Here's a question for Mr. Romney: Since you are worth an endless amount of money.....why do you want the job of President?

I'd be spending as much as I could before I kick off, but I guess I just don't have that much ego.

Obama 2012 - "Poles, Nazi's, same thing, right? "

Isn't this precious?

Snuffy has a brand new bone to chew on...

There is a difference between mis-speaking & pathological lying... not that we expect you to be able to differentiate between them!

JoAnnaSmith1

My God, I only caught part of the Medal of Freedom ceremony, but I was so moved by the President's demeanor in presenting these awards. I saw him present the medal to Pat Summit, the legendary women's basketball coach from the University of Tennessee, who is facing a diagnosis of Alzheimer's. I saw her face change from anxiety to radiance when she looked at the President. It was very moving to me on many levels. For one thing, I remember when young female athletes were ridiculed, and the controversy over Title IX, (Republicans opposed equal funding for women's sports, naturally.) In addition, my mother and grandfather battled Alzheimer's in their later years and I am very grateful to the President for forming a task force in his administration to fight to find a cure.

Watching the Medal of Freedom awards ceremony, I thought: how can anyone not vote to re-elect this President?

Speaking of out of touch, how about the new Romney Iphone app, "A Better Amercia". That's right, he misspelled America. I'm sure he meant to spell it "W-a-l-l S-t-r-e-e-t".

After Barry yesterday awarded Bob Dylan with the Medal of Freedom, think the two of them went outback to "celebrate"?

Obama 2012 - "Everybody must get stoned!"

You'd have to be stoned to vote for this goof.

Amy B: Watching the Medal of Freedom awards ceremony, I thought: how can anyone not vote to re-elect this President?

For a hot coal walker like you, you'll find out in November.

For those of you under age 30, a little background on Title IX.

The first person to introduce Title IX in Congress was its author and chief Senate sponsor, Senator Birch Bayh (Democrat) of Indiana....on February 28, 1972, Senator Bayh introduced the ERA's equal education provision as an amendment

In his remarks on the Senate floor, Bayh said, "We are all familiar with the stereotype of women as pretty things who go to college to find a husband, go on to graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools not to waste a "man's place" on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts absolutely contradict these myths about the "weaker sex" and it is time to change our operating assumptions."^[7]

"While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching," Bayh concluded, "it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs—an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work."^[8]

Title IX states,

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX}

Bill,

I agree that the economy is recovering slowly, and things are still tough for a whole lot of people. I can even agree that if President Obama would have focused more on the economy early in his term perhaps things would be better.

What I didn't see in your post is what Romney would do to make things better. It's easy to write several paragraphs about what YOU don't like about Obama, isn't it? Why not put the same effort into writing something positive about YOUR candidate and his plan to improve the economy?

I see nothing in Romney's economic plans that aren't a return to the failed policies of prior administrations. Tax Cuts plus increased Military Spending equals HIGHER deficits - unless you include those mysterious and unspecified "cuts" to spending.

Here's more questions for Mr. Romney: If you love this country so much, why do you short-change it by stashing millions off-shore to avoid taxes? Why does your tax plan allow even greater tax cuts for folks like you while raising taxes on everyone else? If you believe education is the civil rights of your era, why is it you and your party so willingly defund it at every opportunity; why is it you and your party demonize teachers? Are unions really bad for workers and the public or is it that the GOP and you dislike any group that doesn't believe what you sell?

From a non-MSNBC article this morning:

"Attorney General Eric Holder, the IRS, and the liberal lawyers at the ACLU will brief several hundred pastors in the African American community on how to participate in the presidential election -- which the Congressional Black Caucus chair expects will help President Obama's campaign.

"We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people, and we're going to first of all equip them with the information they need to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told MSNBC today.

"In fact, we're going to have the IRS administrator there, we're going to have the Attorney General Eric Holder there, we're going to have the lawyers' organization from around the country, the ACLU -- all giving ministers guidance about what they can and cannot do," he noted."

Does anyone think it's curious that the DOJ and IRS are having focus groups with specific churches to advise them on how to campaign for the President without breaking the separation of church and state?? Wouldn't that be of interest to all church groups? I see it as either they are pushing politics into the church or they are selectively promoting the churches of specific groups to bring politics to the pulpit. I also see it as a potential setup for the churches that might not support the President.

That's not a good thing.....

