It's funny, but I think the American people will decide what the election is about, and not what they are "told" it's about.

Of course the economy comes in at the top, but I don't see that getting better without both sides working together on the issues.

Anyway you go, I'm not voting for the party that believes the "trickle down" economics is the answer, as its a proven failure.

Snookie could be elected president by the Democratic Party...but the real Romney problem isn't his likeability or coolness...it is the fact is that his"IS" the white Obama and isn't supported or trusted by most of the members of his own party

Real American.

While it's true the markets have done better under Democratic Presidents, according to your chart, you also need to look at the Congress during those times. It's true the markets and the economy both have enjoyed higher rates of growth under Republican Legislature.

Real American.......Now run that same chart, but change it to who had control of congress. All of a sudden, you will see a complete flip of the chart and it shows that the republicans are better. Then ask yourself this....who is more important? The person that signs the legislation or the person that writes the legislation? Look at that jobs chart that you posted. May 2007 was about the time the first democrat legislation was being implemented. All downhill. Then look at when republicans were elected and took back control of the house. All uphill.

Real....What is wrong with electing a successful American? Isn't that the type of person we should be electing? His effective tax rate is lower than other rich Americans because he gives so much to charity. Is that a bad quality? Even with his lower tax rate, he still pays a higher effective income tax rate than about 90% of Americans. Unfortunately, too many people are uneducated and don't know the difference between effective tax rates and marginal tax rates.

Does thr Republican party expect to win on the Economy. Have they noticed how great things are going even with the House Party of No votong against every/all jobs bills.

Get real.

True.....That is about the silliest response yet. First, the tax breaks for the rich, deregulation, and war policies staying the same have little to do with a recovery. If you take things away it will make things worse not better. Yes, it republicans are blocking worthless proposals from Obama and the democrats are blocking bills that would help the country in the Senate. Both parties are at fault on that.

I agree with you about first responders and teachers should be admired. Success isn't limited to one's profession. My problem is that you are criticizing someone for being successful. I want the American Dream for all and that is exactly why I oppose Obama/Biden. I fear that if they are elected, my children will have no chance of achieving the American dream when they grow up. They will be too busy paying for our mistakes.

Real.....I read the article and it proves my point. He didn't receive any big payback from the government. That income was not counted against him. It isn't the government's money to begin with. Personally, I think that giving to charity, churches and other non-profits is a much better use of money than giving it to the federal government. I have checked that with my paycheck. My wife and I made between $60-90K and paid about 2% in federal taxes, much less than Romney's 15%

Real American,

The most uneducated thing a person could think about a rich person is that they have all their money in the bank. They don't. They may have more than you in the bank, but every spare dollar is invested in ventures that from their experience could bring a 15% or more in hopes of getting at least minimum of 6 - 7%. Even the money they do have on deposit at the bank is being used to make loans to individuals and businesses. They don't allow too much because the bank only gives the barely the inflation rate in interest.

The reason the economy is not moving forward is that they have added up the costs with known regulation and know they probably can do no better than 6 - 7% possible profit. Moving on that low of a projected profit margin, they know they can expect to have a loss so they are better off to sit back and wait.

The more money the rich have = more money to invest in new ventures that create jobs.

The more money the government has = more money to buy votes by giving money to people who don't produce one thing.

How ironic it is that the Romney people talk about how unimportant it is to be the cool candidate.

Yet Romney is the one who walks around in his jeans, trying to look cool. When in fact he looks ridiculous.

I hardly ever see the president in jeans. He's just cool because of who he is. A really nice warm human being with a great sense of humor whose smile lights up the world.

I could contend that we are too busy paying for democrats mistakes.

I love that mentality...in 3rd graders... " I could make a case that 6 months of democrat congress led to deregulation that collapsed the worlds economy."

Go ahead, contend that, what did the democrats pass in 2007 that led to the Bush recession. As opposed to what Bush and republicans passed the previous 7 years that helped it.

Go ahead, try and ignore the previous 12 years of republican control, please list the policies...i'll wait?

Cool is Cool, and Romeys not, ever!! Obama=COOL/KOOL Romney=FOOL/TOOL

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Sour grapes. The POTUS can already do a better job with the economy, AND be cool without even trying. People like him. That's because he's a real human being. I want a brain scan of Mitt, just to make sure it's not wood with a hand in it, or a bunch of clockwork.

Jason Sudeikis of Saturday Night Live (the guy who impersonates Romney on the show) describes Romeny as a "butter sandwich - unsalted - with the crust cut off". Un-cool doesn't even begin to describe it. Personally, I want my President to not only be smart but cool, as well

kim......Why should that matter at all? Listening to an actor on Saturday Night Live for political analysis doesn't help our country.

PutAmericaFirst - Who said I was listening to an actor on Saturday Night Live for political analysis? It was a statement about Romney's blandness and lack of personality. It was funny. Lighten up, buddy. I suppose I should listen to you for political analysis. Perhaps I will take you a little more seriously when you develop a sense of humor.

Witchrunner, "Romney's idea of helping these same youth is to do things that will boost the economy, thus providing opportunity for the youths to get jobs to pay for their student loans."

Can you explain to me what "things" Romney wants to do to "boost the economy" that haven't already been tried by Republicans? I keep hearing that Romney is going to "fix it", but all I ever hear about how he plans to do that is the same old stuff that caused the problem in the first place. I have yet to hear anything that actually helps the middle class get back on their feet. Tax cuts for corporations and millionaires obviously doesn't "boost" anything for the 99% or it would have happened by now.

They're familiar with the Romney "brand" there, Fehrnstrom said.

I think that is a very revealing remark. When it comes to voting for President, I'm more interested in human beings than brands.

And I don't want to be sold anything, thank you.

They want us to trust a guy who made his fortune killing companies and selling them for scrap to fix America?

Ya 'know, I'd trust Bill Clinton with my money but not with my daughter. I'd trust G.W. Bush with my kids but not with my check book. I wouldn't want Romney near my money or my kids. The guy is plain creepy.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Norquist/Rove. They want a puppet who will do as he's told...

It's always a popularity contest - and Mitt is UNcool.

Romney wins on one thing only: number of lies per hour. The guy will even lie about what he stood for two days ago.

The amazing thing about this is that all the other republickans in the campaign agreed about it.

So you Mittsy defenders are willing to accept as president the most egregious liar we have had as a candidate since Reagan. Oh, wait, I guess I just demonstrated that his lying is a big part of what you like.

When it comes to voting for President, I'm more interested in human beings than brands.

Great comment, and it goes right to the heart of both the Romney campaign and the Conservative Movement as a whole. For Romney the Presidency is a personal prize worth doing almost anything to hold in his hand. To the Conservative Movement reality doesn't matter. It's all about branding, all about selling, all about PR.

"Club Mormon" built an extremely over-the top multi-million dollar temple for themselves in my neighborhood just as millions were losing their jobs and scrambling for food and shelter.

So they created jobs for the construction workers who built it. Do you know how all the rest of the mormon church funds are spent?

"Club Mormon" now employs fences and guards outside the temple to keep us "outsiders" at bay.

What?? More jobs created? That's horrible!

"Club Mormon" continued to require their flock to contribute their 10% FIRST... before family, food, and shelter during the worst times in recent memory.

Yep, that's how the mormon law of tithing works, making the sacrifice first. And if people can't make do after that, do you wanna know what happens? The money goes goes right back to help support them. In some cases, people receive more than what they pay in tithing.

Yep, that tax break he got for building temples like this sure fed a bunch of souls...

If you ventured outside your bubble for just two seconds and learned of everything the mormons do to help the needy, you'd hang your head in shame for posting this dribble.

My brother and his family were expelled from the church in Georgia for their sinning political ways (being Democrats).

Nobody is expelled from the mormon church based on their political party. If your brother told you that, there was something far more serious that he doesn't want you to know. Or you're just making this garbage up.

Hypocrisy and exclusion runs deep in private clubs such as these.

And ignorance runs deep in people such as yourself. You should really get out and get educated. Most of my family are mormons, and my brother happens to be a bishop in California. In today's world of information being available at your fingertips, there's really no excuse for you to be so blissfully ignorant.

I don't know. Mitt already admitted to lying in order to win in Mass because the Mormon Brotherhood told him to. Mormonism is definitely worth investigating. Mitt's specific actions even more so. He called a woman "not my kind of Mormon" because she refused his demand to give her second child up for adoption. She was a single Mom. That was her huge sin. That a man abandoned his responsibility so she should naturally do the same, I guess.....Mormons have a very strange philosophy and practices. Fine for them, but the main tenet is that if you are not a Mormon, you are lost, cannot be saved. That's what Mitt thinks. That's what Mitt believes. That's why he clearly doesn't give a toss about anyone else.

I should add, he looks weird in jeans because he wears the Mormon sackcloth underwear. The ones he can never take off. They bunch up in his crotch in jeans.....nice.....

Like every Republican --- Romney has two answers to improve the economy -- tax cuts for the richest of the rich and deregulation -- the same policies that crashed it in the first place. Voting for a Republican to strengthen this economy makes as much sense as smoking to cure lung cancer.

Chad I don't dislike Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. I dislike him because of the things he says. I dislike him because of his attitude towards the poor, college students, women, I could go on and.

"Mormonism is a cult. Are you ready to vote for someone who belongs to a cult?"

That's what people said about Catholics. That didn't stop JFK from becoming president, did it?

I don't know. Mitt already admitted to lying in order to win in Mass because the Mormon Brotherhood told him to. Mormonism is definitely worth investigating. Mitt's specific actions even more so. He called a woman "not my kind of Mormon" because she refused his demand to give her second child up for adoption. She was a single Mom. That was her huge sin. That a man abandoned his responsibility so she should naturally do the same, I guess.....Mormons have a very strange philosophy and practices. Fine for them, but the main tenet is that if you are not a Mormon, you are lost, cannot be saved. That's what Mitt thinks. That's what Mitt believes. That's why he clearly doesn't give a toss about anyone else.

Do you have any sources for those supposed beliefs that Mitt has? I'd be particularly interested in seeing where the "Mormon Brotherhood" told him to lie. As for the overall doctrine of the faith, you are so far off base with regard to who can/can't be saved that methinks you've been living with your head in the sand. Or you've just been listening to so much propaganda that you don't want to listen what's true. You should talk to some mormons if you want to really know what they believe, rather than soaking up so much misinformation from second and third hand sources.

Chad:

Mormonism is a cult.

The definition from Merriam-Webster:

1: formal religious veneration : worship

So, I guess Mormonism is a cult. But then, so is Catholicism, Lutheranism, heck, any other religion out there.

Are you ready to vote for someone who belongs to a cult?

Been doing it for the last 200+ years. Wake up.

They could care less about anyone who doesn't belong.

Well, that would certainly explain why they've given vast amounts of food/clothing in humanitarian efforts all over the world. That would also explain their vast proselyting effort. Because those are the sorts of things one does when they don't care about anyone else...

Religious intolerance such as what you've displayed is the source of needless strife in this country and a ridiculously unnecessary barrier to constructive discourse.

Obama is not only supercilious who thinks he's 'the smartest guy in the room', but he also seems to think that occupying the White House means that it is Christmas every day for him and his family. He has entertained himself, family, and close friends with WH concerts exceeding $14 million of taxpayer money... and how many pairs of Jimmy Choo shoes does Michelle really need at $400 a pop? All of this while most Americans are going through very tough economic times! The arrogance of the administration boogles the mind!

He has his silver spoon don't you think?

Well said Bill.... I'd rather have someone in the WH that knows what he's doing and is looking out for the country. Being cool is good for a neighborhood organizer... I'd rather have efficiency and fiscal responsibility running the government!!!!

It isn't Romney's religion that bothers me, it is his lack of convictions and his going one way and then the other when ever he feels he can gain from changing positions. He is the perfect choice for the the ALEC and Norquist lot who want a malleable follower who will do what he is told by those who really want to run the country. If you on the right want the corporations to make the decisions for the country in the next four years, vote for Willard and Dullard for President. I want a thinking, intelligent leader who will fight for the working class and that is not Romney.

