Proof that Obama has no clue on how to manage money ....

Obama does nothing but cost us trillions ....

Thanks ....

I have a feeling that Romney's not going to make it in this Presidential election cycle. He's too stiff and doesn't come across as compassionate or personable in any material way. Just as importantly, he's backed away from his moderate direction in leadership as Gov. of Massachusetts, which would be pivotal for him in the general election to people who are disenfranchised with the GOP's unproven and historically disastrous economic policies.

As usual, the Religious right has groomed another candidate for failure for the GOP. It always fascinates me how these people run on wedge issues like weighing in on DADT, gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, etc etc etc.

Romney could trounce Obama on economic issues if he would stop playing the sycophant to greedy NeoCons and the moronic Social-Cons. Romney has an actual record on balancing a budget and bringing down serious costs, even Clinton made mention how Romney-care brought down medical costs in Mass by a significant margin!

Anyway, overall, it behooves the GOP to step further away from those Bible-thumping ninnies! Sure, they are an easy-vote to win as long as you espouse the right level of nuttiness and quote fairy tales appropriately, but that comes at the price of losing every state that actually has a decently high per-capita education level and cares more about a less invasive government and sound fiscal policies.

Anyway, it's not like the Religious Right is big enough to field and install a viable candidate to POTUS, and they sure aren't going to vote Democrat, so why not take them as a given and then go after Democrat-stronghold states like NY and CA?

What about all the jobs that were created by Bain? Did you work for Bain because I'd like to see the otherside of this story. We have MILLIONS of people unemployed and on food stamps in this country. Our focus needs to be on the economy and getting people back to work now. The policies of this administration have stifiled small businesses from getting up and running. This administration has created so much uncertainty, not just with small businesses but most Americans are also uncertain about their future.

You liberals can keep trying to take one or two companies that failed under Bain, and try to cast the idea that Romney's time at Bain did not create jobs all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Not all companies will succeed even with the best attempt at truning them around.

And Bain made money? What is wrong with earning an honest legal dollar?

The truth about jobs is that Obama has not created a single net job since he was elected.

More people have left the work force than have joined it under Obama.

bigbenalaska: Really? But of course you are in Alaska. That is where Sara Palin advocated the bridge to NOWHERE. When you actually come down to where the American Population is at, maybe you can understand. Maybe as citizens of the US, maybe we need to take away those oil checks that Alaskans receive each year. That will pay for some of the deficit. I don't see N. Dakotan's getting checks for the billions of barrels of oil.

Here’s the rundown on Mitt Romney’s devastating record as CEO of Bain Capital, a tenure marked by bankruptcies, bailouts, and mass layoffs — all while Romney and his partners raked in billions of dollars in profits for the firm and Romney himself amassed a quarter-billion dollar fortune.
Romney’s Bain Capital Caused Mass Layoffs, Sent Jobs Overseas
Thousands of Americans were laid off by Bain Capital at companies it purchased, managed, and, at least a quarter of the time, drove into bankruptcy. Nice Guy Huh???? And there are naive people under his "clean looks" spell who still want to vote for this Republican Crime Cartel Soldier....He wants war with iran and No American Universal HealthCare System as other civilized countries have AND!!! he wants to pocket OUR Social Security...Do not ask Dracula to guard our BloodBanks.

Barack Obama saved the entire auto industry in the United States. Romney could not even save a small steel mill in the Midwest. But that steel mill was profitable - for Bain Capital.

Somehow I just can't see that Staples is on the same scale as General Motors.

Staples = retail jobs
General Motors = manufacturing jobs

Staples = selling goods manufactured in China
General Motors = manufacturing goods in the USA

See the differences?

Nerm_L - no, didn't you hear Romney - he's responsible for the bailout of GM! The man's clearly insane!

@SeekingSanity -- That is no different than Republicans claiming to be champions of children saved from abortion.

Republicans always take credit for someone else's labor.

As long as it does not cost them anything.

President Harry Truman in 1948: "The Republicans … will try
to make people believe that everything the Government has done for the country
is socialism. They will go to the people and say: "Did you see that social
security check you received the other day—you thought that was good for you,
didn't you? That's just too bad! That's nothing in the world but socialism. Did
you see that new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the
protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital
that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the
farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you, my
friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and your
home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you are just
surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, 'That's a terrible thing, my
friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of socialism is to
vote for the
Republican ticket." And that was 64 Years Ago!!!, the republicanCrimeCartel is still doing the same exploitation of people THEY ARE NOTORIUS FOR. Now, according to KingGeorgeTheVacuumBrained, it is called "free market" capitalism; with families in the streets and 21% Unemployment.......

Remember Fellow and Sister Americans: A vote for ANY republicanCrimeCartelSoldier, Rommel, is a vote Against Yours and Your Family's WellBeing

I think in comparison it's fair to ask ourselves...how many jobs has Obama obliterated in the last 3 1/2 years? Um --- the ecomony has last 4 million... Romney doesn't even touch that.

Romney has a record as a government executive, too. Governor 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,
- raised $180 million in sales taxes (including applying sales tax to internet sales),
- closed $300 million of tax 'loopholes' (for a net tax increase),
- cut state distributions to cities by $700 million (transfer of taxing from state to city),
- made $900 million of cuts to state government.

Romney's budget record shows he used increased tax revenue more than spending cuts to balance the budget. (Three time more tax increases than spending cuts.) 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.

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

Romney and Bain not only dismantle companies and fire people they also raid the pension plans and leave the taxpayers holding the bag through the Federal Pension Insurance program.

Barack Obama held BP accountable for the Mocondo well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico - and - required BP to pay the costs - without government handouts.

Mitt Romney saved the Salt Lake City Olympics relying on government handouts.

See the difference?

Two very important thing to you need to know about Romney and Bain:

1) Bain bought companies already distressed. They didn't make them distressed - they bought them in that condition. Basically it's like buying junker cars - you can restore and resell some but others are so far gone that the only thing to do is to part them out.

2) Obama has been a complete and utter failure at growing the economy or creating non-public sector jobs. Basically if Romney has a net loss in job creation at Bain (which was not in existence to create jobs) he is still a rank amateur compared to Obama's catastrophic failure in a job that is supposed to be about growth and job creation.

Hold up, didn't Mitt say it was not the governments place to create jobs, it was the private sector? So which is it?

Hold up, didn't Mitt say it was not the governments place to create jobs, it was the private sector? So which is it?

That's why I said growth first. With growth comes job creation. Without it (like the last 3+ years) we have none. Presidents may not be able to step on the excelerator at will but Obama has been riding the brake for too long.

Romney used Bain to raid distressed companies and put more money in Bain's pockets.

Obama used the government to save distressed companies and put more money in worker's pockets.

See the difference?

Job creation is a net positive under Obama. Positive growth in the private sector for 26 straight months. Anybody trying to convince you otherwise is lying to you. This fact also does not even factor in the millions of jobs saved in the rust belt with the investment in the auto industry. I'll match that record against dubya's or Mitt's anyday. Should be a fun topic during the debates.

Anyone telling you Obama has lost jobs doesn't know what they are saying, they are just repeating something they don't understand.

Please, anybody, give me one example of Mitt Romney saving or creating the number of manufacturing jobs that would have fallen with GM had Obama not invested in that company.

See, here's the big differnce, Bain "invests" in companies and they suck the life out of them and they go belly-up. Obama invests in GM, saves at least a million jobs and it actually becomes a very wise investment for America as a whole. Match that wooden Mitt.

Just one example folks, just one.... Good luck.

The brakes put on the economy are due to the cuts from republicans, Q22. And this recession won't end until DEMAND picks up, so all the supply in the world won't do squat if people don't have the money to spend on it.

Romney wants to create jobs to build a pipeline for Canadian oil and send the profits to Canada.

Obama wants to create jobs erecting Chinese wind turbines and keep the profits in the USA.

See the difference?

Upset--do you even understand what private equity is? You do realize that if you are a fan of what Obama and the government did with GM and Chrysler then you should love Romney and Bain? Obama acted as private equity to save GM at a time the banks and other private equity wouldnt provide debtor in possession financing and then executed a controlled bankruptcy reorg plan designed by the government and did it using Taxpayer money. Bain uses union pension fund money to do the same thing. Invest in companies that are failing with the view to make them profitable so the investors --union pension funds-- can make money. If Bain is successful, they make money and save jobs too. This concept of Bain sucking the life is just stupid unless you think Obama sucked the life out of GM.

Nerm,--really? Your examples make no sense.

Bain invested in companies and sacrificed jobs for profits.

Obama invested in companies and sacrificed profit for jobs.

See the difference?

Romney used Bain to raid distressed companies and put more money in Bain's pockets.

Obama used the government to save distressed companies and put more money in worker's pockets.

See the difference?

Beacon Power Corp.
Evergreen Solar Inc.
EnerDel
Solyndra
Solar Trust of America
Bright Source
LSP Energy
Energy Conversion Devices
Abound Solar
SunPower
Ecotality
A123 Solar
UniSolar
Azure Dynamics

All companies the Obama Administration funded with tax dollars that went bankrupt and workers lost jobs while the top execs got huge bonuses.

For Romney bankruptcy means success since he makes a profit.

For Obama bankruptcy means failure since he did not create jobs.

Succeed in destroying jobs = success.
Try to create jobs = failure.

See the difference?

For Romney bankruptcy means success since he makes a profit.

For Obama bankruptcy means failure since he did not create jobs.

Succeed in destroying jobs = success.
Try to create jobs = failure.

See the difference?

Yes.

Romney = success

Obama = failure.

Crystal clear.

Romney believes in magic Republican economics - and - wants to double down on the magic. Romney wants to follow the Republican economic recipe for disaster.

Here is the Republican magic economic recipe - does any of this sound familiar?

- lower taxes for the wealthy to free up capital for investment
- reduce regulations to spur investment
- end unions - lower cost of labor (wages) and increase productivity
- encourage private sector borrowing to create artificial demand (cheap money)

more capital (money) = speculation = inflation = debt = more money (capital)

Rinse, spin, repeat.

That is why our dollar has been devalued over the last 30 years. That is why our public and private debt has increased dramatically over the last 30 years.

Romney simply wants to double down on wrecking our economy.

Except it has been Obama who has been wrecking the economy for the past 3+ years. Whatever has happened over 30 years has been completely eclipsed by Obama's total incompetency.

Nerm--you mean the 20 thousand jobs less in GM since Obama invested? So Bain invested Union Pension money and only made money if the Union investors made money, what bankruptcy would Bain be happy about? Learn how private equity works.

Barack Obama is economic conservative in this election cycle. No liberal economics there.

Republicans are social conservatives and economic liberals.
Democrats are social liberals and economic conservatives.

Republicans view economicl policy exactly the same way the Democrats view social policy. Democrats view economic policy exactly the same way Republicans view social policy.

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

'Tax and spend' is a conservative economic view that spending must be paid for with revenue. Any government spending must be paid for with taxes.

'Cut taxes and spend' is a liberal economic view that spending without revenue will provide affirmative government assistance to creation of capital and will encourage equal prosperity and allow the economy to grow for everyone.

'Personal responsibility' is the conservative social view that individuals should pay their own pay - live within their means - work for their rewards.

'Social responsibility' is the liberal social view that providing affirmative government assistance to the least among us will encourage greater social equality and allow a growing standard of living for everyone.

