Yesterday Willard had the ideal opportunity to begin to shore up support amongst Latino voters while speaking at the Economic summit. Which according to recent polling Mitt desperately needs.

Instead of turning on the legendary charm he’s known for and revealing to Latino’s what his immigration policy would be – Willard chose to bash education as the alternative!

0: Number Of Times Romney Mentioned Immigration At Latino Event | Mitt Romney didn’t mention immigration during his speech to the Latino Coalition Economic Summit on Wednesday. Romney spoke primarily about education and
indirectly referenced undocumented students, saying, “No matter what circumstances they were born into, every child has a dream about where they can go or what they can become.” For many Latinos, these are one in the same: 91 percent of Latinos support the DREAM Act, and many consider immigration issues a top priority.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/23/489401/romney-immigration-mentions/

Willard followed up this stellar performance by advising a vote for him means unemployment will be down to 6% by the end of the first term. Don’t pay any attention to the fact the CBO has already made the prediction!

Oh, and, Never mind, last week he claimed it would be 4%.

What he’s really telling the low information voters is, the GNOP will sit back, do nothing, then take ALL the credit!

How typical…

In fact, Obama’s economic policies have won plenty of praise from the right, including Romney.

Ummm... guys... don't you mean education...?

As for Willard praising the policies - just one more flip to add to the heap...

Does anyone know if there is anything he has remained consistant on?

So far, I can't find a single thing!

Oh boy- a new bogeyman-

It's all the fault of realtors! They steal money from hardworking homeowners, and inflate the price of houses!

Not only does back house/navy know nothing about economics- neither do you.

The pace of real estate inflation has traditionally been five percent- that is the rate economists use when assessing the "real" price of a house. That's an average, by the way- there are, certainly, fluctuations in cities, urban areas, suburban and exurban areas.

That house prices, throughout the country, hit a runaway inflationary spiral was not the fault of realtors, but of consumers, who paid those wildly inflated prices. Anybody with an ounce of common sense understood that it was irrational to see house prices double, then double again, in such a short period of time. Moreover, anybody with an ounce of common sense would not have paid the prices asked- but for many, common sense is not all that common.

In fact, on this board, it is downright rare.

I bought my house w/o a broker. Directly from the seller. However most people aren't smart enough to read their own loan documents (at least that is what Obama would have us believe and the reason for his "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau")

Hog wash, that is another wasted government agency.... LET'S VOTE FOR CHANGE IN 2012!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

In fact, Obama’s economic policies have won plenty of praise from the right, including Romney.

Ummm... guys... don't you mean education...?

____________________________

Memo

To: MSDNC First Read

From: Joe in Albany

Re: Shoddy Journalism

It's not a good thing when even Nasty DumbFux is calling you out on your incompetence.

UAW:

You make my point. I too avoid realtors at all costs - no pun intended. However, you must admit that the sale of real estate necessitates any number of costs that are almost unavoidable - title insurance comes to mind.

I commend you for doing your own work, but in fairness, not everyone can handle the numerous obstacles that add so much cost to a real estate transaction.

no jo:

Oh great Economics guru - tell us of the wealth inherent in inflation. Tell us of "real" price. Tell us how price and value are identical. I await your learned response.

It's not a good thing when even Nasty DumbFux is calling you out on your incompetence.

Memo

To: The Idiot from Albany

Re: Mind your own business

Don't put words in my mouth! I was only pointing out a typo!

Then again given your penchant for belligerence, it's understandable you couldn't resist taking your usual cheap shot!

With President Obama continuing to carry Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and throw in the Latino vote, what chance do you think that Willard will ever get elected? That's right, NONE. I don't care how much money the Super-Pacs throw at our President it's just going to be a waste of their money. I love it.

Can't wait for the upcoming debates between President Obama and Romney. The President will make him look like a schoolboy. My God, Willard can't even complete a sentence or a thought without stuttering. And he only knows how to LIE, he never seems to have any facts to backup his LIES. It'll be a pleasure watching the President tear him to shreds.

Obama in 2012.

Charles Pierce/The Obama Diary:

I spent four years living under the barely distinguishable leadership of Willard Romney, Governor of Massachusetts. Since he’s out on the road now, running for president, and since he seems to be pretending that it was somebody else who was governor here …. I guess it’s up to the rest of us here to be his living memory of what happened when he won an election for the only time in his life.

…. speaking to a group of Latino businessmen in Los Angeles, Romney took time out from reassuring them that he wasn’t the racist goober he appeared to be in the primaries to excoriate public school teachers and their unions…

….. In 2006, he cut $37.8 million from the state’s higher education budget. Fees skyrocketed, as they did generally throughout the state. In 2003, he tried to cut $100 million from that same budget while raising tuition by $50 million at state colleges and universities. He also wanted to slash job training initiatives and workforce training funding. Things were rather worse at the primary and secondary level, where Romney passed down budget cuts and left cities and towns holding the bag. And that’s the way it was.

******************************

I didn’t see it, but it was written by many people last night that Chris Matthews stated that the press won’t go after Romney’s lies because they don’t want to lose access to him.

And so it goes.

When you have money, like the media does, they become more interested in the game of politics, rather than our future and democracy.

And when you have money, like Romney does, nothing matters except winning. That's the entire GOP, without exception.

Money is the be all, end all. Throw in scare tactics such as racism, fear mongering, anti-union BS, women's issues and religion, and you have your standard Republican Party platform.

We need Mr. Olbermann, along with Lawrence, Rachel, Martin and Ed Schultz and their guests.

For everybody else, here's your future.

Become a wishy washy “journalist” and “pundit”. You’ll make millions with nothing expected of you. Nothing.

Yet you get to be called a journalist, for some reason.

The networks and cable will pay you millions for nothing.

What a loss Keith is.

FR: Given the JP Morgan and Facebook news, does any political candidate want to be tied to Wall Street right now?.

I guess the implication here is that Wall Street is "broken". Flipping it around, does any candidate want to be tied to the GSA, the Secret Service, and $5 trillion more in federal government debt in less that four years right now?

DW: Well, a real estate broker is going to charge that seller 6% to sell the home. Did the broker add 6% in value to the home. Did he create wealth? Hell no. Now you need $106,000 to buy that home. You must sell your home for $106,000, but your broker wants 6% to sell your home.

So quit whining and be your own broker. How hard can it be, especially for one of the smartest guys around like you. Plus the housing market is booming these days, you shouldn't have any trouble selling your own home and saving all that money.

This is the problem with the Left, well, just one of the problems. JPMorgan, Facebook and real estate brokers are all private businesses that people choose or not choose to associate with. If you don't like Facebook stock, don't buy it. If you don't like JP Morgan, go to Bank of America. If you don't want to pay a realtor to sell your house, sell it yourself.

If you don't like what the federal government does, where else exactly do you go?

Good Morning David,

GREAT Opener for the day!

Many of us use to respect the Old Republican party. However, they have been hijacked by the 35% of the nations low information voters that don't know anything. Tea anyone?

Good to see you Pat! I missed you!

And when you have money, like Romney does, nothing matters except winning.

I'm waiting for someone anyone to ask Willard why he wants to be President other then he & his wife feel it's their turn...

Great Post David

Fear & Cluelessness is all the right wing has; nothing else substantive!

...country moving in wrong direction

Well, I really don't think we want to move in the Republican direction of:

1. continuing the War on Women
2. favoring the rich by taking away from the middle class and especially the poor and struggling
3. picking more fights in the Middle East for more useless and costly wars

Do you ??????????????????

David W, Feisty, Pat Boston, well said!

It seems odd to me that during the few interviews Mitt Romney has done with news organization other than FOX, that the interviewer never questions Romney's off-shore cash in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. It makes Romney no better than Eduardo Saverin who no longer wants his US citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes on his billions and ignoring this country provided him the opportunity to amass such wealth. I put Romney and Saverin in the same category as greedy, selfish and ungrateful.

President Obama misses chance to shore up women voters. The same women voters who are slowly but surely making their way over to the Romney camp as the so-called War on Women fizzles.

The chance you ask??? Where is the phone call from the president to S.E. Cupp? Where is the phone call from the first lady to S.E. Cupp??? Where is the out rage from all the leftist female posters on here (meaning the go to first morning string where the left conspires to dominate and not another minor string later in the day) for S.E. Cupp???? Cowards all.

At least to Ms Fluke and Planned Parenthood credit goes out for a minor tweet. What a disgusting way to try to ruin someone with the excuse it's satire or a parody. Hustler and all should be ashamed

My secret Republican de-coder ring has the explanation for Mitt's apparent flip flop on the Obama administration's education policies: Mitt meant to say that the administration has a program called "Race to the Top of the Third World".

I wonder what all the people at the Latino Summit thought when Mitt didn't mention immigration, which certainly has economic impacts. He's only had 6 years to formulate his policy and can't even endorse the DREAM Act.

Jody & Feisty: This is a particulary horrid presidential election I'm finding. The media are horrible. Romney is a despicable person. It's as clear as day.

What happened to Chuck Todd? No one likes him anymore. David Gregory as host of MTP?

My gosh. What is going on?

Shallow shallow shallow.

Feisty mocks Romney and his appeal to Latinos/Illegals.

Romney needs to point out that over 300,000 illegals have self-deported back to Mexico from California alone.

How bad does Obama's economy suck for illegals chose to leave America, leave the most liberal state with all the freebies, a state that actually caters to illegals ... to return to a poor country with corrupt government, drug wars ... and oh by the way ... an unemployment rate about half of Obama's!

Sad when strawberry pickers from Mexico have a better understanding of economic reality than Obama does, huh?

Whew! Thank God David came down off his ledge that he was perched on yesterday. Unfortunately, he came down to condescend to regular Americans like he always does.

And what is up with (I Need A) Job1 breaking out the elitism and telling us that the Repubs used to be ok (a standard BS line from Libs who've always HATED anyone to the right of Che Guevara), but have been hijacked by 35% (got that number from where?) of the "low IQ" Americans.

Job1 being one of those people who can only usually type one sentence, and that being a tribute to someone else's post, isn't that like....Ehhhh, forget it. You people do a good enough job1 making yourselves look stupid. Whaddaya need me for?

After listening to Gen. Powell talk over the past few days about his new book, something became very evident as to one of the reasons Obama and his administration has failed and will fail again if re-elected with the same divided Congress.

He violated Powell's cardinal rule -- Obama made enemies out of his adversaries. His leadership skills were/are so lacking that all of this country is suffering. You can't set someone up in a press conference then scold him. You can't scold the SCOTUS in the State of the Union. You can't call both parties to your office and give them marching orders. You have made enemies of your adversaries Mr. Obama and there is no correcting it now. Please step aside.

President Clinton knew how to treat adversaries. President Reagan knew. And yes even President G. W.Bush knew. Things were accomplished. The current office holder has no clue. Time for a change.

This is a particulary horrid presidential election I'm finding

I couldn't agree more Pat!

Day after day of "Obama this" - "Obama that"!

Meanwhile, Willard walks around tossing out wild claims, accusations and scary fantasies while no one bothers to question him...

It's going to be up to us to keep the truth front & center!

Jody, Iowa: It seems odd to me that during the few interviews Mitt Romney has done with news organization other than FOX, that the interviewer never questions Romney's off-shore cash in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. It makes Romney no better than Eduardo Saverin who no longer wants his US citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes on his billions and ignoring this country provided him the opportunity to amass such wealth. I put Romney and Saverin in the same category as greedy, selfish and ungrateful.

You really have to be choking down the kool-aide to believe this tripe. Just what do you want to question Romney about regarding his off-shore accounts? Many Americans have them, and pay taxes on them. Even you can have one, or many. Other than being a partisan hack, why exactly are you so interested in them? And as far as Mr. Saverin of Facebook goes, isn't he free to make a choice of where he lives and what country he wishes to be a citizen? Do you think you have some kind of say in his business? This country didn't provide any wealth to Mr. Saverin. Mr Saverin earned it. You have the same opportunity to do so, at least if you're as smart as Mr. Saverin is, or maybe even as smart as David Walker, who appears to have solved the mystical riddles of the real estate market.

the closer we get to November, the more vicious obama becomes with his smear and smut campaign against romney. any one reading between his lines (obama) can tell he is scared. but, really, obama, you have offended me the past four years. now that you are supporting same sex marriage, abortion and socialism, what else can you do to get my vote? nothing, absolutely nothing. to me you are like a hog farm that torments the sows/piglets. to me, the episode in wheatland, wyoming is how you have run the obama administration these past four years. when you initially took office, i hoped you would speak and work for the people who put you in office. i took a double look when you invited the white cop and the black professor to the white house for a beer, thought that was odd. but, honestly since then, you have given not only me but many other americans cause for concern. you listen to your own group of pal's and not your congress/senate. you point fingers at every one else except yourself. you are inexcusable. this is YOUR PRESIDENCY TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, YOU ARE THROWING IT AWAY. how can any good, decent taxpaying, hardworking american side with you? you have nothing to offer, and your current campaign is the same you had four years ago. it didn't work then, it won't work now. JUST SAY NO TO OBAMA in November.