I want a thinking, intelligent leader who will fight for the working class and that is not Romney

Actually Jennifer you are describing Romney.... Obama may be smart but he is a very ineffective President and has done more to create class warfare than anyone else before him! Obama is a smart community organizer and very cool! The last thing America wants or needs is a guy that loves to be on late night TV shows more than he wants to be a leader! The guy's a very cool narcissist. Let's let him retire after this year so he can appear on Bill Maher on a regular basis.

The bigotry and jealousy of the left is egregious and appaling. The mormons support their people, as they should, providing billions of dollars to help the needy (not just mormons) in addition to paying billions in taxes each year. But this isnt pleasing to the left, because it doesnt fit their blessed government based model for social welfare.

NC - I know what you mean about the way Romney appears in jeans. It reminds me of the 1st time my dad put on a pair of jeans. I told him he would have to reach over his shoulder to get in his back pocket.

Not cool. Not hot. It's about the economy. Yes it is. Specifically, this election is about Romney, his contemporaries, and the gwaddamn crying shame they have made of this countries economy.

Spades, do you find it mildly amusing that the same folks that now think Obama is 'cool', are the same folks that were fanatical supporters of John 'boy' Edwards! It doesn't really surprise me...they all have drunk the same koolaid. Must be the 'hope and change' thing they keep mentioning. Actually, we don't hear that phrase much anymore do we?

americans first, you say...

that 'trickle-down' voodoo economics theory has NEVER worked. Not once.

Interesting, I see that obama and his supporters embrace "trickle down" with a ferver that would put anyone on the right to shame. The only real question is which one works better... a voluntary one or a mandated one?

As for your example, how droll... Why isn't obama promoting the elimination of his (bush) tax cuts across the board? How about this... Where were the democrats in all of this for promoting higher taxes across the board?

To LMarcT who wrote

"Club Mormon" built an extremely over-the top multi-million dollar temple for themselves in my neighborhood just as millions were losing their jobs and scrambling for food and shelter.

Mormons do not build over the top temples. Do you have a problem with new churches opening during a recession or just Mormons? These are the times when faith is needed the most. BTW, Mormons distribute tons of food each year to the hungry and that does not count humanitarian food distribution after disasters strike. The labor to do this distribution is all voluntary.

"Club Mormon" now employs fences and guards outside the temple to keep us "outsiders" at bay.

Yes temples have fences, just like our backyards do, but there are no guards outside temples.

"Club Mormon" continued to require their flock to contribute their 10% FIRST... before family, food, and shelter during the worst times in recent memory.

No one is required to contribute 10% (tithe). Everyone who tithes, does so voluntarily and contributes the amount that two meals that they abstain from eating during a fast, is contributed so that the poor can eat and not get evicted from their homes.

My brother and his family were expelled from the church in Georgia for their sinning political ways (being Democrats).

I do not know if they were excommunicated (not expelled), but it was not for political beliefs. Sen Harry Reid is as liberal of a Democrat as there is and is also a Mormon. If the church excommunicated liberals, why is Reid still a member.

Maybe you could spend your time better by researching the facts a little more and not just make stuff up. I am sure that a couple missionaries near you would be more than willing to give you the truth. Just go to or if you want to do the research yourself you will find it at

Snookie could be elected president by the Democratic Party.

Not so! Snookie is a big Republican, just like her governor.

Mitt Romney's campaign strategy is soooo pathetic!

"Don't vote for the cool, popular guy who relates well to people"? Is that the best you've got, Mittens? Really?

And what has Obama accomplished regarding the economy other than trying to start class warfare

Poor Lulu, so naive and gullable. The Koch Bros and Rupert Murdoch are the ones who started not only class warfare, but the middle class civil war. You poor soul, you don't even realize you are a cult member.

Put A F./ The greatest problem with a Republican run government ,especially with a Rep, President as well,is that the philosophy of the Rep's. is still the one of the majority of recorded history.The rich should and will receive the majority of the wealth of a nation,even though they put the least into it. Yes, in ancient times the ruler's made their wealthy class pay the major share,but the peasant's did pay a minor part,their lives and the welfare of thei surviving family. We, the majority of a nation's population, have been ,for the last hundred years , making inroads into their exploitation of the G.N P. Romney is the perfect example of this claim of mine. Unless you are one of the 1% or even merely of the rich,yes youn would do o.k.,but that doesn't help our future only your s.

My problem with Romney is the "Faith-Based-Economics." As stated above a few times, the trickle down theory is worthless, but they've got NOTHING else.

As for which party the president or the congress is controlled by, and how the deficit/debt has fared, see:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

The facts are these: until Reagan, we were slowly but surely working down national debt after WWII. Since then, not so much. Clinton helped some, but Bush doubled down. Obama has just been trying to get out of the deep end.

So much is at stake for this election because we could TRIPLE DOWN on TRICKLE DOWN with Romney, or keep the guy who is actually trying to make an American system that is truly fair to all Americans. Guess what? Putting more wealth in the hands of ALL Americans, helps the RICH get RICHER too! I'm for Trickle-UP, because THAT's what really works.

"The question is going to be, who do you trust to run the economy?"

And the answer is going to be simple: President Obama. Who would trust a guy who thinks that Medicare would work best under the private sector (the same sector that caused this recession), who thinks that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs, and who would actually increase defense spending in a fiscal crisis??? I would NEVER trust Romney with this nation; he's just another trickle-down idiot.

You'd think that after nearly 4 years Obama would be in a position to tell us how his wonderful policies have brought the unemployment rate down below 5% and how the economy, thanks to his stimulus and debt producing policies has created a real growth economy that exceeded what everyone predicted. Instead, of creating an economy that helps everyone he has to resort to promising something for nothing to various "minorities" or segments of the population. His argument in substance is "well, I haven't done anything that helps you, but I promise that I will take from those who have and give it to you. But, most importantly, if you think I'm bad, just you wait until someone who isn't me is running the show. You should be scared because I am the smartest and, as I've said before, I am who we have been waiting for! So give me 4 more years so you won't have to face 4 years of anyone else."

Unfortunately, witchrunner, recoveries from the past three recessions have been slower and slower. There is no solid answer, but in my opinion a major reason why is the growing inequality in America. The wealthy make more and more while the rest of us barely scrape by, leaving very little room to spend our economy back to health. Who the hell would expect unemployment to be below 5% after 3 and a half years???? This recession was essentially the Great Depression, and it took YEARS to get out of that one. And what the hell would Romney do??? Tax cuts, deregulation, and massive spending cuts that would destroy our economy. He'd increase the debt substantially, according to numerous financial centers, and tank the economy. Tell me, witchrunner, what does Romney offer to the table. Nothing. Just tax cuts. He's just another right-wing bastard who knows NOTHING about the economy.

As for your example, how droll... Why isn't obama promoting the elimination of his (bush) tax cuts across the board? How about this... Where were the democrats in all of this for promoting higher taxes across the board?

Obama tried to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but the Republicans forced him to extend them in exchange for unemployment benefits. Plus repealing all of the Bush tax cuts would tank the economy...

DB Akron

Real American,

The most uneducated thing a person could think about a rich person is that they have all their money in the bank. They don't. They may have more than you in the bank, but every spare dollar is invested in ventures that from their experience could bring a 15% or more in hopes of getting at least minimum of 6 - 7%. Even the money they do have on deposit at the bank is being used to make loans to individuals and businesses. They don't allow too much because the bank only gives the barely the inflation rate in interest.

The reason the economy is not moving forward is that they have added up the costs with known regulation and know they probably can do no better than 6 - 7% possible profit. Moving on that low of a projected profit margin, they know they can expect to have a loss so they are better off to sit back and wait.

The more money the rich have = more money to invest in new ventures that create jobs.

Hahahaha. The reason why our economy is slow is because incomes are not rising; they are stagnant. My father hasn't gotten a raise in seven years. How many Americans have gotten a raise???? Not much. People don't have enough income to splurge our economy back to health. The wealthy control most of the income, so the middle class has barely anything. And @!$%# the job creators. They don't create jobs; we the middle class do. We buy products that hire people; we spend money that increases demand. We gave the wealthy tens of thousands of dollars in tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and yet we had NO net job growth. So where the @!$%# are the jobs???? I'll tell you where: in China. So to hell with tax cuts. Those rich bastards need to see their rates go up, big time.

The more money the government has = more money to buy votes by giving money to people who don't produce one thing.

That's the one thing I agree with you. The government just gives money to the wealthy who don't produce anything. It's time we stopped this trickle-down nonsense and use common sense. Unfortunately, the GOP lost all its common sense 30 years ago....

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@!$%# THE GOP 2012

I just have to ask - I choose to ask here since there is no area under videos to post a comment and I wanted to comment on Ed Gillespie's appearance on MTP this morning where he's apparently disturbed and shocked the President and Democrats are highlighting the killing of bin Laden. Gillespie apparently is horrified they would use this killing for political purposes.

Hmm, the killing of the most wanted man on earth should somehow be off-limits (clearly because it shows strength and decisiveness on the part of the President), but it was more than acceptable to the GOP to use the death of 3,000 Americans to advance GWB's chances for re-election in 2004.

Gillespie says the President and his campaign are doing this to divide Americans. However, using the marriage equality issue in the 2004 election was what, not divisive?

Just when I think the hypocrisy of these wing-nuts has reach a zenith - their contention (particularly tea-baggers) they're simply for tax cuts, smaller government and individual liberty - when in actuality they would codify a strict, evangelical code of behavior through new laws to impose and control doctor/patient relationships; obliterate the separation of church and state; and penalize anyone who in their eyes does not meet their definition of success (i.e., if you need any assistance from any program, most particularly student loans, then you're a loser) - to name just a few.

I understand those who believe there truly IS too much spending, too many programs and too much waste, and their desire to effect a change in these areas. I understand how their earnest beliefs make them question whether the President deserves to be re-elected. But these folks are a very small minority, and in my view nothing more than pawns to be used by Gillespie, Romney, Priebus, DeMint, Limbaugh and Fox News in their renewed grab for power.

Do I believe hypocrisy is limited to only one side? No, but there is no question the GOP has raised hypocrisy to an art form.

Randy from Maine.

The righTEAs want to park a 'reponsible' leader in the White House? If you find one in your party - please, let the rest of us know about it.

Here is Mitt Romney's record for governing - Romney balanced the MA budget by -

- raising $500 million in 'fees',
- receiving an additional $1.3 billion from windfall capital gains taxes enacted before his election,
- raising $180 million in sales taxes (including applying sales tax to internet sales),
- closing $300 million of tax 'loopholes' (for a net tax increase),
- cutting distributions to cities by $700 million (transfer of taxing from state to city),
- making $900 million of cuts to state government (by transferring costs to cities).

Romney's budget record shows he relied on three times more tax increases than spending cuts to balance the MA 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). At the same time Romney will be increasing revenue to Federal government through fees, closing loopholes and ending deductions, and probably increasing capital gains taxes. Any guess where the spending cuts will be made?

The righTEAs 'dear leader' is obviously too responsible to be cool.

Candice-

"Real American.

While it's true the markets have done better under Democratic Presidents, according to your chart, you also need to look at the Congress during those times. It's true the markets and the economy both have enjoyed higher rates of growth under Republican Legislature."

If this statement is considered to be true,,then what happened duing the Bush Admin...There was no growth..unless you consider losing millions of jobs and businesses as growth. Periods of large growth for our economy came from higher taxes than we have paid in many a year. Tax cuts for the wealthy created no jobs that I have found listed....trickle down economics was a joke..and the joke was on the middle class for believing it to start with...and now the republicans want to do it all over again ? At what cost to this country ?

@Freshieee -- The economy is not growing because it is finally beginning to regulate itself.