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

Voting for Romney is a vote for economic liberalism.
Voting for Obama is a vote for economic conservatism.

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

Nerm - and clearly the turnaround at GM was horrible - which is why Romney is now claiming credit for it. The fact that thousands of jobs were saved and now more jobs are being added at GM is clearly why Romney and Republicans are now jumping on the bandwagon and claiming credit for the auto bailout. More of the GOP double-talk!

But you cant use GM as the model of Obama success and then turn around and criticize Bain for doing the exact same thing. That is the epitome of democratic double talk. Why not both sides admit that private equity investing is can be very successful as it was in GM and many of Bain's investments.

TO: Devdoc12able who wrote:

"You liberals can keep trying to take one or two companies that failed under Bain, and try to cast the idea that Romney's time at Bain did not create jobs all you want, but it doesn't make it true..."

Well, he created "temporary" jobs inasmuch as those companies went out of business as soon as Romney and his Carpetbagging buddies made and borrowed all the millions they could get their hands on, then they laid off all the workers, filed bankruptcy, closed down the businesses, and shipped those jobs overseas.

You may not WANT to believe it, but it's still true.

Obama / Biden 2012

@Kirk-2957282 -- Spin it anyway you wish. Bain Capital did NOT do the same thing as the so called 'auto bail outs'.

The facts are that the government invested in GM and Chrysler specifically to save American manufacturing jobs - not to benefit investors - not to generate profits. The investors have complained about that.

The facts are that Bain Capital invested in companies specifically to benefit investors - to make profits - not to save jobs. The workers have complained about that.

The mechanisms may be similar but the intent of the investments were exactly opposite. Romney invested for the wealthy investors - Obama invested for the middle class workers. There is no other way to state it.

It is not the tool that is important - it is how you use the tool that matters.

Romney = profits
Obama = jobs

Nerm--Obama is the farthest thing from an economic conservative--quit campaigning--that sort of stuff doesnt work. Proposing budgets with trillion dollar deficits is not economic conservatism. Proposing budgets with no entitlement spending reform is not economic conservatism? Proposing budgets or bills to raise taxes without reform and have no strategic intiative in which to create private investment incentives isnt economic conservatism. Promulgating regs that cost hundreds of billions for minimal benefits that have collateral damage to lives in the billions is not economic conservatism. Wanting to tax the earnings of US corporations in foreign countries even more which will just chase more jobs overseas and make us even more noncompetitive with foreign competitors is not economic conservatism. Intentionally creating a social entitlement state on par with Europe which will reduce the standard of living for our kids and grandkids is not economic conservatism.

Whatever has happened over 30 years has been completely eclipsed by Obama's total incompetency.

Why that simply isn't true! The one thing he has failed to eclipse is the total mess that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress created: a trashed American economy. Now he has made some progress at it - and that's why I will vote for him in the Fall. I hear nothing from Republicans except the continuation of the same failed policies that wrecked the American economy in the first place!

Nerm--you are kidding right? You think Obama invested solely to save jobs and not make money? Why is it that all the progressives are spouting off all the so called profits when it comes to earnings release time? If it wasnt about profits why did they lay off 20,000 employees since the government investment? Obama invested in GM for the same reason any private equity would and thats to save it and turn it around with the added benefit of doing a little crony capitalism at the same time and give his union benefactors some additional GM stock for their pension plans. Romney didnt invest for wealthy investors--he invested Union pension money and other institutional money like college endowments. In essence, if Romney was successful it was benefiting more middle class workers than GM could ever accomplish. The problem is you dont understand private equity investing so where Romney=profits=more money for union pension=more jobs saved in very troubled companies just like GM=more money in college endowments to fund financial aid and education=so which part dont you like?

@Kirk-2957282 -- Typical. You apparently do not understand the difference between economics and politics.

Economic conservatism is exactly what I stated - and - is based on economics.
Fiscal conservatism is based on politics - not on economics.

The Democrats even have the edge on fiscal conservatism. The big battles to pass the Affordable Care Act was not between the Republicans and Democrats. According to Republicans, they were not allowed to participate. The big battles to pass ACA was how to pay for it - how to make it revenue neutral.

You can correctly argue that the accounting to achieve budget neutrality was fuzzy. But that is no different than the fuzzy accounting used to show that tax cuts increase government revenue.

The Democrats have been stalwart proponents of PAYGO and deficit neutral spending. No, PAYGO does not lower deficits - but - prohibits increasing deficits with new programs and new spending.

If you are really interesting in attempting to control and lower the deficits - then you better look at the Democrats record on enacting those controls.

If you are only interested in Anybody But Obama - well, you have your Mr. Anybody. Good luck with that.

The companies that Bain bought were already in distress. Again I will use the analogy of the guy who buys junker cars. Some can be fixed up and resold. Others are too far gone and need to be parted out. Only a moron would blame the guy who bought the junkers for making the cars junk. What Bain does is a necessary part of a capitalist system.

Now - What about Obama? Besides screwing GM corporate bond holders and giving it to the unions what is Obama's record on employment? Dismal. Millions of jobs lost over 3+ years. A trail of bankrupt companies that were given billions in subsidies including: Beacon Power Corp., Evergreen Solar Inc., EnerDel, Solyndra, Solar Trust of America, Bright Source, LSP Energy, Energy Conversion Devices, Abound Solar, SunPower, Ecotality, A123 Solar, UniSolar and Azure Dynamics

@Kirk-2957282 -- You really cannot understand the significance? Really?

Progressive Republicans believe that if you invest in workers - you will make a profit.
Conservative Republicans believe workers are an obstacle to making a profit.

Liberal Democrats and progressive Republicans believe that if you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day - but - teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.

Conservative Republicans believe they should keep the fish.

Why that simply isn't true! The one thing he has failed to eclipse is the total mess that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress created: a trashed American economy. Now he has made some progress at it - and that's why I will vote for him in the Fall. I hear nothing from Republicans except the continuation of the same failed policies that wrecked the American economy in the first place!

Democrats controlled both the House (Nancy Pelosi) and the Senate (Harry Reid). Exactly what did Senator Obama or any Democrat in the majority propose that would have averted this economic crisis?

Nerm, I understand it very well and Obama definitely isnt an economic conservative president. I am not an ABO as I am a big Clinton fan and hated Bush number 2. The democrats may at various times some good economic policies no different than the GOP at various times but lets stay in the current era. ACA was not economic conservatism so stop acting like it is--by the way I am for some form of universal care so dont go down that path with me. Its not fuzzy accounting that shows certain types of tax cuts do increase government revenue and others dont. Clinton's reduction in the capital gains tax clearly let to greater revenue during the internet investment boom. Reagan's targeted cuts to create incentives for real estate and manufacturing with the investment tax credit, R&E credit and accelerated depreciation had a huge impact on government revenue and he was smart enough to raise rates as GDP growth started increasing. There is nothing about Obama's economic policies that are conservative or encourage private enterprise to increase GDP growth. Quite the opposite. I noticed you abandoned your anti Romney rant on Bain too. Nerm there is nothing wrong with voting for Obama but this constant campaigning on a newsvine site that has zero chance of changing minds is odd. Why not just discuss and explain why you think Obama's support for keeping payroll tax cuts in place is good for job growth? Talk policy not campaign rhetoric.

Q22 - President Obama stopped the bleeding of jobs prevalent at the end of Bush's term and has been adding jobs for the last 26 months. Is is slow, yes. Would we like it to be faster? Of course! Maybe if we vote out many of the GOP in congress in November we can get cooperation on jobs bills and make the recovery much faster! You know, work for the American people instead of against President Obama - novel idea!

Interesting note - during Bush's Presidency, an average of 20,000 jobs were added per month. If you discount the last year - 65,000 per month.

Wow! The GOP surely knows a lot about job creation!

Nerm--where do you read such nonsense? Nobody who has a business believes workers are an obstacle to making a profit. Have you ever worked in a private enterprise or owned a small business? I cant believe you have otherwise you wouldnt say such nonsense. The vast majority of people who have no clue what the differences you just stated between political philosophys. Do you really believe the guy starting up his own Dunkin Donuts is saying hmmmm I am a conservative republican so I just need to eliminate the person taking the donut orders and I will be rich. Give me a break.

@Kirk-2957282 -- Compare these two -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

There is a difference between economic policy and fiscal policy.
Economic policy deals with the economy.
Fiscal policy deals with government finances.

Romney is running based on his understanding of the economy - how to create jobs - how to grow the economy - how to deal with economic crisis here and in Europe. If you look at Romney's economic messages and extend that to fiscal policy - then Romney has succeeded in deceiving you.

Seeking Sanity--I am no Bush fan but since you seem to blame it on congress for Obama, go back and compute those job numbers ending at the end of 06 and lets say the democratic led congress was obstructing any economic growth or put their policies in place starting in 07. So what was the monthly job growth numbers starting after the economic disaster of 9/11 through the GOP led president and congress in 06. Now do the same thing for Obama. How much growth did he have after the recession not caused by him but when he had control? Be consistent how you analyse and you might be surprised.

Nerm_L - what's most disturbing is Romney's stupid announcement he can add 500,000 jobs a month. He has no plans; no nothing but throws out 500,000 jobs a month and the far right think he is actually capable of doing it. Totally lacking in credibilty and substance but they'll hang their hat on him.

“For the last three-and-a-half years, President Obama’s liberal policies of wasteful spending and skyrocketing debt haven’t lived up to his own promises to control our nation’s mounting deficits,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul says in a statement.

Wait a minute, didn't Romney claim to possess economic experience??? If he did, he would know that deficits naturally rise during a recession and shrink during a boom. We left the recession in late 2009, but the deficits remained high as unemployment was also high. Obama's "wasteful spending" created created or saved an average of 2.55 million jobs, with at least 1.5 million more created by the recovering economy.

“As president, Mitt Romney will finally change Washington and stop passing our financial burdens on to the next generation.” The RNC is doubling down on this line of attack with a web video, too.

Well, with the GOP tending to having harsh austerity plans that would cut deficits, I would initially agree with Mrs. Saul. Unfortunately, on closer analysis, Romney would actually increase deficits. His tax plan, which would raise taxes on the lower class, give a paltry few hundred bucks to the middle class, and hand millionaires at least $150,000, would add approximately $3.4 trillion to future deficits. In order to just come even, Romney would have to cut around a tenth of the budget, and to significantly decrease deficits, he'd have to cut another tenth. 20% of the budget is a lot, and can destroy an economy.

Now - What about Obama? Besides screwing GM corporate bond holders and giving it to the unions what is Obama's record on employment? Dismal. Millions of jobs lost over 3+ years.

Actually, Q22, Obama has entered net positive job growth after 3.5 years in office. 4 million jobs were lost under Obama (in the first year, may I add), and we have pretty much gained a profit in job creation. Has it been slow??? Yes, but that is because nowadays middle class wages are stagnant, income inequality (which is a drag on growth) is high, and Congress has said no to every major bill that could create jobs, including Obama's paid-for Jobs Act.

Wanting to tax the earnings of US corporations in foreign countries even more which will just chase more jobs overseas and make us even more noncompetitive with foreign competitors is not economic conservatism. Intentionally creating a social entitlement state on par with Europe which will reduce the standard of living for our kids and grandkids is not economic conservatism.