Pat, Boston says: "

Jody & Feisty: This is a particulary horrid presidential election I'm finding. The media are horrible. Romney is a despicable person. It's as clear as day.

Hey Pat, maybe it's as "clear as day" to YOU because you think ANYBODY that criticizes Obama in the least is worthy of jail time. But please enlighten us little, uneducated people as to WHAT Romney has done to be called a "despicable person".

Does anyone know if there is anything he has remained consistant on?

Yup, Willard has remained consistent on NOT talking about what he did at Bain, and is consistent on NOT providing his tax filings!.....avoidance! lol

See, Feisty.......

one last thought, obama, your recent "add" on the vine says one of us americans have the opportunity to have a meal with you???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

what is this exactly? why would any of us want to eat with you? scare, scream, smut and smear, you are desparate!

Feisty, Romney has remained consistently Mormon but beyond that, he has been on both sides of every issue and often several times. Jon Huntsman called Romney a "well-oiled weathervane"; Ted Kennedy called him "multiple choice", Plouffe said he has "no core". Pretty much sums up exactly what Romney is or rather isn't depending on the perspective.

Pat Boston, Jay Carney scolded the press for failing to point out the facts and the truth, for failing to call out the lies as lies; don't recall his exact words but "sloth and laziness" were two of them. Carney gets a big cheer from me.

Ben, that ridiculous piece of re-framing Colin Powell's comments to favor Romney over President Obama is not even worth a response but let's put it this way, you either really didn't hear what Colin Powell said or you simply didn't comprehend what he said. Psst, it wasn't anything like you posted.

@CITM -- Now we are playing Celebrity Politician LOL! I bet the meal will be of the finest combination "canine" beef available!!!!!!

Jody: It seems odd to me that during the few interviews Mitt Romney has done with news organization other than FOX, that the interviewer never questions Romney's off-shore cash in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

Sheesh … you guys are so clueless.

Why would Romney declare the off-shore accounts on his returns if he was trying to hide those accounts?

For the Jody, Feisty and friends, there is nothing illegal or improper about Cayman accounts as long as the proper forms are filed with the IRS and the taxes are paid. (They are.)

Romney has 6 accounts in the Caymans. Five of the accounts, valued at $2.8- $7.6 million are included within a blind trust – Romney has no control over where they are. The sixth fund is called Bain Capital Investment Partners Trust Associates III, part of Romney’s IRA retirement account worth $5-$25 million – again controlled by someone else, not Romney.

And really ... if Romney was dodging taxes you don't think Obama wouldn't be all over it .... any lib with an IQ over 49 wouldn't be all over it?

Regarding Saverin, pretty pathetic that we drive some of the brightest, most creative and productive members of society to the point of giving up their citizenship - driving them to other countries we the highest taxes in the world.

edit - Sorry JoAnnaSmith -

Thank you Bob but it falls on deaf and dumb fux ears.

While my odds of seeing the outcome of this race grow slimmer by the week/day, only the political junkies here break down every number. The everyday people I see, just like Obama as a person, and do not like Romney or trust him, ergo, if they are around, they are going Obama - and this is conservative NE FLA!

Obama must be shaking in his high heels .... "LOL"

sometimes it is difficult to stop when you get worked up by a LIAR! but truely, COS Obama, you are really a Centrist, who is actually in revolt against the values of society entrusted to you, the same ones you were elected to lead.

more people need to read the interview between youself and the reverand jeremiah wright, your long time pastor.

what about the spiteful rivalry between Michelle and Oprah Winfrey? you are keeping your comments hidden.

also, these allegations about splitting the kennedy family.

more importantly, your personal role in making foreign policy (than any other US President, since Richard Nixon) with more disastrous results.

there are reliable claims that your wife, michelle and valerie jarrett are the real powers behind the white house throne.

all these claims are from people who know you best. it is nice to know someone out there is caring enough to let the voters, the taxpayers, the citizens know how you really are.

are you not satisfied with wrecking our country these past four years? we need to get you out of the white house in november and recover quickly from your misadministration and try to forget you were ever a part of it. i say this with all sincerity as a voter, a taxpayer and as a citizen of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Ben,

Sweetie, friend, go talk to real voters - not political junkies - most LIKE him as a person over Romney. Likability sells. Trust me.

@Phine -- I hope you are feeling better. I have said prayers. I do talk to regular voters. I am in NC and my sister lives in Cen. FL (Lake Mary) and I am getting a totally different flavor. In my business, I visit with clients each and every day in their homes and I hear what they are saying.

I trust you are not doing a "Corey Booker" to get into good favor with dog pack LOL.

no better than Eduardo Saverin who no longer wants his US citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes on his billions and ignoring this country provided him the opportunity to amass such wealth. I put Romney and Saverin in the same category as greedy, selfish and ungrateful.

My thoughts exactly! Republicans have elevated tax evasion to a fine art. They brag about paying less than their fair share as if this were an honorable accomplishment. My God, President Eisenhower raised taxes to pay for WWII, but today's Republicans refuse to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever happened to patriotism?

What we have learned about Romney over the last couple days is that his experience at Bain Capital has taught him how to read balance sheets. Wow, what a skill that translates to running the country. I learned how to read balance sheets in high school, and for fun, I would peruse them while unclogging the toilet. Obviously, my skills at reading a balance sheet and my 'Joe the plumber' skill of plunging the toilet make me supremely qualified for president.

We also learned that Romney continues the persistent right wing set of double standards. According to him, Obama is an utter failure if unemployment does not fall below 4%, yet Romney sets a standard of achievement at 6% after one year in office, which is what the CBO says we are on track to achieve without anyone in office. GOP/TP, the party of double standards.

Pat: I didn't see it, but it was written by many people last night that Chris Matthews stated that the press won't go after Romney's lies because they don't want to lose access to him.

Now THAT is projection. Describes Obama perfectly - Thank you.

Regarding Romney "lies", didn't Ron try to run with that crap last week .... and got his azz handed to him by Ben, Bill and others?

BTW - Where is Ron this week?

Does at least one lib has a modicum of conscious / pride?

Regardless - feel free to post Romney lies and see how you stand up.

I talk daily with all levels of hospital employees, patients, etc. This is where I get my feedback from. And DON'T get these folks started on how much they want Universal Health care! THey sure do - both sides of the political divide

phinephancy - good to see you on the board, best wishes!

Ben -

How did Obama make enemies of his adversaries again? He came into the presidency hoping to be a "uniter", using his experience in the Senate to try and reach "across the aisle" and find compromise.

What exactly did Obama do to make Rush say (in advance of his inauguration) that he prayed Obama would be a failure?

What did Obama do to cause several key leaders of the Republican party to meet in secret to plan out how to obstruct his agenda even before he was sworn in?

What did he do to make Boehner walk away from the "grand compromise"of tax reform and entitlement reform?

What did he do to form the Tea Party and have them protest tax increases that never happened, and complain about a deficit that Obama inherited (and they ignored for years)?

The only thing Obama has done that is divisive is to be elected. Apparently some Republicans couldn't get over the fact he won and refused to do ANYTHING to compromise.

Hey Phine...glad to see you out here. Keeping you in my thoughts and prayers! I agree that to get a better feel for the electorate, you have to step away from here, away from the political junkies, and away from the pundits. I'd say it is a mixed bag here in SE Florida. Probably what I hear more than anything is that people aren't excited about Gov. Romney, but don't feel that President Obama has done well. Nothing scientific about that...just my observations.

phine,

At a happy hour just last night, the CEO of our company stated emphatically that he is a staunch conservative and he will never vote for Romney because he seems so sleazy. (and this is Kansas we're talking about!)

So your point is legit, in my book. The independents, the ones in the true middle simply will not vote Anti Obama. They will vote for whom they like personally. And it ain't Mittens.

You can tell the writing on the wall here because the Pubbies get more and more shrill as they attempt to avoid the electoral map and prop up their robot candidate. Sucks to be them.

I've missed some posts, so my thoughts and prayers are with you.

PS. Feisty, on the Mittens question up top,...he's consitently UNLIKABLE. He is so completely clueless and flat footed that after the debates - the non attention paying public will FLOCK to re-elect Obama! You can bank on it!

This election isn't going to be about President Obama or the nit wit running against him.

This election is going to be a show case of just how far our media has fallen. Day after day after day after day I read articles about ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and Fox and how none of them are doing their jobs, which is supposed to be journalism.

I'm glad to see some holding their feet to the fire, while they all continue to just pat each other on the back. I would too if I was making easy money like they do.

Very generous bosses they have. What a life. They can literally just make stuff up.

And poof - they have an hour show.

Journalism is no longer about democracy. It's about ratings and attention for the reporters and nothing else.

In other words - it's all about money. For the network and the idiots who pose as journalists.

And the easiest way to get attention?

Blame the President. Glad to see Jay Carney was honest. How he must hate facing that crew of "reporters" every day. It's a joke.

Chuck Todd gets a front seat? Why?

He doesn't do journalism. He does gossip.

phinephancy -

I very much agree with your assessment about "average" voters. As hard as it may be for us political junkies here to fathom, most actual American voters have yet to watch a single debate. If they're lucky, they've yet to experience a single robo-call. They don't spend every day breathlessly reading through every statement made by either candidate on any topic, trying to find that one "gotcha" moment that will score a (brief) victory for their side. They couldn't pick Scott Walker or Paul Ryan or Bob McDonnell or Rob (Who?) Portman out of a line-up if their lives depended on it. And only a very small minority have actually had the chance to see either candidate in person.

Despite the fact that in many ways this current campaign has been going on in one form or another for four years, the real campaign hasn't even gotten warmed up yet. The conventions, the fall debates, the fundraising and advertising beginning in September, and especially the GOTV abilities of both campaigns will have far more to do with the outcome than most of our daily bickering here ever will. And I'm more than confident that President Obama's team is VERY well-prepared for all of those.

Most "average" American voters are actually more concerned today with this weekend's weather and how early they can sneak out of work tomorrow to get a jump on the holiday traffic.

I realize you currently have more pressing issues to deal with just now, and I don't have anything to say that doesn't sound like a lame cliche. Speaking of which, my oncologist told me last week that "God doesn't give us any more than He thinks we can handle". Well-intended, I'm sure, but I felt like smacking him upside the head with a 2 by 4. Take my advice and steer clear of him. That's another place where likeability definitely matters! Hang tough.....

Hi phine! Best wishes to you and please hang in there. "Laughter doeth the heart good, like a medicine".

http://youtu.be/fMlFJ_UWcaQ

Obama made enemies out of his adversaries.

So the Republican day-one mantra of "keeping Obama a one-term President" is so conciliatory? Get real.

This country didn't provide any wealth to Mr. Saverin. Mr Saverin earned it.

I guess Social Responsibility went out with the "business is about making money" philosophy. Companies have no responsibility other than to make stockholders more money? I don't think that mission statement would sell very well anywhere. Every blue-chip company would disagree....but then JAS doesn't own a company-she just attempts to carry their water (and isn't very good at it).

It's going to be great watching Obama go down in a stunning defeat come November! All this liberal hand wringing and rationalizing isn't go to make a difference! Obama is one and done! The even better news is he's going to be taking Biden and Holder with him.

Good morning Clara KCMO

Yesterday you posted the new poll on Fox viewers which found the Fox viewers to be clueless. In case anyone missed it I'm posting the results of the newer poll.

This time, the researchers conducted a nationwide poll.

The poll asked questions about international news (Iran, Egypt, Syria and Greece were included) and domestic affairs (Republican primaries, Congress, unemployment and the Keystone XL pipeline.)

The pollsters found that people were usually able to answer 1.8 out of 4 questions on foreign news, and 1.6 of 5 questions on domestic news, and that people who don't watch any news were able to get 1.22 of the questions on domestic policy right.

