself stooping to such levels as name calling? Don't answer that because it's quite clear. You are full on nothing but name calling and insults because in order to defend yourself you don't put up any information you just slam...they're not even whimsical or for that matter poignant.

Wait I take that back, you also copy and post from left wing opinion pieces instead of taking the time to investigate your point and then write it in your own words...okay, that makes it official, you are brilliant. But remember there's a scale; a brilliant angry leftist is the intellectual equivalent of a drooling lobotomized spider monkey. Hey, it's fun playing where you hang out down here in the swamp, I'll have to come around more often.

I'm glad I'm entertaining to you, see that's what I'm talking about because you aren't even remotely entertaining to me. You're pathetic and to top it off you're getting paid to be pathetic. So again...see ya round feisty. Although you'll be seeing me in your head before that.

Isn't that cute? Our poor friend Rightwingmac is so INCENSED at being challenged by an intelligent and strong female, that he must needs come back with the usual right wing pejoratives.

In that whole diatribe by poor rwm: we do not see a critical thought, an idea worth pondering, or a citation given to support his neanderthal views.

This is exactly the point of the rage filled vomit he launches against Feisty.

One must feel very badly indeed for this poor fellow. So full of rage....so lacking in the critical graces that lead to sound and logical thought.

Hey Newday

Show my in you post where we see a critical thought, an idea worth pondering, or a citation given to support your neanderthal views.

Hmmmm, I don't seem to see any there. Wait let me check something:

Yeah, that's what I thought. Throughout this site you said Romney was wooden, you ripped on Dolly and used terms like "teabagger" and made fun of her/his opinions without a single idea, thought or point. Then came back on her with stupidity and snide remarks that had nothing to do with a damn thing on here.

Newday Dawning, you are the absolute PERFECT example of the type of arse-hole I keep bitching about. Come on master mind. Where are all of your, wait, what was it? Oh yeah, thoughts, ideas, points?

Bring them to the table. Man you guys are pathetic and no, I'm not going anywhere, you make it too frickin easy to pluck your words apart. This isn't anger, this is heated debate, the only difference is that you guys don't put anything out to debate...just drivel. I haven't seen a single thing in this thread where you have put ANYTHING worth a rip on the table. NOTHING! But you have the balls or stupidity to accuse someone else of doing just that.

Unbelievable, no actually totally believable. You are so predictable.

Any thoughts, ideas, points? Nah, I didn't think so.

Feisty is so strong that she needs you to attempt to fight her battles for her huh? Well if I were her I think I'd ask you to stop because you're not doing her any favors.

Show my in you post

HUH? English please!

This is exactly the point of the rage filled vomit he launches against Feisty.

NDD,

Better get a towel - "It" got some on you now as well!

This isn't anger, this is heated debate

Not too obvious our newfound little troll has some serious anger management issues! Sounds an awful lot like the dearly departed ITM! lol

"It" could care less about a debate, heated or not.

All "It" is looking for is an argument. I will not waste my precious time on somone who does who has no life other then seeking the attention "It" seriously craves on an anonymous message board!

Oh my, it looks like someone has an overly inflated sense of self-worth! lol

My original observation of you has been confirmed!

You are so predictable.

Speaking of predictable - you may now have the last word... lol

You are dismissed!

But, you must feel somewhat sorry for him, Feisty: so entrenched in the bitterness of "teabagger" thought, learned from Fox "News" that he simply cannot engage in thoughtful debate with those who are his betters.

The best advice I can give the poor fellow is to turn off Fox "News." It is well known that a steady of diet of Fox causes brain cells to die, resulting in the inability to control one's baser impulses.

He could, if he wished, enroll in a local community college program and learn about thoughtful commentary. Education is the best known tool to cause "teabaggers" to move away from morass they are drowning in, and to understand why progressives are the salvation of the country, and yes the world.

Feisty you really disappoint, deep inside I thought I might actually have a nice challenge from you but I was sadly mistaken. You are in fact easy to handle because you only have your hypocritical insults.

Keep chiming in to prove my point. All you've got is spotlighting a typo or continued attempts at belittling rants. You both offer absolutely nothing except the same liberal B.S. with no substance, ideas or logical thoughts. Just regurgitated crap over and over again. Then you sit on your imaginary thrones of wisdom and accuse others of being exactly how you are. It's a nice although worn out diversionary tactic and it doesn't work. You are both as transparent as they come

So again I ask "NDD" where is you're "thoughtful commentary"? Perhaps you're a liberal politician because you have no idea how to answer a question. Just pander to the ignorant masses of feisty and the likes. Does she bathe you too? Oh by the way...progressives are the epitome of a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Evil cloaking itself as some sort of "salvation" is exactly why your movement will eventually go down in defeat...yet again. Progressives = liberalism no matter how you try to portray yourself and liberalism is anti-American in all of its forms.

And New Day, it seems I'm on a pretty liberal forum yet so are you. I go everywhere to obtain information to draw my conclusions. You stay put reading one or two liberal web sites and then somehow convince yourself that you are informed. I think you may need to diversify your study sources a little so you can actually obtain the ability to argue a point. Because I haven't seen that ability out of you yet.

Feisty, I'll take that last word...every time. You're used to people just laying down for you and your tactics, well, it's not going to happen here. Especially when you guys make it so easy. It would be miraculous if you guys actually brought up something we could debate about, but you don't have those capacities. I say show me where you can outshine me and you go to the old standby "fox news is evil" routine. Still not entertaining, but very insightful into the shallowness of your mentality. You may now step down Feisty, and you NDD you may now follow her...because you are clearly the needy little minion in the relationship.

Poor rightwingMac: You make the basic mistake made by "teabaggers" generally. Emoting on a progressive site does not mean that you are either reading, or capable of understanding what the site contains. You have, of course, demonstrated that lack of ability.

You also have both anger and control issues. As amused as I am by you attempting to dictate to me when I may "step down" it does denote a certain difficulty with women that screams out from your "writing".

But you are very funny. And sad at the same time.

As amused as I am by you attempting to dictate to me when I may "step down" it does denote a certain difficulty with that screams out from your "writing".

NDD,

You caught that too I see!

Whack demonstrates the imagined moral superiority so common amongst the tea baggers.

To be honest, I am bored with "It's" drivel, it is time to activate the ignore button! ☺

The nice thing about it is, they cannot force us to read the trash they write!

Exactly right Feisty: but when I have a little spare time, I do get a giggle out of people like that!

Exactly right Feisty: but when I have a little spare time,

Oh, I agree NDD - sometimes playing with a ball of yarn can be entertaining.

Unfortunately whack job is already unraveled...

So I win, and you both of you...well, losers is an appropriate term, lose. When they have nothing left to fight with they run.

Yet still no substance to their arguments, if you can call them that.

I'll prove my point yet again. By stating that I'm "dismissed" you feel somewhat entitled to that position of power. Typical. Then you use my mockery of your own words and pretend that it isn't a direct reflection of your own attitude. You guys are really pathetic.

Neither one of you hold a candle because your own words just continually come back to haunt you. I'm glad you'll ignore me, it's good to know that i did my part to spotlight your weak backbone and cowardice as well as your inability to actually prove yourselves. Oh and as usual you're wrong, I don't feel morally superior. Intellectually superior...no doubt. But unlike you who feel entitled to some moral throne, I am quite capable of admitting I like getting down and dirty. Run along and hide now ladies.