Technically, taxing foreign earnings isn't necessarily making us noncompetitive, as it would tax companies that go overseas, not here. And how the hell are we becoming an entitlement state like Europe???? We don't have federalized education, or universal healthcare. And frankly, the standard of living in Scandinavia is on par with us. Over there, they would have what conservatives would call an entitlement state, and they have some of the best education and healthcare systems in the world. Not only that, but they have low unemployment and impressive growth. Enough with bashing Europe. If it wasn't for them, our nation wouldn't even exist. You want to make us more isolated??? Go ahead, anger the Europeans and watch how we will collapse...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshieee- I'm especially disgusted when President Obama goes along with a Republican proposal and wants to give tax breaks to companies that bring jobs back here. Because Obama goes along with it now the GOP is against it. There is nothing you can say that makes that anything but obstructionist. President Obama has come back with a couple of GOP suggestions and, once he's on board, they don't want anything to do with it anymore.

@Q22 -- Put away your selective memory and really look at the chain of events from Obama's inauguration.

TARP was just starting to run. The stimulus had been passed and was just starting to run. The Fed was taking action to stimulate the economy. The medicine had been applied to the patient - it was time to wait to see if the medicine worked.

The effects of the stimulative efforts would wear off over time and it was quite possible that further steps would be needed. The President needed a Congress that could work together to take whatever action would be necessary after the various stimulus programs spun down.

Obama could have easily whacked the financial sector with stiffer regulations. Obama could have easily increased taxes to punish the wealthy. Democrats controlled Congress and the mood of the country would have supported that. It would have been an easy political win for Obama - but - would not have helped the economy at all.

Instead Obama tried to get Congress to work on a big piece of legislation so that Democrats and Republicans could build working coalitions - and - could address the economy together when the stimulus programs wound down.

The Affordable Care Act should have been easy legislation. ACA was based on Republican ideas based on private sector solutions and personal responsibility. ACA also included programs championed by Ted Kennedy, in particular, and Democrats in general. The Republican candidate for President cannot even discuss the ACA - because he passed it first.

Working on the ACA should have allowed Congress to develop working relationships between the parties and allowed both parties have have big political wins. ACA could have been a winner for everybody.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in Congress viewed Obama's lack of desire to whack the financial industry (which would have been the winner for Obama) as a sign of political weakness. The Republicans orphaned their own health care child in an effort to capitalize on that perceived weakness.

The Republicans chose the political course of obstruction and petty politics - instead of accepting a political win and preparing to address the economy. The ultra conservative desire to destroy the government overrode their responsibility to the country.

Q22 --

Except it has been Obama who has been wrecking the economy for the past 3+ years. Whatever has happened over 30 years has been completely eclipsed by Obama's total incompetency.

As evidenced by EXACTLY what empirical data, linked directly to President Obama as the cause?

Yeah, I thought you didn't have any.

Nerm_L - well said. And, how disturbing that one of the "leadership" groups chose no leadership in their efforts to diminish the President. In my opinion that says it all about the GOP - the good of the country be damned. Just win at all costs.

Anna Molly - if Q22 comes up with anything it will be a complete fantasy because there IS NO date to back up those claims.

President Harry Truman in 1948: "The Republicans … will try
to make people believe that everything the Government has done for the country
is socialism. They will go to the people and say: "Did you see that social
security check you received the other day—you thought that was good for you,
didn't you? That's just too bad! That's nothing in the world but socialism. Did
you see that new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the
protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital
that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the
farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you, my
friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and your
home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you are just
surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, 'That's a terrible thing, my
friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of socialism is to
vote for the
Republican ticket.'" And that was 64 Years Ago!!!, the republicanCrimeCartel is still doing the same exploitation of people THEY ARE NOTORIUS FOR. Now, according to KingGeorgeTheVacuumBrained, it is called "free market" capitalism; with families in the streets and 21% Unemployment.......

Remember Fellow and Sister Americans: A vote for ANY republicanCrimeCartelSoldier, Rommel, is a vote Against Yours and Your Family's WellBeing

Here’s the rundown on Mitt Romney’s devastating record as CEO of Bain Capital, a tenure marked by bankruptcies, bailouts, and mass layoffs — all while Romney and his partners raked in billions of dollars in profits for the firm and Romney himself amassed a quarter-billion dollar fortune.
Romney’s Bain Capital Caused Mass Layoffs, Sent Jobs Overseas
Thousands of Americans were laid off by Bain Capital at companies it purchased, managed, and, at least a quarter of the time, drove into bankruptcy. Sounds kind of Treasonous and He wants to start another ruinous middle east war with Iran, continue to block An American Universal HealthCare System, as other "civilized" countries have, so that his friends at the health insurance industry continue making A Killing. Does ANYONE Know what the United HealthCare CEO took home for his 2007 year salary? Try this on for size:$128,000.000 while Paid policy insureds were denied and died.........The Right People for the Oval Office?? I DOUBT IT......

If Rombot has such a great economic plan, where is it? If he's going to run on the Republican congressional agenda, he's screwed. If he's going to run on Bain Capital's policy and practices, he's screwed. If he's going to run on his Massachusetts's governorship, he's screwed. If he's going to run on his Olympic experience of how to get government bailouts, he's screwed.

You have to say one thing about Gingrich, he gave the Democrats all the ammunition they need for this election.

Vulture capitalist - that is who Romney is - I wonder who 'can't handle the truth'?

This is not negative campaigning or lying, it's merely stating the facts.

Here's the bit of reality about Bain and similar firms that keeps me from considering this a genuine issue. Venture capital firms rarely are involved in the business dealings of SUCCESSFUL, PROSPEROUS firms, so those "Mitt came in and shipped my great job with the greatest company ever to Indonesia" testimonials will ring a little hollow with me.

In cases where jobs are cut or outsourced from companies, if venture capital firms are involved, it is usually because they came on board as a last, best hope to avoid liquidation and in some cases because two or more struggling firms in a similar field wish to merge.

That doesn't mean there are never any cases where venture capital firms take over successful companies* and outsource their jobs, but they are the exception, not the rule. My bottom line is this, if a venture capital firm becomes involved with a struggling U.S. firm and saves it by cutting jobs and outsourcing / offshoring jobs, that is still preferable to a liquidation, because if the firm survives and thrives after those changes, it may well lead to new jobs during future expansions. One final thought, no matter how many jobs are cut during venture capital firm's management of companies, it is almost always fewer than would have been lost in a liquidation.

* Venture capital firms are most involved with successful companies to help them expand, and while there are surely exceptions, these cases rarely involve significant job cuts. Mergers are a different story, but are still almost always better than a company failing.

It probably wouldn't "ring hollow" to you if it were YOUR job!

It probably wouldn't "ring hollow"to you if it were YOUR job! I'm sure I would have mixed feelings and might even be angry about a job lost lost through the management of a venture capital firm at a company I worked at, but that wouldn't make it Mitt's (or any other venture capital suit's) fault I lost the job, would it??

There has to be more specific evidence that Bain (and Mitt in particular) was a poor manager of firms to make it a legitimate campaign issue than just trying to bring it up again. As I said, SUCCESSFUL and PROSPEROUS firms rarely have venture capital firms involved in their management and operations.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Odumbo calling out Romney on his job creation record? How about running on your record Mr. Odumbo? OH, thats right, Odumbo's record sucks, and is at least 8 strokes ahead of Carter in the match for worst POTUS ever! I guess all I'd do is dream up wedge issues and run negative if I were Odumbo too, since that would be the only chance of winning back the seat he said he wouldn't deserve if he couldn't turn the country around in his first term. Which was just another lie from the very beginning. ABBO in 2012!

I have not yet read all of your dialogues but I find it curious that Obama was having dinner at 35k a head at tthe house of the head of Blackstone. He hates those venture people so much that he is trying to raise money via them. What a hypocrit!

You're missing the point, lulu...all venture capitalists are not created equal. Some provide capital to people with good ideas, helping to build things of lasting value. Some are Mitt Romney, looting companies that have potential to line their own pockets, leaving destruction in their wake.

Vulture Capitalist is an apt description for the Romneybot.

Why is Mitt parking most of his cash in overseas banks ?

Mitt puts his money in overseas banks like anybody who invests in foreign investments and diversifies his risk. Do you question why a rich German puts his money with JP Morgan? There is nothing nefarious about putting your money in foreign banks? So John B, when Bain invests Union pension money in troubled companies like GM, is he lining the pockets of the unions? Give me a break, quit trying to make something out of a good thing. Blackstone gets their money from the same place as Bain and does the exact same thing. Private equity firms are created equal in this case.

@ Nerm_L

As always a pleasure chatting with you.

I definitely agree with your analysis about the Democrats being social liberals and fiscal conservatives and the Republicans being social conservatives and fiscal liberals (with some blending of the two of course...War on Drugs for one).

I think that Romney did a pretty decent job as Gov. of Mass. But he wasn't governing like a Republican or a Democratic President would...and because he took good ideas from both courts to find what worked in Mass, he has a solid pedigree as governor that doesn't jive with the GOP bandwagon of corporate wellfare and handouts for the uber-wealthy at the expense of public programs and investment in infrastructure.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but I refuse to vote for Romney at this point in time given that he's completely placated to the morons who refuse to balance the government's check book and those who can't even balance their own, but want to be damn sure them gays are kept from ruinin' their marriage or that drugs are kept illegal because they saw a show somewhere that said it would result in utter chaos, as these same people enjoy beer on the weekends and evenings and pop Prozac for stress relief...never grasping the hypocrisy of it all.

Until the Republicans are truthful about their political agenda, they are not going to get my vote on the federal level.

They cannot be against government overindulgence, pork and invasiveness when they vote lockstep for renewing the Patriot Act, pushing for maintaining or expanding the defense budget and all while simultaneously refusing to raise taxes or find realistic ways to pay for these goodies without letting the poor starve in the streets or their their children into brothels.

The only thing the Democrats aren't being truthful about is how little they care for actually solving the immigration issue. Obama has fought harder to do nothing on the matter than to actually take a stance one way or the other with regard to illegal immigration and its horribly detrimental effects on the states that must uniquely shoulder the burden of taking on a shadow-population that exploits every social benefit available, works under the table to avoid paying most taxes, typically doesn't call the police when the witness a crime, and proceed to have children that are then also used to apply for even more public benefits and of which have the highest instances of teen pregnancy and themselves don't become taxpaying citizens until at least their 20's if they too aren't living below the poverty line because of poor choices made in their younger years.

Overall, our government is huge, yes. Our government is over-leveraged, yes. Our country is hemorrhaging middle class jobs to countries that have no qualms about gaming international trade and utilizing child/slave labor, yes. Our country is transitioning further into a police-state, yes. US citizens are less free today than they were 10 years ago and are in fact getting more restricted, not more free, yes! Our government is not doing enough to actually balance its expenditures with revenues and we are headed for financial catastrophe that will take 50+ years to resolve if things aren't handled responsibly now, yes!

Are the GOP contenders for federal offices offering any solutions to these problems? Do they even acknowledge many of these problems, or provide them with the gravity they deserve? The answer is a resounding NO. And in fact, in many respects are working against these very solutions.

Oh the IDIOCRACY of liberals on these boards is astounding. In Bain's line of work, by the time they arrive on scene, the company is usually steps away from closing their doors anyway. Those jobs were already lost.