As the study explained, though, people who watched only Fox News fared worse:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html

=======================================

Now all the liars (so called journalists, commentators, news readers, clowns etc.) have their undies *cough*in a wad. They say the poll is biased. ROFL!!!!

Couple that with what I posted yesterday about the moron Sean Hannity not being led down the yellow belly Sean KKKlanity's yellow brick road of bullsh!t and you'll be surpised.

Anyhow, I searched for this tape everywhere and could not find it; even on FOX NOISEs website. Well, okay it was there; but it was edited.

Thank Martin Bashir for finding it. You're doing a fine job sir. Keepup the good wwork. We need more you.

The Epic Takedown of Fox's 'Syphilitic LIAR' Sean Hannity By General Colin Powell

The 4 star general corrected Fox News’ Sean Hannity on ‘Obama Apology Tour‘ falsehood & Romney on foreign policy. Powell also threw a wet blanket on Hannity’s obsession with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW_jHCg8Yr8

========================================

Anyone wanting wanting to challege me just go to Sean Hannity's website on Fox to see I'm not lying. FOX Noise edited this part of the 10 min clip out. Dishonest much?

No wonder they are dumb

DW- I've already told you how to find the real value of a house- but, I guess, you need it spelled out. . .

The easiest way is to go back to the price for which the house sold when originally built, and add five per cent per year. If the house is extremely old, you need to fix the price at the 1956 price, then add five per cent per year to that.

There are variations based on sudden desirability of an area, or sudden undesireability- but for the average home purchaser, this formula keeps things in perspective.

For new construction, you use another variation- you go back to a time when the area first became desireable, find a similar home, calculate its price, and calculate from there.

And, no, if a house was built in , say, 2000, and the real price was set at $100,000, you would not simply multiply the price by 60%. You need to multiply by 5% twelve times-each time by the increased price.

Try it- it's not the same number.

Oops edit: should be...

No wonder FOX NOISE viewers are dumb.

Of course so is everyone else besides Shep Smith over @ FOX NOISE dumb too.

I've had more than enough of mediocrity and divisiveness in politics & American institutions. Is this what the leftylibdems meant by "diversity"? Give BO the boot and get back to running the country a little more uniformly with people who actually have some knowledge and experience.

It's gonna be a L O N G five months. Listening to Romney continue to lie and lie is getting more monotonous every day. And, wouldn't you think by now he would have developed SOME personality? What did Ann do while they were "making babies?" Did she read a book to keep her interested? Oh my gosh the man (and I use the term very loosely) is boring!!!

He still has no plans - nothing to offer except "it's his turn." Mitt dear, it's your turn to go take a trip to anywhere we don't have to look at or listen to you! Please just go away!!!

Steve - since the GOP can't come up with anyone with a brain, we're sticking with our very good President Obama, thank you!

Even the insane GOP HAS to be able to do better than this!!!

no jo:

That was simply an amazing deflection with a dollop of BS. You continue to use price and value interchangeably. The two are not one and the same.

You tell us that you summarily add 5% to the value of the price of the home. Why is that? Where did this 5% come from? Don't lay a line of crap on me. The 5% has a flip side and that is the devaluation of the cash you have in your pocket. The home is not worth more, it is merely priced higher.

I note you also evade the 6% increase in cost that the realtor adds. Typically, that will be financed, thus increasing the cost via the interest rate.

Your flash and trash magic show may fly with the Snookie Jo low-intelligence fan club. However, it doesn't hold up to even a cursory analysis. Price and value are not the same thing. Inflation does not add value, it reduces purchasing power.

As I wrote in my first post. You are mangling words and twisting them to suit your purpose. That is patently dishonest, but I expect that from you.

Hey gang - love the real estate broker talk.

See I happen to be a licensed broker. It's super easy for us lawyers, all we have to do is take the test, two parts, mostly about the law. Super easy.

Now I only rarely used my broker's license on the sales side, but when I do I always offer my client a choice - standard percent based commission, of an hourly rate of $300.

The real estate docs are pretty easy here in Cali. In fact they have been written specifically for non real estate pros.

Anyone can do it themselves. In fact most real estate agents are idiots that know nothing about the law or tax issues involved.

But then again, most people are lazy and afraid.

Thank goodness for those of us that are not.

Good morning, all.

Just calling in to let you know that Lily Ledbetter has joined the anti-Walker fight in Wisconsin ....

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/capitol-report-equal-pay-icon-lilly-ledbetter-joins-opponents-of/article_eaa5237c-a597-11e1-8742-001a4bcf887a.html

.... which I hear from other sources is starting to gain significant ground. Depending on which poll you read, it appears that Barrett may now be well within the margin of error, and with a substantial lead among independent voters.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/wisconsin-recall-poll-tied-barrett-walker

Wisconsin Democrats and union officials have a message for the recall doomsayers: Gov. Scott Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett are still locked in a dead heat.

After the last three public polls showed Walker with a 4 to 9 percentage point lead over Barrett, Democrats released an internal poll suggesting the race remains up for grabs. In a survey of 472 recall voters by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Walker was ahead of Barrett by 3 points, 50-47. That's within the survey's 4-point margin of error. And in an encouraging sign for Democrats, Barrett leads Walker 50-44 among independent voters in Wisconsin.

Just for fun and entertainment, those business groups who lobbied for repeal of our pay equity law include, among others:

Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Wisconsin Automobile & Truck Dealers Association, the Wisconsin Builders Association, the Wisconsin Car Rental Alliance, the Wisconsin Grocers Association, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Wisconsin Hotel and Lodging Association, the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association.

Maybe I'll be shopping the local farmer's markets and staying home to eat for a while.

In particular, I love this argument that was made against the pay equity law:

In arguing the state law was not needed, Republicans frequently cited the fact that no suits had been brought during the two years it was in effect.

This logic in effect says, pass a law against murder, and if it works, repeal it.

With all due respect, WTF?

Don't understand what the Bend Over Party is so worried about. jr bush was in for eight years and gave them the utopia they have been screaming for since the New Deal. Four years later...you don't hear jr mentioned...but they are more than happy to continue his policies under any different name. For instance...Willard mentioned American education as being from a "Third World Country". Willard...don't you have some of your money holed away in one of these "Third World Countries" to keep from paying taxes on it? Thought if it were good enough for your money...you would want the same for the rest of the nation. You know...lead by example.

For Mitt Romney the topics that are off limits in this election race are

His religion

His term as Gov.

His Tax Returns

His record at Bain (unless he approves something that would be considered a success)

His lack of military service

and of course, any ideas he has for the nation after being elected.

what is permitted is,

I'm a better choice than Obama

Obama bad/ Mitt good

Love all the real estate talk. Sexy.

Spanky is right that real estate is actually a branch of legal practice for which exceptions have been made so that lay people can get in on the gouging usually reserved for us attorneys. In fact, without a broker's license, even an attorney cannot practice this area of law, except as may be incidental to his or her practice.

But I see Spanky has made sure that he isn't left out of the feast by getting a separate broker's license. No surprise there.

Give BO the boot and get back to running the country a little more uniformly with people who actually have some knowledge and experience.

And go back to losing 750,000 jobs a month? And have a total financial collapse? Go back to Republicans getting the US credit rating downgraded?

No thanks, Sherlock.

@ fuzzy44 --

Excellent recap of Romney's positions. But you left out women's issues, as filtered through, and screened from criticism by, the force field surrounding his wife.

He can say it, but no one darn well better criticize her for telling him what to say.

Give BO the boot and get back to running the country a little more uniformly with people who actually have some knowledge and experience.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not to eager to return to the group that allows attacks on American soil, wages war indiscriminately around the world, job loses of 750k per month, the group allowed us to fall into the two largest economic collapses in American history, the party that gave us one of the most divisive presidents in history. Those are just the highlights and do not touch upon the party that supports eliminating the middle class, ending beneficial social programs, and killing freedoms Homeland Security Style. Thanks but no thanks, I'll take Obama.

Anna Molly - I do mortgages in the Chicago area and, luckily, work with some very knowledgeable, hard working realtors. I also use two attorneys regularly who do a great job without gouging their clients. I think real estate is like anything else - you've got the good and bad. Just have to do your homework.

Let's talk about running the country with "people who actually have some knowledge and experience."

The movement to treat education more like a "business" began back in the 1970s and really ramped up during the Reagan years, punctuated in this century by the crony capitalism of No Child Left Behind. There can be no question that all we have to show for it is declining achievement, deteriorating infrastructure, and bloated, overpaid educational administration and bureaucracy. Supremely selfish and unwilling to pay taxes to support the future of our own children, we've finally tapped the pubic education well completely dry, even down to the raiding of teacher pension benefits, as we are seeing played out in Wisconsin right now.

It is only a matter of time until school district dry wells begin collapsing all over this country. The rumblings have already begun in various states.

When you think about that, it sort of reminds you of Ampad, GS Technologies, and the whole host of other businesses that Mitt Romney and his friends at Bain "saved" by driving them into the ground.

To the extent that past is predictive, if we Elect Mitt Romney, then that's where the country is headed.

Seeking Sanity --

Anna Molly - I do mortgages in the Chicago area and, luckily, work with some very knowledgeable, hard working realtors. I also use two attorneys regularly who do a great job without gouging their clients.

Don't mind me. I was just needling my fellow attorney, Spanky. He needs a little goose every now and then.

Amy in Portsomethingorother said: My thoughts exactly! Republicans have elevated tax evasion to a fine art.

But Amy, have you looked at the cabinet selections and those chosen by Obama to help him in his administration? How many of those people are tax evaders? TurboTax Tim Geitner... among many. Before you go pointing at the republicans about tax issues, you'd better take a close look at those you favor. You can toss lines like the above around, but the words amount to a hill of beans when you omit those you aren't accusing.

phine,

Good to see you this morning.

I work at a medical facility and I hear the opposite. The physicians are know longer take new medicare patients because the declining reimbursements.

Physicians say they just can’t afford to be part of a system that generates so many patients for so little compensation. They are not happy with ACA, one concern is the amount of people that will be added in 2014. They feel that patient care will suffer.

I wish you well.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. ~Herm Albright

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Memo

To: The Idiot from Albany

Re: Mind your own business

Don't put words in my mouth! I was only pointing out a typo!

Then again given your penchant for belligerence, it's understandable you couldn't resist taking your usual cheap shot!

Memo

To: The Hateful Rag From Illinois

Way to show what a hateful B**** you are! Even when conservatives agree with you, you can't resist showing your fangs!

NOW! Show me the clown nose!

David, that was one of the more ignorant responses to my post I have ever read. You took a simple response and totally turned into a nonsensical reply that had nothing to do with my original post. My post replied to Backhouse who was supporting the Obama proposal to allow borrowers who are current on their mortgages but underwater to reduce their principal balance providing them an average $3,000 extra in the bank. You act as if that money grows on trees and then you say do you feel like you own the banks? That is just plain ignorant. When you own a mutual fund do you feel like you own Facebook, GM, Coca Cola etc? Of course not but guess what your mutual fund or stock price goes up and down with the values of those companies. If you reduce the value of the banks your stock price goes down. Who owns these banks but institutions such as union pension funds and 401k accounts. So when you bail out the borrowers (which arguably or not could be good national policy), you are just taking a wealth transfer from union pensions and middle class workers. Is this economics too hard for you to understand? I also mentioned and I noticed you skipped this part why underwater borrowers should be bailed out before small business owners who lost thier business through no fault of their own, or people who are bankrupt because of medical tragedies etc?

Can you explain to me why pointing this out makes me a crazy right winger as you like to point out? Since I voted for Clinton and kerry I am a strange right winger arent I?

Kirk:

You asked:

"Since I voted for Clinton and kerry I am a strange right winger arent I?"

Yes, you are.

David - you just need to ignore Kirk when it comes to the mortgage situation. He doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of the business and tries hard to undermine anything that is proposed by Obama. His hatred trumps common sense and actual knowledge.

David Walker:

Not only spot on, but you subtly illustrate the difference between wealth extraction and value creation. Just like the Saverin episode, he engaged in value creation in the most putative sense, (since I personally don't see value in Facebook), then callously engaged in wealth extraction by renouncing his citizenship.

It really shouldn't surprise anyone after the 43rd president's tenure that this is what the Teapublicans are lusting for, a return to looting the economy at the expense of the middle class. It also shouldn't surprise anyone that the American electorate are rejecting this idea.