Look at that Feisty, poor guy is still trying to pretend like he has some control!

One can't help but laugh at the desperation!

You guys are so easy. I am controlling you, like you wouldn't believe. By your political position you've already proved how easily manipulable you are. So speaking of a ball of yarn, how's that feel to get tossed around the room like that? I'm sure you're used to it. What's the matter, did your leader feisty leave you hanging in the wind? I wouldn't doubt it because when the heat is on she runs away.

Or on second thought feisty probably pulled stakes and is trolling some other liberal site trying to earn her wages with the barack clan. I'm sure she'll stay away for a bit and then pop back up, like an unwanted pimple, when the coast is clear and I'm not paying attention.

After all, the rhetoric doesn't work on me so she needs to go elsewhere to find softer brains to try and wash. Earn your wage little red-head (I'm sure it's dyed that hideous fake purple/red color and she calls herself "red head" because she thinks it's somehow sexy.) earn that money by weaving the nonsense you weave. baracks got a good earner in you, but you failed miserably this time.

Look at that Feisty, poor guy is still trying to pretend like he has some control!

NDD - most definitely a major control freak!

They just don't know when to surrender gracefully do they?

Are you still here? Just like a liberal, can't keep your word for nothing. Well I am controlling you sweet-cheeks. Like a marionette. You keep proving it over and over and over. You have made an excellent case for the liberal representation. You say one thing, but do the complete opposite. I think you have some sort of dependent crush on me. Why else on earth would you keep coming back for more. That's all right, your secrets safe with me. I wont tell your boss that you are infatuated with the "enemy".

In Wade's case I'd have his back in battle. You're untrustworthy word would cause you to be on your own sister. Most of these people on this site are passionate about what they believe and are here to try and prove a point. You're just a bought and paid for ficus doing your thing for the betterment of your own ego. Get over yourself baby, by opening your yap and declaring falsehoods yet again, you've lost this one badly. Time to go lick your wounds so you might retain a shred of dignity in the next post you get paid to occupy.

You just can't stomach hitting that "ignore" button can you? That crush has really got you tied up and that's fine. But I'm sorry to say that the feeling is not mutual, sorry to break your heart babycakes. You'll find love somewhere else. Maybe one of your co-working bloggers, if they can stomach your puppy-like characteristic.

Almost like a Pavlovian trained dog, Feisty. Watch, he will be back. He won't know the reference I make.

Damn right I'm back to point out that your once again, without fail proving my point. Putting a statement like that out there when the reality is that it is a perfect example of your retarded sense, knee jerk reactionary attributes to anything that I put up. Are you really that frickin stupid that you just keep going with this even though you guys spewed that you we're ignoring me and that I wasn't worth your time etc. etc.

Holy Sh&$ I knew feisty had a crush but I thought yours was on her. I guess I was wrong. The infatuation you both have with making yourselves look like idiots is really sad. It's like watching a cutter or a masochist, of which I'm sure you're both very familiar.

I didn't say I was leaving or hitting the "ignore" button did I? "won't know the reference" Hey speaking of dogs, females in particular, where is Feisty? Honestly, I've had more mature conversations with four year olds but if you enjoy the beatings (which I think I may understand why). I'll keep delivering.

Come on newdaydawning, or rather newdayYAWNING! My god you're boring and predictable. Each and every time I pull the string on your back you just predictably come back with the same programmed theme. You've got jack squat of a foundation to stand on yet you keep trying to stand up when it's clearly not a contest. You're inferior, face it. Keep trying though, keep giving me all the attention that you'd like. Keep attempting to make some type of reference that you've got me on a line because sugar plumb, you clearly have no clue of what's going on here.

Wade, the last pathetic reference from NDD is what you refer to as "baiting". I'll take it because I love working the strings and dancing these foolish dames around in their ballet 'o ignora'nce

Almost like a Pavlovian trained dog,

Yup!

That didn't take long - you blew the whistle and right on command whacko lifts his scrawny leg! lol

Since, thankfully, I am now unable to see the steaming pile the whacko left on your porch, I will trust you to educate him on how the ignore feature works!

See ya on the flipside GF!

Works every time! Later, GF!

I even got old feisty to respond to that one. And you guys think I'm the trained one huh? Lifting the leg to piss all over your lack of logic. Hey newday, any word on those brilliant points you were going to bring to the table? Yeah I didn't think so. When you do I'll be the first to congratulate you on the breakthrough of contribution.

You two are like wanna be tough girls that just couldn't hang with the cool chicks in school so you attempt to bully people out of speaking their mind but yet again in life, you lose and you will continue to do so. I look forward to the next time Feisty is at the front of the post with her drivel. It will be a pleasure picking apart her nonsensical rhetoric and holier than thou attitude. But it won't matter, because she's ignoring me right?

In the mean time you two enjoy your dreams tonight as you think of me. I'll enjoy hanging around inside that empty void that likes to pose as a brain. If you ever have the guts to actually debate me be sure and let me know.

Works every time! Later, GF!

*Woof Woof*

Who let the dog out? lmao!

Maybe next time instead of the tiny whack job getting neutered - he will be tutored!

In any case - major *YAWN*!

You just never disappoint. Really, typing "who let the dog out?" makes you LYAO? Wow, you are simple, I know some 1st graders that might pat themselves on the back for a statement like that but again, that's about where you're at and you never disappoint, except for maybe when it comes to your husband...if anybody could stomach being your husband.

I'm sure you'd love to put that teacher outfit on, the only problem is you actually have to be a teensy bit sexy to pull it off. Unfortunately for you it's not gonna happen baby! You need to stop reading newday's posts and you'll stop yawning.

"When you can't do teach?" WOW! that's officially the most uniformed statement of the MONTH. I'm actually laughing as I type, not because it's funny but because it's pathetic.

You do realize that Romney built his wealth empire because of DOING business right? You do realize that barack never held an actual productive job in his life but he did supposedly "teach" right? That's all he could brag about going into the senate, he was a community organizer (divider among classes) and a teacher...THAT'S IT! You have just put yourself up as a voluntary pinata with a brilliant statement like that. And I love how many thought it was a good one. Come back to me man, I've got to go a few rounds with you...I need a little laughter in my day.

Don't turn your back to Mitt ? The 1% oil pimps control Romney !

The biggest problem with Romney is, he's been on all sides of every issue, so nobody knows what he would want to do as President--but he's surrounded by the same group of advisers George W. Bush was.

When Romney was at Harvard Business School in the 70s, that institution was teaching young business entrepreneurs to find small companies with a lot of good will built up in their brand, chop them up into tiny pieces, lower the quality of their products, then sell those pieces off one at a time to the highest bidder, value based on previous good will. Initial results mimic growth as the created 'bits' hire new people. Remember what "Famous Amos" cookies tasted like originally?

That's exactly what happened when the small business I once worked for (in the 70s) got a Harvard Business grad CEO. All the companies developed from the original lost its good will in short order & died. At first employee numbers increased from about 30 to over 200 but five years later, the employee count was 0. All the newly generated spin-offs were dead. Of course, he made enough money to retire before 40.

The school is no longer focused on that teaching model, having long since learned its considerable flaws, but Romney still is-- just the same way every generation sings the songs of its own teen years into old age.

The old political format of liberal v. conservative no longer applies, either.

When Republicans have been in power, beginning with Reagan, they do not act conservatively but immediately begin to slash and burn established rules and regs that, for example, protected us from recurring Depression, such as the Glass-Steiglitz Act they eliminated in the 90s.