The Job, that went away much later because of the effort could have been gone much sooner. But don't let that effect your liberal line of thinking to fit your agenda.

FACT: Community Organizer vs. Successful Businessman to run a country that is 15 Trillion in debt with a stagnant economy due to big government, over-regulation and welfare programs.

No Brainer......Even worse, is the fact that all those idiots out there elected a Community Organizer in the first place to the Highest Office in the World. HOW PHUCKIN STUPID IS THAT?

@John B. Bain supported more start ups than you know. I worked for one of them. They did everything to keep the company going but it could not cross the Cham to profitability. It was sold to AT and T . Some people lost jobs but many kept them. You can misrepresent the truth if that makes you feel better. Same as Obama.R

Really, OMB? Venture Capitalists are in the business of buying things that are probably going to fail, losing all their investment? You don't even realize how stupid that sounds, do you?

No, Venture Capitalists are in the business of buying ANYTHING they think they can make money on in some way. Sometimes it's by funding a start up that has potential. Sometimes it's by purchasing something at a fire sale price hoping because they believe there's enough future that it's worth the investment as long as they can buy it uber-cheap. Sometimes it's because someone is selling something you can tear apart in order to stuff your own pockets.

Mitt Romney seems to be extra fond of that last category...thus the name Vulture Capitalist.

@ John B, Des Moines, IA

Agreed. Vulture Capitalist is really apropos

I especially like the situations where Bain used its influence on the board of various businesses it partially acquired in order to have the acquisition borrow vast amounts of money on its credit to have said business(es) buy Bain's share out of the venture and then let the venture itself falter from the oppressive levels of interest...Taaa Daaa!

Job creation? Yeeeeeaaaaaah right...at best it was net-net

It's not all that simple. The working population is getting older - baby boomers are retiring. Wages are low - working mothers now have to trade-off whether that part time job covers the cost of daycare and the other child raising issues. Kids graduating from college are finding they need advanced degrees and are therefore not jumping into the market with just a B.A. or B.S. Strange that some group/agency just published a report that the US now has the largest number of job openings in the last four years.

truthIS-HAD - your truth doesn't bother with what led to the unemployment because that doesn't fit your agenda, does it? There are fewer employed than past years but more employed now than when Obama took office. And, with his continued leadership and a congress that acts for the American people - instead of one bent on keeping the President from being successful - more people will be employed each month.

Romney could not and would not accomplish more employment. It's not part of his agenda. Oh wait - he doesn't have an agenda; no plans; no programs; no nothing.

Seeking Sanity: Blaming the past doesn't not fix the future. This administration has not been able or doesn't understand how to fix the economy. President Obama has NOT been a leader otherwise he would have been able to compromise to get things done in Congress. My advice to you is to do some research on the policies of our past president with most of your attention on the Clinton and Bush presidency. From most of your comments I can tell you don't have a clue.

Speaking of successful Insanity, hows is Biden'sSummer of recovery going? How about those shovel ready jobs? Yep, real leadership there. But then Obama evolved and said there weren't any shovel ready jobs so everything is OK in libby land.

Unemployment was the result of the Bush Tax breaks. I see you don't discuss those breaks and deregulation policies that Obama cannot seem to get Congress to repeal. So you cannot complain if you refuse to look at all the facts.

Compromise? Like what specifically? McConnell had a meeting the night of Obama's inauguration to map out the strategy to deny any GOP votes to Obama's proposals. Given that Obama hadn't yet proposed anything - how are you supposed to compromise when the other side has already decided to vote no on everything? It's a fact. The meeting was with Newt (who knew how to obstruct) and Frank Luntz (who cares zero about policy - he's just the consumate ad man).

Believe'nAmerica - perhaps you should do a little research since you apparently keep our head in the sand. When a group in Congress says their main job is to make sure our President is a one-term President, there is no compromising with the treasonous group. You clearly don't care to face the truth and it shows in your posts. Perhaps you should try to grow up and face reality instead of being insulting. It really just makes you look foolish. Your comments show you don't have any clue about jobs; the economy; or how the country is run. Do a little homework so you can post with the adults.

It seems the only thing you "believe" in are the lies of the GOP.

Unemployment was the result of the Bush Tax breaks. I see you don't discuss those breaks and deregulation policies that Obama cannot seem to get Congress to repeal. So you cannot complain if you refuse to look at all the facts.

Do you have any empirical evidence that supports your statement? Is the opposite true? Do you think that the ending of the tax cuts in December together with the sequestration to cut spending will create jobs?

If the tax cuts were so bad why did the Administration agree to extend them? Why is the Administration advocating continuing the tax cuts except for those earning more than $250K? Why did the Administration advocate and succeed in passing a payroll tax cut for the last two years?

They obviously think there is some economic merit in tax cuts.

Compromise? Like what specifically? McConnell had a meeting the night of Obama's inauguration to map out the strategy to deny any GOP votes to Obama's proposals.

Simply shows how lousy Obama's political skills are. McConnell has managed to keep all 40 votes for over 3 years where as Obama could not peel one vote away. When it came to Obamacare he had such a hard time getting Democratic votes that he completely flip-flopped on the mandate. He went from "I will not force anyone to but health insurance" to signing a mandate just to get his own party to agree. Now that's a 180.

LBJ he's not.

Alan -- Where did the first iteration of this thread go? Was it only a dream?

believe'namerica wrote:

"Seeking Sanity: Blaming the past doesn't not fix the future."

and, remarkably and within the same paragraph. "believe" wrote:

"My advice to you is to do some research on the policies of our past president with most of your attention on the Clinton and Bush presidency."

"believe" chastises Seeking Sanity for "blaming the past" and then degrades Seeking Sanity as "clueless" because Seeking has not researched the past.

Does this make any sense to anyone without a slimy old teabag stapled to their forehead? Why are we having such important national debates with people that get lost in a 7-11??

Oh...and "believe"...that comment about President Obama not compromising with Congress is one of the most ignorant comments I've read in a long time...and, perhaps, you can enlighten all of us regarding your fascinating use of the English language...If something "doesn't not", does that mean it actually "does"??? For example..."believe'namerica doesn't not speak good." Does that mean that "believe" is actually well spoken???

Alan -- Where did the first iteration of this thread go? Was it only a dream?

Don't know? I only saw it from the guy claiming that tax cuts were responsible for unemployment. The deficit maybe but unemployment?

Was there other posts before then? If so, I didn't see them.

No, the original First Thoughts is gone. I'd think I was dreaming, but another guy mentioned it, too, over at Facebook. Do you know where it went? Why would it have been deleted?

Alan, NJ

Compromise? Like what specifically? McConnell had a meeting the night of Obama's inauguration to map out the strategy to deny any GOP votes to Obama's proposals.

Simply shows how lousy Obama's political skills are. McConnell has managed to keep all 40 votes for over 3 years where as Obama could not peel one vote away.

What it shows is what a lousy excuse for a human being Mitch McConnell is. He proudly admitted that his extremist partisans had held raising the debt ceiling hostage -- and the entire US economy with it. The bad economy isn't all Bush's fault, or the European debt crisis. A lot of the blame goes to Mitch and his sick obsession with making Obama "a one term president" at all costs.

Anna Molly - MSN was having problems earlier today. I'm pretty sure that wiped a lot out.

No, the original First Thoughts is gone. I'd think I was dreaming, but another guy mentioned it, too, over at Facebook. Do you know where it went? Why would it have been deleted?

Hey, I see what you mean now. Yeah the original is gone. I was just following the older/newer links and thought this was the 5th subject of day.

Spooky, didn't think there was anything there that too controversial. Or maybe its a programming error? And no posts from Fiesty....conspiracy?

I can't find any of the usual posters here. I read the first version and the posts.....what happened?

I can't find any of the usual posters here. I read the first version and the posts.....what happened?

Just heard, Comcast sold MSNBC to Bain, who immediately asset stripped it (that's a laugh) and sold it to News Corp at a 200% profit. Joe Scarborough now has a 24 hour show.

Breaking news from Chicago is that Fiesty and Bev have entered rehab (paid for by Medicaid).

I see Seeking Sanity is busy spewing her hate filled messages with no factual support but her sharp tongue and charming wit. Its interesting how she always thinks she is the smartest person in the room but she has not self awareness that no one is listening. Again SS, no one is changing their vote because you called them a mental midget while at the same time saying things that show your lack of real experience and knowledge. You havent built up any credibility by providing any critical thinking to any topic to be able to garner any respect. Try providing any real substance and maybe someone will engage instead of discarding your posts.

Doggone, Kirk -- I thought I was the fairest of them all. ;-)

Anna Molly - you can have Kirk. He loves to argue in circles; disclaiming what he's posted; then twisting what you say. I don't respond to him anymore which is apparently ticking him off - so he comes after me every chance he gets.

Good luck!

LoL Not a chance. I wore your shoes once. Barefoot is better.

Anna Molly - and tis the season - for barefoot!

Anna Molly--you definitely are the fairest ha. I at least enjoy the engagement with you even though we dont see eye to eye on fiscal policy. At least you give me some freedom to engage albeit it very little ha. Seeking Sanity, my guess is that Anna Molly doesnt want me but I can give her some props, she generally just wants to strangle me for my opinions and conclusions I have reached via my experience. She is comfortable enough in her own skin to back up her opinions with her own critical thinking. I might disagree much of the time but I always respect her for that. Not sure it goes both ways but I have never called her Lindsey.

What happened to the threads from earlier today, I know I didn't just imagine that I made and read several posts on this same article.

Alan - I realize that William Wallace is your hero but I can't even stop long enough to read what you post because all I can see is that psychopath, Mell Gibson.

If the tax cuts were so bad why did the Administration agree to extend them? Why is the Administration advocating continuing the tax cuts except for those earning more than $250K? Why did the Administration advocate and succeed in passing a payroll tax cut for the last two years

They obviously think there is some economic merit in tax cuts.

Not necessarily. According to the basic tenets of Keynesian economics, fiscal austerity during a recession (whether it is raising taxes or cutting spending) is unethical, as that will hurt growth via less demand created and less jobs generated It happened in 1937, and it could easily happen now. While the Bush tax cuts didn't help the economy throughout its existence, terminating them during the recession would force families that support the economic recovery to scale back their budgets, reducing consumption and, thus, job creation.

OBAMA BIDEN @012

Hurry and buy your tickets at the flip flopper clown show, door prizes of Mitt puppets made in China !

They would have been complete fools not to have wanted a very secular government.

And therein lies the problem with the extreme right-wingers, they haven't a clue as to the meaning or concept of secular. To them, God and Government are one in the same. Just look at how they define corporations as "people too". They define a fetus and a child as one in the same. But what can you expect from the crowd who thinks baking is heating a can of corn to boiling? This is after all, the group that has to redefine rape, because they do not understand 'no means no'.

Wm, you are correct. Many could not even name the first president that was not of English or French descent.

Wm.-375815

...To these men [edit: Founding Fathers], the religious wars of Europe and the unabashed prejudices were not ancient history. They would have been complete fools not to have wanted a very secular government.

Agreed, it's just a shame that the whole legal doctrine on separation of church and state has never been entirely codified into US law/constitution, but has always remained sort of a spirit of the law after the Jefferson Letters save for the portion pertaining to government involvement in religious institutions.