Phine, I know that radiation and chemo are hell, but from what I've experienced of you, I believe that you have the strength, tenacity and resilience to overcome your affliction. I have hope for the best outcome, because I believe in you. Now go kick some cancer ass.

Memorandum

To: Right Wing Nut Jobs (you know who you are)

Re: Presidential Election Polling

TPM aggregate polling has President Obama with 284 electoral votes, the Mittronic Rombot with 170 electoral votes. So your boy has to "run the table" as they would say in the billiards shooting parlance. Problem is, your boy is all chalk and no stick.

Please send me a vial of your tears as loser's tears are the most delicious.

Later 'taters.

Rombot.Has.Nothing.

Seeking Sanity--its interesting based on my meetings this morning with Goldman Sachs, they didnt seem to think I didnt have a rudimentary knowledge and didnt seem to call me all of these names you do. The problem with you SS besides being the campaign Obama personal attack dog on here, is that your knowledge is limited to providing mortages at a personal level and you dont seem to have any understanding of the larger economic picture and dont want to. Obama is making policy at the national level that impacts not only the personal but everyone else too. I actually have no hatred and respect the president and his accomplishments. The fact that I dont agree with him on everything makes me objective and not a partisan like you. Your like the fan of Ohio State who stands behind former Coach Tressel because you want him to win at all costs but ignore any of the blunders that happen while he is coaching. Sorry, the rest of us prefer to use our independent ability to think on our own and come to our own conclusions based on our experience and knowledge.

David, I noticed that you didnt reply to the substance of my post. Do you disagree with me economically? Instead of personally attacking me like SS or others, explain to me where I am wrong? Have I missed some economic aspect that would allow Obama to bail borrowers out without a cost to someone else? Did I ask the wrong question as to whether its good national policy to pick economic disadvantaged groups worthy of a bailout over others? Come on Mr high IQ, instead of making up the drivel in your original post that was not even close to being on point, reply and explain my error.

Kirk - and this will be my only response to you since I don't have time for your nonsensical, circular arguments. You NEVER met with Goldman Sachs or anyone else like them this morning. But, continue with your BS!

You NEVER met with Goldman Sachs

SS,

I think little Kirky is confusing Goldman Sachs with Cash for Gold...

Good try SS--I know your world doesnt involve real experts but I can provide names and dates but who cares as Goldman is just one of the IBs we work with. Do you want me to tell you what floor of the Hyatt Center they work on? Again, instead of replying with well thought out responses, you prefer to try personal attacks. Instead of trying so hard to attack my credibility why not attack it substantively? If you want to attack my credibility prove me wrong. I notice that neither you nor David bothered to try because you cant. Its the typical progressive response on here if you cant actually beat me substantively then try and attack my personal credibility.

Fiesty sorry but I dont live in your neighborhood.

Kirk - you have no credibility to attack. We've seen your "arguments" and "facts" over and over again. You post nothing of merit and you have no substance. Plus, you'll change everything you say when a reasonable, thought out argument is presented. Once people catch on - as most of us have - we refuse to play your game. Now run along and try your nonsense out on someone who doesn't know your game!

SeekingSanity,

So now you expect Kirk to "run along" since you have no answer for his post ?

LOL ! Once again, Kirk "OWNED YOU" in this discussion. You can't handle it.

keep telling yourself that little jimmy - it will make you feel better!

Feisty @1.7: "Then again given your penchant for belligerence, it's understandable you couldn't resist taking your usual cheap shot!"

So you never take cheap shots?

SS--I did own you. If I dont post anything of merit or substance then you should be able to shoot it down very easily and you certainly have never provided a well thought out reasonable response. David certainly hasnt either. Several days ago, TN and Akeem and various others provide reasonable responses but you never have. Again, this was an easy one for you if you could refute my post, you would. David just ran away because he was 100% wrong and you just tried to attack me personally. Being the attack dog on here where virtually every post by you is a reply to a conservative fiscal viewpoint in which you tell the person you must be an idiot or something like that with ZERO actual substance to your post. That just means you have no credibility and we just laugh so dont get too upset that you continue to get owned until you can provide critical thought out responses.

Obama spending binge never happened

Thanks Floyd, for bringing this up!

I am sick & tired of these so-called journalists, sitting there smiling & bobbing their head, while Willard & his ilk spit this crap out!

Well past time, we start holding these yahoo's culpable for their outrageous fibs!

Independent Redneck Va Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Sorry to burst your collective bubble but until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here is the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

Hard to spend more when you haven't had a budget passed by democrats in the Senate.

Leave it to IR to post the most creative spin by the left imaginable. Sure, just keep telling people that the six trillion dollar increase in the debt in Obama's three and a half years is not his fault- I'm SURE people will buy it. After all, how many are lined up to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

Try this- Obama does not want four more years- he wants FIVE. Yup. That's what he told a bunch of rich nitwits last night at a fundraiser- you can read about it on Politico if you'd like.

Or not- after all, when Obama does something truly outrageous- like insert himself into other presidents' biographies, you collectively invoke the Fith Amendment right to remain silent.

That's okay- that is read as embarrassment. And you should be- but it appears that you are not embarrassed enough by Obama's spectacular failure in an office to which he was never suited to stop trying to cast the finger of blame elsewhere.

Tell me, does it never occur to any of you that, by insisting that Obama's failures are all the fault of others, you are indicting him as completely inept at mitigating the circumstances in which he found himself when elected?

Does it occur to none of you that he was not forced into office- but sought it?

You may spin, excuse, and distract, but the facts of Obama's failures- spiraling debt, spiraling poverty rates, limping GDP, high unemployment-are his. He bought them, he owns them.

He can take them with him out the door in January.

wasn't the spending for 2009 left over from Mr Bush?

I caught a clip of Romney being interviewed yesterday and I knew: the man is his own worst enemy.

Aside from the candidates stand on the issues, aside from either of their records, I hate to say it, the likeability gap is just too enormous for Romney to overcome.

To see Romney speak off the cuff is to not want to vote for him. He's not persuasive, he makes you feel like he's pulling one over you, it's like listening to a used car salesman.

...country moving in wrong direction

Well, I really don't think we want to move in the Republican direction of:

1. continuing the War on Women
2. favoring the rich by taking away from the middle class and especially the poor and struggling
3. picking more fights in the Middle East for more useless and costly wars

Do you ??????????????????

I wish the journalists would call Romney out on the lies that roll off of his tongue. Last night I heard a clip where Colin Powell called out Sean Hannity on the "apologizing for the US" nonsense. He flat out said that President Obama has never apologized for the US (which of course he hasn't).

Leave it up to the Mesmerized suffers of Obama Derangement Syndrome to believe what Old Willard Spins down at Hootin' Holler. Read it again Folks I didn't stutter. Old Willard is telling you a bold face lie just like most everything else he says.

IR: Obama spending binge never happened

If you can believe this, you can believe anything. And this is the level of denial that liberals need to attain to be completely in the dark regarding any form of reality.

Old Willard is telling you a bold face lie just like most everything else he says.

Remember, in the world of the Snookie Joe's and such, it's not a lie if YOU believe it! lol

There's a reason I call these folks stuck on stupid! ;o)

RUSHisA PIG- Since ALL THREE of your points are NOT FACTS, but merely your ignorant liberal opinions, how can you even make it seem that we have a choice? Seriously. Stop with your false choice offerings. You resemble Obama when he told us that we can either educate our children or have corporate jets. It's ridiculous.

b dune

According to the article - “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Unfortunately Obama kept walking or giving up hits to new batters and kept putting on more base runners.

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and into the future.

While your at it you'll folks should us the link to open this interesting analyse. It has a chart that shows who actually raised Government Spending and by how much. It should interest you to know that St. Ronnie Of Regan and Both Bushes figured promitly as they used Government Spending to pull their respective Economy's out of recession. A Luxury that you'll Yahoos are very unwilling to give to a Democratic President like Obama or Clinton.

IR:

That's a great post, the problem is when you introduce numbers most folks close their eyes.

GDP is a valid number to some extent, but simply because government spending was X% of GDP last year, that does not mean it should be at X% this year.

As one of the earliest adherents of the Keynesian approach to Economics, Joseph - he of the coat of many colors - said, you save in the fat years, and spend in the lean years.

The indisputable fact is that federal spending has leveled out. The trick now is to get tax collections up. Continued tax cuts for the rich will not increase revenues. The solution to a balanced budget remains the same. Tax rates must be raised. Spending must be cut. That's it.

Cheers for truth-telling, IR!

Mitt Romney is an empty suit, he has nothing to offer except the same proven failure policies of Reagan, Bush and Bush so he does what seems to come naturally to him, he flat out lies.

Get serious folks, the man went into a sovereign nation without their knowledge or permission to kill Bin Laden, that is not the actions of somebody that is apologetic for America. When he said he would do as much when he was campaigning everybody gasped as if that was so bold as to be frivolous, so make up your minds is he too ballsy or too apologetic, a lot of dead terrorists would say he is not very apologetic, if they weren't dead. Don't confuse calm and polite with apologetic, Obama will kill you if you harm or intend to bring harm America. GW Bush was the guy who forgot about Bin Laden because you know he had not heard much from him lately.

Do you 'Stop The Spending' crowd not realize that the Bush tax cuts = spending!

These rates and loop holes contribute to the deficit!

Oh Yeh there Reb according to that self same Chart Government Spending is only an issue with Democratic Presidents Never Republican/T.P Presidents. Care to explain that?

As one of the earliest adherents of the Keynesian approach to Economics, Joseph - he of the coat of many colors - said, you save in the fat years, and spend in the lean years.

Please give me one time period, outside a post war era, when government spending declined in the fat years.

Alan, NJ:

"Please give me one time period, outside a post war era, when government spending declined in the fat years."

By gum, and by golly Alan, I believe I've answered that before. Happy to do it again.

There haven't been any such periods. That's why people who say the Keynesian approach doesn't work are full of crap. No government has ever tried it.

Spend, spend, spend. Lots of spending. Unfortunately, that's only part of it, and both Republicans and Democrats spend like drunks. Since I know you are interested in fairness and honesty, you are probably wondering why would President Bush CUT taxes when the economy was booming.

Hell, according to Greenspan, we could have eliminated the national debt back then. Of course, he recommended against doing that. Kind of hard to figure out those Randians.

Alan Check the chart that's why I gave it to you. It indicates that spending Government Spending went down under Clinton and is Projected to go down under Obama.

Oh before I forget its good to see you out and about this morning Forrest. Things have lightened up for you I hope. Keep Plugging my Friend

IR - It seems that 'prairie inferno' Romney fervently warned us about doesn't amount to much more than a flame on birthday cake candle. The GOP/TP really ought to give up the 'fire and brimstone' speeches. Fire in the belly, fire down below, prairie infernos; a simple blow extinguishes the flame, and they end up looking like utter fools. If we could only extinguish the careers of these GOP/TP candidates with a simple inhale/exhale.

Thanks IR, no things are rough, my mother in law is dying of cancer, been at the hospital day and night for a couple of weeks now. We are just trying to what little that can be done for her and trying to make sure is as comfortable as possible. I have to take a break from it once in awhile and checking the blog affords my mind a few moments of distraction from the sadness now and then. It is going to get worse in the weeks ahead, but it does puts things into perspective as to what is really important in this life and what is not. God help anybody without health insurance or medicare or medicaid or some way to access health-care because nobody is getting out of this life alive. If we can't take care of our elders what will we have become as a nation, do people really think reducing costs at the suffering of old people is the way to go, Paul Ryan should go suck eggs, I am ashamed for him, to bad he is not ashamed of himself.

Spend, spend, spend. Lots of spending. Unfortunately, that's only part of it, and both Republicans and Democrats spend like drunks. Since I know you are interested in fairness and honesty, you are probably wondering why would President Bush CUT taxes when the economy was booming.

Hell, according to Greenspan, we could have eliminated the national debt back then. Of course, he recommended against doing that. Kind of hard to figure out those Randians.

Totally agree on Greenspan. He was scared that if we had no debt then the Fed couldn't manipulate interest rates. Maestro my ass. But in the big picture this is why the short-term stimulus with long-term spending cuts just won't fly. No politician is going to cut a government program when revenue is flowing in.

Alan Check the chart that's why I gave it to you. It indicates that spending Government Spending went down under Clinton and is Projected to go down under Obama.