They have a history of spending recklessly--for example, when not a penny of the Iraq war was ever put into the Federal Budget throughout George W. Bush's entire presidency! Or, when he added prescription drugs to Medicare without considering any way to pay for them. Or, when he cut taxes for his wealthy friends while spending so that a 2 Billion surplus became a 5 Trillion deficit during his two terms.

We wouldn't have a budget deficit if we weren't throwing more money to the military than they even want. Remember, Paul Ryan accused our generals of lying when they said they didn't need all the money his budget allots to them? True conservatives wouldn't want the USA to have military bases in over 140 countries or spend trillions in wars that never end. The 'conservative hawk' is an oxymoron.

The Republican Party has turned our representative democracy into an oligarchy--that became clear when the Supreme Court in 2000 gave the Presidency to the man who lost the general election, but the change was already in the works during Reagan's administration.

Today, as can be read in comments here, political discussion has devolved into name-calling approaching civil war, certainly at least promoting genuine violence-- because the only way the 1% can control everything, as they do, is by continuously dividing the 99% through prejudice, fear, and repeated TV spots highlighting personalities & lies rather than policy.

The Republican Party took to heart Lincoln's message that, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Gingrich made it so in the 90s in our Congressional House, calling it 'morally wrong' to compromise, when compromise has for over 200 years been the essence of democracy--and today we the people are divided as deeply as during the Civil War and--thanks to the NRA and a Supreme Court interpreting the 2nd Amendment as a personal right for the first time in this nation's history--armed to the teeth & prepared to kill each other. For all the wrong, meaningless reasons.

Christian conservatives? Another oxymoron. I agree with Gandhi, who said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians--they are not like your Christ."

On one hand, Republicans accused our President of wanting to destroy religion!--because he thinks all women should be able to have access to birth control if they want it.

On the other hand, the Catholic bishops of the USA have written against the proposed Republican budget, because it defies Christian belief that as a people we should care for & protect the most vulnerable among us.

We vote in lower numbers than any other country that allows public voting.

We fail to educate ourselves beyond what comes to us on TV.

All the derogatory comments about our President I've read on MSNBC's website--hundreds of them-- fail to consider any of his achievements or how crippled he's been by agreement of the Republican Party before he was even inaugurated!--and very obviously come from a deep-rooted racial prejudice that can't even acknowledge he's half-white.

We are failing as a nation, which is so sad--but from where I am, we appear to deserve what we get by our own failures.

We refuse to deal in deep issues of critical importance.

We deny science for religion, but we do not act our faith.

We claim ignorance as our birthright and deride education as arrogant & snobbish.

We are passive as corporations have seized our government in both parties as well as our Supreme Court, allowing our important rights to slip away as we ferociously maintain (falsely) our right to bear arms.

Prepare to join the Third World.

Professor Romney?

When you can't DO, teach!

Just empty talk.

Romney is NOT a doer.

As opposed to an actual former College Law Professor? Romney gave one guest lecture and is named "Professor Romney", while Obama has spent more time on college campuses during his Presidency then any President in history.

Pop quiz! Which party wrote and passed the legislation which is currently causing the "student loan crisis"?

Hint: not the one which starts with "R"

Pop quiz! Which party wrote and passed the legislation which is currently causing the "student loan crisis"?

OOOO Oooo I know,...pick me,....pick me!! Uhhhhhm, it was the Republicans.

Because they wrote the legislation to send all the kid's jobs out of the country so they can't pay back their student loans,....which caused the student loan "crisis". Remember offshoring, and H1B Visa legislation? Sure you do weery. Republican inventions.

:o)

So I get what,....an "A" on the quiz,...right?

weery...citations...or lies?

weary - wrong again it was the Republicans who gave student loans to the banksters - go someplace - maybe a community college - it was Obama who cut out the middleman - go learn something anything - but go away

You are one of the most uninformed person who posts here - BORING!

Weery-tedious is a better description of your posts. Go suck up to the rich, elsewhere.

Wow. No wonder you support Obama- you know nothing.

The legislation to cut Stafford loan rates was drawn, introduced, passed in 2007- a democratic congress under a republican president. Bush signed the bill- but it was written with the ticking time bomb by democrats.

Interestingly, one democrat never voted yea or nay- Obama. He was too busy campaigning.

In recent events- the House passed a bill to keep the current Stafford loan rates. Obama, busy campaigning on the issue, has threatened to veto it. Why? Well, it's paid for by cutting some of the finding from his wildly unpopular HCR-the one that very well may be declared unConstitutional, that the vast majority want repealed, an even larger majority than opposed it before it was ram,Ed down our throats.p>

Obama wants to borrow the funds necessary to maintain the lower rates.

You know, I'm beginning to sense that the hardcore cult members stay in the cult because they refuse to learn the truth about anything at all that does not keep their "cool" president up on that pedestal. Well, you've got a pretty big shock coming.

See, we who live outside the cult? We grant you that Obama is cool. We just cannot afford a cool president whose only qualification for the job is that he is cool.

Obama shelved in 2012.

Show me proof of where the GOP is against student loans. Not a blog or a rachael maddows tweat but actual proof of that. You can't because it's a lie.

The Ryan budget.

Hey realist, Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) came up with an entitlement reform plan, Pushing Woman in wheelchairs over a cliff, forcing the poor to eat dog food and let the middle class die in the streets so the Repubateacons can give the 1% more tax cuts.

No clown.....it was the

I guess this fool hasn't had a close look at the clown's face yet. Pssssst,.....let's not tell em'.

Realist, really? Are you and Patriotic American that naive about the way it really is? (well I know Patriotic is about 10 but you too?)

The interest rate used to be 6.8% then the dems subsidized it even more and dropped it, the expiration of the subsidies are to run out in July 2012. Hmmm, why do you think they picked that time of this year? For the dumb-ass in charge to use it as a talking point. Just like everything he's stood on his podium and brought fear into the lives of Americans about this one is no different. It's not going to happen so he used it as a weapon even though there was no way anyone was going to let the rates jump.

As far as Ryan goes; It actually has nothing to do with the current topic of baracks. Do you honestly think that a single republican including Ryan thinks that his budget had a snowballs chance in hell of getting any serious attention? He could draft the holy grail of budgets and that stanky old cand-ass reid would never give it the time of day. It's called an attempted starting point so the republicans can say they're at least doing something and it's used as a political tool for talking points. You know it so don't play stupid...or for that matter don't be stupid.

If you think proposing an interest rate hike is not caring about loaning money to students, you're also saying that the libs who want to raise income tax rates on the upper income earners are against building wealth in this country. It's the same exact argument so which is it?

The Ryan budget does not indicate that Republicans don't care about student loans...nice try. And un-patriotic American makes some of the most ignorant statements that I see on here. But whatever, it is what it is and some people were just born with a little less capacities as others.

Hey Rightwingwac, I'm not and will not call you names or say you have less capacities then others because I'm better than that, have a nice day.

Okay, cool, I will...based on on bunch of your posts, say you have less capacities. How about that bet? Are you going to deny that it's the same argumentative techniques as 10 year old. Or are you willing to actually do it like you stated?