The depressing thing for me is just how many people there are in the country that preoccupy themselves with what rights other people should have because of some moral-relativism based on a cherry-picked doctrine they arbitrarily take as 100% valid vs. what is actually happening in the nation and implementing the viable solutions to handing these challenges (but I think that is deliberate).

I would love to see the Religious Right get hung out to dry by the GOP. I don't think the GOP is going to run a seriously competitive candidate for President as long as those lunatics have a say on who makes it through the vetting process. Instead we'll end up with more Rick Perry and Bachman-types and their truly moderate candidates will either be alienated early on, or twist their stance into a pretzel to satisfy the irrational horde that wants nothing more than instituting Christian-sharia law (while evading it themselves mind-you).

Seriously? - I believe you're correct. As long as the religious right has a stranglehold on the GOP they will continue to falter and come up with extremists that no real American can support. They want to take the country backward and it's very alarming.

@ SeekingSanity

Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think that the GOP is going to ultimately reach an impasse with regard to their Social and NeoCons hijacking the party, and the end result will be a return to a rational party that focuses on sound economic principles, proper international dialogue, and long term planning with a focus on reducing government intrusion, expanding personal freedom, stopping abusively manipulated markets and burdensome monopolies (think Teddy Roosevelt). Plus, competition is good, if the GOP becomes weaker, it only means that the Democrats can win with even weaker candidates than they already are.

Here's how I see the impasse:

The SocioCons (short for sociopathic since they seem to lack the ability to see beyond themselves) are numerous, but not nearly vast enough to sway the necessary number of electoral votes in favor of their candidates. These people really only guarantee a handful of low population states, but the GOP is hanging onto this group like they are the last chopper out of Nam! Perhaps because its better to have a sure-fire base than to risk going toe-to-toe in battleground states without this base.

The NeoCons are the purse-strings of the operation. They have a very narrow agenda and it typically revolves around tax-cuts for the uber-wealthy and of course steering big government contracts and subsidies (read: corporate welfare) into their constituents' respective pockets (e.g. Koch Bros., ALEC, Commerce, etc.). They are influential in terms of funding, but they lack popular appeal to anyone that really takes a close look at what they actually want and whether its good for the country.

Thus, I think the NeoCons steer the GOP to grasp onto the SocioCons because the SocioCons don't bother to understand what they're protesting against so long as the candidate du jour pays lip-service to the SocioCon agenda of oppressing various minorities and claiming they believe in their version of Jesus(r).

Hence, since NeoCons can't amass an army of moderates and educated people, they depend on simpletons and single-issue-zealots for their support, and they will keep beating this drum right up to the GOP running itself aground.

And Obama's managing of our tax dollars is the worst in Americas history ....

Obama couldn't fiscally manage a wiener cart .... "LOL"

bigbenalaska - and yet Obama can and will run circles around every yahoo the GOP has had as candidates - including Romney!

Then why couldn't he "run circles around" Hillary Clinton when they debated in 2008 ? That the president won the nomination, has nothing to do with the televised reality of the debates.

tony-268769 - a little jealous there aren't ya? You know President Obama will wipe the floor with Romney - and so would Hillary if she were running. Romney has no substance. He's a pathetic little man.

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Bain-Staples-Romney-Capital/2012/01/13/id/424112

This is how Romeny operates. He does the hard work and turns failed or poor performing companies around.

Obama just bails companies out with other people's money and then asks the banks and wall street executives for campaign donations.

The Obama GM bale out shuttered over 1000 dealerships, and with them 1000's of jobs.

The Solyndra debacle killed off 100's of jobs and 1/2 a billion tax payer dollars.

Obama seems like a nice guy but with 16 Trillion in debt and debt to GDP equal or greater than Europe, we need someone with more experience and with better skills to address the problem. Blaming the rich is not a solution.

seeking -- unfortunately the democrat policy of identity politics resulted in the rejection of the gender in favor of color. It is really sad that the President Bush's (43) successor was not allowed to be he 44th President but had to be either the first black or first woman president

President Obama has proven to be incapable of delivering on his promises of Hope & Change and has become just another tainted politician looking to get reelected at any cost.

Give it a break Nate Thurman. Companies who come to get help from Companies like Bain have already been turned down by all of their banks. They are on the verge of collapse and bankruptcy. Bain had a 70% succes rate in Company turn arounds. A much higher rate than their competitiors in this service. Remember, these companies who seek out help after being turned down because of risk and other factors by many banks come to Bain for one last chance to even survive. Invitation Thurman: Please tell us all some of the success stories of Bain that represent this 70% success rate? You seem to only want to talk about the ones that failed. Do you walk around with your glass always only 30% full of negativism ? Get out into the sunshine and ask the stormy clouds around your being to go away. Please share with us some positive information about Bain. Surely there must be some or they wouldn't have clients continuing to contact them for their expertise. You sure have done lots of research on the failed Companies- now be fair and balanced like Fox News and share your research on the positive outcomes of Bain services. I triple dog dare you !

james - the 2008 campaign was the result of who was best for the country - no less, no more. And, clearly President Obama was heads above McCain/Palin. In 2016, should Hillary decide to run, she will most likely be heads above any GOP candidate should the GOP continue down the same failed path they are now following.

Our President HAS been the 44th President. How sad your ignorance and hatred prevent you from accepting that fact.

President Obama is delivering - although slowly. Had he not faced a Congress which declared - from day one - their intent to make him a one-term President - and to hell with the country - he would have done better. During his 2nd term he will do better. We are prepared to vote out many of the obstructionists in November. The tainted party here is the GOP which has become a party of treasonous leadership.

We're not going to get out of this economic tailspin until we actually address the fundamental issues plaguing our nation.

Neither party has bothered to really tackle them in any meaningful way...lip-service at best.

1. Foreign nationals leaching off of public services and exploiting birth-right citizenship. The Federal Government's answer has been no answer and obfuscation...making border states take on the burden of supporting a shadow population that disproportionally consumes public benefits, pays virtually no taxes and simultaneously undercuts prevailing market wages for legitimate workers to find and make a living.
2. Unilateral trade agreements with China and India which only serve to enrich a handful of companies at the expense of the taxpayer, domestic industry and the middle class.
3. Overly complex and unfair tax code that only favors the uber-wealthy and sophisticated who can avoid paying anything close to their effective tax rates (individuals and especially corporations).
4. Crumbling and poorly managed infrastructure and heavily mono/oligopolized industries that stifle innovation, entrance of new competition (namely US Telco, US Banking/Financial), and abuse of the consumer.
5. Woefully inadequate public support of research that doesn't have a defense application.
6. Invasion and manipulation of public policy by narrow private interests that has cosponsored an ever-more invasive and oppressive government just to sell more wares and get more business (read: ALEC and private prison industry, gives an interesting perspective on why the War on Drugs continues).
7. etc.

Neither party wants to address these issues in any meaningful way.

The Democrats won't deal with the $113 billion elephant in the room

The GOP continues to try and sell Trickle-Down economics as viable, whines hypocritically about government spending and subsidizing industries while remaining oddly silent on defense contracting and oil/agriculture subsidies

And regardless of who the POTUS is, we have a Congress that refuses to operate for the good of the nation and a Senate looking to continue the d*@#-waving contest of 2008.

Seeking...

Sorry to disappoint you...but "jealous" is a bit of a stretch. I watched those debates and Hillary indeed slapped Mr. Obama around pretty good...I'm sure she's still shocked she didn't win the nomination. I've also seen enough of Mr. Obama speaking when he doesn't have a script or a list of three simple sound bites on each issue that he repeats endlessly and agonizingly over and over and over again...like he does in just about every speech he makes.

He is not as smart as his fanatics believe him to be. He should be selling Sham-Wows on late nite TV.

seeking -- as usual you are off target. no ignorance, just difference of opinion. hatred towards what? Obama? I do not hate the man. I dislike his policies.

it is the left in this country that continually talk of the first black president. I prefer to think of him as the 44th President, no more, no less.

your continuing use of the story about making him one-term is old, this is nothing different than happens each time with the losing party except that it was said publicly.

congress includes the do-nothing democrat led senate. if they would vote on something so that a conference could be held to resolve differences then maybe progress could be made.

it is not as if President Obama is the first to confront a Congress that is not in agreement with his policies. he is just too inexperienced to participate.

Tony and James - brothers I assume? Tony, Hillary didn't outdo Obama in the debates as anyone who actually watched would know. And, Tony, I am amazed you would comment on President Obama's style since Romney has trouble developing a complete thought - even with his teleprompter.

James - not in the least off target. You have shown over and over by your posts that you can't stand Obama. Backtracking doesn't make it change. Unfortunately the one-term "story" is relevant since it shows the actions of the GOP during the past 3 1/2 years. If that is old to you then you are in denial.

If there is anyone inexperienced, it is not Obama. However, putting Romney in the Presidency would just turn it over to the totally inexperienced - as far as leadership. We saw that with Bush. We can't afford it again with Romney.

keep the blinders on, you are not ready for reality or sanity.

have a nice day

james-1937467

seeking -- as usual you are off target. no ignorance, just difference of opinion. hatred towards what? Obama? I do not hate the man. I dislike his policies.

My guess is that like most right wingers, your real resentment is against the poor, whom you like to think are eating up all your hard-earned tax money so they can sit on their rear ends and do nothing. Much easier to blame your problems on the poor than on the real source of the economic catastrophe that befell the entire world in 2008: the wealthy elite who every wish is the Republican Party's command.

james...

When you were growing up did you ever think there would be a day when so many people owned crystal balls....so they could accurately peer thru time itself to tell you more about yourself than you ever knew ???

Amazing...when you boil things down, what you had once thought were economic failures, a stunning lack of leadership, and a petulant, divisive leadership style, actually turn out to be your own...and my own...personal hatred for the president and a feral anger toward anyone who might be considered "poor".

Shame on you ! Shame on me ! And shame on millions of others who have not been sublected and dissected by the sainted liberal warriors who own the crystal balls.

And hopefully you've seen the old black & white 'Manchurian Candidate' movie...the real one with Frank Sinatra. Remember how his fellow soldiers all spoke the same sentences about Raymond Shaw ???

It certainly rings true when folks on this site switch their crystal balls to "off" and tell you and me and everyone else how woefully "inexperienced' any (Republican) candidate is for any office at all...and then announce to all that Mr. Obama ran for office in 2008 with more boatloads of experience than anyone could ever hope to possess. Where's Frank Sinatra when we need him !!!

tony - let's see, President Obama didn't choose Sarah Palin as a running mate. 'nuff said!

Devdoc12able wrote

This is how Romeny operates. He does the hard work and turns failed or poor performing companies around.

Obama just bails companies out with other people's money and then asks the banks and wall street executives for campaign donations.

When you start talking about jobs created at retail giants like Staples or Sports Authority, the real question is how many mom-and-pop stores closed due to competition from big chains and how many jobs were lost. If you do the anlysis, you may find that no net new jobs were created and in fact net jobs were lost due to the automation brought in by the chains.

skeptic1234 - and Romney did not create or turn Staples around. He didn't even have Bain invest in it until he was forced to by other Bain executives. He didn't like the company and didn't think it would be a good investment. This is who we need for leadership????

Obama seems like a nice guy but with 16 Trillion in debt and debt to GDP equal or greater than Europe, we need someone with more experience and with better skills to address the problem. Blaming the rich is not a solution.