Projections don't count as they never seem to come true. What chart are you referring to? I looked at this spreadsheet and according to it Clinton's spending (outlays) wend from $1.4T to $1.86T (1993 - 2001).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Fig 1.1

I suppose you mean a % of GDP, but you have to remember Clintons economy was skewed by the dot.com bubble. I also notice that Clintons revenues were a little higher than the norm for receipts and that for all the complaining about Bush and the tax cuts, his receipts were fairly close to the historical norm of 17%-18%.

Sorry to hear it Forrest. We'll be sure to keep an extra thought for Peace for you and yours in the Hill Folks Back Porch Ramblings. Keep hanging tough and trying to make it better for other folks that's about all we can do.

Forrest you have my good thoughts and prayers.

Hang in there froend.

Thank You Reb, thank you to all.

The chart you are refering to indicates that Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush. Don't forget there was a Democratic Congress that made the budget and also the beginning of the Recession.

As I said before only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline does Obama come off looking good. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and into the future.

Sorry to rain on your parade IR, but there are several problems with this article.

the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.... The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

This is generally true, but not always. Bush submitted his FY2009 budget to the Congress in February 2008 – but the Congress did not pass the FY2009 appropriation until March 2009 when Obama was president. What that means is that Obama and the Democratic Congress had their fingerprints all over the FY2009 federal budget that ultimately was signed into law. In fact, Bush's original FY2009 budget called for federal spending of $3.1 trillion while the final budget enacted under Democratic auspices actually spent $3.5 trillion – a $400 billion increase attributable to Obama.

Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009.

This is true, but you have to look at the fine print. In calculating the $1.2 trillion deficit CBO included the $240 billion cost of assuming the debts of Fannie and Freddie as well as $180 billion cost of TARP attributed to 2009. These are legitimate expenses that total $420 billion, but they are ONE TIME expenses. So, one would expect Obama's 2010 budget to decrease by $420 since those expenses no longer applied. But that's not what happened. Instead of decreasing by $420 billion Obama's FY2010 budget actually increased by $200 billion. Therefore, Obama baked an additional $600 billion of spending into his FY2010 budget cake.

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved.

The bank bailout legislation did not commit the government to spend any money, rather that legislation authorized the president to spend up to $789 billion at his discretion. And the bulk of that money was actually spent on Obama's watch, regardless of the fact that it was authorized on Bush's watch. Obama could have chosen to refrain from spending money to save the banks and the auto companies, but his choice was to do otherwise.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

Good grief, very wrong. The Bush 2009 budget proposed federal spending at $3.1 trillion, while Obama's FY2013 budget proposes spending of $3.9 trillion. If you do the math, that comes out to an annual increase of 6% per year, well above normal increases attributable to inflation. And when you consider defense spending for Iraq and Afghanistan has been declining during this period, it's clear that domestic spending has increased by even more than 6% per year. Furthermore, in their analysis of the president's FY2013 budget request CBO estimates the president's policies will add $6.4 trillion to the debt from 2013 – 2022.

Even David Walker could have told you to cast a skeptical eye at "analysts" bearing statistical gifts. Too bad you didn't listen, IR.

if government spending is "flat", then why is the national debt getting worse?

Politically motivated Creative number crunching?

Willy Bill I knew that I could depend on you to show me why my glass was half empty insteadof half full. That is the fundamental difference between us I think. Twist it any way that you want to my friend the central point remains that Mr. Romney is lying about a Prairie fire of debt to be attributed to this President. Most of the money had to be spent for the Economy to have any chance of recovery now didn't it. So why carp and piss and moan over it. The central point remains that Republican/T.P Presidents have increased Government spending a whole lot more than Democrats. And you know what when it is all said and done and if Mr. Romney prevails then we are going to go right back to doing that and its going to be alright with you'll Yahoos because "your' Guy is doing it. And that is the truth of the matter whether you want to admit it or not.

cal20, you asked:

"if government spending is "flat", then why is the national debt getting worse?"

Please tell us you voted yourself "up". Speaking only for myself, I just can't stand the idea that there are two people who think that question had merit.

The answer is: Spending is still exceeding revenue. Come on dude.

Forrest - good luck. I know these are difficult times with your mother-in-law. I hope, for all of your sakes, that she goes quickly and peacefully.

Winkepedia clearly shows that the Debt/GDP ratios have gotten significanty worse sice Pelosi's congress and even worse with Owebama. This crisis has gotten so bad that even taxing every amaercan 50% more won't dent the numbers. With 1 war gone and the second winding down, it takes no genius to see that it is the out of contol spending of the government and devaluation of the dollar that is hitting all of us where it hurts. Tax and spend has got to end.

cal20:

You've already demonstrated your ignorance at 2.32. Now you come back and double down on dumb at 2.36.

You have no clue what the significance of the National Debt to GDP ratio is. Hell, it was Darth Cheney who said deficits don't matter. However, if debt is so important it seems strange that you and your ilk didn't notice it when virtually every state pension fund was in the red. That was before President Obama. You didn't seem concerned by consumer debt. Skyrocketing mortgage debt didn't bother you. You don't seem concerned by countless trillions going out of the FRB.

Stop advertising your ignorance.

Johnny Walker: Many of us mere mortals may not possess your vast knowledge, but here at home, when we pay more than we make, we cut back. Of course the Debt/ GDP ratios may have other obskewed values, but simply it means that at a very near point in the future, it will be impossible to avoid bankruptcy, as the interest payments will be more than what we make as a country. Look at Spain and the Greeks. Sometimes we need to take off our partisan blinders and look at the stark reality. Ignorance is buying into Party BS

Cal20 - while GDP/Dept is an indicator, to many other issues factor into economic health. Everyone talks about Spain's immanent collapse, yet they are lowest on the list, and no one talks about a collapse by the country highest on the list. The GDP/Dept percentage is simply a talking point used by the right to bash Obama, and to get folks such as yourself all riled up, so you'll run around and scream bankruptcy.

• Spain GDP/DEPT 69.3
• UK 85.7
• Canada 83.5
• Germany 82.0
• Portugal 108.5
• US 103
• Greece 165.3
• Japan 208.2

yes, and if we use indicators, we can avoid trouble in the future. the current system isn't working, we are pushed further into debt. we have to borrow to pay that debt. we are paying more and more without making any cuts. Mr Walker is partially correct, we need to raise revenues, but how? The increased revenues need to be in tandem with cuts in our budget. the tax system is a failure. even by taxing the top 1% at 100% will only buy a few months of interest payments.

UAW,

Would you call the GOP voters who passed this platform educated voters?

They want to dissolve the federal reserve and included succession language in one plank of their platform

Federhttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40386_Iowa_GOP_Releases_Platform_Goes_Fullal

Ha I don't recall those educated voters in Iowa selecting Romney in the republican primary as their candidate.

North, I think as the balance of political clout continues to lean towards "Welfare" states like IL, CA, NY who can't live with in their means you will hear more noise from the better run states in regards to succession. It is a shame people like Obama get elected based on their promise to take from one citizen to give to another.

Do your self a favor and stop reading liberal blogs. Use common sense and stop letting political rhetoric steal your oppurtunities. This is American and regardless of who is President you can make your own mark. I've done very well from Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and hopefully through Romney....

UAW,

Even this "liberal" blog did not make up the GOP Iowa platform out of thin air.

The GOP political clout is reduced to tea party, birthers, extreme religious right voters, and the Paul cult. And Romney is their leader??!!!

BTW, I have already made my mark and life is good. Still working and love my profession.

Let's talk about welfare states UAWplease. I will agree CA and NY are number one and number two, care to guess who is number 3, I'll tell you, it is Texas. I'll tell you a few more, Tennessee is number 7, Indiana is number 9, Georgia is number 10, Florida is number 11, Arizona is number 12, and Missouri is number 13. I could go on and on but that is enough right there to completely debunk your implication that welfare is a blue state problem, a lot of real red states, and tiny ones at that are sucking more welfare than you can shake a stick at. Republicans in red states certainly don't refuse to accept their unemployment checks, food-stamps, and medicare, and the lower their wages and benefits go the more welfare they will need. Based on some of these states comparatively small size and populations I could probably make the case they are bigger welfare states than CA and NY. In any event don't try to imply that blue states are not huge receivers of welfare because it is simply not true, after all poor republicans and their children have to eat too.

Forrest, Do we really need a president who just enoucorages more people to go on welfare? Do we really need a president who enourages more people to blame some one else for thier lot in life? I think that is why the Tea Party has grown in popularity. It is good to see people stand up and say "let us keep more of what we have". I don't need Obama to take more from me just so he can "give" me some watered down retirement or medicare program.... Let's vote for a better example of a leader in 2012

UAWPleeeeeeease - The Tea Party is dying - much faster than people imagined it would. People are so tired of the lies and divisiveness of the group they don't want to be near anyone who has ties to them.

We are voting better in 2012 - we're voting out as many of the GOP as possible so we can get things done and the country can recover faster!

Obama/Biden 2012

I meant to say: In any event don't try to imply that red states are not huge receivers of welfare because it is simply not true, ................

Sorry as I read my own post I see that I have omitted some words, grammar and punctuation here and there, I am distracted, and apologize for the sloppiness, but I think you can understand the gist of my thoughts.

UAW:

Stop with the nonsense. When did the President EVER encourage anyone to go on welfare?

I've run several businesses over the years. I didn't create them for the hell of it. There was a clear demand, I saw it, I met it.

I'm retired - sort of - and I'm going to start another another business. There is a demand. I'll meet it and I'll make money. I always do because I know who created the need for the job. The customer. I'm not looking at government. The only uncertainty I'll face is whether I've read consumer demand correctly. If I'm right, I'll make money. I'll pay taxes. If I make a lot of money, I'll pay a lot of taxes.

If you people would pay more attention to your customers and less attention to your phony gripes and grievances, you might make more money.

David - UAW's nonsense is the same as the rest of the Republicans on this post. They love to whine and toss out the welfare lies because it's all they have.

THEN, they whine about the fact there are not more jobs. Let's see - more jobs mean fewer people getting government help. But, they don't see the correlation.

He does not encourage people to go on welfare, he is encouraging higher education, he is encouraging investment in new technologies and industries, he is encouraging better wages and benefits, all things that reduce peoples dependence on welfare. Romney is buying into the cut all those things mindset, which will only lead to more welfare. Obama has not raised anybodies taxes as of yet, he does propose that the wealthy pay the same percentage as the average person, and the majority of the country agrees with that. Half the people in Texas don't earn enough money to even owe any federal taxes, high taxes is not their problem, low wages and little or no benefits is their problem. Taxes have never been lower for wealthy people, so obviously high taxes are not the problem, with them creating jobs. The problem is that they don't create jobs, they create ways to extract more profit from consumers they only hire people to facilitate that, and when the general population has no disposable income to spend there is no reason for them to hire. The more wages and benefits are cut the worse the economy will get, the less jobs will be created, and the only thing that will increase is the number of people that need welfare. Lots of people with a little money to spend creates jobs, not a few people with a lot of money to spend.

Come on guys. 90% of the country is still working and always will. Doubling taxes on people with the resources to create jobs isnt going to increase jobs. Obama's plan hasnt worked to lower unemployment so far because it takes 20 private sector workers to pay for 1 government worker. Let's leave that money in the private sector. I understand the popularity of Obama saying "Vote for me and I'll raise taxes on the other guy". Most people have common sense let's use it and vote fro a better leader in 2012....

Obama's plans were never implemented, the plan we are under is the house republican plan of do nothing. Obama's plans for investment in infrastructure to spur employment and the economy by fixing and building infrastructure have been blocked by republicans at every chance they get. So don't label the current situation Obama's plan, the man has had very little opportunity to implement his plans, and furthermore the republicans won't even implement their own ideas for fear that it may help Obama politically.

That is why I say "Friends don't let friends vote republican".

friends don't let friends sell out Amerika. the national debt/GDP ratio is worse every day, mortgages are underwater, unemployment is high, gas costs sre high. You think Owebama is looking good?

Forrest, What do you call Stimulus I and the healthcare bill. I thought those MASSIVE expeditures were Obama's plan to get the economy on track? Be thankful the elections of 2010 put an end to the insanity. The gridlock of 2010-12 is probably the best thing for American until we can elect a better leader. relecting Obama will just delay and slow the recovery another 4 years....