Or how about your post on accusing republicans of wanting to push women in wheelchairs over cliffs or force the poor to eat dog food blah blah frickin' blah. Those liberal talking points are more ignorantly insulting to me than ANY name that you could possibly call me. Not because they hurt my feelings but because by spewing that garbage which you know is 100% Bull Sh&*, you are stooping to a level that quite frankly I find vial and deserving of being called out on, and I will do so when it's called for. Don't get angry that the game you choose to play might be played better and more directly by your opponent. I choose to be a little direct, not hide behind some talking point regurgitated brainwashing.

Beware because as soon as you digress from common sense or logical argument I will follow suit. You guys generally lead these discussions like the ever so brilliant feisty who likes to go after the looks of someone or call plenty of names her/himself. It's perfectly okay for libs to come up with all sorts of insults disguised as, well their not disguised their just ignorant, insulting statements. So because of that, you and those like you are...with all due respect, playing or just being stupid.

You are a perfect spokesperson for the liberals from barack right down to feisty. You stir the pot, insinuate ridiculous things, insult the hell out of the opposition and then when faced with the same fire you cry and say. "I'm better than that, we liberals are civil but those mean and horrible republicans...oh my they are so vial" Yeah, whatever. You're sheepdom has served your messiah well.

So again, don't sit up on your high horse pretending that you only take part in civil discourse because the evidence is overwhelming that people like you and Feisty and more than half of the people on this post aren't anywhere close to the mighty moral people you act like you are. Making ignorant statements and accusing Republicans of doing the things you did is in no way shape or form "better than that". "let the middle class die in the streets" Yeah that's sooo much better, your moral compass is right in line brother, please tell me where you attended ethics school because I really must enroll. You have a hunky dory day too pal.

Coincidence? Republicans oppose affordable student loans, launch another stupid attack on Obama

Excerpts:

...He will press Congress to extend the 2007 law that keeps interest rates on student loans at a lower rate of 3.4 percent. If Congress doesn’t extend this lower rate, rates will double on July 1 to 6.8 percent. Hard to argue with that, right? Even Mitt Romney endorsed President Obama's position. Yet Republicans just can't help themselves:

Republicans on Capitol Hill noted that then-Senator Obama seemed to make the lower interest rates for student loans a lower priority.

When the bill came up for final passage on September 7, 2007, then-Senator Obama did not vote; he was campaigning for president in California and Oregon.

On the face of it, that's a stupid attack: the bill passed overwhelmingly, by a 79-12 margin; his vote was irrelevant. And it's not like he was goofing off: Obama was running for president. If his vote would have made a difference, he would have returned to D.C. to cast it—but it didn't.

Moreoever, every single one of the 12 no votes in the Senate were cast by Republicans. The same thing was true in the House, where a majority of Republicans voted against the measure. Even if you fault Obama for missing the vote, at least he didn't try to kill the bill.

Yet John Boehner's press shop keeps piling on:

“It seems not much has changed,” said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. “Five years ago, just like today, the President put campaigning before governing. As a result, 50 percent of new graduates can’t find full-time employment in this economy.”

Sure enough, Boehner was among those who voted no on the bill. And he's not supporting it now.

Rightwingwac: Really?? Please consider anger management, then promote greater depth in actual political analysis. If this nation cannot come together to propose solutions by compromise, we are truly doomed. Endless bickering is diminishing the quality of American life--and that is its only effect.

Assuming you are one of the intelligent commentators here, please help upgrade the level of our discourse!

When you're frustrated, exercise. Refrain from posting until the outrage has worn off.

Rightwingwac, I most certainly will NOT take Rachel Maddow off the table to make you happy. I can prove that she is NOT lying about republican opposition to student loans. And I will with my next post. Rachel Maddow does not simply say things without foundation. Her production team lists sources to back up every thing she says. And if she makes a mistake she ADMITS it.

The Morning Plum: GOP backed into corner on student loans?
By Greg Sargent

Is the battle over student loans shaping up as a rerun of the payroll tax cut fight, which by all accounts badly damaged the GOP?

Consider the parallels. Just as in the payroll tax cut battle, there’s a looming deadline: On July 1st, interest rates on federally funded student loans is set to double. Barack Obama and Democrats, confident that the politics are on their side, are signaling that they intend to remain on offense on the issue.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders, apparently sensing that this a losing issue for them, have voiced varying degrees of support for extending the low rates. And just as in the payroll tax fight, they insist their only issue is about how to pay for the extension. Yet they won’t say what spending cuts they would favor to offset it.

Meanwhile, House conservatives — just as during the payroll battle — are beginning to signal that they oppose the extension, period, full stop. Check out this quote from GOP Rep. Todd Akin, who is running in a GOP primary for the right to take on Dem Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri:

Akin said the government should be out of the student loan market altogether. “America has got the equivalent of the stage three cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in,” he said.

For Akin, federal help with student loan debt is an ideological nonstarter. If we start seeing more of this kind of thing from House conservatives, it could limit the maneuvering room GOP leaders need to reach a deal with Dems on how to pay for the extension they say they favor, in order to resolve this issue and put it behind them.

Even if Romney has voiced support for an extension, Dems will seek to use the impasse — should it drag on — to tar the GOP brand among young voters. They’ll also use it to make the case that Romney’s moderation on the issue is fake, that no amount of Etch-A-Sketching can erase the fact that he and his party are ideologically hostile to government help for students, and that they prioritize tax breaks for the rich and corporations over government investment in the future of the American people.

* Romney’s feigned moderation on student issues: The Obama campaign is out with a new video that highlights Romney’s support for cuts to Pell grants and his opposition during the primary to government help with student debt, another sign of Dem determination not to let Romney pivot on issues that matter to the all important youth vote.

* Romney’s victory lap: Steve Benen flags a key quote from Mitt Romney’s victory speech last night, a new rendition of his “I won’t apologize for America” nonsense:

We’ll stop the days of apologizing for success at home and never again apologize for America abroad.

There was a time — not so long ago — when each of us could walk a little taller and stand a little straighter because we had a gift that no one else in the world shared. We were Americans.

As always, the storyline is that Obama doesn’t want America to be exceptional. And as always, multiple news orgs looked the other way as Romney lied yet again about Obama apologizing forAmerica.

* Progressive challenger wins key House primary: Lawyer Matt Cartwright has defeated longtime Dem incumbent Tim Holden last night in a redrawn Pennsylvania district in a race that is being closely watched by liberal bloggers as a referendum on whether unabashed progressives can help place Blue Dogs with establishment Dem backing on the road to extinction.

Cartwright will now face a local Tea Party Republican in a contest that national progressives will make a top priority.

* Labor ousts another Blue Dog Dem: Relatedly, Steve Kornacki on a challenger who defeated another conserva-Dem in Pennsylvania, Jason Altmire, who was heavily targeted as an example by labor for his vote against health reform.

* Obama allies launch ad hitting Romney over gas prices: Priorities USA Action is up with a new ad in Colorado and Nevada that hits Romney as the “$200 million man” who is “in the tank” for Big Oil — a reference to the amount the industry is expected to raise for Romney.

The ad, which is backed by a $1 million buy and is also funded by the League of Conservation Voters, underscores the urgency with which Dems are pushing back against GOP efforts to use high gas prices to deprive Obama for credit of the recovery — particularly in the west.

* Romney can’t Etch-A-Sketch himself on immigration: Dana Milbank on Romney’s frantic efforts to clean up his GOP primary positions on immigration, and why he won’t be able to erase the images left behind by Kris Kobach and Russell Pierce, who helpfully confirmed yesterday that Romney does see the Arizona law as a national model.