Consumers are no longer willing to create debt to pay for inflation. If inflation increases too much - the economy will deflate.

30 years of 'trickle down' economics based on creating inflation that is paid for with debt - by redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top of the economy through inflation - is not working any longer.

That is exactly why the Republicans are upset with Obama - Obama cannot do the impossible - cannot make 'trickle down' economics work. No one can.

Mitt Romney has never been a leader. He is not an expert on economics as is proved over and over again when he tried to have an intelligent discussion about the topic and continually fails. He represents corporate raiders who don't give a damn about the middle class - just about whatever is going to put more money in their pockets. And, as Mitt has proved, his way of doing that is destroying the American corporations and moving jobs overseas.

A Republican congress is nothing I want. I've seen them over the last two years put up blockade after blockade to keep this President from succeeding in helping the country. They should all be tried for treason. We need to keep the GOP out of Congress and the White House until they find their integrity and their patriotism if we don't want this country destroyed.

Obama/Biden 2012

Beezlemaestro and Bill-2910238,

It's obvious that your experiences and mine regarding the Mormon faith are at odds with each other. But my experience is my experience and has nothing to do with me getting more educated. It may well be that in order for us to reconcile our differences, you would have to open your eyes... something "Club Members" typically have a very tough time with.

Even your comments claim they "take care of their own", which is an exclusionary statement on it's own.

I'm truly happy for both of you that your own experiences are so positive for you. I would suggest you look around a little bit... you're a little too sure of the perfection of your club.

LMarcT,

The church has nothing to do with a political party. My mother-in-law is a hard core Democrat, she's in the church. I'll throw the BS flag on getting kicked out for their political ways.

My wife is Mormon, I am not. There's some things I like about their church and they do take care of others and believes in family first.

You can find fault in any religion, it's easy to slam something you don't know about. The sad thing is that MSNBC slams a person's religion based on what? A person running for President. How about MSNBC talks about the economy and how it should be fixed. They can't because this President and both house and senate pretty much destroyed this country. You can't blame one side without the other side equally at blame. Time to man up and say this President and both houses are F-ed up.

Freshieee and Nerm_L, outstanding posts with lots of good facts in evidence.

So far no one has addressed the Conservative claim that, if Republican Presidents don't bring economic success it must be Republican Congress that does the trick. Wrong again. As it turns out, from 1901-2006;

6.46% annual stock market gains with a Democratic Congress.

3.51% annual stock market gains with a Republican Congress.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/10/market_gains_by_1.html

That's 106 years. The numbers don't lie...but Conservatives do.

Nerm_L

@Freshieee -- The economy is not growing because it is finally beginning to regulate itself.

True, true. But I still say that stagnant wages are a major factor. American wages are actually decreasing, if you factor in inflation.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Beezlemaestro - You say you have a relative belonging to the Mormon church. Could you please explain why people of other denominations are not allowed into their temples? Don't know if you are familiar with the place, but there is a Mormon temple and community in Nauvoo, IL. Always cars/people there from places out West - never friendly, very mysterious and I wonder if you know why they visit there. I thought being a good Christian meant inviting or allowing strangers into our homes and/or churches. Also, are there threats against those who leave the Mormon church? We have always been told people fear for their lives. Is there any truth to this?

Beezlemaestro - You say you have a relative belonging to the Mormon church. Could you please explain why people of other denominations are not allowed into their temples? Don't know if you are familiar with the place, but there is a Mormon temple and community in Nauvoo, IL. Always cars/people there from places out West - never friendly, very mysterious and I wonder if you know why they visit there. I thought being a good Christian meant inviting or allowing strangers into our homes and/or churches. Also, are there threats against those who leave the Mormon church? We have always been told people fear for their lives. Is there any truth to this?

I was in a temple once. They usually have an open house immediately after they're constructed so people can walk through and see it. It doesn't become closed off to everyone else until they have what they call a "dedication" ceremony. They don't let just anyone in after that because of how sacred they consider the rituals they perform in it. In light of some of the remarks made by people on this thread, I can't say that I blame 'em.

Nauvoo, IL. If I remember correctly, that's a site of historical significance for mormons. I want to say that it was initially founded by mormons, too.

I've never heard of anyone being threatened for leaving. They'll plead with people to keep them from leaving, but that deals more with their theology and beliefs in the eternities. I'm not entirely sure what threats you've heard have been made, but from the limited context, I'd say that isn't likely at all.

Not a popularity contest, is Romney stupid or something? Of course its a popularity contest. We vote for who we most want to be the President, that means he has the POPULAR vote. The majority. Wake up Romney.

I agree with the statement that wages are stagnant or, in many instances, reduced by inflation. However, unless all of you were in diapers and pre-school back during the Carter years, and followed by the Reagan years....there is absolutely no way that you can consider trickle down economics to be flawed.

At the end of the Carter administration, our gasoline was at the highest cost ever seen in this country to that point. There were no jobs in the public or private sector. Interest rates were at userous levels. 15% on a mortgage was not uncommon. Credit Card interest rates could top well over 30%. Our auto industry was in tatters, losing round to the Japanese and German concerns in terms of quality and fuel efficiency. The Japanese were also able to decimate our steel production industry....Please don't forget that the Japanese were making a huge run at the United States real estate market, buying up not only companies, but the actual grounds that they stood on as well. This was the era when we lost our place as electronics innovators. The last televisions which were designed and manufactured completely in the US ceased to exist....this was actually when Wal-mart became a force in the marketplace, with the promise that they would only sell American made goods and support American Jobs (walked through Wal-Mart lately????) Within the first four years, Reagan managed to pull inflation down by over half. Interest rates dropped by 50-75% of what they were at the peak and people could actually start buying homes again. I know that my income steadily increased a bit each year during that time, and by 1985, I too was able to make the first home purchase. Gasoline prices came down. Interest rates on major purchases declined, and the money used to help out the auto industry went into making them more competitive in a world market....Unfortunately, we never did recover the electronics or steel industries in this country, and that is directly proportional to our wages versus the other nations of the world. The Japanese could deliver these products at lower production costs...other nations purchased from the sources with the best price for the best product, and that wasn't us.

If you fast forward to today, the Chinese seem to be positioned similarly to the Japanese in the 1970's...cutting off the outlets for American goods by producing more for less....quality is not an issue. The bottom line still seems to revolve around the actual cost to the consumer. The only reason that interest rates haven't gone through the roof is that we have changed the rules regarding computing inflation.....in the 1970's fuel costs for autos, heating, etc as well as groceries were factored into the cost of living index and therefore affected inflationary trends. Our government has decided to remove these items from consideration....If they were to be factored in again, I am sure our inflation rates would be ever bit as severe as they were 30 years ago....so it is artificially being supressed to a lesser level.

Recent experience has proved that no other nation is interested in helping the US out directly, despite our aid to other nations all the time. Therefore, we are basically on our own, in a world economy, trying to bring things back into line....and economy that is much more global and interrelated than 30 years ago...And 30 years ago, there wasn't NAFTA...which in a nutshell requires us to take a certain percentage of import goods from the foreign partners and to give them "breaks" (Kind of like what everyone is screaming about with Big Oil), but they don't have to, are not compelled to, accept American goods, thereby benefitting our manufacturing and job creations....

The sad thing is, the average American is now so dumbed down that it DOES become about things like "coolness", and the democrats well understand this. That is why they make sure that Obama gets on all the "hip" shows and says and does "cool things". They know that we live in an "American Idol" society where we don't look very deeply at things anymore, but choose our heros and leaders based on shallow and meaningless criteria. Things like who "looks presidential", whatever that means.

America has REAL PROBLEMS, and we need real leadership. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans are concerned about debt, jobs, etc. Europe is holding together by a thread, and the threat of terrorism still looms large. It cannot be overstated how important this next election is. We should NOT be making this decision based on "cool" or hype, but sadly, that seems to be where we are headed.

I re-watched the History Channel shows this past weekend on the Third Reich in Germany and noted how the German people fell in line behind a charismatic leader who promised them things that could never really be delivered. It sounded eerily familiar.....

You will not have to worry about the populus backing the wrong guy then because Obama is the furthest thing from Hitler and Romney who would let corporations run our country (fascism) has the personality of a crowbar. No problem, the popular one is on the side of working class and the majority.

@Sue-3329001 -- In the 1980s, Japanese and European labor costs were as high or higher than in the United States. Japan and Europe do not have coal or iron ore deposits - they were importing all their feed stock. How can a foreign industry without available resources and paying comparable wages compete with US steel or heavy manufacturing?

Japanese and European steel and heavy industry was heavily subsidized by their governments. Japan and Europe deliberately manipulated the price of their products to 'capture' the American market. Our domestic industry could not compete with subsidized foreign industry - it was not a level playing field.

The Reagan administration did nothing to control the import of subsidized foreign goods. Instead, the Reagan administration focused on expanding the 'services' economy. What that actually meant was 'financial services' economy.

The idea was to introduce inflation into foreign economies and the US economy would extract profit from the debt that would be created. The idea was to 'grow' developing economies so that the US could lend to those economies and extract money from the created inflation.

The (apparently) unforeseen consequence was the rise of cheap imported goods which means the emerging economies did not need to borrow from the US. The emerging economies extracted money directly from our economy - so the emerging countries could retain the profit from any debt created by inflation.

The Reagan administration basically sold us out in order to reap short term profits from debt created in foreign countries. Foreign governments created disciplined long-term plans that has worked to their advantage. The United States engaged in short-term planning that has not been advantageous to us. The major product of our corporations, since Reagan, has been stock value - not goods or services. Our government's policies over the last 30 years has been to allow corporations to manipulate stock valuation and to grow Wall Street and financial services.

We no longer save - we invest. Banks no longer pay us to use our money - we pay banks to use our money. We no longer purchase based on earnings - we purchase based on credit limits. We no longer plan our futures - we live paycheck to paycheck.

We put the health of our nation's economy into the hands of financial planners. We have been rewarding risk instead of work for the last 30 years. How has that worked for us?

FR -- PLEASE get control of the board. I am not interested in reading nothing but right-wing crap because they collapse all the other posts regardless of whether the post is in compliance with forum rules. Once again, I am re-posting this post, which is in complete compliance!

The 2012 election is not a popularity contest.

They're right, it's not, or at least it shouldn't be. That lesson was learned with Sarah Palin that a "hottie" could not win all the men's votes.

It is cool that President Obama can sing and is funny and charismatic -- Of course President Obama's likability is based on more than that, such as being trustworthy and other positive characteristics in polls including representing our country well around the world.

Romney's problem is a complete lack of substance. Even his written plans are vague—and Paul Ryan's too—because in reality they don't want these to be scored. Bashing the president will help win the election, sadly, but that alone won't cut it. Romney, here is a Lucille Ball Show quote for YOU -- You got some 'splainin' to do!

As for the rest of the douche-bags in the Teapublican Party, per Robert Draper's Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives -- you were not elected to protest. The tax payers are paying you to govern. If you want to protest you can take your "power and freedom being taken from the hands of the people" BS signs and march on the street like the rest of the citizenry. But if you want to be paid, you need to show up for work, and then do the work that needs to be done!

Doing The People's Work (not just a few vocal constituents) means finding common ground and realistic legislation that will be supported by both Parties. It sure as heck does not mean conspiring to do harm. It sure as heck is NOT a War on Women, and now apparently war on everyone including students.

Somehow banks can get money for free, but students need to pay above market interest rates, riiiight. And Boehner/Teapublican House put forth the false choice between lower interest rates for students versus cuts in cancer screenings in order to pass their version of legislation!

The truth will get out -- even the collapse cowards in this forum can't suppress the truth. Hopefully more and more voters will learn of the GOP/TP treason and throw them out in 2012!

TO: lulu98 who wrote:

"And what has Obama accomplished regarding the economy other than trying to start class warfare. And yes, I am part of the 99%."

What 99% are you talking about, and what do you mean Obama is trying to start class warfare?