The only thing that can speed the recovery is massive spending by the government. The middle class which normally drives the economy is tapped. If and when government spending on infrastructure is approved by republicans it will be seen in a whole new light, as it always is. Just like when republicans were in control "deficits don't matter" but when a democrat is in now that is all that matters. If the US government does not infuse the US economy with some cash the recovery will be all the slower and weaker and history proves as much. You know we could spend government money on necessary infrastructure, and put people to work, who will immediately spend their money and put more people to work, thereby killing 3 birds with one stone, or we can follow the republican plan and keep complaining about people who refuse to just lay down and starve so they collect welfare. Obama's plan to invest in infrastructure would give more people the opportunity to earn their own way, he is not proposing welfare he is proposing work for more people, work that results in tangible benefits for the US and everyone in the community. That is real leadership and responsible spending of tax dollars. In any event don't pretend democrats are too lazy to work, or that republicans are too proud to accept food-stamps, neither is true.

I wish they would have spent "Stimulus I" on more infrastructure. Let's face it the strength of any economy is based on private peoples confidence to spend money. Obama hasn't been able to gain the confidence of the consumer and certainly not the confidence of the business owners. let's change that and vote in a better President in 2012. Obama isnt going to magically gain the confidence of congress or the 1/2 of America who thinks he's incompetent....

Bad argument UAWplease, if the idea is good then you vote for it, what difference does it make who proposed it, so you admit that republicans turn down good ideas simply on the basis of who proposes them. How will Mitt gain the confidence of the 50% of the population that don't think he is fit for the job? People don't need confidence in the president to buy the goods and services they need and desire, they just need the cash. People don't miss a house payment because they don't have confidence in the president, they don't buy a car or furniture on the basis of how much confidence they have in the president. Businessmen only spend money to make money, they have customers or they don't, it has nothing to do with their confidence in the president. They don't turn down prospective customers and the chance to make a buck on the basis of their confidence in the president, I have been in many business and sales meetings and contract negotiations with many companies and in all my years the subject of the president has never came up. Companies hire when they have customers to service or sell to, they lay off when they don't, it does not have anything whatsoever to do with confidence in any president, never has, never will. Please find me a businessman that says I choose not to make a buck, even though I could make a buck, but I don't want to make that money because Obama is the president. Show me the sales manager that tells his crew to back off because I don't have a lot of confidence in this president. If Americans have money they spend money and they don't give a damn who the president is, who the hell tells their kids we will get you new shoes when they elect a president I have more confidence in. Who tells their kids when Romney is elected then I will buy you kids a swing-set, there will be no bicycles for you kids until I have more confidence in the president. When Romney is elected then and only then will we go out for ice cream, it would not taste good to you kids while Obama was president anyway. HA I needed that!

Come on Forrest live in the real world. Who doesnt know some one who isnt working because Obama extended thier unemployment checks another 6 months or year. Who doesnt know someone who isnt making thier house payment waiting on Obama to come up with a plan to make it for them. Obama's rhetoric that it's some one elses fault for your lot in life is terribly damaging to the country. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for yourself (before asking of others)...

Honestly UAWplease I don't know anybody such as you are describing, the people in my industry make about 1300 week in wages, plus benefits, I don't know a single person that would trade that for a couple hundred dollars a week in unemployment benefits, unemployment won't hardly buy gas and groceries for the week. I don't know anybody who is laid off, and wants to stay laid off so they can "live the high life" on a couple of hundred bucks a week. Maybe people in Texas feel that way because they only make $10.80 an hour anyway, but none of my union buddies want to try and live on 20% of what they are used to earning.

Maybe there were more Republicans who answered the poll...but they were just too ashamed and afraid to admit they were Republicans.

UAW

"educated Iowa voters".....lmao!

didn't Bachmann win the straw poll?

didn't Santorum win the primary vote?

Hey V.aginal P.robe McDonald,

I really don't think we want to move in the Republican direction of:

1. continuing the War on Women
2. favoring the rich by taking away from the middle class and especially the poor and struggling
3. picking more fights in the Middle East for more useless and costly wars

Hey Rush, Newt or whatever Pig of the Day you are, what about the treatment of S.E. Cupp? Any comment??? Crickets???

b dune, I know it was unintended but please do not put all Iowans in the same category as the tea-nut, rabid evangelical crowd that has consumed the GOP here the last decade. Bachmann bought her straw poll win, the straw poll is nothing more than a GOP fundraiser in which the candidate who provides the best eats, drinks along with buying the most tickets to pass out to voters to cast for them wins. The democratic caucuses in Iowa are usually pretty darn good at picking the best candidates to go forward in presidential campaigns.

Bob in VA -

Did you read the article or just post? They CLEARLY state the Democrat/Republican bias of their poll results, which happens when you call randomly. They also present the adjusted results.

By the way, Gallup and Rassmussen were both dramatically wrong in the 2010 elections. They overstated the Republican position by an average of almost 5 points. The Marist and Qunnipac polls were both very accurate.

And based on the underlying demographic results of the polls don't be surprised when Virginia and Ohio both go for Obama in November..

Nice spin there TNSEVOL, maybe you could try throwing a football..... with that much SPIN you could be Tennessee's new quarterback ! LOL !!

Democrats were "shellacked" in 2010 ..... Obama's words, not mine !

You can try and rationalize the polls all you want if it makes you feel relevant, but November 2010, sent a strong message to lefties. You refuse to listen !

jim-1455434 - yes November will send a strong message that the Democrats are on the right track and the GOP can't even find the station. The GOP has made people realize how little they know or care and everyone has had enough.

Obama/Biden 2012

Ooohh ! Stalker !! Stalker !!!

RIF = "reading is fundamental" .... apparently you missed that federal program ! Or maybe it just proves that some federal-spending programs are worthless wastes of taxpayer money !

"Sent" is past tense, as is "shellacked" .... both words relate back to the results of the November, 2010 election results .... and yes, 2010 is also "past tense". You Democrats can stick your fingers in your ears, refuse to listen and ignore reality till it bites you in the gluteus maximus ... but Obama's extremist actions in his first two years are why Democrats got their butts kicked !

Of course, you are a libbie. You think "denial" is a river in Egypt

jim - oh my! Stale "jokes" and you think you're clever! Of course you're a Republican. Stale is all you have!

If polls interest you, the only one I can find for Massachusetts has Obama by a staggering 25 points. Obviously the state that has been governed by Romney has a very low regard for him, and definitely does not want him as their next president. If you are applying for a new job and your last employer gives you a reference like Massachusetts is giving Romney you are in deep trouble. Take it from his last employer folks, he is not the man for the job.

I can tell you what happened- the realization that, immediately after Romney is elected- so, December of 2012, or, at the latest, February of 2013, unemployment is going to jump to 12%.

Why? Because all the funny business of dumping people put of the labor force will stop- so the actual unemployment number will be broadcast.

So, if you look at both statements, Romney is promising to halve unemployment. In the first instance, he was using the current posted unemployment rate- in the second, the actual.

Get it now? Obama thinks he is clever- but most people are on to him by now.

Tell me, Noid, why does Obama think he is running for another five years? Does he not understand that the term of office is four?

Not only that, Da Noid---the CBO has already estimated that unemployment will be at 6% by then no matter what happens. Romney likes to take credit for things he didn't do---like the auto bailout, which is now his idea (forget that pesky op-ed titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"). Oh, and the "marvelous" Ryan budget, which Mitt loves, assumes a 4% unemployment rate.

BATTLE FOR WHITE HOUSE (Need 270) to Win
Current Electoral Locked up by each:

Obama 227

Romney 170

Toss Ups
141

Arizona (11)Colorado (9)Florida (29)Iowa (6)Michigan (16)Missouri (10)New Hampshire (4)North Carolina (15)Ohio (18)Virginia (13)Wisconsin (10)

Of the Above Obama needs 43 to win.

Of the Above Romney needs 100 to win.

no joe, no bo, nj

I like how you teabaggies mimic Rush and think you're all smart like .... really entertaining .... LOL

I can tell you what happened- the realization that, immediately after Romney is elected- so, December of 2012, or, at the latest, February of 2013, unemployment is going to jump to 12%.

...but aren't we supposed to be all rainbows and lollipops and unicorns if Romney is elected?

Why? Because all the funny business of dumping people put of the labor force will stop- so the actual unemployment number will be broadcast.

Please tell me you're not stupid enough to believe there's a change in the method of reporting unemployment.

So, if you look at both statements, Romney is promising to halve unemployment. In the first instance, he was using the current posted unemployment rate- in the second, the actual.

Uh, no, any way I look at it it all comes to the same conclusion...Romney's moving the goal posts for himself.

I swear, I don't know what's worse...that you post this horse puckey or that you actually believe it.

Reporting? No. Calculation? No. Monkeying around with the numbers?

Absolutely, one hundred percent, yes.

First, let's address the unemployment rate calculation:

Unemployment Rate=(unemployed workers/total labor force)100.

That's pretty straightforward. What is Hilda Solis' Labor Department doing to monkey with the numbers?

Artificially reducing the total labor force. Questions were raised about this a couple of years ago- but since panic set in, (for the Obama camp, that is), it has gotten so egregiously out of hand that everybody and his uncle has noticed.

Last month, over 500,000 people were dumped, bringing the civilian labor force down to 1981 levels.. Where does that number come from? Well, 180,000 Entered the labor force- but did not find jobs, as only 115,000 were created, (in fact,the number of unemployed rose by 169,000), and an additional 372,000 suddenly left the labor force.

Put them together, and over half a million people are simply not interested in finding jobs anymore.

That makes sense to no one. In fact, it smacks of funny accounting measures.

What will happen once Romney is elected is that suddenly, all those people will again be counted as part of the civilian labor force. If you add back all the people subtracted from the civilian labor force during the Obama administration, and plug them in, you get an unemployment rate of about 12%. That's the real rate of unemployment.

It's pretty ugly.

Job1,

You have spent the last couple of days with your forcast.

I would like to know what you will say or do, if obama does not win.

Agian, there is a 50/50 chance. What will you say?

I'm not holding my breath either, Da Noid. Romney probably heard about that CBO report that Steeler Fan referenced and hoped no one would notice if he latched on to it. Pretty bad when Mitt doesn't remember from one speech to another what he said! The truth is that unemployment will go down to 6% and we don't need Mitt Romney's venture/vulture capitalism to achieve that. It is President Obama's policies, despite the GOP obstructionists, that have this country in recovery from a near depression, 26 straight months of job growth, the most manufacturing jobs created in decades.

No jo..

"monkeying around with numbers"....

you mean like the Republicans who left the cost of the wars out of the budgets?

When a person lies like Romney, he loses track of his lies.

LOL, Snookie-Joe, who once claimed she has a PhD in economics, doesn't even understand that the unemployment number has always reflected only those people who are actively seeking work; that's the way it was with every administration since unemployment numbers were tracked. This is not a new way of reporting simply because President Obama is in the White House; there is no funny business, there is no fuzzy math, and that's a fact. Iowa's unemployment number is 5.1%, using Snookie-Joe Forked Tongue's thinking perhaps our GOP Gov Branstad has cooked the unemployment books

Romney threw out a 4% number off the cuff in an unscripted moment during a speech; he imagined it and then later realized how utterly ridiculous that number was so he upped the number to coincide with the CBO report. We've only had 4% unemployment once and Bill Clinton was President.

I would like to know what you will say or do, if obama does not win.

Agian, there is a 50/50 chance. What will you say?

The only way the President would likely lose would be to the ongoing campaign of voter suppression around the country.

NJNB-

The unemployment numbers have been reported the same way for decades.

Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 reports all Unemployed and Underemployed, including those no longer working and those working part-time who would like full-time. This U-6 number has consistently improved from a high of 17.2% in Oct. 2009 to its current rate of 14.5% in Apr 2012.

Your "opinion" that someone is fudging the numbers does not hold water.

Job1,

Just so I am understanding you correctly. If obama loses the election, it will be because of voter suppression. There is not a chance of him losing honestly.

You understand correctly. The excusses are already starting.

Job 1 if you think Missouri is in the toss up category you sir are smoking too much of your liberal cannibas.

Jody, I agree with you, Independent voters are open to giving Romney a look-see. They are trying to be fair, and to give the opposition side a chance to make their case. (Obviously they weren't paying attention during that interminable Republican primary!)

Some voters are magical-thinkers. They believe, if you change Presidents, whatever problems the country has, automatically get better. It's a kind of childish view of the world, in my opinion.

Those of us who have been paying attention, recognize Romney's ideas are the same that Bush tried: cut taxes on the wealthiest to grow the economy (in ten years, this hasn't worked!) And, as far as I can see, this is Romney's ONLY idea.