* Obama emphasizing humble beginnings: The Los Angeles Times and National Journal’s Tim Alberta both weigh in with takes on Obama’s new emphasis on his humble background and the delicate balancing act the Obama team has undertaken as it sets up an implicit contrast with Romney’s upbringing.

I’m going to say this again, because it keeps getting lost: The contrast in their story arcs isn’t just about politics; it goes directly to their policy dispute over how best to create opportunity, a central argument of the presidential race.

* Obama re-elect reality check of the day: A sobering big picture column from Harold Meyerson pointing out that even though Obama, and not Romney, is the one who grasps the long-term trends undermining American prosperity, Obama may well pay the price for them this time around.

* And ... yes we can? Andrew Rosenthal notes that Obama’s silence yesterday on the North Carolina gay marriage initiative and his failure to evolve on gay marriage “may keep his campaign managers happy, but hardly reflects the `yes we can’ attitude that got him elected.”

Indeed. What else?

By Greg Sargent | 09:05 AM ET, 04/25/2012

I found this link http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-gop-backed-into-corner-on-student-loans/2012/04/25/gIQAZyohgT_blog.html in the maddow blog.

If that is not enough, here is another article cited.

Romney Holds Conference Call On What He Has To Offer Youth; Has Nothing To Offer Youth

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 am

In its effort to reach out to young voters, Mitt Rommney’s campaign held a conference call with reporters today to discuss what the presumed GOP nominee thinks of President Obama’s record on the youth (not much) and what they have to offer young Americans (also not much).

“President Obama gets an ‘F’ for failing our youth,” said surrogate Hank Brown, a 72-year-old former Republican senator from Colorado who also served as the president of the University of Colorado. Obama was merely “able to fool” the two-thirds of people under 30 who voted for him in 2008, Brown added, before promising, “You’re going to see a dramatic turnaround on the campuses this year, with much stronger support for the Republican ticket.”

So, if Obama was so bad, what would a Romney presidency do instead? The septuagenarian Brown, joined on the call by Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) and College Republican National Committee Chairman Alex Schriver, didn’t really have much to offer.

First, Romney’s surrogates downplayed the importance of issues that directly affect young people. Schock criticized Obama for his “focus on student loan and student debt,” saying the real issue young people care about is jobs. Brown, meanwhile, attacked Obama for not reforming entitlement programs, saying young people should worry about their solvency in the future.

And, while Romney and Obama agree that Congress should extend a provision currently before Congress to extend lower interest rates on some student loans, Schock was not optimistic about his Republican colleagues’ willingness to pass it. The congressman repeatedly called the issue a distraction, saying, “In the grand scheme of things, it’s not what we ought to be — we shouldn’t allow issues like this to bog down the bigger agenda, which is how do create jobs in this country.” He added: “In the meantime, we need to be focused on the bigger issues.”

Meanwhile, Schriver suggested the reason tuition costs are going up is because “this president decided to take over the student loan market.” Schriver is referring to a provision passed along with the Affordable Care Act, that removed Wall Street middlemen from the student loan process. Tuition costs were rising long before the law passed in 2010, and the reform actually saves taxpayers money, so Schriver’s claim rings hollow. But Romney himself has suggested that he would roll back this provision, and insert banks once again in the student loan system, where the money comes from taxpayers and the middlemen merely add costs with profit.

In all, the call mentioned not a single positive program to help young people directly, offering only attacks on Obama and generalized prescriptions for the entire economy.

Not mentioned on the call is how young people wold be negatively impacted by other policies Romney supports, starting with the House Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). The proposal, which Romney has strongly endorsed (and Schock voted for), would allow student loan interest rates to double, and would cut $200 billion from the Pell Grant program, kicking off over 1 million students.

Romney also wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including its provision that allows kids up to 26 years old to remain on their parents’ health insurance plans. More than 2.5 million young adults had already received coverage, as of December, under this part of the law, and would presumably lose it if Romney has his way.

A new poll from Harvard University shows Obama widening his lead over Romney among voters 18 to 29, now enjoying a 17 point lead, a gain of six points from the last poll in November.

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/04/24/470083/romney-youth-conference-call/?mobile=nc

The GOP only supports educating the children of the rich families who can afford the high tuition rates without humane student loans.

Both article links were embedded in,

GOP determined to move backwards on student loans

By Steve Benen
-
Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:57 AM EDT

When it comes to President Obama's accomplishments, I tend to think one of the more overlooked breakthroughs was reform of the student-loan system -- an effort that was decades in the making, but had been blocked by Republicans and bank lobbyists until 2010.

Under the old system, the student-loan industry received billions in taxpayer subsidies to provide a service the government could perform for less. As Rachel explained on the show last night, in 2010, Democrats removed the middleman, streamlined the process, saved taxpayers a ton of money, and helped more young people get college degrees.

Republicans have condemned the move, usually for ideological reasons (they tend to call it a "government takeover" of the student-loan system). Yesterday, however, the Romney campaign tried to make a practical argument about the more efficient system.

[College Republican National Committee Chairman Alex Schriver] suggested the reason tuition costs are going up is because "this president decided to take over the student loan market."

Think about that for a moment. Schriver, acting in his capacity as an official surrogate of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, argued on the record to reporters that tuition costs are higher because the government is no longer paying banks billions of tax dollars to serve as needless middlemen in the student-loan system.

Does anyone, anywhere, seriously believe this argument makes any sense at all? Either way, it suggests Romney, if elected, intends to bring back the old system and undo the cost-saving 2010 reforms.

That is, if Republicans don't scrap the federal student-loan program altogether.

Greg Sargent flagged this remarkable quote from Rep. Todd Akin (R), who's currently running for the U.S. Senate in Missouri.

Akin said the government should be out of the student loan market altogether. "America has got the equivalent of the stage three cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in," he said.

The GOP's presumptive presidential candidate, meanwhile, believes students who get accepted to college but can't afford the tuition should simply "shop around" to find some cheaper college -- because a Romney administration has no intention of helping that student afford the costs.

It's against this backdrop that Republican lawmakers are prepared to let student loan interest rates double. And the GOP wonders why it struggles with younger voters.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11390714-gop-determined-to-move-backwards-on-student-loans?lite

Still want to call liberal and moderates liars Rightwingwac?

Good job copying and pasting every thing you can find from blogs. Maddows mistakes? She is a mistake. You're re-posting tons of gibberish from liberal blogs. So I guess I should paste a bunch of crap from right wing blogs and claim it's all real.

Again, show me in proposed legislature where the GOP want student loans to go away. People can form opinions based on gaffs or a single persons statement taken out of context all day long. But if you can show me in .gov sites or proposed bills the language that states that student loans must go away I'll recant. When pasting third generation stuff from maddows I'm not even going to give it a look.

Even your Washington post was a blog link. If maddow is so unbiased and pure to the foundation of reporting why doesn't she do better in the ratings department. Seems like everyone should be watching her if she is so wonderful. Anyway, I'm not getting into a debate about maddow.

You took an awful long time pasting together all of these blog references. How about doing actual investigating and looking for the proof positive bills that eliminate student loans. Not finding language about reorganizing so they aren't such a boondoggle, or moving them completely from government control, not doing something inelegant with them but as you guys like to claim, doing away with student loans.

Typical Karl Rove Strategy, Rightwingwac, I am so unimpressed with your attitude or your post.