Correction, the debt is 15.7 trillion; debt only surpasses GDP if you count the debt owed to intergovernmental departments, like SS, Medicare, and the Treasury. Public debt, which is a bit more reliable and more commonly used, is roughly 77% of GDP. To be fair, Obama isn't the most fiscally responsible president, but he is not at complete fault for this massive fiscal problem. The problem lies in the recession, where revenues dropped and spending skyrocketed due to rising unemployment, and from which we are still making a gradual recovery, and the Bush tax cuts, which add $3.8 trillion to the deficit every decade. The recession (and much of the debt problem) must be solved by the paradoxical concept of spending money on infrastructure projects for the private sector and on adding public-sector jobs by giving aid to states, reducing unemployment and increasing revenues while lowering spending on safety nets.

And technically, our debt was caused in part by the wealthy, who caused this recession when they tanked the economy, causing our debt to skyrocket. Not only that, but they have been making more money but paying less in taxes (proportionally). A good short-term solution to reducing deficits while keeping the economy in the black is to rescind the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year and topping that increase with an increase equivalent to the amount in tax cuts those taxpayers received, raising $1.6 trillion over the next decade. That will buy us some time to fix the economy until about 2014, when we can hopefully reduce the deficit significantly by repealing all of the Bush tax cuts, saving about $2 trillion more over the next decade.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

@ Freshieee

Honestly, I'm fine with letting the entirety of the Bush Tax Cuts expire. I don't think that the middle class should necessarily get a free pass on this either.

Just as importantly, we need to revise the tax code and simplify it across the board. The complexity of it allows for the super-wealthy and sophisticated to legally avoid all sorts of items that those without the necessary economy of scale (i.e. wealth) or sophistication cannot avoid. Typically those earning less than $1million but more than 250K/year...there's just not enough money to justify paying the kinds of accountants and lawyers needed to setup living trusts that are partly designed to move money offshore into various tax-shelters; or establishing a non-profit foundation that employs you and your family so that one can avoid estate taxes and windfall gains (it's not a coincidence that some of the highest paying jobs in the US are in non-profit organizations).

There's something like $3.2 Trillion that has been offshored by corporations through transfer pricing schemes! We've tried the "tax-holiday" approach, but the "job-creators" only seem to use the added capital to buy back stock and gobble up their smaller competition. What we end up with are fewer jobs, and less competitive industries!

Tax fairly and proportionally, end loopholes, and pay for the stuff we want and need. Let's stop being dependent on the Chinese trying to manipulate their currency just so Congress and Banks can keep borrowing for pennies on the dollar at the Middle Class' expense (since we know where the jobs and industries are going).

Personally, I agree with you. I'd do away with the Bush tax cuts for everyone right now if possible, but unfortunately that would most likely destroy the economic recovery.

I think the point of the ad about Bain Capital is that some voters are tempted to vote for a millionaire businessman because they think he must know how to create jobs, but an examination of Romney's experience shows he didn't so much create companies, he destroyed them.

With Dade Behring, Mitt Romney and his investors took over a healthy company and loaded it with debt. Rather than sell the company, they then had Dade take out even more loans to buy out their shares, driving the company into bankruptcy. Nearly 3,000 workers lost their jobs, while Romney and his partners made more than $250 million in profit.

http://www.romneyeconomics.com/dade

So AmyB, got the history behind why these companies sought private investors? Where are the links tlling us why they couldn't get bank funding to carry on? What concessions did their employees make to keep the doors open without outside help.

Your link is so lame. I am surprised that it didn't also make the comparison that obama caused the job loss of 1 1/2 to 3 million people after he took the oath of office in 2009.

american-2051576 - as any fool would realize, job losses don't just come to a halt the minute the President takes office. It's like stopping a huge boulder rolling down a hill - takes a while to put on the brakes. However, now we are adding jobs each month!

You truly are a mental midget!

SeekingSanity: Are you related to FeistyRedhead: Name calling only makes your comment less credible.

Solutions for Obama? Surly you jest? The man is nothing but broken promises. He should have never been elected. He has no experience and is trying to learn OJT.

The Presidency is not a job you can learn on the job.

Believe'nAmerica - Oh I see - you're the only one who can put someone down in your posts - the "do as I say, not as I do" GOP again!

My family, and many, many others keep hearing the liberal mantra that more and more jobs are being created, yet our families are still mired in unemployment and financial disaster....none of the "stimulus programs" apply to us. We actually worked and paid our bills and lived within our means until lack of a job made that impossible. Obama has created a country where illegal immigrants are rewarded with free health care, housing, food stamps and education. Those who were foolish enough to tilt at windmills and buy a massive McMansion that they couldn't afford are being bailed out and allowed to stay in there homes while people who lived more modestly are losing theirs. People who pay for their health care and insurance see their costs continually increasing while the pool of people who don't pay, see no increase in cost to them.

According to our present administration, "We don't need no stinkin' military" Well, with what we owe to China, what is to stop them from taking it back from us when we default on the massive debt we cannot pay?

Sue - do you ever get tired of posting nonsense? President Bush - with Ted Kennedy - had a program to help illegal immigrants become citizens. President Obama has done nothing to reward illegals. Nothing. The people losing their homes did not all buy over their heads. Many have lost their jobs and that makes it a little difficult to pay the mortgage. Anyone with a brain would be able to figure that out.

No one has wanted or wants to get rid of our military. However, paying for jets - that don't exist and haven't ever been used - little stupid I'd say. Continuing to build up the military when more and more of the job is being done without troops (thank heavens) makes no sense.

In fact, your entire post makes no sense. Just more of the hate from the far right - with nothing to back it up.

Seeking sanity (post 5.3), obviously you don't understand the similarities of conclusions based only on end results with minimal verbage that amyB gave vs my own illustration. Both lacked the reason "why", which is why her site was as lame as mine (if I bekieved it). Get it now??

At least you have shown us all as to your lack of reasoning and understanding.

Sue-3329001

The Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants in thee years than the Bush administraion did in eight. You should try to make your judgments based on facts, and not on right-wing demagoguery.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obamas-record-high-deportations-draw-hispanic-scorn/

american - no but you continue to show a total lack of reasoning and intelligence. I expect no better from you.

Believe'n...

Thank you !

So, "believe"...When you called Seeking Sanity clueless, that was not name calling? Does that "doesn't not" make you a name caller? (see post 2.3).

Sue, I would really like to see the original quote of the person in the current administration that said "We don't need no stinkin' military." I'm thinking that you are making up lies, but I am willing to look at your evidence, or listen to your desperate confession...

Shockedanddisgusted - pretty sure Sue won't be able to come up with a name or quote for that matter, since we all know it was never said. I know the administration is for cutting the defense budget since there is so much that is wasted but pretty sure (in fact I'm certain) no one EVER said we don't need "no stinkin" military.

Oh, and name calling is okay provided you are part of the far right. At least that's what I've learned from these posts.

It's interesting how they disappear when asked to explain themselves. Like untrained dogs...they just poop in the middle of the sidewalk and run away.

Shockedanddisgusted - and everyone else is left to clean up the mess - or step in it!

...and, from what I've seen, "believe" and and "sue" are of Great Dane proportions...

CherylLM - it's a shame you don't have enough sense to realize Romney has been successful at the demise of the American worker. But, that doesn't matter to you, does it? And, he has spent and taken in OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in order to achieve his success!

No one has been forcing "social justice" on anyone. President Obama has been standing up for equal rights - you know - that it talks about in the Constitution???

Cheryl...

I'll take my chances with a businessman any day of the week. The president's ideas have not paid off for the nation. That will be made more clear a month from now when the Supreme Court takes a chunk out of his healthcare "reform" and the nation is reminded that the man spent his first year and a half working on something the people did not want in the first place. The business of America is "business"...the president put that fact on the back burner while he had everyone working on his healthcare legacy.

It's pretty clear to smart Americans that our President doesn't really understand our Constitution. Threatening the Supreme Court was a real telling point.

And, he has spent and taken in OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in order to achieve his success!

The exact opposite of what Obama has done. And those 'OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY' freely gave that money to Bain/Romney because they believed their investments would most likely come with a substantial return on their investment. This above line alone shows you really don't understand what an investment really is or how it works. No one forced these investors to "give" Bain/Romney their money, they did it of their own free-will. The understood the risks, and they also understood the rewards. They trusted Bain/Romney to work hard and come through and make them successful, and most of the time they did.

No one has been forcing "social justice" on anyone. President Obama has been standing up for equal rights - you know - that it talks about in the Constitution???

Obama stands for what will ever get him a vote. He is out of league economically with Romney, and he knows it. That's why these propaganda ads of his are coming out so early.

seeking ...Tell you lies and half truths to all the thousands of Staples employees.

CherylLM -

A person who has "run a successful Olympics that did NOT cost the government"?

Funny, that's not what Mitt Romney himself said about it:

"The overall federal cost of the 2002 Olympics has been estimated at about $1.5 billion, although Romney defenders say much of this was put in place before he took over the Olympics Committee in 1999. But Romney later touted his efforts in his book about the Winter Olympics, “Turnaround,” writing that he directed his chief Washington lobbyist “to bring in more federal funding than had ever been appropriated for any Olympics, summer or winter.”

And he made his success in doing so a selling point when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. “I was successful in organizing the Olympics, got record funds from the federal government," he said then.

Santorum seized on Romney’s aggressive pursuit of the federal earmarks at a campaign appearance Saturday in Columbus, Ohio.

"He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake Games -- in an earmark, in an earmark for the Salt Lake Olympic Games," he said. “Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?”

And further:

"In the end, Romney is credited by supporters like Bullock with turning a projected $479 million deficit into a $100 million profit. But detractors charge he also used the games for self-promotion, even sanctioning official Olympic pins bearing his image with such captions as "We Love You, Mitt."

In turning around the 2002 games, Romney got a big helping hand from U.S. taxpayers. The federal government poured $1.5 billion into the Salt Lake games – more than twice the amount spent on any previous U.S. Olympics.

Republican Sen. John McCain called it a “fleecing” of the U.S. Treasury"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444876-salt-lake-city-olympics-earmarks-a-double-edged-sword-for-romney?lite

Wasn't all the federal money spent on the Olympics "other peoples money"? How did that benefit me?

Threatening the Supreme Court was a real telling point.

One has to laugh at 'believers in Ermerica'. Since when does SCOTUS have constitutional authority to select a president in spite of the will of the people. Obama never threatened SCOTUS, but SCOTUS has threatened Americans by ruling in favor of Citizens United and the selection of the president. Let me guess, you love the variation of dictatorship where SCOTUS rules, and the other two branches of government do not count. Love these feigned devotions of constitutional love, but the words tell us they are anti-constitutional.

I'll take a person that has WORKED, run a successful business

Yo, Ladies and Gents, start your engines. Your employment opportunities at Staples has arrived. Your gallant career path includes a passage way to head cashier, where you can finally achieve a 40 hour work week with no quantifiable benefits. In return for those low wage-no benefit positions, we will work with you as much as possible to accommodate that second job you will need to survive. "That was Easy".

devdoc12able - investing in Staples was NOT Romney's idea. He fought against it time and time again. After turning it down 3 times, he was forced by the rest of Bain to invest in the company. Doesn't make him look too smart now does it?

RedDev...

So did the Supreme Court's "selection of the president" involve George Bush over Al Gore or George Bush over John Kerry ??? Or both ??? Can't believe we're going down that tired road again.