The only people suffering from collectove amnesia are those in the Obama cult- the last, struggling members of a once vibrant community who looked forward to Hope and Change- without realizing that the aftermath of a train wreck is, also, change.

That's what we've got. We've also got a president who inserts himself into other president's biographies, and misunderstands the term of office

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/we-need-five-more-years-124425.html

We've got spiraling debt, limping GDP, and high unemployment kept artificially below the actual number by dumping people out of the labor force.

We've got blame- Bush, the Japanese tsunami, the sun got in his eyes, he tripped over a rock- but no responsibility.

We've got a president who, finally, understands what eight year olds running a lemonade stand get- that businesses exist to make profits- and treats it as something evil.

And, now, we've got voters who recognize that they elected the wrong man, including a whole lot of democrats who cannot run far enough away from Obama, and, yes, are cautiously taking a look at Romney, hoping for another change.

This time, for the better.

Jody---I hope people are taking a closer look at Mitt. I hope they also look at his team of advisors--the folks from the Bush administration who brought us to the brink of financial ruin.

I'd like to take a closer look at Mitt's tax returns from prior years but I think he is going to stonewall those.

Great point Jody.

To have Romney elected President would be a bigger disaster to the United States than the Great Depression.

Steeler Fan, General Colin Powell commented this week that people should not just look at the individual presidential candidates, they should look at who that candidate will bring along with them, who that candidate's advisors are and in his view, Romney has questionable foreign policy advisors from the Bush/Cheney years. Powell did not have a positive comment for Romney's advisors.

Romney said VP Dick Cheney was the type of person he wants to select as his VP, and praised Cheney. Cheney is holding a fundraiser for Mitt in Wyoming. Can't speak for others but Cheney is and remains a lying, paranoid, fear-mongering politician who never, ever should have held any positions of power. Even President Bush distanced himself from Cheney the last couple years; too bad, he didn't did it sooner and too bad he ever allowed Cheney to pick himself as the best VP candidate choice.

Snookie-Joe, you prove my point; not one thing you said counters my argument. Ever occur to you that "five more years" includes the rest of this year and is a reference to the number of years it will take to fully recover from the Bush/Cheney/GOP 2nd Great Depression! Well, duh?

"A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one." Benjamin Franklin.

Edit ran out, that should be: Bush distanced himself from Cheney the last couple years; too bad, he didn't DO it sooner....

Jody - if Romney wants a VP candidate like Cheney, where exactly is he going to find another lying murderer? God help this country if he does!

Bush is no more responsible for the collapse than Obama is for the recovery. The policies put in place in the early 1990's compounded by the bipartisan mistake of TARP. No policy implemented under the Obama administration has helped other than the temporary lowering of payroll taxes (has future negative consequences) and not increasing income taxes. He has tried to increase income taxes however and those efforts have slowed the recovery.

Except for those of us who prefer to have both!

Jody,

that is truly the exception anymore, I haven't had a land line in over a decade.

FR: "Going a bit too far? Speaking of Romney’s education speech, he said yesterday that American children are getting a “third-world education” under President Obama. “Third world”?"

That's not "a bit too far", it's all the way over the cliff. And no, Pacific NW Mark, the truth doesn't matter at all to these people - otherwise somebody would be challenging the statement "quoted" by Romney in his education speech yesterday - an urban legend statement historically attributed to former AFT President Albert Shanker - that there is absolutely no documented record of him ever having actually said. Yet conservatives have been quoting it like the Bible for at least 25 years. I noticed yesterday that Romney didn't bother to mention any of these other quotes from Mr. Shanker, all of which CAN be documented:

"Public schools played a big role in holding our nation together. They brought together children of different races, languages, religions, and cultures and gave them a common language and a sense of common purpose. We have not outgrown our need for this; far from it." (Where We Stand, March 3, 1997)^[4]

"..a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent"^[5][6]

“There is no more reason to pay for private education than there is to pay for a private swimming pool for those who do not use public facilities.”^[7]

“It is as much the duty of the union to preserve public education as it is to negotiate a good contract.”^[8]

"It's dangerous to let a lot of ideas out of the bag, some of which may be bad. But there's something that's more dangerous, and that's not having any new ideas at all at a time when the world is closing in on you." (Speech to the AFT QuEST Conference, 1985)"

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

I think Romney should especially pay attention to that last one - "there's something that's more dangerous, and that's not having any new ideas at all at a time when the world is closing in on you".

The GNOP doesn't believe in facts....only fiction.....

GNOP - "THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"!

Hey! Political junkies of both major parties - the average citizen is becoming more concerned about his own backyard (statehouse races) Think about that for 2 minutes, will ya? And I will take $200/Alec on likability on Obama over Romney in the Presidential election.

phinephancy-4252115

Politics is really weird, isn't it? If Olympia Snowe hadn't retired she would have faced a rigorous primary fight. The senator had an approval rating of 72% among Independents in our state. Among Republicans "only" 57% approved. Yet the Tea Party activists wanted to get rid of her.

What kind of Party wants to take down their most popular politicians?

JoAnne -

Great Post!

I truly don't normally think this way, but in my opinion Romney's comments were border-line anti-American. He is said that America has a third-world education system, ad blames Obama and the teacher's unions? Add this to Roney's "inferno" comments, Ryan's "failed president" remarks, and Santorum comparing Obama to the threat of Hitler and what does it all add up to?

The GOP complains that Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism then go out and warn of the "armageddon" that will happen to America if we dare to re-elect Obama.

phine---keeping you in my thoughts and prayers. I think you are right that the state races are also important---people are seeing that what happens in their state is so critical.

On likeability----4 years ago no one knew then-Senator Obama but they've watched him be President for almost 4 years now (along with his beautiful family) and, whether or not they agree with his policies, most people think he is a basically good person who they would like.

JoAnne, terrific post.

TNSEVOL, Romney continues to speak out of both sides of his mouth. Out of one side, he wants the best education possible for our children. Out of the other side, he denigrates teachers, demonizes collective bargaining which also bargains for better resources, smaller class sizes, modern equipment and a decent school environment that aids learning for students; he plans to eliminate or combine or greatly shrink the Dept of Education; his own party continues to cut education funding to pay for their continued tax cuts for the richest 10%. Then Yahoo Mitt claims our kids are getting a third world education. The guy can't even do a good smoke and mirrors trick.

Can't speak for other areas but the Organizing for America group I volunteer with is focusing on the local, state elections as well as re-electing President Obama. We're working very hard to educate voters on the local democratic candidates running for state and city/county slots this year at the same time as we are urging they support Obama.

So which is it on the education front? Are we getting worse or are the third world countries improving that quickly? Pull your head out of the sand before it is too late. There are many places in this country that public education is so poor (51% discipline problem in Georgia....over half the class) parents are spending every dime they have to send their kids to private (very expensive) or paracochial (expensive but less than private) schools. $13000 per student per year for a public education. $10,000 to $25,000 for parachocial or private and that on top of the taxes wasted for the public side. We need to do something so quit denying we have a problem.

I'm not surprised that Joanne could find anything that confirmed Mr. quote. Maybe she will be more sucessful find when he said:

"It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a burecucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."

And yes we will!!

Romney is a terrible, bad, greedy, lying, cheating and all around completely bad person.

I wonder what his family thinks in knowing what a complete liar he is?

I second that!...Yes we will!

Obama is like Pinocchio .... "LOL"

Hey Liberal bumper sticker fans! You forgot Obama's MAIN bumper sticker:

"(Noun) (verb) bin Laden."

"Four more years!"

"Four more years!"

"Four more years!"

Damage -

It only goes to show that Obama remembered the true cause of 9/11 and remained focused.

He didn't forget about or become "not very concerned" about Bin Laden. and it still beats "Mission Accomplished".

so if you buy into the party line you want continued unemployment, underwater motgages, $4/ gal gasoline, stagflation and continued executive ineptness? And dont forget the enormous national debt that will force us into a Greek tragedy.

ABO 2012

People that beleive what you posted will not be able to find the polls on election day.

This is such a funny statement on your part. I’m hoping that someday before the election we will see Romney do an interview with anyone other than Fox. And in those Fox friendly interviews they went bad.

Romney will not be elected President. He is too much of a Nervous Nelly. That Nervous Nelly laugh comes out especially when someone gets in his face. So, can you image what will happen when the President gets into his face during the debates?

Just look at video of when he is asked tough questions. He falls apart, such as, “oh, oh, if, I did, I didn’t, go vote for someone else, leave me alone, I didn’t say that, help, corporations are people too, I know business, I fire people, help, I created jobs, help me. “

Also, I bet you can't name a President since Ike that didn't use a teleprompter?

Romney can't debate anyone and win. To debate you need to pick an issue and choose your side, (for or against). Romney lacks the ability to stay on a side, thus the constant flip-flops. He's also prone to change the subject as soon as he begins to feel uncomfortable. The viewing public will see this for what it is.

And yes, I can't wait for the debates!!

Well Job1 - I have to admit that Romney looked completely serious as he gave a Palinesque answer to Halerpin on his qualifications to be president. He reads balance sheets. Beyond that, what other skill could you possibly need to meet the demands of POTUS?

I’m hoping that someday before the election we will see Romney do an interview with anyone other than Fox.

job1, I am having a greater laugh thinking about Obama ever doing an interview on Fox News. And you say Romney is nervous at debates, your perception, not mine. He definitely much better than the performances Obama gives during speeches when he babbles and tries to collect his thoughts after every question. It would be nice if Obama actually answered the questions instead of going around them for 6 minutes offering nothing of substance. That is what Obama will be like in the debates. Actually there will be one difference during the questions of the coming debates, Obama will actually be timed for his answers so at least there will be less babbling thank God! Don't forget his record he has to account for. I would love to see how he defends that one!

Fuzzy, don't even go there with the flip flopping after Obama's greatest one yet with Gay marriage. Voters saw right through that one, the majority of pollsters believed his statement was purely political!

Dee Patriot -

Do your homework. Obama has done several interviews with Fox News, including an appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show.

Romney used a teleprompter for his primary victory speeches, what are you talking about? And great debate performances? Did you miss the one where he talked about "self-deportation", or told the moderator "You get to ask the questions you want; I get to give the answers I want "?

Sure, Romney is a GREAT debator......I can't wait to see the "split-screen" video of Romney debating with HIMSELF over abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the auto bailout, and many other issues on which he has flip/flopped.

President Obama is a Great Debater and he will win the debates over Nervous Nelly. Put it in the bank as a sure bet.

Careful, Dee. Obama DID do an interview with Fox News. With Bill O'Reilly.

You should really do some research before you post.

When he wasn't being rudely interrupted over 40 times by O'Reilly, Obama acquitted himself very well, thank you.

Wow, that's not the press conference after the NATO summit that I heard, De- Patriot; Dee Patriot must have heard the GOP/FOX News version. I heard President Obama give well thought out and informative answers. What I thought absurd was the press asking questions unrelated to the NATO summit and he answered those very well indeed; I would have asked the reporters which was more important, some trivial, press feeding-frenzy nontroversy or what took place in the summit--but then, that is why I am not President.

Obama has done numerous interviews with FOX; the last one was with a FOX reporter who never allowed President Obama to answer the questions; he interrupted so often that the reporter should have been fired but, no, he's still there.

Dee - you were clearly watching something no one else saw after NATO. Our President gave an excellent speech and answered questions thoughtfully.

But, I see you think Romney did well in debates so I understand your confusion. You equate stuttering and stammering and uh, and ah, with a good speaker. You WOULD be impressed with Mitts who can't fully answer anything he is asked.

Jody,

The president has a tendency to drone on, Bill O'Reilly wanted to get as many questions in, before his time was up.

Seeking,

They both stutter and stammer, they are using their words wisely, one slip, and the press will be all over them. Cant say I blame them.

i would rather have a good administrator than a good debator.

i would rather have a skilled Sugeon operating on me than a charismatic one.

i would rather have a good driver operating a bus than one who considers all drivers as evil.

cal20 - so aren't you lucky that we have Obama. Not only is he good at his job but he can actually communicate, too!

Talk is cheap. When does Obama come up with a realistic finacial plan for handling this country's massive $16+ trillion debt.