If I am wrong PROVE it. Until then I consider your reply to be devoid of substance. The ball is still in your court. I don't see you doing anything but making vacuous claims. Until you engage in research to the same level you expect of me do not to rise to that level.

It's easy to get high numbers when fox news publishes lies and calls them truths. They can say what ever people want to hear.

I guess what angers me the most about Rightwingwac is that s/he seems to enjoy baiting liberals, moderates, progressives.

I guess what angers me the most about Rightwingwac is that s/he seems to enjoy baiting liberals, moderates, progressives

Don't let him get to you Wade - little guy isn't qualified to even make the 'bench warmer' team!

Rookie mistake #1 is attacking the source of the information rather then the accuarcy!

Not only does he have some serious anger management issues, he appears to be a major control freak! lol

Hey Wade,

I didn't make accusations about anyone wanting to push grandma off the cliff, get rid of medicare, social security or now the latest False talking point...student loans. When I make an uninformed ignorant accusation like that I would beg that you please call me out on it. But you will find that 99% of the time I don't make those types of accusations and when making any statistical or philosophical statements I will not disappoint with my research okay?

So, you guys accuse something, I ask for actual proof, not hearsay, and you don't put it out there. It's not called "baiting" it's called backing up your accusations. That's it! Simple simple process.

Again, when I make an accusation I hope that you're there to make me prove my point. I have (on this thread somewhere) backed up my statistical statements (in that case) with the actual national labor board data which is on .gov sites, not liberal or conservative blog sites. Not biased but based on facts. That's all I'm asking for in return and if you or anyone can show me something OFFICIAL that is put out by republicans that want to do away with student loans I will look at it and if I'm wrong I will humbly admit it and move on. Pretty common sense approach isn't it?

By your logic if I accuse you of breaking in my house because my cousins neighbor heard that you liked big screens and mines missing...you're guilty! That's not how I like to prove my points, if you do that's a shame because for the amount of work you put into looking up blog statements you could probably do a hell of a job actually proving yourself if you were armed with undeniable facts.

As far as Fox goes??? Who ran completely bogus stories in the Travon case? Who discovered it and called them on it? Who keeps people honest time and time again? Fox does. Their commentators are just like MSNBC commentators which are slanted to their political preference except Fox usually makes better arguments. There is no perfect news site but one things for sure. Fox proves accurate exponentially more often than the other networks, that is not to say they haven't put slanted stories out there but statistically you will find it to be the truth.

Lastly, I'm not here to impress you with my attitude or my posts. I start in one spot and usually end up swapping blows with people who will hypocritically claim some sort of moral foundation which they are usually clearly de-void of. So things get heated and harsh on all levels. I play that game because the ego's think that I might just back off because of criticism.

Most of the time people regurgitate things that they hear and don't actually investigate the truth. You know the third side to every story; yours, mine and the truth? It takes a lot of energy so I get that, but man those same people are often the ones who get really bent out of shape and resort to nonsensical lashing out or just downright ignorant slamming when called on their misinformation or lack of any information (feisty red head). So yep, I'm guilty of going down that road when invited.

To wrap it up; if you don't like me, don't read me. But if you want to get into opposing side discussions we can do that. However, I'm not arguing about third/fourth party opinions. I guarantee that I don't even believe everything I fight for fits everyone's needs but I'd rather be proved wrong than have some people just keep the same uniformed liberal talking points flowing.

Anyway, don't be angry, or be angry, but I'll bet if we were on a line together I'd have your back and unlike, based on what I've read on this site, a whole bunch of liberals...I'd actually pull the trigger to protect you.

Live long and prosper Wade (prosper being a philosophical concept of conservative values of course)

Feisty, I though you were going to ignore me. See that guys, more lies from Feisty. Man you can't even tell the truth with your threats.

I guess I'm really getting to you huh? Se now Wade, here is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. I give you the epitome of a bought and paid liberal talk box. Feisty will show up all over the place and have some conversation with her buddy ripping and chastising people but when it comes down to it she presents zero logical argument. Take a look around for yourself. I'm harsh in my arguments...she has no arguments at all.

She's a stumper for barack and that might be cool with you but the proof is in the puding and she shows little intellect when it comes to making a good point, or any point. You're more than capable of making up your own mind and you may find her to be god-like...I don't know. But that ugly head will rear itself from time to time just to slam people. The proof is all over this thread.

BUT she somehow thinks she is superior. She has some superiority complex because she gets paid by baracks organization to raise hell. She said she was going to ignore me but I guess I've made too big a nest in her empty little head to rid me from it.

I bet you $10,000.00 dollars if Romney gets into office America will fail !

Patriot

Are you the same buffoon (If the shoe fits) that used this same line in several other posts? My God what an elementary statement. Okay meatball, I'll bet you 10k or no better yet I'll bet you a bazillion, trillion, contillion dollars that if barack wins we will lose more than we have in our history. Just give me your real address and real name so we can make it official.

"I'll bet you $10,000" Holy smokes I didn't know we were debating with 10 year olds. Although there are many statements on here that could be from a 10 year old mentality but this one takes the cake. "I'll bet you $10,000 dollars", absolutely hilarious.

God I've actually got tears in my eyes from the comeback. Okay let's bet. Hey how are we going to settle our bet? I mean if you're right and America fails I'm not going to be able to pay you, did you ever think of that? And, and, and, if I'm right I'm quite sure you will welch because well, that's just the way you seem to be.

So what are we going to do? I'll tell you what, I'll set up a third party through pay-pal and we'll let them hold the money until what, 2020? But what if he's a one term president and then it would be 2016. But when will America fail? I mean will they fail during his presidency or after? How much longer after? Are we talking a year, two, immediately? Wait we need to define fail. What is "fail", are you saying that if we get an "F" on our ratings I'll have to pay up? Unemployment rate? War?

Oh no...what if man made global warming gets so bad that the earth starts to melt and the pay pal servers are destroyed? Then how will either of us collect on the bet? Oh my gosh this is going to take so much planning for a measly 10k bet, you know what? On second thought I'm not taking your bet...too many logistical nightmares.

This has been a demonstration in the idiocy of the unknown person who goes by the handle "patriot American U.S.A." If he is the example of a patriotic American I'm certainly not proud to be one.

Hey Rightwingwac, did l hit a nerve ? Sorry about that !

PS - Your the one that's acting like a ten year old !

Nope, you will have a really hard time rattling my cage, I live for this stuff. How am I acting like a 10 year old? By pointing out the hypocrisy that you and those like you constantly display. By not laying down when a social opponent tries to falsely claim that they have some sort of moral compass that they follow and therefore they are better than the overwhelming evidence supports? Or by having a blast pointing out the ridiculous nature of a statement that's supposed to somehow prove a point. Well, if you know a 10 year old that carries himself that way you should stick with him because he'll rule the world one day.

So there you go again, you're faced with an opponent that brings things to light and instead of actually posing a solid and logical argument you resort to good old fashioned liberal techniques. So keep trying, I'll have fun with this stuff all day and you can keep making ridiculous statements all day. You can be the yin to my yang or in this case the wrong to my RIGHT.

I'll be waiting for the next "I'm better than that" statement.

Hey, Rightwingwac:

The $10,000 bet proposal was obviously made as a joking reference to Romney's gaffe in debate. Sense of humor??