So...What have we learned from the Mittsy supporters today...

To support a lying hack, one has to become a lying hack.

Funny...that's the same thing we learned from them last week.

Shockedanddisgusted - and that's what you'll learn from them tomorrow and next week and.....

I learned from a Romney supporter on another thread that Romney isn't a Venture/Vulture Capitalist, rather, he is a turnaround specialist. I have to admit, I like the new term, it has a better ring to it than the old and tired flip-flop guy.

Seeking - It's sad that the GOP has become nothing more than greedy politicians brainwashing a handful of angry stupid people. They could do better if they wanted to.

RedDev - Wow - that's hysterical. "Turnaround specialist." That perfectly explains why his core values shift with the breeze. Last week he was an unlicensed, illegal cosmetologist, this week he's a turnaround specialist...next week...what? A financial bulimic in need of therapy??? What a joke....

Yeah and next he'll be the savior of all companies! Apparently he started Staples - which is of course news to the two guys who actually DID start Staples!

SandD/SS - You have to wonder if Mitt gets those 'cosmetologist' scissors at Staples for a discount. And all this time, I thought 'smokin' a fag was a Brit term for partaking of a ciggie, I had no idea it meant shearing the gay away.

Oh, c'mon RedDev - I'm sure Mittsy invented scissors.

I do need to correct the "financial bulimic" statement....Apparently he purges first and then binges...and I'm not sure what one would call that...other than disgusting.

(and we all know Mittsy cut the kid's hair because he was uncomfortable with the "hot and bothered" feeling the long hair gave him)

(and we all know Mittsy cut the kid's hair because he was uncomfortable with the "hot and bothered" feeling the long hair gave him)

SandD - something tells me that Romney the righteous bro, at that last snip, was humming "You've lost that lovin' feeling" but to the words of "I've lost ..."

"You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" is a 1964 song by The Righteous Brothers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You've_Lost_That_Lovin'_Feelin'

You have to addMITT ....

At least Romney can add and subtract ....

Obama out in 2012 ....

Save what's left of America ....

bigbenalaska - no matter how many times you post that ignorant post it's still - ignorant. Romney can add to his bottom line and to the jobs sent to China.

Obama/Biden 2012 to save our country!

obama in 2012 to ruin what is left of our nation...obama is a @!$%# president....

seeking...Today, Staples employs 70,000 people. Besides Staples, Romney’s Bain Capital started or acquired such companies as Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and Sports Authority, helping to create jobs for literally millions of people over the years.

yes, jobs that pay minimum wage and no benefits. Awesome.

Big in Ak--- You have to admit that you'll be voting for a Mitt-wit.

devdoc12able - Romney DID NOT START any companies. Try to get your facts straight - or you make your lies believable!

McPaddyWack: I believe it was the Republicans who brought up the gay question......

@StillSeekingSanity #7.7,

An old program called RIF (Reading is Fundamental) apparently failed with you. Devdoc12table's comment at #7.4 clearly said ".... Romney's Bain Capital started OR acquired such companies as ... "

So for a person with critical thinking skills, EITHER starting or ACQUIRING would make his/her comment a valid statement.

So your brief but inflammatory rant at #7.7 is ill-founded ! LOL !! I hope you didn't wet yourelf !!!

american...

That was pretty wierd...first time I've seen a story yanked like that...must have been a lie wedged in there someplace and a lawyer made a phonecall.

american 205 - I thought it was just me, but I was wondering what happened to that story.

Maybe it was because the headline was "Fill in the blank"... Perhaps sounded a little too much like the CNN Anderson Cooper deal they do when a picture is shown and people text in to add a funny punch line.

Not PO, but had a couple of good threads, discussions going. Oh well.

Obamanomics have failed drastically and catastrophically ....

bigbenalaska - no they haven't.

Those are big words that mean nothing. You need to get your head out of the talk radio sand and hear other voices Ben. Failed at what? Failed to get the rich an even sweeter deal? Failed to cut even more taxes for the rich? Failure is a matter of perspective. Failed at bringing Bin Laden to justice????? Failed at providing health care to many who had none before???? Failed at saving an Auto industry on the brink of collapse??? Failed at pulling the country and perhaps the entire world from a global depression??? I think this president can run on his record and win. People who are still hurting from the recent recession have no chance with a Republican Conservative in the White House. That will simply guarantee 4 years of pain.

Actually our president hasn't failed the rich. Have you read how much money he's actually raised. According to WaPo he's raised 10X has much money as Romney. So who do you think REALLY is tied to the rich.

JohnB...

Trying to make an argument against austerity? Seems more like those that were loaning out the money made the loan conditional on those receiving it to having a plan to control spending. Heck of a deal when someone you are borrowing from wants you to change.

As for the US, we are not structured like the EU. However if we don't change our expenditures, who can we turn to for loans? Have the FED crank up the presses? Keep hoping that our treasuries, with little to no return, are still attractive to foreign and domestic investors? Hope that the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency. Interesting on how banks consider ones credit score before making a loan.

We have duplicated many government functions between the federal and state levels not to realize savings in downsizing at the federal level and having increased efficiency with minimal austerity.

It is a wonder how the left thinks that we can continue on with "business as usual" as we head for the fiscal cliff.

Small changes now is a whole lot better than a big one latter.

Believe'n...

Kind of strange that Mr. Obama has spent about a quarter of his ranting time bedeviling the evil rich for not paying their supposed "fair share" but simply can't wait to take those folks' fat campaign contributions. The dreaded 'Goldman Sachs' was one of his largest contributors during the last election cycle. I bet he thought they were acting "fairly" back then !

Pretty ironic that with all the president's bellyaching about Wall Street, his administration hasn't pressed any legal charges against any of the moneychangers who work there. If so many of them did so many things wrong, why hasn't anybody been put in the doghouse by the administration ???

Nothing ironic...Republicans made most of the practices that crashed the economy LEGAL, therefore there's nothing to charge anyone with.

What's ironic is that Conservatives point the finger at the President instead of Republicans who continue working to deregulate the financial sector and leave a possible...no, make that an inevitable repeat of the 2007/08 meltdown on the table.

What's ironic is that Conservatives whine about how much money President Obama raised from the financial sector in the 2008 election that no longer matters while ignoring the fact that Romney is raising far more money from those same sources now.

Since this spring, Mr. Romney has raised $1.5 million from employees of firms like Morgan Stanley; Highbridge Capital Management, a hedge fund; and Blackstone, a private equity firm. Mr. Obama has raised just over $270,000 from firms that were among his leading sources of campaign cash in 2008.

Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million — more than donors from any other private employer in the country — have given him about $45,000 this year. Mr. Romney has raised about $350,000 from the firm’s employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?pagewanted=all

Obviously the Vulture Capitalist has found his niche with the pirahnas of Wall Street.

Lets carry that one step further:

IF corporations ARE people, then they can use the Stand Your Ground Laws to shoot anyone they consider threatening. What was once company security now has the power of a private police force with no oversight. Crowd of protestors outside the corporate HQ picketing your environmental practices? Just open fire, you felt threatened.

There are many Americans who work for corporations. They don't get paid like the CEO's but they are good hard-working people who are trying to make a living and take care of their families. The media propaganda has,as usual, blown this out of proportion making ALL people who work for corporations "BAD"

You are jumping to conclusions. When the CEO salary is 125x what the average worker makes, and they freeze wages and cut benefits and lay people off just to make their golden parachute bigger I have a problem with that. No one ever said everyone working for a corporation is bad. Who is jumping to conclusions now?

Detroit-Storm - it's the far rights whine every time. Corporations are evil - I don't recall any liberal saying that. Many of us now or in the past have worked for Corporations. But, if the right wingers whine about it enough they believe it. And, they'll spout it every chance they get!

"believe"...can you please show us some examples of where "media propaganda" has condemned all who work for corporations as evil? Are you making things up out of desperation, or are you simply regurgitating what you've been force fed by Fox and the National Enquirer??

I am just pointing out what Mitten's campaign has stated and what he himself has stated. It all makes good campaign ads. If people find fault with that and can make something more extreme out of it, it just goes to prove how absurd the statements are in the first place!

You make some good points... trouble is ... do they hold water when the real facts point to job creation? Smoke and mirrors would be entertaining here, but all you are doing is blowing smoke!

gas and insurance prices are dictated by the free market. For someone that hates socialism you seem to be begging for it...

stclaire- the stupid Senate story has been debunked over and over again yet you continue to post what you clearly know is a lie? Why is that? Is it all you have - lies, lies and more lies?

The credit bureau that downgraded the US credit said they did so because the obstructionist in Congress would not work with our President. How convenient you forgot that fact.

The Keystone Pipeline was not wanted by a single Republican governor as it was originally planned and they all stood against it. Again, how convenient your stupidity is.

Your ignorance on immigration is only overshadowed by your insistence on showing that ignorance.

People like you prove daily that there is no sanity or intelligence in the GOP!

he said NO to Keystone and yet he is letting CHINA drill for oil just 60 miles off the coast of Florida, he has cost America jobs after jobs after jobs,

@!$%# the Keystone Pipeline. We put it over our land, bear the cost and most of the risk, and we get only 2% of the oil???? That's a terrible deal. If we could get 50%, then I'd support it, but if 2% is the best they can do, than to hell with it.

he has bowed to others countries and ignored AMERICA, we has very high gas prices, much much higher insurance rates, and we are paying more in taxes,

Politifact debunked the apologizing claim, and last time I checked, Obama hasn't raised taxes (much to my regret). FAIL.

and he wants us to pay more, he butted his nose into the CATHOLIC church,

I'm Catholic, and I say that the Church ought to cover contraception for their employees. Sounds fair to me. They get tax protection and benefits from the government, get to lobby our lawmakers for their own beliefs; seems fair that they play by the same rules as everybody else does. I hate the mingling of church and state, but the church pushes you you gotta push back.

and he believes illegals should have the same rights as we do- wrong, he is against voter ID that way illegals can vote for him, and now he is saddled up with the gays,

You do realize that voter fraud is very miniscule; not even one-tenth of one percent. And it feels suspicious that only Democrats are affected (not illegal immigrants, but blacks, Hispanics, and the poor). And nice gay comment; good to see that homophobia is alive and well. Stay off this vine unless you have a CREDIBLE argument; until then, shut the damn hell up.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshiee, please show me where we bear most of the cost of the Keystone XL Pipeline? My review of information posted here on this website indicates the cost is being paid by Canadian sources.

Jim, I did not specifically say that we must bear the financial cost, but we must take all the risk and let this oil company take up property for the pipeline, and WE get the bill if it ruptures. The Canadians either should built it on their own damn turf or pony up at least 50% of the oil for US consumers. If not, then let them build it on their own damn turf. I'm not trusting the oil companies, especially after the BP oil spill in 2010...

And they certainly have no intention of putting that much oil into the US market. At least 7 states in the northern US would be within easy reach of the oil sands and have existing refineries.

The "special" thing about Houston is that it has a seaport...

Today, Staples employs 70,000 people. Besides Staples, Romney’s Bain Capital started or acquired such companies as Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and Sports Authority, helping to create jobs for literally millions of people over the years.

Obama has not created one single net job.

That statement that "Obama has not created one single net job" is too obtuse to even comment on.