If you enjoy the full weight of the United States Debt being placed on your back, I'm sure there's somewhere you can go to volunteer.

It's Republicans who have a big reputation as being warmongers, and they do love war, so if there's a "war" anywhere you can bet there's a Republican behind it.

Obama / Biden 2012

Sue; supply-side economics HAS NOT WORKED. IF it did, we would have had an economic boom twice the size of the dot-com bubble during the Bush administration. Cutting taxes only work if either rates are extremely high or if the cuts are targeted at certain people, aka small businesses and the middle class, not the rich. The rich invest their money; they don't spend it. Investments are good long-term, but only if they are smart for businesses. Most investors don't go into risky start-ups; they go for established companies. Nerm is right; we have to shift our entire economic model. When Reagan cut rates, they were 70% for the wealthiest. It fell to 28%. And I will bet that much of the economic expansion was based on his military expansion, which boosted the defense manufacturing industry. And then the multiplier effect took hold. You don't cut taxes in peacetime; you raise them. You build up a surplus to pay down debt and invest in important things, and then you spend in recessions to stimulate demand.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Yes, a car elevator at every mansion, and two Bentley's in every garage.

work for your money. I am tired of those of you who want others' money. 47% pay no federal tax. Don't start explaining that they pay other taxes. Why shouldn't they?
You should not expect a free ride.

Play with dumbass straw men much, lulu?

What do payroll taxes have to do with anything? Wasn't the system designed to have medicare and SS taxes collected to pay for your own medical and retirement benefits when you retire? Wasn't that the goal? I know that people do not fund that enough and they get more than they pay in and it has to be subsidized from the general fund, but what point are you trying to make? That SS and medicare are 50% of the expenses? Shouldn't people contribute to their own retirement? Mitt pays 0% and he will benefit 0%. Sounds fair to me. I can't figure out why democrats have a problem with this. If I go to a restaurant and buy dinner for my wife and I, should I be upset that you didn't contribute to my date? You didn't benefit, so why should you pay for me?

Then why don't you tell the Party you seem to support to STOP BLOCKING THE JOBS PROGRESS. The Last Time I looked they LIED ABOUT it was about JOBS, and they keep BLOCKING every barrier TO CREATE JOBS.

Throughout most of the History of this Country, it takes Government in Partnership with the Private Sector to Stimulate Job Growth. Private Sector depends on Government Grants to fuel those Innovations. So where do Republicans Stand on this. KILL GOVERNMENT PERIOD.

So keep drinking the Kool Aid of DIS-INFORMATION.

Talking.....For some reason I don't think that you are complaining that the democrats are blocking every piece of legislation that the republicans are passing to help the economy create jobs. The reason that they are blocking them is that those bills DO NOT CREATE ANY LASTING JOBS!!! In fact, they create less jobs in the long term because instead of being able to pay for teachers 10 years from now, we will have to be paying back the debt for those temporary jobs.

True......Republicans and the tea party have been fighting for that for quite a while. It is the democrats that are fighting to keep these credits and write-offs. Sure they are against a couple of specific industries, but overall they want to keep the power to give kickbacks to their special interests. It is a lie that republican gut programs to give tax breaks to the rich. I can't believe that anyone falls for that junk. I guess I understand a little of it. There are still wacko's that think Obama isn't a citizen. About the same intelligence.

Tax the 47% who don't pay income taxes and see how that works for the economy. You should be worried why such a huge portion of Americans do not even make enough money to pay income taxes, not that they aren't paying into the system. Why are almost half of Americans, the most educated workforce in the world, not even making enough to pay income taxes? Well lets compare the rates of growth between the average American's income and the income of wealthy. Normal American's wages have not even kept up with inflation since the 1980's. Meanwhile, the rich have seen their wealth grow by leaps and bounds.

I know that logic, reasoning and facts are a little foreign to the democrat mind and it is often misinterpreted as BS, but it is the truth. Would you pick up a book by Glen Beck and read that? Are you willing to educate yourself beyond your comfort zone. I might check it out at the library. Hopefully it is more fact than opinion. In too many instances though, I have seen talking points like that from both sides that take people's words out of context in order to make them look bad. I highly doubt that Gingrich wanted to do "harm to the US", but I do not doubt that they wanted to oppose all of Obama's policies and say that as good.

Satanick....a couple of things. First, wages have kept with inflation. The median income is about about 25% higher than inflation over that time. The study you refer's too covers hourly rates, but doesn't include bonuses, commissions, and other incentives. They actual median income has increased. Second, they are not paying income tax because of the Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class and the struggling economy. You can also compare the growth of the government during that time as well. The larger government has gotten, the worse off the average middle class family has become, while the wealthy are better of than ever before. Maybe the answer is less government not more. We want the same thing, but we see different solutions.

AP

Mr. Romney might have a chance if this were an election about how desperate we are as a nation to ease the burden on the richest Americans

This is called jealousy or class envy. Class warfare will never move a nation forward, but sends it careening down the path to greater poverty to a destination of insignificance or extinction.

The rich have money because they have a sense of what will profit and what will not. They put money back and avoid unecessary debt and expenditures. They don't grovel in self-pity and engage in envy. Instead they find some product or service that people need at a cost that gives them a solid profit. Yeah, some just invest the money in companies, but that requires an understanding of what will bring a profit.

DBs right. The gap between rich and poor isn't because of trickle down, tax rates, or government spending. In reality it is because of the financial decisions that people make.

The only time it boils down to who's cooler is when the two candidates are absolutely equal in every other respect. Obama may have failed, but it's not completely his fault (Congress/Senate didn't let him do everything he wanted). Now, Obama also signed the NDAA, which is a major strike against him. Romney would have done that and more, plus it's extremely obvious that he's in it for his corporate buddies. So voting for Romney would be a very bad idea.

Ron Paul represents real change, but until we find out whether his delegate strategy works, he won't be a direct challenge to Obama.

True....You are right that pretty much sums you up. Just another narrow minded liberal. If you are unwilling to open you mind and listen to others, then how can you consider yourself informed. Listening to only one side of the argument only skews your view of reality. I used Beck as an example to see if you were an intellectually honest person, or a partisan hack. I will probably read the book you suggest, learn a little, and stay informed. You will remain ignorant.

lulu98 said -

work for your money. I am tired of those of you who want others' money. 47% pay no federal tax. Don't start explaining that they pay other taxes. Why shouldn't they?
You should not expect a free ride.

Well, lulu, I'm tired of hearing the same old crying and sobbing about the 47% who pay no Federal Income tax. You know, I'm part of that 47%. I collect Social Security Disability Benefits due to a near fatal motorcycle accident a few years back. It was a hit & run accident that resulted in a brain injury. My short-term memory was (and is) pretty much wiped out. I live in the present, I can fathom the future, but there is no immediate past. I can't work. So, as a disabled former taxpayer, I am now exempt from having to pay federal income taxes.

But before you right-wingers get too anxious to bash me for my "not working for my money", consider this:

I worked from the middle 1960's through the 1990s and into the 2000s. I even tried to work after my accident, but was immediately let go because of my brain injury. I had no choice but to go on disability. But during my working career I paid a much higher rate for my income bracket than anyone now working. In fact, I've paid well into the six figures in Federal income tax, not to mention all the other taxes and fees. That's right. For my entire working life I paid a much higher rate than you and other complainers are paying now because of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 which BTW is responsible of $4 Trillion of our national debt.

So when I hear all this complaining about the 47%, I just figure it's drivel from the malcontents and right-wing haters and trollmeisters infesting these comment boards and I just tune it all out.

lulu98-So you think Obama created these jobs? What a laugh. Tell me one thing he has done to create a job? Introduce craziness to healthcare? ePA run amuk? Business people continually say the uncertainty introduced by this President is causing them NOT to expand their workforces.

These are the talking points created by FOX NEWS. Please be advised that there are several actual news channels available. Give some of them a try ... you'll be amazed at what is actually happening.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats would rather be taxed around 30% on a $50k salary. Republicans want to pay a zero% tax but have no income because their stupid economic policies destroy the economy.

Election is an ongoing reality show, the voters will decide the winner - with most economic data becoming better, Mitt has no chance.

Mitt is better to run for baseball commissioner, His mitt -rich- can help.

The gap between rich and poor isn't because of trickle down, tax rates, or government spending. In reality it is because of the financial decisions that people make.

Part right...in the same way the Conservative Big Lie always contains a kernel of truth. There's always a gap between the rich and everyone else. Trickle down, favorable tax rates, and deregulation have just made the gap MUCH bigger than ever before.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

"Tax the 47% who don't pay income taxes and see how that works for the economy."

I wish you teatards would agree on that number because it ranges form 43 to 60%. But --- chances are if you added up the income of the top 50 richest people in the nation, their income would be more than all of that 47% or whatever the number is combined.

@ Nerm
Good post. An argument I like to use for a more even distribution of wealth is this: A hundred thousand people with a hundred thousand dollars each generate far more demand in an economy than 1 guy with one billion dollars.

Cool Presidents don't apologise for their country!

NermL - a more realistic experiment in economics would be not how one 1% chose to invest vs the 99 99%'s, but rather how those given the $$$ fared after 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, etc.

BTW - nice attempt at spin and disinformation... You start with distributing the $$$ among both the 1% and 99%'ers then you change it to all given to the 1% vs all distributed equally to the 99%. Then you talk about the 1%er being given the the entirety of the profit vs the 1%er having to divide the profit amongest the 99%ers.

Sorry, your last paragraph is not supported by your example. It does however point to the validity of trickle down at any level and for the government minimizing their footprint within the business environment.

Regardless, you don't say who is rewarding the creation of "new wealth" and that 80% of new business startups fail within 18 months. Hardly an argument for "new wealth" creation or who really lost money on the initial investment. IE was it the private investors who lost $$$ on the investment or the taxpayers?

Romney advisers: Election is about economy, not who is cooler candidate

We KNOW what Republicans-Tea people have done to the economy [e.g. take a zero deficit balanced budget and decimate it by giving huge tax breaks to their wealthy family, friends and supporters while picking unnecessary, illegal fights leading to costly wars and initiating deficit spending as they did 2001-2009] and we know which candidate is "cooler".

Willard loses on both counts.

Obviously President Obama is makig inroads and improving the domestic economic situation, cleaning up the mess GOP-TEA created during Bush/Cheney term, even in the face of obstructionism, stonewalling and hostage taking by the TEA-GOP, AND President Obama is obviously not the stiff necked stuffed shirt, wannabe failure that Mittens is.

Makes our choice very clear for November 2012 doesn't it....

President Obama for President 2012!

@american-2051576 -- I'm surprised you made it past the 'thought exercise' part.

The exercise demonstrates, beyond your weak abilities to spin the facts, that favoring a few people in the economy creates an unsustainable, weak economy. The exercise also clearly demonstrates how to measure the degree of favoritism in an economy.

Our current economy supports the fact that a favoring a small number of people in the economy - that receive favoritism in the tax code, that receive favoritism in compensation structure, that receive favoritism for capital risk instead of labor risk - builds a weak economy that has difficulty sustaining itself into the future.

The Reagan/Romney economics favors the 1 'rich' guy over the 99 'not so rich' guys. That is demonstrated by the inequality of money (and wealth) distribution in our economy over the last 30 years. The Reagan/Romney economics does not reward work – but – rewards wealth through favoritism. Reagan/Romney economics redistributes wealth to the top of the economy and interferes with distributing money (new wealth) throughout the economy.

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

This is called jealousy or class envy. Class warfare will never move a nation forward, but sends it careening down the path to greater poverty to a destination of insignificance or extinction.

I am not envious of the wealthy for being successful. I am envious of the wealthy for controlling the vast majority of the income in America. I am tired of our government giving the wealthy stupid tax breaks that do nothing. I am also tired of people saying that asking them to pay more is class warfare. If it is, then who cares??? For 30 years we have declared virtual war on the middle class via trickle-down economics; you're right, there has been class warfare, and the rich are winning. Let there be REAL class warfare; let the poor and the middle class take up arms and posters and pitchforks to fight for their existence. Let the rich and the poor argue and battle to the death. Enough with class warfare. It is a @!$%#ing lie, and you know it.