Rightwingwac,

Chill out man, you're sounding like an emotional, angry blowhard with a losing cause, that's lashing out to everyone, because it sounds like you have a lot of time on your hands to be unproductive and derogatory to everyone in the eyes of every conservative, centrist and liberal I know of that's reading the series of give-and-take comments in this NewsVine section.

Please stick to the news topic being discussed.

Or you can continue on, painting yourself into a corner ...but that's your choice if you want to continue to reinforce with everyone the degradation of your public relations quotient.

And what can you expect? With a name like yours, you're practically inviting yourself to be attacked on all sides -- including by your own peers for your not being 110 percent right-wing, 110 percent of the time, as far as the most extreme of ultra-conservatives are concerned.

Here's a bit of advice: Change your moniker. That way, you won't have to emotionally defend yourself so much against all the detractors.

But what do I know, right? ...I'm just another commenter like everyone else on the NewsVine...

Could that be Mitt's dog heart ?

Patriot, what kind of "I'm not like that" are you displaying here? Are you taking part in this conversation that implies Cheney didn't even have a heart and then add that when he got one it was a dogs?

Wow, you're right, you are soooo superior in ethics and morals. How do you do it? Way to stay on point with relevant input to the discussion at hand.

Actually, Cheney received a donor heart--a transplant. Would be sweet if he had a change of heart politically as well, but nobody should be holding their breath.

As the former CEO of Halliburton, Cheney is responsible for lying to the American people in order to access Iraq's oil--an idea initially brought to his attention by an aide's note suggesting we could "steal their oil."

Private contractors like Halliburton now do what our military used to--from building their bases to peeling potatoes--at ten times the cost. Cheney made millions. It should treasonous for people in government to profit from wars they promote and we prosecute.

Cheney & Bush could still be prosecuted for violating a federal statute making it a felony to authorize torture committed in foreign countries--Bush, at least, has freely confessed.

As a young man in Nixon's administration, Cheney learned, "It's not a crime if the President does it." Or if you're the puppeteer pulling the President's strings.

Just in case you hadn't heard England did the republican austerity plan for the people and more tax cuts for the rich in England and they are now entering into a double dipped recession. The economy is bad and getting worse.

It is dumb to vote for any republican for anything as that is the republicans plan for America.

Even though slowly our economy is growing, even with republicans blocking every thing that could create faster job growth.

So why is it again that President Obama's policies are so bad?

What? Is it republicans aren't going to be happy until our people are all starving and dying in the streets? Then you are going to make contraception illegal and then even more starving and dying.

This meanest towards the people includes our vets, for as soon as republican war mongers get done using you, well your budget gets cut.

Too bad you bought the hate and can't see just how much good President Obama has done for our country and what a return to the bush years will do to us.

Obama/Biden 2012

The entire Republican philosophy is to give more money to the rich, which they consider the "investor class".

The problem arises when you find out that the "investor class" in no the same as the "job creator class". This is something that the republican party can wrap their minds around.

Only a very tiny percentage of the "investor class" invests in a way that creates jobs. In fact, the part of the "investor class" that has the most invest in hedge funds, which promise big returns with no risk. They invent new investment vehicles, like complex derivatives, and swindle ratings agencies into giving AAA to these shell (or shill) entities. Then they create credit-default swaps, which by any other name is gambling.

This is how the idle rich take over your lives, average Republican voter, so my question to you is: Why do you support them?

And I have to ask, because I am one of them, in the sense that I know how things work and the conservative contributors on this discussion board so clearly don't.

It's all part of the conservative agenda, Jon. Abolish education of any sort. Get rid of contraception and squash the unions while pushing religion.

What does the give you?

A cheap, bottomless, ill educated, superstitious work-force that demands nothing, much like China.

If the conservatives have their way we'll all be scratching for 2.00 an hour jobs and living in our own filth. That is their agenda. They've set back the calendar 50 years and moving backward.

Like your life America? Wake up and smell the coffee.

Of course the Dems as they stand today are not much better.

Time for a third party.

Romney is thinking of Scott Walker as VP ?

Just in case you hadn't heard England did the republican austerity plan for the people and more tax cuts for the rich in England and they are now entering into a double dipped recession. The economy is bad and getting worse.

You must be taking your economic queues from Fareed Zakaria.

Now let's look at the "austerity plan" that actually came to fruition in England.

Cameron gave up on their attempt to reform social programs, and no real "cuts" to speak of. Real spending in the U.K is flat. How's that for austerity?

What else did the U.K. do? They increased their VAT, increased taxes on banks, and increased taxes on oil companies.

I think your argument against austerity in the UK is bogus. First there were no real cuts. Second they implemented the taxes that the left has been pushing here at home.

Sounds to me that the U.K's double-dip recession is the outcome of maintaining the status quo with President Obama.

Why don't we talk about the Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, where they actually made significant cuts to spending? Oh yeah, because they are actualy in economic recovery unlike those who talked a big austerity game (U.K.) and failed to actually implement true cuts.

Poor planning?

Probably like most Americans, not enough extra income. Poor planning is an insult to hard working people. Not everyone earns enough to save for four years of college for each of their children. Not all families are two income families either. No doubt you are a member of the "investor class" and can afford anything. I guess having plenty of money also gives you the right to insult other people. Both Mitt and Ann Romney cannot understand how average American families live. Sure we buy homes, educate our children and pay bills just like they do - the difference is that they have lots of money left over at the end of each week, month and year. They have so much money that they can send it off shore to avoid taxes. They have enough saved that they can educate their sons, even give them million dollar trust funds. There is one thing they can't buy and that is respect - they have to earn that and without concern for those less fortunate they will not succeed. Saying they don't consider themselves wealthy, or they are glad there are so many mothers who cannot choose between working and staying at home, telling students their parents should pay for college - are typical of them. It also shows how out of touch they are with most Americans.

weery one

Poor planning?

what a pompous and arrogant comment.

you're one of us. One major illness away from living on the street whether you are clever enough to realize it or not. You'd better hope when that happens the people caring for you are more human than you.

I guess not saving for 18 years is not enough time? Yeah, it's poor planning.

Of My Goodness,

Sorry your kids already owe $35k because of the debt...nope make that $35,100. Nope, sorry, $35,150. Oops, my bad, $35,200. @!$%#! sorry again, I mean $35,250

You guys are Heartless like Cheney !

Patriotic,

See, now here we are again. You just called these people heartless and also stated that Cheney is heartless. Now Patriotic American...isn't that a bit like calling someone a name? Sounds like you may have made a false statement to me. You know what I find interesting is that you don't actually make any solid arguments for anything and you don't take part in the topic at hand. But you just jump in and throw little digs (as in "insults") in here and there. Could it be that there is just a massive lack of knowledge on the topics so you simply throw digs based on your political feelings?

Well at least I'm sure you sleep well at night knowing that you're so morally superior to the rest of us.

"But "no" personal attacks on posters, But l do joke around a little !

Sorry Patriotic but "Teabaggers" is a personal attack and if you don't believe it you really should look it up. But the left love throwing it out there whether on TV or right here. But nooooo, they aren't responsible for lowering the civility of the conversion. Again, you can call me whatever you'd like and it's not going to bother me. After all, more than half of these posts would not be here if nobody responded to name calling or insults. But whether you think so or not you are right down in the mud with the rest of us and when I see that tied to a proclamation of purity, I point it out.

You sit on the left and I sit on the right and in the end we want the country to do well but through different philosophies. Everybody gets heated and then claims it's the other guys fault...maybe the puppet-masters are just succeeding more than some think.