Romney led company success stories

• Staples - Over 70,000 employees (last count 90,000)
• Steel Dynamics - 6,500 jobs over 8 Billion in sales
• Dominos Pizza - over 9,000 stores
• DDi - over 1,200 employees, sales over 64M and net profit over 6M
• Bright Horizons Family Solutions - Over 19,000 employees
• Sports Authority - Over 14,000 jobs

I could elaborate further.

Obama led company success stories...

• GM, saved union jobs and fired 1,000s that worked at dealerships
• Killed off 12,000 jobs at the Keystone Pipeline
• Shut down the Boeing plant in South Carolina

I could elaborate further.

I could elaborate further.

Please do, because for the life of me, if Obama shut down the Boeing plant in SC, how on earth did they manage this?

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/04/27/boeing_rolls_out_first_787_manufactured_in_sc/

And do tell, how do you eliminate 12,000 Keystone Pipeline jobs that never existed to begin with?

And better yet, please elaborate as to why saving thousands of GM union jobs is bad?

Inquiring minds would love to see anyone elaborately wiggle out of these Faux News propaganda lies.

RedDevPS - well now you're just being downright difficult. You want facts? How dare you? You've totally confounded the far right. They expect to be able to post nonsense without being called on it. You've spoiled their fun!

SSanity - well, crap, and here I thought I was the life of the party. Now I'm just a Debbie Downer.

I am confused. I thought Mormons believed marriage was between one man and as many women as he could convince to marry him...

Only when the federal government invaded Utah did they quit practicing this belief, Or they fled to Mexico like the ROMNEY family...

RedDevPS,

C'mon man just messing with you. Obama didn't have the NLRB head (an Obama appointee) delay it's opening and force relocation to Washington state. In the middle of the "worst recession" he's playing games.

Keystone would put 12,000 to work immediately; high paying jobs. Unfortunately not union jobs. Obama buckled under green pressure. His compassion for the little folks is on full display. He wants the poor to pay more for their gas; it's all part of his grand plan to save the earth; and his electoral base, but certainly not to create jobs.

Obama sucks the union teat, and there is no way to wean him off.

I could elaborate.

Ener1 - Bankrupt after 116 Million from Obama

Beacon Power - Bankrupt after 600 Million from Obama

8.1 Billion for ATVM (Advance Technology Vehicle Manufacturing) with Tesla one big recipient. Their stock is tanking. They are bleeding cash, their account receivable stinks. Fisker Automotive another 1/2 billion "investment" and now they're asking the Feds for more money.

Meanwhile all us little folk have to put up with 4.00 gas while the feds waste money on boondoggles.

To be fair, Obama did "create" over 45 jobs as President. It is his over 45 Czars, more Czars than the entire history of Russia, which have no accountability nor tranparency on what they actually do.

You are correct.

Sweet - another Kurt full of Querky rubbish following the Faux News mantra without any proof to back the claims. I'll make the claim that Bush was the leading Czar creator .. oops, I just might be right.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

obama hasn't created 1 job in almost 4 years

Well, that is a claim that I would like to see backed by a citation. Let me guess, it doesn't exist. Wow, really, not one job in four years, no wonder your uneducated mind would not vote for him. If that is the simple-mind criteria, how many jobs has Romney created, as compared to Obama, in the last 4 years?

LOL, REDDEVPS, before you randomly paste a link, search for the REAL facts not rhe fake facts of "Factcheck". Just before they call themselves "FactCheck", in no means that have the REAL Facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/blackwell-blasts-factcheck/ "The reality is, although it’s true that President Bush did have a few czars, that number was somewhere between 5 and 8, not 35. Fact Check just lists a number of administration officials, and then calls them ‘czars.’ But they’re not." Thanks REDEVPS for exposing the bias of Factcheck in just calling people Czars in the Bush Adminstation w/o the Title Czar yet ignoring the Over 45 TITLED Czar of the Obama Adminstration

Just before they call themselves "FactCheck", in no means that have the REAL Facts.

I have no issue with a fellow poster debunking a citation as inaccurate with counter facts, however, I would expect something to back that claim up, not a 'heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend' scenario. I am very wary of used car salesmen and broad claims such as "The reality is..." or "..somewhere between 5 and 8...", all based upon your veiled reality. Either support your claim, or quit wasting time spreading your inaccuracies.

RedDevPS, nothing inaccurate about Obama having over 45 that OBAMA himself TITLED as Czar Appointed Postions in his Administration to bypass any approval from Congress. It is also accurate that FactCheck.org just randomly labeled people in the ex-Bush Administration as "Czars" for the sole purpose of hiding the fact that Obama had over 4 times more Czars than any previous admistration, both Democrat and Republican. The truth is many times FactCheck.Org is not in for the facts but instead tries to make Political Correctness Revisionists History into Fact.

And still no link to support this unfounded claim of 45 Czars, so hey, why not make the claim that Obama has created 10 million czars. At least that number is similar to the number the right wing conservatives love to quote as the number of jobs lost under Obama.

All those employees can thank Romney

Not only for the domestic job but for the manufacturing job outsourced to China.

Over 45 unaccountable overpaid Czars can thank Obama for a job off the backs of the US Taxpayer

Bet you can't detail those millions of jobs - show your numbers----

Roger if you cant intellectually give that between Domino's, Staples, Sports Authority, and Sealys employ millions there is no point

Well, Bain was a minor player in Sports Authority - started in 1987

The venture capital syndicate was led by William Blair Venture Partners and included First Chicago Venture Partners, Bain Capital, Phillips-Smith Venture Partners, Marquette Venture Partners, and Bessemer Securities.

And it was subsequently sold to K-Mart in 1990. Looks like K-Mart was the primary job creator?

Willy.....tell me Obama's plan to get jobs created?

William, stick an 'R' in after the B in 'Bain' and then sing your song all over again.

CubsFan2012

William, stick an 'R' in after the B in 'Bain' and then sing your song all over again.

Awww, the little redneck can't think up anything funny by himself.

Yep, there are still those gullible to vote for Obama

And, if you can't defend Romneys job creation record, you try and change the subject? What are the numbers when Obama took office and now? Bet you have no clue.

Roger, unemployment was at 7.3% when Obama took office. He spent a trillion dollars, with interest, promising that unemployment would not go above 8%. It went to 10.5% and is now "down" to 8.1% according to official numbers. The actual number of unemployed is much higher since many have quit looking and are no longer taking government unemployment which means their lack of a job does not count against the official statistics. Bottom line, Obama has been a complete disaster and has caused unemployment to skyrocket.

If Romney is for the "rich", how on earth did all those "poor" people pay for the 40K a plate fundraiser for Obama last weekend? I wish I was as rich as a Democrat, then I too, could afford to vote for tax increases. The rich Democratic Taxaholics need to stop overtaxing us middle class citizens.

Seems like Biden and Obama brought up the subject, don't you think ? SB in NY

The rich Democratic Taxaholics need to stop overtaxing us middle class citizens.

Typically right-wing sons-of-bitches. Bitch about debt and deficits, and then claim that we can't raise taxes. Taxes are the lowest in fifty years!!!!!!!!! I'm just a young teenager, and I've constantly told my father (middle class worker) how we need to raise taxes on EVERYONE in order to solve our deficit problem. If it were up to me, I'd raise effective tax rates on everyone by 20%. It's about damn time all of us start paying more for our nation. Ever heard about "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country????" Paying taxes is doing your national duty, so shut up and man up. Selfish right-wingers like you make me sick.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshiee,

I have for a long time noticed the immaturity of your posts, and now I know why. You admit to being just a young teenager (probably clueless what it is like to see a paycheck stub with your "after taxes and deductions' equual to about 59.8% of your gross pay) and then you tell your father "we need to raise taxes on everyone" .... 20% you say. So you think I need to bring home only 39.8% of what I earn ?? Is that it, libtard ?? I should only get to keep what you, a "young teenager" has decided based on your years of wisdom, experience and hard work ?????????

Typical leftard who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground ! When you GROW UP, when you have a job and related family expenses ..... get back to me !!! We'll see if you are still so freakin idealistic and unrealistic when YOU are the one getting 59.8%.

It is my duty to take care of my family. It is not my duty to take care of everyone in this world he wants to sit on his ass, light up a Camel and declare this the promised land !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep up the good work, Freshiee. Any time you can reduce one of these sorts to abuse and insults you have him backed into a corner.

jim-1455434

Freshiee,

I have for a long time noticed the immaturity of your posts, and now I know why. You admit to being just a young teenager (probably clueless what it is like to see a paycheck stub with your "after taxes and deductions' equal to about 59.8% of your gross pay) and then you tell your father "we need to raise taxes on everyone" .... 20% you say.

Yes, I am a young teenager. I do not know what a thinned paycheck looks like, nor the experience of having a job. And I am at times immature. But let me ask you this; take a look around you and try to find one person other than me who is immature. Everyone is. I'll bet that you have too. Apparently, being immature is how you get your point across.

So you think I need to bring home only 39.8% of what I earn ?? Is that it, libtard ?? I should only get to keep what you, a "young teenager" has decided based on your years of wisdom, experience and hard work ?????????

Oh, now look whose being immature. Apparently a young, retarded liberal like me is forced to adhere to the rigorous laws of formality and respect, but you right-wing bastards get to bitch all you want like its the debt debate all over again??? Thanks for the double standard. And by the way, you misread my comment. My proposal wouldn't force you to take home roughly 40% of your paycheck; that is insane. My tax increase would affect you depending on your tax rate; if your tax rate is, let's say, 15%, my proposal would increase it by one-fifth to 18%. 3% isn't that much, I hope, and it would go a long way to help our nation.

Typical leftard who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground ! When you GROW UP, when you have a job and related family expenses ..... get back to me !!! We'll see if you are still so freakin idealistic and unrealistic when YOU are the one getting 59.8%.

It is my duty to take care of my family. It is not my duty to take care of everyone in this world he wants to sit on his ass, light up a Camel and declare this the promised land !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was once a youthful, idealistic prick. Still am, in some ways. But let me tell you this, dude, it is not only your duty to take care of your family. It is your duty to help your country. Simple as that. You may ask "why should I pay for somebody I don't even know who is on the other side of the nation??" Here is my simple answer: because that guy is paying for you.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Obama has shown that he is more than qualified in hiring unaccountable, non transparent and overpaid Czars. If fact, over 45 of them, more than the entire history of Russia.

LOL!

The companies that Willard "helped" were profitable companies until Willard used its funds and assets as collateral to finance his takeover and then sucked the companies dry with "management fees"

The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.

Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors—yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains.

Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court.

Profitable Companies would have not needed help from companies like Bain. They are profitable ! If they wanted increased credit lines or other types of financing and financial help to expand their business, because they were profitable, they would have gone to their regular banks they used for those purposes. Please get to that research on the 70% success rate of Bain and please share with all of us your findings. Companies who later went out of business would have gone out alot sooner without help. Remember the banks already said a BIG NO to them.

Therman--you realize that Bain was investing Union pension funds into these companies right? Its not Bain funds but institutional money primarily union money. Only if they were successful turning a nonprofitable company around did Bain make money so Bain made money when their investors the union pension funds made money. I would think you would like that? You do realize just like other private equity investments when Obama used taxpayer money to invest in GM in order to turn it around, thousands of jobs were lost. Did Obama suck the life out of GM because it now has 20,000 fewer employees but they were able to save thousands more? Stop the campaigning and learn something.