From Henry V, 1598

We few, we favored few, we small group of entitled;
For he to-day that accepts my money from me
Shall be my beholden politician; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall bolster his reelection:
And politicians in Washington now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their principles cheap whiles any speaks
That lobbied with us to manipulate election day.

(- apologies to William Shakespeare)

Put America First - you're just so proud of yourself aren't you? Why you're the only person qualified to think and make the right choices, correct? When you get your muddled mind back, let us know. More Democrats know the truth, facts and have intelligence than you Republicans. Your condescending tone and arrogance just shows you don't know anything. Your stupid posts re-enforce your lack of knowledge.

You've clearly been reading every stupid thing Glen Beck writes and believing it. That would be your first of many mistakes. Why don't you try reading books written by someone intelligent? Afraid you can't master the big words? You're perfect for the Romney camp. Intelligence is not required to vote for him.

Before you put people down maybe you should look in the mirror because all you spout is the right wing nonsense. Blame liberals for everything.

not as stupid as yo uthink (sic),

$5 trillion in deficit spending and very little can be quantified as helpful to the economy! Jobs created by QE1 cost $260,000 per job!!!! Perhaps you should study recent history a little more rather than pandering to liberal smoke and mirrors! By the way didn't you spell check your name before registering with newsvine?

Romney + 1% = Mendacious !

Mitt + Fleabaggers = degenerate !

Mr. Flip Flopper + Etch A Sketch = Schizophrenia !

And Nerm_L's thought experiment is more than just an intellectual exercise. Conservatives have over the last 30 years worked hard to bring EXACTLY that experiment to reality;

In 2009, if you were to add up the total fortune of America's richest 400 people, that amount—$1.27 trillion—would be more than the holdings of the bottom 50 percent of Americans, less than $1.22 trillion.

http://www.good.is/post/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined/

And what have been the result of this real life experiment? Exactly what Nerm_L suggests...a gradually slowing, increasingly lifeless economy as more wealth increasingly concentrates to the very wealthiest.

America has evolved into a uneducated, bankrupt nation, circling the drain, before we get flushed.

Romney is campaigning so that guys as 'rich' or 'richer' than he his - are favored in the economy. If you are not as 'rich' as Mitt Romney - his proposals will be an obstacle against you ever achieving that level of income or wealth. That is the class warfare promoted by Romney – favoring the ‘rich’ instead of the rest of us.

Obama's proposals are also about favoritism. Do Obama's proposals favor the 'rich' or the rest of us? Do you believe you have greater opportunity and fewer obstacles to becoming ‘rich’ under Obama’s proposals? Does the class warfare promoted by Obama favor the rest of us instead of the ‘rich’?

I disagree that the economy has "evolved" to this point...it was placed in this position deliberately through 3 decades of Conservative dominance on economic policy. The world "evolved" implies there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Republicans didn't mean for it to turn out this way. They only meant to create an economy in which the wealthy are able to leverage their existing advantages into total economic dominance.

Destroying the long term viability of the economy was just an unanticipated side effect of Conservative policy.

Romney + 1% = Mendacious !

Mitt + Fleabaggers = degenerate !

Mr. Flip Flopper + Etch A Sketch = Schizophrenia !

A totally worthless post! What is even more sad, the poster (poser?) uses an American Flag as his avatar/icon!!! Patriotic American my a$$!

@John B, Des Moines, IA -- Our economic and business policy is based on short term planning - attempting to improve next quarter's balance sheet. Those short term adjustments have accumulated over time to create the mess we have now. In that respect, describing the process as evolution may be appropriate.

Our country faces several long term challenges but our politics are trying to develop short term 'fixes'. Our national and private debt are long term problems and will require disciplined long term policy. Entitlements will become serious problems over the next two decades and will require disciplined long term policy. Yet everyone wishes to 'fix' the problem in one election cycle.

We cannot build a long term sustainable economy by lurching from crisis to crisis using short term 'fixes'. That is the problem with electing a 'businessman' as President - our culture has trained business people to only take the short view.

...... And here are the real numbers compliments of Roy Wilson (that is unless you don't trust the White House.)

Reagan (1981-1988) - $1.339 Trillion / 8 years; $167 Billion per year

Bush 1 (1989-1992) - $933 Billion / 4 years; $233 Billion per year

Clinton (1993-200) - $320 Billion / 8 years; $40 Billion per year

Bush 2 (2001-2008) - $2.006 Trillion / 8 years; $251 Billion per year

Obama (2009-2012) - $5.33 Trillion / 4 years; $1.333 Trillion per year

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Might note that Obama's average deficit is about twice the deficits on all of the others .... COMBINED!

And people wonder why we are in trouble ...

We are in Trouble because thanks to the Idiots you like for President.

The Obama Administration had to come in and clean up the Mess. It is just like your house being damaged by a Tornado. It is going to cost money to repair it. More than the original costs.

The Problem with you Conservatives is that your head is in the sand when it comes to ADMINITTING that Bush and Company NEARLY TANKED THE ECONOMY STARTING AND TURNED A SURPLUS INTO the Biggest Deficit in History along with Reagan Trickle Down, which DOES NOT WORK.

Who am I trying to make people in Bubbles understand simple Math, and are total Rocks, because most of their dislike for this President is balled up in racism and bigotry, NOT POLICY.

Your current Candidate, Romney, has NEVER LET A FACT get in his way OF TOTAL LIES about this President. The News Media aids Republicans in these lies by not calling them out. However, the Media will MAGNIFY the lies by the Republicans about what the Obama Administration says and does, giving LOW INFORMATION VOTERS poor information.

Take inflation out of the mix by comparing the Debt as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

In 1945 our National Debt was at 125% of GDP. Today it is at 100% of GDP.

Between 1945 and 1980 we paid the debt down to 37% of GDP but by 1992 it had nearly doubled to 69% of GDP. By the time Bush 43 took office it was down to 57% of GDP and when Obama took over it was back up to 77% of GDP, the highest level since the end of the Truman administration.

http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_debt_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Speaking of facts......

Bush did not inherit a surplus. Bush actually inherited a recession. The "surplus" was a number in the projections outlined in a CBO report at the end of Clinton's term. The number was a projection covered the period 2001-2011. The surplus never materialized. Just another number in a government report.

President Obama has been incapable of cleaning up the mess. He has been incapable. Time for someone new.

It is nice that people can make numbers lie. These are so obvious to see through that they are pathetic. Eventually I hope that you guys open your minds and get a little bit of an education instead of falling for propaganda and misinformation. Using your logic, I could prove that Bush didn't have a deficit at all and it should all be blamed on LBJ and his war on poverty and the adoption of medicaid and medicare.

Talking points....In order to for us to blame Bush and company there has to be facts that show how they "ruined" the economy. I know you will then point to deregulation, but those regulations were removed under Clinton and create by both democrats and republicans. The facts also prove that "trickle down" had absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. Please educate yourself, learn a little bit of simple math, and come to conclusions on your own using logic and reasoning.

Dennis......So tell me. How are you going to cut 50% of the spending to pay down the deficit? What programs are you going to cut? We can't pay it down with tax increases alone. We were able to stop spending nearly 50% of our funds when World War II ended because we were no longer funding the war. I don't see that happening now. Use your head. These are completely different types of debts and it is painfully obvious that we are in serious trouble and you are in denial.

Bob, thanks for the numbers. You know, all I have heard about is how Bush single handedly destroyed the economy and how much money that he spent. Then why the hypocrisy about Obama's 5 Trillion that he single handedly spent with Nancy Pelosi's help. And just wait til you see how much we will spend on the Obamacare taxes. He has way overspent but why don't we hear anything about it.

What we haven't heard about from any of the media is how the housing will be affected after we have to pay the government 3.8 % of the total sale of our homes. Isn't that the amount of money we generally make on the sale of our homes? In other words the government from now on will be the only entity making money and taking up half of the total economy.

So who cares about gas prices? Well, I do. And if you ask me, Obama looses his shirt in November over it.

Have you heard about the Bishop calling for a get together on the WH lawn end of June? Talk about an uprising, he asked for it and he will get it.

All you RWNJs can do is the GOPee Wee Herman "I know you are, but what am I" fallacious argumentation. PutAmericaFirst -- Keep posting No Value posts and your posts will be collapsed. It's one thing to do it once or twice, but doing it non-stop? Try The Blaze.

Bob, you didn't do that quite right. The fed budgets are fiscal years from October 1 to September 30 of each year. You have to use the budget years for Reagan as 1982 through and including 1989. Probably a better way to get better numbers is to go to the US Treasury and get the debt numbers for the presidents terms from Inauguration dates.

You should really do this this way because the president may sign a budget, but the next president has the authority to add or subtract spending from the day he is sworn in. Most do nothing and concentrate on the next fiscal budget for October. Some cut spending (Warren G Harding did both in 1921). Others add spending such as Obama who spend $35 Billion on Bailing out Chrysler and GM and asked for and got over $787 Billion in stimulus spending within 2 months of being sworn in.

CBS did this recently and found the following.

Under Bush the Debt increased 4.889 Trillion over 8 years. Obama through 39 months has run up 5.031 Trillion.

Even this method has inaccuracies. Part of the problem is that a president proposes spending and Congress passes what Congress wants too.

What Bush should really be held responsible is probably about 4.03 Trillion in Deficits. From 2007 - 2009 the Democrats controlled congress ADDED over $200 Billion in spending to Bush's budgets for fiscal 2008 & 2009. Then when tarp was requested, congress added $150 Billion in spending as incentives for members to vote for the bill. Total Democrat add of 550 Billion Bush did not ask for and short of a veto, cannot remove.

The TARP money was a loan and Bush got $700 Billion Approved and utilized 350 Billion. 300 billion came back and was credited to Obama's fiscal 2010.

Likewise, Obama's number probably should be 5.331 Trillion, because the 2010 return of TARP funds was credited to his deficit as income.

Then, again - Congress is really the one responsible because they authized the President to spend whatever they pass.

Typical of the left wing. Can't handle a challenge to their policies, so they have to try to censor the opposition.

TARP had to be approved in two parts. President Obama attached strings to the second round. Because of this, the Feds have actually made money off those loans, likewise for the auto bailout.

But the bottom line is debt during Obama has been due to recession needs. (thanks to failed GOP voodoo economics). Otherwise, the president has added very little to the debt, especially in comparison to his Republican predecessors.

That so many people have lost their jobs (no income tax revenue), lost their homes (no property tax revenue), and have filed bankruptcy (largely due to medical bills they cannot pay) -- and add to this the huge increase in need for food stamps and other assistance, WTF do Teapublicans think will be the result?

And yet--and despite GOP/TP obstruction--look at the stock market, exports, manufacturing, tourism, and JOBS at the end of Dubya's administration compared to now. Imagine how much faster we could recover with the Jobs Bill, for example, instead of the crazy talk about austerity. Austerity is causing Europe to double-dip.

I don't want to believe that Teapublicans actually hope the same for the US economy, but after revelation of their conspiracy to do harm on inauguration day, I'm not so sure. I'll vote on the side of caution to throw the treasonous Teapublicans and their failed policies out.

Compared to GOP's 'borrow and spend,' DEM's 'tax and spend' looks better. But maybe a combination is better.

True Patriot you are the most lost Patriot I have ever seen

President Obama attached strings to the second round. Because of this, the Feds have actually made money off those loans, likewise for the auto bailout.

This is the biggest piece of BS I have seen you post to date.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124156005555589031.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01bank.html?_r=1

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104859743

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01bank.html?_r=1

I have sources in a number of the banks that took TARP.

The criteria for getting tarp was

1) held a significant amount of bad loans

2) Did not have insurance on those loans

3) If you apply, and we accept, you have to take the funds, and can only return them when we say so.