Watch the bunny acquisitions! --- American Rabbits are unified against Romney ---- Romney called us "Varmints"

Who's acquiring bunnies? LOL

Jim, Obama eats dogs. This fact comes from Obama's first autobiography. He was a child, true, somewhere between six and ten, living in Indonesia, a Muslim country where dog is unclean and, therefore, illegal, and he was over thirty when he bragged about in the his book.

Let's take the kid angle, shall we?

Take any six year old you know. Put a plate in front of him. Tell that kid the meat is dog. Watch what happens.

Remember that Obama spent the years before being removed to Indonesia in America- Hawaii, where they don't eat dogs. His book takes pains to describe those early years - and, surprise!- he had a dog as a pet, like a lot of kids.

That's you "cool" president.

And here are the results of your "cool" president- limping GDP, high unemployment, the highest level of poverty since records were kept, the highest level of food stamp eligibility since the program was inaugurated, the highest level of gas prices for this time of year in, well, ever, lowest average home prices in ten years, lowest level of civilian labor force participation since 1982- before women entered the workforce in droves.

Heck of a job. Tell you what- let's give him the job he really wants- he really wants to play president on TV. So, maybe next year, some of his Holkywood buddies can write a script, and he can play president in a series.

Cast Bo, the dog, in the role of First dog. We need to keep an eye on him.

My son at the age of 3 at an Indian Pow-Wow was given moose and bear meat, but that doesn't mean that is on his diet today as if you want and need to eat everything today that was ever given to you as a child.

This is just another example of hating for any made up reason.

This story in contrast of an adult Romney actually thinking it was fine to put his dog on the roof of the car for a 12 hour ride. Then after the dog gets sick he then begins hosing him down and wet he puts the dog back on the roof.

Sounds about how the republicans plan on treating everybody but the richest Americans, very badly, with no regard for our feelings or needs.

Obama/Biden 2012

Americans

People commonly hunt and eat moose and bear, people in some poverty stricken nations do eat dog but most people don't brag about it later in life.

Anyone but barack 2012

"Anyone but Mitt 2012" !!!!!!!!

Really, okay, I told you I'll play at whatever level you want to play at sooooo.

"ANYONE BUT bARACK 2012!!!!!"

Look I even did it in bold too...so I could be as morally ethical as you :)

The next time around are you going to write "oh yeah,,,yo mamma"? Because that would just make my day.

It seems you're both a bit stuck. You know, we all get stuck from time to time. Insisting on staying there, however, defines insanity.

Rightwingwac, your comments are personally directed invective.

PatrioticAmerican's comments seem less directed, or not directed, at you. If you're the bigger person, why not assume responsibility for lifting the level of debate?

Dee

I totally respect your point. Here's the deal; Any name, in any book, at any time will not phase me. But hypocrisy and a hypocrite claiming they're on the high intellect or moral road in an attempt to feel superior drives me nuts. I'm the first to admit that when challenged at an elementary school level I get right down in the mud with them and I'm walking away dirty but none the less walking away. Likewise when a challenge is presented at a civil and articulate level I do my best to follow suit.

When there is someone who calls names, throws superficial insults out and then makes a case that they are somehow better than anyone else??? They get called out, and those type of people don't like getting called out. They kick and scratch and continually raise their head to shout "I'm more civil than you". The president takes the lead on it and it seems to be a growing theme among the flock.

I've been sidelined for getting on people but the hypocrisy runs ramped out here because it only takes a few minutes to scan these posts and find numerous examples of things that I wouldn't even say. So there seems to be a fire raging and a huge bulk of the discourse comes from the left. (not all but a whole bunch of it) So again, I call people out on it and instead of running out of the fire I choose to run into it.

As far as your last line; Patriotic American claimed they are better than name calling so I pointed out, in an admitted elementary way, a whole bunch of (not exactly high road) name-calling on their part. Whether directed at me or not, it is what it is and they demonstrated the hypocrisy that I'm referencing.

I appreciate your comments and I hope I responded with a level of civility that you're looking for.

Like used cars.. Quite a lot turn out to be "lemons".

Private equity firms are also deeply involved in creating problems for retirees & the states with state pension funds that are no good

Corporations are people, my friend.

adrift2 - Did you ever wonder, People are a product of God and copulation, Corporations are a product of Attorneys designed so that they have no liability to people!

Can we abort unwanted corporations?

Love the concept, Vinnie, but that would be a legal mess depending upon which state in which it is conceived. It could be a personhood at the second of conception or it would have to be ultrasounded or.....

I personally would like to see the ultra sound of any corporation the moment the idea of a business is conceived!

Dorpheno

Everybody buys businesses with other peoples money. You bought your house , your car, boat, motorcycle, hell probably your groceries with other peoples money. Even foodstamps = other peoples money. People in business use other peoples money and those other people understand there is a risk involved and are rewarded financially IF the risk pays off. The government uses other peoples money to funnel into pathetic spending programs that there is no risk to so none of them need to run efficiently.

Get a clue of how the world actually works.

Our government essentially spends 60% of the federal budget on the military and endless wars that are good for corporations but bad for our people, having limited or no actual national security interests.

The remainder is half of all health care costs and programs to help the least of us survive. This is of key importance now because wages are the least part of GDP than they have been in 50 years, and half of all Americans now make $30,000 per annum or less.

1 in 4 children in this previously great nation goes to bed hungry every night and lives below poverty, at a time when profits are the highest part of GDP than ever before.

Pathetic spending programs?? Indeed. If we starved the more than 140 military bases we maintain overseas and brought back the draft so people would protest against the endless wars spurred by corporate interests rather than national security interests, we would have no deficit.

Economists agree: If we just put the 30 millions who lost their jobs back to work as they were before, their income taxes would end the deficit.

This nation's greatest growth was achieved under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, when income over $400,000 was taxed at 91%. Merely eliminating Bush's ill-considered tax cuts for the rich would feed all of our millions who go to bed hungry.

It was also Eisenhower, a true conservative, who warned us against the military-industrial complex that's eating us all alive.

Yep,,,, We can't forget their sworn obstruction. It was an oath republicans in Congress took on the night of Obama's inauguration

I got a kick out of Boehner's drunk act today bitching about Obama's obstruction

Boeher sounded like the drunk who stumbled into the wrong house on the way home from the bar

"Seems they wanted to win an election more than they wanted to work together for the good of the country."

Republicans are unpatriotic.

Jim - When does trying to bring down the country "TREASON" or am I missing something?

Jim - I don't think it was a drunk act after all he is balancing two mistresses at this point

When is - Cantor's blackmail on Boehner's activities going to hit the fan or is he just holding Boehner hostage?

After all - The National Enquirer is sitting on this report - why?

Barbara-Are you former Public Defender Barb Adams?

Did you catch Boehner's drunk act today bitching about Obama's obstruction?

Boeher sounded like the drunk who stumbled into the wrong house on the way home from the bar

Hey Jim, that was no act, Boner is a drunk ! He lives in the 19 th hole !!

hahaha you got that right

Romney was involved in a couple of hundred companies. Apparently, you two geniuses know his record of business intimately. What percentage of the businesses he was involved in failed?

Weery-it's not about %s - it's about the destroyed lives of American workers and their families courtesy of Mitt. One would disqualify him for this office-there are thousands.

The Amish in Ohio think John Boner is Big Foot - - - - in the mouth !