Oh, I forgot ... you believe what Obama "SAYS" as opposed to what Obama "DOES".

sanity: good at his job? Only his base would think so. Is your life better since 2008? His communication skills are great. He has some of the population thinking 10% real unemployment is good, that we need higher taxes, underwater mortgages are good, high gasoline prices are good. He has his believers thinking a crap sandwich tates good. Any independent can tell that a crap sandwich is horrible and not to be ingested. Calling a crap sandwich good doen't make it palatable (except to the devoted).

BigBoy who you trying to convince the right!.

I do !

Wlfred, Romney will do just fine, I am not worried. No matter how moderate his views are to these ultra-conservatives, they will vote for him knowing that Obama is the worst choice for them (their contempt for Obama far outweighs the moderate views they believe Romney has), they will unify and support Romney and run to the polls to avoid a second term of an Obama disaster!

What reasonable moderate positions are toxic?

CC have you noticed that when the people on the right speak its nothing but GOP talking points, so which flock do you belong to, the anti-black beaked red breasted southern gubber bird.

To Tis the Season who very racially writes back

so which flock do you belong to, the anti-black beaked red breasted southern gubber bird.

That was a metaphor you dodo. But if I was a bird I would be a dammed pretty one. You do know what a dodo bird is? just google it. To the rest just keep noticing how prejudiced this folks are. But they will be the first to cry wolf on any other person.

Concern, go back and read from this forum without your bias. The flocks exist on both the right and the left.

Hey, you FR liberal posters---Concern Citizen wants you to quit being polite and respectful to each other. Are the folks on the right against common courtesy now?

Concern Citizen, and your point is???? If you don't like the fact that I choose to tell a poster that I appreciate their efforts, then too bad, so sad, don't read my comment. I have also given cheers to conservative posters who actually write comments that are well thought out and informative--even if I may disagree with some of it. I believe birds of a feather flock together because they like each other, they generally hang out at a place like Cheers--"where everybody knows your name."

I see Concern Citizen actually has NOTHING to post so now she/he berates those who do!

Yes, Tis the Racist Season.

The only thing Obama has going for him is that he is (half) black.

Irronically, So am I - However, I have never claimed to be a minority to get free stuff from the Government - unlike the big O

Actually, he is not a big O - he is a skinny frail crack head O (dont attack me - he admitted it !!!)

Jody, Iowa,

You are the only one that seems to be human in that group. And my point is that when I started to post on Frist Read I really want it to be civil. Unfortunately I got hit immediately with the reality. In my opinion thee more insults given than points of view coming across.

My point on the first post was that the experts on this Post do not agree and put down anything that does not match their ideology.

I have also agreed with some of the things you have posted and also a few times with Job1. i will tell you and the rest of two that come to mind for putting the most insults, Bev in Chicago (what a mouth) Feisty (know it all) and let's not forget Insanity who is now questioning my gender. Do you see what I mean?

I will be more Civil from now on and see if that works? I'm an independent as I have stated many time.

Concern Citizen,

Good luck.

Concern - I reply as I'm attacked. If you don't like people coming back at you in a less than civil manner, then maybe you should be civil! Just a thought!

No sanity to be found in the GOP - the "do as I say, not as I do" group!

SeekingSanity, you attack virtually everyone with a different political opinion from yours on a regular, ongoing daily basis ! Then you try and play "victim" when it comes back on you. You are one of the most consistent, regular, personal attack "artists" here on this website .... and then you complain about others ? Really ??

You are hypocritical in that regards, and all anyone has to do is click on your screen moniker to read how many times you have called someone "idiot" in your daily posts.

Respect must be earned. When YOU treat others with respect, you will be more likely to get it back. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to change.

See 15.5 below.

Nazzy with the rants you go on your the last one that should be talking about morals.

The nice thing about Nazzy's unclear points is that he/she doesn't make a point, so their is nothing to support or refute. It is about as inane as this statement; Romney will never be elected because he is immoral and wants to take us to fiscal bankruptcy.

Obama is the one leading the U.S. to the brink of bankruptcy. Every year in office, the annual deficit has been more than $1 trillion, and Obama still has not presented any kind of REALISTIC budget proposal ..... and he's now in his fourth year of office.

Last year's Obama offering was so bad, it was voted down 97 to 0 in the Senate ! This year's Obama offering contains more spending and Harry Reid will not allow it to be brought up for a vote !! I guess he wants to spare the President from further embarassment !

Then, of course, this financial sham called Obamacare waits in the wings as another entitlement program where our government will "subsidize" health insurance premiums for those who "cannot afford it".

Nazzy - you know you hit the truth because Tis the Racist Season immediately attacked you personally.

Alinsky taught her well

Bo - you are truly pathetic!

Cederico

That's an insightful analysis. You could be Chuck Todd's understudy!

Cederico, Great that you are such an optiminst! Good for you! I, as well am an optimist that Romney is virtually tied with Obama, the incumbent president and given the fact that Romney's campaign has just kicked off. Pretty great numbers for Romney as a person people perceive to be unpopular and out of touch. Voters are coming around little by little as they listen to what Romney has to say and as I mentioned in my previous post, I believe the debates will be a turning point. There will be a clear contrast on who knows more about the economy. Obama has a pathetic record and needs to finally answer for it during these debates. (there will be no diversions, no running away from his record). Lets discuss the polls during and after this time and see where they are!

Dee: Since GOP says most iIndependent svote against the incumbent...Romney should be way ahead...right? The fact that he isn't must be very concerning to GOP.

Dragon, Polls are taken from registered voters, not likely voters. You will see the difference in these numbers as we get closer to the election and Independents will go unanimously for Romney and at the same time, some disenfranchised Democrats will stay home as many will remain unemployed as there continues to be no positive change in this administration or the economy. Let's wait for the debates! Yes, lets wait for them when everything is on the table and Obama will not be able to hide or find any other diversions. Then we can see where the real contrast is, who has the real solutions, who has more knowledge on the economy! Let's discuss the numbers then.

Dee -

What about Southern Conservatives who voted overwhelmingly against him in the primaries? Will they be motivated to go vote for a Mormon? (I don't have a problem with his religion, but believe me they will). Based off Romney's vote totals in the primaries he will have a serious enthusiasm gap in November.

Why will Independents go "unanimously" for someone who had to take extreme positions to win his primaries? You apparently believe that the more they know about him, the more they will like him. I believe the opposite. Most of those supporting Romney are really just ABO votes who are "holding their nose" and voting for Romney - just look at his Favorable/Unfavorable numbers.

I'll add another to Cederico's well thought out analysis, President Obama's 48% is 2-3 points higher than where former President Bush stood in the same time frame during 2004. It is also higher than where Clinton stood in 1996.

"Clinton got 49% in 1996, Gore got 48.5% in 2000, Kerry got 48.3% in 2004"

Let's see...Clinton won with 49% only because of Ross Perot, Gore lost and Kerry lost...

And the liberal drinking the koolaid thinks 48% support is just great! LOL.

Like Romney in the GOP primaries could never get above 40%. Many Repubs don't want Romney....the tepid endorsements he is getting are laughable.

NBC will soon have polls with more than an 8 percent Dem advantage cooked in...obviously they must do better for David Axelrod !

and they claimed President Obama wasn't vetted. Romney is running as an empty suit.

bfitz the only dung on this page is when you post, next time bring a shovel to clean up the smell before you go.

bfitz, your little HNIC comments bfitz your little pea-brained racist soul. It's people like you that make a lot of us other Americans ashamed of our education system.

Get a life you little racist!!!

bfitz - I believe you brought up the word "sewage" and that is exactly what I thought when reading your post. Pure sewage!

naz: Can't refute what I am saying so you resort to name calling.....

Dragon - Being a leader in ones church is a good achievement. So is giving 15% of your income to charity. Unlike Obama, Romney is a godly, honest, truthful and faithful man.

naz: Romney doesn't want to talk about being a bishop in Mormon church....wonder why since as you put it, it makes him look like a "godly, honest, truthful and faithful man"......why wouldn't he want to talk about that?

Romney does not like gloating about his success. He would not mention Staples or Sports Authority until now. Obama takes credit for things not of his doing and blames his many failures on others.

naz: PLeeeeese! Romney is shouting at the top of his voice how good a job creator he is, how he is so knowledgeable about business.

And yet....why does he not want to talk about Bain?

Why doesn't he talk about being govenor of Mass...oh ya, they were 47th in jobs during his term. And he created a healthplan that ACA was based on.

Romney wants to take credit....but don't ever, ever actually look at the facts....just trust whatever he says....remember his "I don't remember what I said, but I stand behind it"...LOL!

In 1980, the public debt was $900 billion. By the time you-know-who left office in 1989, that amount had nearly quadrupled. Fast forward a little over a decade, now. In 2001, the public debt was approximately $5.8 trillion. By the time W left office in 2009, that amount was nearly $12 trillion, and that was with both wars OFF the books. Where was the uproar and concern over spending during those times? And if you want to talk about excessive spending, let's look at where our money goes. Did you know that when you figure in discretionary dollars, we spend more on defense than on Social Security and Medicare COMBINED, as well as TWICE as much as on any public assistance program we have? Defense spending accounts for nearly half of the deficit all by itself. We spend $500 billion alone on war debt interest and arming foreign governments, and that's not even counting the base budget. No city-state/nation/empire that has made the military its be-all and end-all has EVER survived. Not a single one.

Obama's administration has been one of spending restraint, despite the $787 billion stimulus which began at the end of 2009, at the beginning of Obama's first budget year, and was spread mostly over 2010 and 2011.

In Bush's final budget year, from Oct 1, 2008 through Sep 30, 2009, Bush's final budget year 2009 spending increased from fiscal 2008 by $535 billion, and we had a record deficit of $1.412 trillion. Bush still holds the record budget deficit.

In Obama's first budget year , beginning Oct 1, 2009, spending decreased by $61.5 billion, and the deficit decreased by over $100 billion to $1.294 trillion.

Obama's second budget year spending was $85.4 billion higher than Bush's final budget year, (a 2.4% increase over two years); the deficit increased very slightly to $1.3 trillion.

Obama's third budget year is not over yet, and the deficit for his third budget year can only be estimated until after the budget year ends on Sep 30 of this year.

Obama has pissed away and lost more money (our kids and grandkids money) than any Human in the history of the GALAXY !!!

And Dragon calls this restraint - what is really scarry is what he will do to our children if he does get 4 (or 5 using his math) more years - when he dosen't have to worry about those pesky elections and can really do what he wants.

naz: Tsk, tsk....can't refute what I post, you can't give facts, you can't post anything logical...so again you post nonsense.

Nazzy paid mouth piece for Mephistopheles.

Romney's business model. Take small companies, leverage debt against them to pay investors, when they get too far in debt sell them off in pieces, laying off employees.

Romney's business model is to make money, not jobs. Often, like in the case of Staples, he runs small local stores out of business so they have to close, and their employees have to take jobs with a big store at less money, less benefits.

Romney's business model.....make as much money off a company as I can, sell or off-shore them...and to heck with America and Americans....I got my money.

Dragon - no profit, no companies, no jobs, no income for Government, no money to buy votes for Demorats.

naz: Profit by selling companies who have jobs, who pay taxes...instead increase unemployment so more people need the very services that won't be there because of cuts. Innvest in overseas companies, encourage companies to outsource jobs overseas, put money into Swiss and Cayman Island accounts to avoid paying US taxes.

This shows how a smart investor manages his money. Note - Mitt pays taxes on profits made on these accounts.

naz: I see you can't handle facts.....too much for you to comprehend? Maybe more like you only want "facts" that agree with your views....heaven forbid real knowledge gets in the way!

Dragon -- do not mention Heaven, for it's gate is narrow and many Demorats will not enter.

nazarite-

If heaven is full of people like Romney and other Republicans, I would prefer Hell over spending an eternity with them

nazarite - and not a single Republican will be allowed in. The party of hate is not liked there!

Heaven? There's no such thing according to libs. HP? HP had to cut back because of the great obumer economy we are enjoying now. How many Solyndra employees lost their jobs after the CEO's made their money from my pocket into theirs? HP is a drop in the bucket compared to all the businesses the odumber economy has bankrupted,closed and layed off their workers. None of these arguements mean squat for anyone who believed the 'hope and change' garbage and voted for this fool anyway. The lamestream media will spin as much as they can but they can only do so much and the smart voters will see through all of it. Once the dead and illegal can't vote, another lib will never win a dog race.

TO: MacAttack-707872 who wrote:

"Heaven? There's no such thing according to libs..."

It sounds as though you've lost your entire mind.

American Girl - dont' think Mac had a mind to lose.