One big bank missing actually in big trouble bank was GE Capital. GE capital, without Federal help got through and appears to be returning space to credit linesd in the last year. GE had insured it's bad mortgages.

Banks given funds that were actually only marginally low in capitalization were Chase, Wells Fargo and a few others. Ones in Significant Trouble were CITI, and BoA.

All the banks were called to Washington to sign off on Paulsen terms, and not signing was not an option.

The key here is if you don't really need the funds don't apply.

Here's what I mean

PNC (later singled out by Obama) applied and accepted the invitation. Once they accepted, they had to accept the money and terms. They tried to return the funds and the Fed's response was no, you must use them. So they did. They used the money to Purchase a bank the Fed refused to bail out with the Fed's approval. That bank was in such bad shape that PNC had to cut it's industry leading dividends by 75%. To date, PNC's dividend are still maybe 1/2 what they were before TARP

One of my parents is a board member on a small Western PA Bank. That bank too was plenty healthy. The new CEO decided to apply for TARP funds to use the money to expand the bank by buying another small bank. The results were just as disasterous. The last I heard dividends were slashed by about 50% to swallow the losses incurred and no word of how quickly the funds will be paid back.

The whole TARP thing needed to be done to stop the collapse that would have occurred from Goldman-Sachs, BoA, Citi and a few others. Beyond that it has been nothing but a web of lies, deception, miss-use of taxpayer funds, and the Fed wielding undo influence on the entire banking system.

True Patriot, whatever sources you are using are filling your head with half-truths. The real world is a whole lot different than what you proclaim. I have inside sources, you have second rate reporting.

In my opinion ...these Obama haters...like the GOP idiots...would rather sell this nation out than back the PRESIDENT. He is the President haters...............get used to it and expect 4 more years to blindly hate.

The only way Romney wins is if the SCOTUS pieces of crap decide the next election. Nuff said!!!

Go back to school and get an education. You write like a 4th grader.

Interesting on how the FR left embraces making excuses vs finding a solution that works. This one reason alone is why I could never vote for the incumbent obama in november. A POTUS needs to promote unity, not divisiveness.

Candice: lets put out true info withoutthe RNC-TEA spin -

http:/ /factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

american (with a little a):

You make no sense whatsoever and should take Paul-Florida's advice IMO.

bob-1805084

...... And here are the real numbers compliments of Roy Wilson (that is unless you don't trust the White House.)

Reagan (1981-1988) - $1.339 Trillion / 8 years; $167 Billion per year

Bush 1 (1989-1992) - $933 Billion / 4 years; $233 Billion per year

Clinton (1993-200) - $320 Billion / 8 years; $40 Billion per year

Bush 2 (2001-2008) - $2.006 Trillion / 8 years; $251 Billion per year

Obama (2009-2012) - $5.33 Trillion / 4 years; $1.333 Trillion per year

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Might note that Obama's average deficit is about twice the deficits on all of the others .... COMBINED!

And people wonder why we are in trouble ...

Who the hell is the idiot who compiled all these numbers???? Bush had a $5.5 trillion debt when he entered office and left it with $11.7 trillion (count the last budget resolution Bush signed for 2009), increasing debt by $6.2 trillion. The debt is currently $15.7 trillion. Obama increased the debt by approximately $4 trillion, and much of it is because of the recession. Plus measuring debt in absolute numbers is not very accurate, as it doesn't take inflation into account. Comparing it to GDP is more efficient.

Roy, you truly are a right-winger. These numbers don't make any sense. How could Bush increase the debt by only $2 trillion in 8 years when debt jumped from $5.5 trillion to over $11.7 trillion during his administration??? Shame on you, bob, for buying into this nonsense...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

True Patriot - PutAmericaFirst is clearly incapable of posting anything but his arrogant put-downs of people who actually think and understand issues. He keeps trying to make things make sense when he actually doesn't post anything of value. He might actually be Mitt Romney. Sounds just like him - all words with no value at all.

DB - as usual, you have nothing. Your "sources" are just more of the same garbage day after day. You know half the things you post are not true but you still post them. Don't you get embarrassed at all?

Obama/Biden 2012

Uh ... yea yo uare,

The simple fact is that you cannot have a surplus if the debt goes up every year.

FY1997 (Year Ending 09/30/1997) - National Debt / $5.413146 trillion – Deficit $188.34 billion

FY1998 (Year Ending 09/30/1998) – National Debt / $5.526193 trillion – Deficit $113.05 billion

FY 1999 (Year Ending 09/30/1999) – National Debt / $5.656270 trillion – Deficit $130.08 billion

FY 2000 (Year Ending 09/29/2000) – National Debt - $5.674178 trillion – Deficit $17.91 billion

FY 2001 (Year Ending 09/28/2001) – National Debt - $5.807463 trillion – Deficit $133.29 billion

As you can see, in no year did the National Debt ever go down - Clinton never handed Bush a surplus.

In fact, you will notice that growing deficits / the recession had begun with Clinton’s last budget (not in the first year of the Bush administration) increasing 8 fold over the previous year.

Clinton in fact handed Bush a recession (as Candice stated).

The surplus myth is nothing but a liberal smoke and mirrors lie – an intentional misrepresentation of known, documented facts in an effort to deceive the low- information voters.

The explanation of the liberal manipulation and deception is simply Washington doublespeak - a “budget” (paper) surplus, not a real surplus. During the dot-com bubble, a lot of people were making a lot more money, paying a lot of excess money into Social Security. While this was happening, the federal government used this money, reduced the public debt (not National debt), while debt to intragovernmental holdings skyrocketed.

Simply put, the government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from the excess Social Security (debt still owed) rather than borrowing from the public to cover the deficits.

And don't even try to argue budget - Obama / dems haven't found the relevance to do one in 3 years.

Regarding the ignored recession Bush inherited, federal revenue decreased ….

Revenue in 2001 was $1.991 trillion.

Revenue in 2002 was $1.853 trillion.

Revenue in 2003 was $1.782 trillion.

Regarding Bush’s 2003 tax cuts that supposedly didn’t work (Bush’s failed policies)….

Revenue in 2005 was $2.153 trillion – UP 17%

Revenue in 2006 was $2.406 trillion – UP 26%

Revenue in 2007 was $2.568 trillion – UP 31%

Revenue in 2008 was $2.524 trillion – UP 29%

Final fun fact for liberals:

Bush had revenue in 2007 of $2.568 trillion with spending of $2.728 trillion for a deficit of $160.7 billion.

Obama had revenue in 2011 of $2.173 trillion with spending of $3.818 trillion for a deficit of $1.645 trillion – 10 TIMES Bush’s deficit!

Feshieee

Who the hell is the idiot who compiled all these numbers????

That idiot would ultimately be Obama ... didn't notice the source?

Sucks, huh?

Hello Candice!

Good to see you again.

Hope all is well.

Bob, never rely on absolute numbers. Revenues to GDP is a much better ratio, as it accounts for inflation.

Hi, Bob!

I haven't seen you much....or maybe I just missed you. Thanks for the back up!

It's too crowded here tonight....I hope to see you around soon.

Getting a word in edgewise is sure tough....In response to the notion that somehow 47%, who do not pay income taxes, already pay taxes for goods and services....While that is true, I also pay those same taxes in addition to paying income taxes and property taxes....Why should my tax burden be on all levels of my life just because I am working? And why should somebody else be given a pass on over 1/3 of taxes paid, not to mention drawing their daily bread from programs that my tax money has to fund? What is squeezing the middle class out of existence is the fact that we are taxed on all sides....Not the fault of the wealthy, who can absorb the taxes, but the fault of government who has no ability to make priority decisions and correct abuses to social programs. You cannot have 1/3-1/2 the population of a nation expecting to live for free without contributing back without bankrupting the rest who are supporting it?

Economic data is like medical data to prove scientific outcomes, one can scew data in a number of directions

He is no crook. What are you talking about?

Romney hides money off shore to avoid paying back the country that gave him the opportunity to become rich. Do we really want to elect someone who loathes America so much he has to hide money from it? That is why he is a crook, never mind the vulture capitalism that made him rich.

Romney lacks social skills to interact with the general public. But his biggest problem is he's not really curious about much, or interested in issues. Remember the "Curious George" jokes about Dubya? Romney is far worse. And this is why Romney can't discuss foreign policy and other policy issues in an intelligent way.

He lacks the correct temperament as well. He gets snippy with the press and isn't willing to be interviewed let alone going on programs that may not be friendly. How can he expect to be POTUS like this?

He has no problem winning the nomination by default and spending massive amounts of money bashing opponents. And does he think he can just cock his head and smile cute because it worked when he was a little boy?

His motivations are all wrong. He just wants the title of the office, but he's not really interested in politics and the actual job description. People say he is an empty suit, but really he is shallow and seems to lack interests in much else then making money.

FACT: Romney's first apartment cost $62 per month in rent. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/mitt-romney-poor-stay-at-home-moms-should-work/question-2590295/?page=2

Sounds like a sleeping room with a community bath down the hall to me. I'm 15 years younger than Mitt and the best I could find was about 90-100 when I first left home, and those were places with holes and cracks in the plaster.

Romney's dad paid for Mitt's tuition, but that's it. Mitt earned the grades, and got his own job. Romney made his own fortune and donated his inheritance to Charity.

So, let's see,

We have a choice between a "cool" candidate who is incapable of doing anything because it's always someone else's fault, or

A not so cool candidate with successes under his belt, who knows how the economy works, knows how to negotiate-so will have foreign policy successes-

I dunno. I guess for those in the cult, it's pretty much who they'd rather go to prom with. For the rest of us, it's who we want to fix the Obama disaster.

Romney's dad paid for Mitt's tuition

Ok, isn't that the point. When we look at understanding what people in this country go through who understands better?

Someone who's dad pays for their school and rent money comes from selling stock, because that how they paid rent they sold portions of their stock

OR

Someone who put themselves through college without Daddy's money or stocks, like Obama?

Same college, different life.

Apple has Billions tied up overseas. Why? They invested money over there in lower corporate taxes, lower wages, lower regulation costs. If Apple, and Romney don't leave the money over there, they will be taxed at the Corporate rate of 45% less any proveable expenses including foreign taxes.

What you are telling these Rich people and companies to do is Take their money out of a place where their profits are already were taxed at a 20% - 35% rate in the foreign country and bring it over to lose up to 1/2 the value to the federal, state and local taxes?

The only way you can remain poor is if you keep listening to the progressives and Liberals.

If you want this money to be back in the US, we need to get conditions favorable enough to lure it back. Otherwise what is going to continue is the great sucking sound of our wealth and money leaving the country.

Mitt is a phony. He is very uncomfortable with people when he is campaigning - it is obvious every time you see him on TV, so people will be uncomfortable with him and reciprocate - meaning not electing him.

Romney wants to show his Daddy...that he can be POTUS. Much like Bush tried to show his Daddy that he could get Saddam. Is that Oedipus or what?

If you want this money to be back in the US, we need to get conditions favorable enough to lure it back.

It all depends on how this is done.

The Teapublican way is a Race to the Bottom -- eliminating labor laws including minimum wage, companies polluting at will, gutting basic programs with every man, women, and child for his/herself. The Paul Ryan plan that Romney supports would "eat the seed corn" in order to give more breaks to the rich.

Or we could invest in our nation and future, use carrot and stick incentives -- no tax breaks for corporations that offshore jobs versus tax breaks for jobs created -- trade agreements that are fair to improve exports, cracking down on currency manipulation (China), etc. In other words, government has an important role to play.

Teapublicans are trying to use gridlock, divisiveness, manufactured crisis like the debt ceiling debacle (over Planned Parenthood for Pete's sake) to create apathy, distrust, and fear. If the GOP/TP are able to win in 2012 we will face a corrupt oligarchy as never seen in the history of this country.

True, and your sources are???

BTW - Gridlock requires two opposing forces.

lulu98

He is no crook. What are you talking about?

Well, technically he is if you count the time he left the government on the hook for $44 million in pension liabilities while being at Bain Capital....

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

no joe, no bo, nj

So, let's see,

We have a choice between a "cool" candidate who is incapable of doing anything because it's always someone else's fault, or

Well, actually the cool candidate managed to reverse the recession, kill bin Laden, and foster 25 months of private sector job growth.

A not so cool candidate with successes under his belt, who knows how the economy works, knows how to negotiate-so will have foreign policy success

Actually, many of Romney's successes required federal help, he doesn't know how the economy works (if he did, he'd know that tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation don't help the middle class), and does not know how the negotiate (why not cut defense spending to please Democrats???). Obama knows how the negotiate; he also has many foreign policy successes, like Libya, Myanmar, and killing bin Laden. Romney is just another befuddled right-wing supply-sider. Seek the truth, my dear deluded friend, for the truth shall set you free...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

lulu and no joe - Mitt Romney is not capable of anything but destruction as he has proved over and over. He is not a negotiator, he dismantles - never negotiates. He has nothing to make anyone believe he could handle foreign affairs - he can't even make himself understood in America - much less with the leaders of another country. He is arrogant and ineffective. He is out of touch with reality and it shows over and over each time he tries to speak.

Obama/Biden 2012 and kick the GOP out of congress!

To weareinbettershape: I am definitely not a fan of Mitt Romney and agree with your thinking, but harsh rhetoric and name calling about the guy doesn't further your well reasoned and researched points. Your words are effective without it.

First, Obama does not have leadership qualities. He is a terrible negotiator and is unwilling to make any difficult decisions. If he was willing to make difficult decisions, he would be willing to offer solutions to our problems. All he does is create committees to study the problem.

Romney has composure and compassion equal to Obama, maybe a little bit more composure, but Romney does not have the presence of Obama.

He is a terrible negotiator

On this I have to agree, look at the healthcare bill its ALL based on republican ideas...like Romenycare and the stimulus was 1/2 tax cuts just like republicans wanted.

But seriously, unable to make tough decisions like killing Osama, ending the Iraq war, fighting for women's rights and sick children...oh he can lead, the problem is you guys are really bad followers, blinded by something unmentionable to hate the guy.

Dragon...

it is about electing someone who has a vision, who has leadeship qualities,

Hardly attributes assignable to obama during his 2008 campaign... WTF did "hope and change" give us beyond rhetoric?

As for...

who can make very difficult decisions with intellect, composure and compassion

That is determined after being in office, much like senator obama was against any raise in the debt ceiling to one demanding it.

The reality is that obamas decisions and rhetoric made the last 3 years were oriented more towards being re-elected than for any meaningful governing or any leadership towards economic recovery and growth.

We the corporations? - A rather humorous post all in all...

Which was more difficult.. assassination or bringing bin laden to trial before the world court?

It was bush2 and the SOFA with iraq in 2008 that ended our military actions there, obama tried to stay.

Fighting for women's rights and kids health?? Really?

Seems more like obama wants women to have government take care of them vs the rights providing them with the options of making an informed decision. Please forget trying to make the argument of the few that want to eliminate abortions. As for kids health, isn't that still the function of the parents? Although limitating pre-existing conditions and unwarranted policy cancellations are egregious. I guess we should all be willing to pay higher premiums to cover increased risk.

Care to rethink comparing romneycare with obamacare on its structure and implimentation?

Just what part of the 2009 stimulas was in tax cuts? You are happy that the payroll tax cuts only kicked the can down the road?

Yep, the attitude of "my way or veto" or we need to pass this bill "right away"sure doesn't paint obama as being a good negotiator or even being a leader.

One and done. 2012.

Seems more like obama wants women to have government take care of them vs the rights providing them with the options of making an informed decision. Please forget trying to make the argument of the few that want to eliminate abortions. As for kids health, isn't that still the function of the parents? Although limitating pre-existing conditions and unwarranted policy cancellations are egregious. I guess we should all be willing to pay higher premiums to cover increased risk.

How the hell does requiring people to buy private insurance equates government taking care of them???? Technically, requiring everyone to have insurance covers the increased risk of eliminating unwarranted policy cancellations and pre-existing conditions due to the increase of the insurance pool.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

We the corporations - you're trying to talk to people like Spade, lulu, no joe - who don't have a clue and don't give a damn. They have been convinced - by the far right - that Obama is this dangerous foreigner who doesn't care for the country. Forget the fact that he kept us from going into a Depression. Can you imagine what "our economy isn't in trouble" McCain/Palin would have done to the country. The GOP wants more of the same. Romney has no plans; no vision; he just wants to trump his daddy. We've been there and done that!

Obama/Biden 2012

Really?

Does the average voter eat dog and brag about it because it's "cool"?

Is the average voter so arrogant that they seek to embarrass their best friend, only to fail because they are dumb enough to refer to a place half a world away from the island they are mentioning? That, by the way, is what happened in Colombia- Obama, seeking to infuriate the Brits, attempted to refer to the Flakland Islands as the Malvinas- and referred to them, in stead, as the Maldives.

Idiot.

Think the average voter hops aboard a private 747 for dinner and a show in Manhattan? And gets their neighbors to pay for it?

Think the average voter leaves for vacation on a private jet just four hours after the wife and kid left on their private jet- all paid for by their neighbors?

Or vacations solo- except for one kid and 40 friends- on the Costa del Sol- all paid for by the neighbors?

There's more- but, face it, Obama cannot be "average" and too "cool" for words simultaneously.

He can, and does, fail at everything he does, then blames others. For that, he's going to get fired.

NoJo,

Keep jumping that shark, you dumb little bigot...it's very entertaining. And kinda cute that you've started plodding this far down on the thread...shows just how desperate you must be.

What's next? Gonna copy and paste some conspiracy email you received and pass it off as your own?

Sure you are...

First the total republican debt is not 9.5 trillion. You are oversimplifying things way too much. How can you give credit to a president (good or bad) and not the congress that wrote the legislation he signed? To date, democrats have written the spending bill for nearly $11 trillion of our more than $15 trillion debt. Republican presidents signed $9.5 trillion of it.

People also make a false assumption that trickle down economics doesn't work. It works very well and the data proves it. The problem we are having is that with free trade, it is helping those in other countries instead of the US. The biggest mistake you are making is that you think that republicans are voting against their own interest if they vote republican if they are not in the top 1%. I contend that the opposite is true. Democrat policies make my life worse, while republican policies make my life better. Funding a bloated government is not in my best interest. Letting SS and medicare go bankrupt is not in my best interest. Virtually nothing the democrats do is in my best interest.

You are oversimplifying things way too much

Just making it understandable to teabaggers, super simple is all they understand.

People also make a false assumption that trickle down economics doesn't work. It works very well and the data proves it.

Not true. Giving tax cuts to the wealthy doesn't support job creation. If it did, we would have had an economic expansion during the Bush administration.

The biggest mistake you are making is that you think that republicans are voting against their own interest if they vote republican if they are not in the top 1%. I contend that the opposite is true. Democrat policies make my life worse, while republican policies make my life better.

Your deluded if you think deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy help you. Those things caused the economy recession and the massive debt in the first place. Why give tax cuts to the rich when they don't have the demand that the middle class does???

Funding a bloated government is not in my best interest. Letting SS and medicare go bankrupt is not in my best interest. Virtually nothing the democrats do is in my best interest.

The Democrats have some proposals to help SS and Medicare, like raising cap on payroll tax and preserving estate taxes. All the GOP wants to do is privatize them and throw them to the dogs on Wall Street. And the Democrats are the ones who created the safety nets that allow you to live off of if you get disabled or laid off. The GOP created the massive debt and deficits that will force those programs to be cut.

Sorry mate, but your argument is deluded. Those evil Democrats have had your back all along, while those "freedom-oriented" Republicans only look out for the wealthy. Seek the truth, my poor deluded friend, for the truth shall set you free.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@!$%# THE GOP 2012

Freshieee, not only are you right but you're DRAMATICALLY right. Jimmy Carter, who Conservatives regularly libel as the most ineffective President ever, Saw a jobs increase MORE THAN THREE TIMES AS LARGE in his one term as compared to President GW Bush saw in two!!

The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Yes, Republican failure on the economic front is really that bad.

Thanks, John. I'm just surprised people still buy into their "business-friendly" crap when they actually hurt businesses by causing recessions.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEATH TO TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS 2012

Many Republicans vote based on the checkbook. I voted for Clinton in his second term because on the domestic front he produced. I can not say the same for Obama. Housing markets still have not hit bottom and unemployment is stalled. He keeps talking about tax rates, Romney at 14%, but ignores companies like Apple that pay only 9%. I pay 6% and don't make anywhere near the $45billion Apple is projected to make.

Its about the economy stupid, not about the all show and no go president.

Which is why Obama wins and Romney loses...cause Romney is a no go, all show, and no idea about the actual economy outside hedge funds and Wall St.

This is a perfect example of my post #10. Taking from the poor to give to the rich is not a republican goal and doesn't happen with republican policies. Yet this person believes those lies that he posted.

Subsidies to millionaire farmers, yeah, they need it and we all pay it.

Subsidies to companies making record profit.

What's the point. You'll find some reason you believe they need it.

You mean those subsidies that were written by democrats? Well over half of the corporate welfare bills and tax subsidies were written by democrats. Why do you blame the republicans for those.

Taking from the POOR and giving to the Rich is EXACTLY what Romney wants to do...

under Romney's plan the bottom 20 percent would see their average federal tax rate increase $149, or 1.3 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57389459-503544/analysis-romney-tax-plan-strongly-favors-the-rich/

The top 20 percent, meanwhile, would see an average tax cut of $16,134 -- a 5.4 percent reduction in their tax rate.

Yeah, keep drinking the Tea man...if you don't know how much more important $150 is to poor people than $15000 is to Rich people, then why would anyone care what you think to begin with?

Just because the Ryan budget cuts programs like food for the poor to give more tax cuts to Romney and his rich friends, I wonder where I got the ideal that the republicans were taking from the poor to give to the rich?

Just because the Ryan budget cuts programs for our wounded veterans to give more tax cuts to Romney and his rich friends, I just wonder where I got the ideal that the republicans were taking from the poor to give to the rich?

This sounds like the also phony republican talking point that there is no war on women as the republicans vote to take from women's preventive health care so they can pretend to care about the college kids interest rate.

All brought to you by the republican party that is willing to take from anybody no matter how much suffering they cause except for Romney and his rich friends. The super wealthy is all and I mean all that the republicans ever worry about.

Tax cut fever is taking the republican party down and they want to take all of America with them.

England tried the republican austerity plan and now their country is heading into a double dipped recession. Why would you listen to republicans that want to take us down the same path as England?

VOTE FOR WOMEN'S FREEDOM...VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

If you value human rights, you'll be voting a straight democratic ticket.

Why is it that everyone wants to talk tax cuts for the rich and oil companies. Apple, which Obama draw near, pays an effective tax rate of 9%. Why has Obama not attacked this company for hiding money in foreign banks? I would rather Mitt Romney pay 14% than see many pay a -1000% tax rate. Yes, it does happen due to the earned income tax credit and other handouts embedded in the tax code!

a man we can trust..

ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/fec-fines-rubio-8000-campaign-finance-violations

Rubio is a joke who can't even run a clean campaign. But go ahead and trust him... you are after all naive enough to say this...

mitt romney..

a man we can trust..

Without laughing so hard milk spills out your nose.

ronaswyhod

Broken promise No. 10: Transparency

President Obama's WH is more transparent than Bush's or Romney's Governor's office. Remember Romney got rid of the data on his computers. Where is the trnsparency for Rob-ney's tax returns?

Tea Party darling Rubio has some skeltons too like:

a. Via the Tampa Bay Times:

Rubio this month took the unusual step of asking the Florida Ethics Commission to close out a complaint that he misused Republican Party and campaign money “to subsidize his lifestyle” while in the Legislature

b. his tiff with Univision

c. his embellishment of his “compelling” family story,

d. circulating story that he was baptized as a Mormon, and “remained active in the faith for a number of years…”

e. and let’s not forget his questionable relationship with his aide, health care lobbyist, and apparent travel companion Amber Stoner

Ah hem, how about that foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Wednesday when he lost his Teleprompter notes and couldn't ad lib?

Will Hannity vet Tea Party Darling , Rubio ,the way he is doing President Obama??? I doubt it.

Just to clarify, nothing belongs to the economy!

Well, Bob, apparently you don't live here in Northern Virginia where I live. It's the fastest growing area of the Commonwealth and it is turning more and more towards Obama. It's premature to predict Virginia will go for Romney, especially if Cucinelli and Tariq Salahi run against each other to be the Republican candidate for governor. LOL!

Yup, a +2.2% GDP just sucks compared to the -9% GDP Bush left Obama with. Why, even compared with the negative GDPs that are currently causing some European governments to fall, that +2.2% is just awful.

I notice that ConJobs who have been trying to make illegal immigration from Mexico THE NUMBER ONE THREAT TO AMERICA for years are now pissing and moaning that illegal immigration from Mexico has tapered off. I guess some people are never happy.

and he knows nothing else in life your right

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 politcians. 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?

Well SAID , and True .

Thanks Carpenter

"Why yes Mable"....now that was a gut buster.

I really don't understand why Mitts is anointed the mantle of a successful businessman. As Michael points out, he started at the top of an LBO shop with plenty of access to capital from his Harvard connections. What was so hard about that?

If he was really good, why didn't he end up a multi-billionaire like his contemporary, Henry Kravis?

Hiring a bunch of Ivy League grads to restructure (loot, pillage and dump) under performing companies does not prove management skills.

Turns out they came from a famous bakery that employs hundreds of people...just not the right "sized" people I guess.

Why don't you republians get jobs and contribute to America?

In 2008 Obama did not know how bad the economy. I do not believe if McCain was elected president if the economy would have better. In the last 100 years, no president had faced so many problems in his administration.

With Palin as McCain's sidekick, it would have been WORSE, if they had won. Look at What SORE LOSERS THE 2 of them are Now. McCain, is missing out on being a wise Elder Statesman to to make STUPID Statements about this President and he knows Better. instead he would rather look like a DODDLING OLD MAN.

Sarah Palin, she is just a TOTAL AIRHEAD, no Redemption for her except playing the Victim Card and her JEALOUSY of the President and his Family with her Stupid Statements.

First, the economy is in shambles. Much of the Dow being higher is because of the devaluing of the dollar, which is also causing high food prices, gas prices, and precious metal prices. The devaluation is happening because of our massive deficit spending. Unemployment and underemployment is still tremendously high. Right now our economy is like a cancer patient who went to the doctor. Instead of removing the cancer, the doctor gave the patient enough pain killers to last a couple of months. Right now they don't feel any pain and they feel fine, but they are not any better.

The "Uncool" for sure. Funny how money, religious right wingers, rednecks, old, rich, white males stick together. No wonder they are not "cool". Maybe they can write a new song about their money, big houses, guns and how religion makes them "right".

The economy will be in shambles if Romney and his bush advisers retreads get a hold of our country again.

Never before in our history have we given tax cuts during war time. The republicans went for a second round of tax cuts for the richest instead of raising taxes like a responsible government would have done to pay for our wars.

We are still in wars and all the republicans can think of is more tax cuts for the richest. What happened to patriotism like in past wars? But America can just be damned as Romney and his rich friends need more off-shore accounts. You have to be pretty dumb to think the tax cuts for the rich is about jobs.

Now they the republicans have created the deficit they want to blame everyone but themselves. I think that is what I am the most sick of hearing how they are the ones to guide our economy after they failed so miserably last time.

Then the republicans attack women's right all over the country and want to then blame the democratic party because women noticed. I didn't need anyone to tell me their was a war on women I watched it evolve with my own eyes.

By the time the republicans got to the contraception and blunt amendment that was just the icing on the cake. The foundation had already been built in the states with their wanting mandated vaginal probes and having to settle for the less invasive kind.

Can't forget the person-hood amendment that the republicans are trying to force upon us all. A law so radical they could not get it passed in the ultra conservative Mississippi.

Yet both Romney and Ron Paul have signed a person-hood pledge to overturn Roe v Wade and make most contraception illegal. A law so radical that it makes a miscarriage a murder investigation.

Vote for Women's Freedom..Vote a sea of blue..Vote Obama/Biden 2012

If Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit, why did his administration take eight years to create $4.9T in debt and Obama did it in three years? Why was unemployment 6% under Bush and 9% under Obama? Why were the worse deficits Bush ran around $500B, but with Democrats in the White House, Senate, and House for the debt exceed $1T each and every year?

The only way Obama gets reelected is if he distracts the country for the six months and does not talk about the economy or debt. He said it himself when he said Federal debt is a sign of failed leadership and his failure is three times Bush's.

Oh Bill, how you republicans love to pretend that bush didn't carry the war off the books and it didn't add to the debt while he was in office. Think Enron.

After President Obama was elected he felt it was dishonest to carry that kind of debt off the books and the entire debt of the war from bush got added to the debt and the numbers make it look like all the debt happened after Obama was elected.

Now we are still in a war and the bush tax cuts continue being fought for tooth and nail by the republican party. Now we have the interest on the debt already accumulated adding to the debt. Every year the cost of the tax cuts and the war adds to the debt.

Then the republicans are ready to make everybody suffer except those that are rich and could afford it the most and the ones that were always asked for more in the past when our country was in need.

After World War II the rate for the rich was at 90%. Nobody cried class warfare or socialism they instead proudly proclaimed their patriotism.

Sometimes it feels like the republicans intended to crash the entire world and President Obama is standing in their way. If the republicans had gotten their way and we had gone the austerity route that England took we too would be entering a double dipped recession.

You also need to think of Senator Obama's speech in context of when it was made and what was happening at the time. Remember the bush administration was spending like drunken teenagers on the Chinese credit card claiming that deficits didn't matter. It did matter and we could have done something about it and not been in the mess we are today had they listened to Senator Obama then.

Now we are in an entirely worse mess and austerity doesn't work to grow economies.

And all the republicans can think to do is go back to the bush day where the rich got richer while America went down the drain.

Vote for American freedom...vote Obama/Biden 2012

If Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit, why did his administration take eight years to create $4.9T in debt and Obama did it in three years?

Technically, Bush created $6.2 trillion in debt, as his budget in 2009 counted for his financial record. When recessions occur, revenues go down and spending goes up as people are laid off. And because the recession's deficits were piled on top of Bush's shortfalls, the deficit soared past $1 trillion.

Why was unemployment 6% under Bush and 9% under Obama? Why were the worse deficits Bush ran around $500B, but with Democrats in the White House, Senate, and House for the debt exceed $1T each and every year?

Bush didn't have a recession the size and magnitude of the Great Depression; Obama did. As for the deficits, look at what I said above.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Put

I recall answering your rants a while back. Dollar vs. Euro - Up, Gold well below all time high, Economic growth positive for 12 quarters, commodities up due to economic growth = worldwide demand.

You throw out your dismal view of the world cuz you would rather live in the dark with the shades drawn and ignore being corrected.

Given your track record, expect you will ignore this rebuke.

A LARGE part of the present deficit is due to the INTEREST on the massive run up of our National Debt under Bush, that along with putting the wars and Medicare Part D on the budget as it was supposed to be rather than keeping it 'off the books' so as to try to lie to the People about the actual size of the deficit and debt under Bush. Between that and the fact that the Repubs refuse to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the richest of us, who are not suffering in this recession nearly as bad as the rest of us and can certainly afford to give up even a sizable portion of their income without ever having to worry about losing their homes, jobs or buying food and energy.

Nice try right wingers, but America is Not Buying your BS, plain as that!!

I particularly like Paul's "Fear the Negroes" plank. Almost as much as his "I'm not responsible for the Ron Paul Newsletter, only for banking the money it raises."

Yes! What we need in the white house is the first successful cross between man and chicken - which thing displays the profound and widespread human habit of being racist for business and pleasure.

I like that Ron Paul signed the person-hood pledge to overturn Roe v Wade as he only believes in freedom and rights for men. Women not so much.

Ron Paul has some great ideas when it comes to debt and the economy, but that race is all but over.

LOL Ron Paul???!!!

In my view, an amazing number of people have tried to cut this president down to size and chip away at his status as POTUS. No other president has had his wife publicly referred to as fat (on the radio and in print), has been shouted at with a "You lie!", has had his U.S. citizenship so relentlessly doubted, has been called the N word on message boards repeatedly. So, he's been cut down to size and then when he acts like a regular, likeable, funny guy, that's not okay either.

They can all screw themselves. I love this president for many reasons, and yeah, I think he's likeable, too. If that's not okay with Mitt Romney, whatevuh.

Welcome to my world, Ike.

It's amazing how many people hate him. Either they are racist, or they are just jealous of his success.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

TO HELL WITH THE GOP 2012

No other President has demeaned the office of President as this one has. No other President has acted so irresponsibly and unpresidential as this one has. No other President, including all other Democrat Presidents, has ever been as embarrassing as this one. No other President has worked so hard to destroy what is left of the Constitution as this one has. No other President has had no class, sent inappropriate gifts, been so socially awkward or backward, so totally devoid of any understanding of what it means to be President of the United States, as this President has.

This white, middle class, well over 50, well-educated woman thinks that your comment is the biggest pile of horse manure ever to be printed on MSNBC. What "demeaned the office"--how? Acted "irresponsibly and unpresidential"--how? "Embarrassing"?--how? Sorry. I'm old enough to remember everybody from Kennedy on and I have no reason to believe your unsupported statements for a half a second. And having come off of two terms of that sewer-scum pig Bush, I cannot see how anyone could not see the improvement that Mr. Obama has brought to the White House, The Bushes and Cheney were such an embarassment of white-trash government. One can use words like "proud" or the like, but I have to say that I am greatly RELIEVED to have a trustworthy person like Barack Obama in the White House after having lived through the likes of Reagan, the Bushes, and Cheney. I am glad to see dignity and honesty restored to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

i really hope that all of those white people who voted for obama in 2008 now understand just how racist obama and his supporters are.

You're right, florida mom. For once, you're actually right. Finally.

Oh, and I presume you are talking about our idiotic ex-president George Bush, eh??? History sides with Obama, so don't try spouting right-wing crap. The truth also sides with Obama. Seek the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Lets see Obama signs the NDAA, and HR 347. Democrats don't care about you in anyway. Especially your liberties and freedoms. Neither does Romney. The democrats and the GOP need to be washed away from there sins. Then flushed down the toilet for destroying the constitution.

your statistics are wrong.

Really, floridamom?

Dow closed 13,228.31 on 4/28 http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/

The March unemployment rate was 8.2% http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

March car sales up 16% year over year, truck sales up 9% http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Obama’s Chances of Re-election Fading?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Poll-Vote-Here/2012/04/18/id/436341?PROMO_CODE=EAEF-1

Bongo, I am not sure where you live so perhaps you do live in the sugar coated world you describe. However, here in Ohio home prices are not on the rise. In fact, visiting friends this week I saw eight homes in foreclosure. He informed me they are now $30,000 in the hole on a home they bought just three years ago. Unemployment is flat and projected to remain above 8% for the remainder of the year. Yes, the Dow is back above 13,000 after falling back just a few months ago.

Jo, Newsmax is a far right news website. I wouldn't advise reading it, unless you are more conservative than the Koch brothers...

Oh and florida mom, it is YOU who are wrong. So why don't you stop posting until you have a CREDIBLE argument instead of being the mouthpiece of the right-wing??? I know you won't, but it's worth a try...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEATH TO THE GOP 2012