When you take the antics of Donald Trump and weave them into the hateful rhetoric of Limbaugh and the likes of Sean Hannity et al. then read these observations on Karl Rove none of which have been repudiated by Mitt Romney you realize how eagerly he embraces the dark sides of politics and how soulless he truly is. There is an evil force at work in this country that is eating at its very soul and Mitt Romney is leading the charge.

Karl Rove Remains the Single Most Harmful Political Presence of Our Generation

By: Dennis SMay 23, 2012

Published by Politicususa

If I were to name the biggest ethical corner-cutter in modern American political history, there would be but one runaway winner, Karl Rove. This serial cheater is 61 now and he’s done a generation’s harm to the political process, to countless Democratic opponents running against a Rove-consulted opponent, to a number of Republican candidates competing in party primaries and to the American public as a whole. Moreover, Karl Rove has destroyed the core of what a representative democracy should be all about. And sadly, he would be flattered by the reference.

Rove has taught his Republican sycophants how to lie, cheat and smear the reputations and character of political opponents all in the name of winning and power. And Republicans almost universally praise him as ‘brilliant’ and a ‘genius’. I’ve got news for you. Winning an election using the tactics of a lying, immoral sewer rat is not a sign of ‘genius’. It’s a sign of a sociopath with no conscience. Although by Republican voting patterns in the last few years, that’s the type of behind the scenes the right-wing GOP prefers.

One anecdote from a book authored by Rove himself tells of the true Rove more definitively than I ever could. Writing in his 2010 ‘memoir’, Rove tells of sneaking into the Democratic campaign office in 1970 of then Illinois Treasurer Candidate, Allan J. Dixon. He used a false identity to get in. He then stole 1,000 sheets of campaign letterhead paper and printed up flyers promising, “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing.” He distributed his ‘genius’ at homeless shelters and rock concerts and enough recipients showed up to disrupt the event.

Ever the moral coward, he shrugged the deed off as a youthful ‘prank’. So let’s see, in just one incident early he lied, stole and cheated, setting the tone for the rest of his life.

Perhaps the crown of Roves putrid misdeeds was his 2000 Republican presidential primary Push Poll in South Carolina aimed at candidate John McCain running against Roves guy, George W. Bush. Rove arranged extensive statewide robo-calls that asked the following question – “If it was true that John McCain fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman, would you vote for him?” Rove doubled down with a whisper campaign that the woman was a prostitute. Given the state’s innate racism, which flourishes to this day, the goobers bought it and voted for Bush.

As most people outside of South Carolina know, back in 1991, McCain’s wife Cindy brought a little girl to the U.S. from a Mother Teresa Bangladeshi orphanage. The McCain’s adopted the girl and named her Bridget.

It was also interesting that Rove used the gay marriage issue in 2004 against John Kerry, trying to get preachers to speak out from the pulpit. Ironic in light of the fact that it is almost universally accepted that the man who raised Rove, his stepfather, was gay.

Rove claims not to know whether he is or not. Homophobic politics trumps all, even family.

It’s also noteworthy that Rove is prepared to give hundreds of millions to elect a guy who is one of the strongest backers of the absurd Paul Ryan budget. A budget that would cut Medicaid benefits by $800 billion. This is the very program that just might have saved innumerable lives of thousands considering suicide just as Roves mother surely did before taking her life in1981.

Rove has trumpeted that his two super PAC’s, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS have set a goal of $300 million dollars dedicated to defeating Obama. True to his core, Rove created Crossroads GPS as a phony non-profit advocacy group so he wouldn’t have to reveal its donors. In case you’re curious, both Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were limited to $29.4 million dollars each to make do for the 1980 presidential campaign. Crossroads GPS would have used up most of one of those candidates allotment with a single ad buy of $25 million announced last week. Republicans are looking to spend a total of $1 billion on Mitt Romney.

The Washington Post writes of a current Crossroads GPS TV commercial as painting President Obama as someone who promised change, but things changed for the worse. A spokeswoman and her two children are pictured as she laments the struggle with student loans and a weak job market. Not stated of course is the Republican Ryan budget which actually eliminates 1 million eligible students from Pell Grants over the next decade. And job markets do tend to get weaker when the red states intentionally slash public sector teaching, police and firemen jobs with the singular political intention of making Obama’s employment numbers look bad.

However, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) in the last 26 months, private sector job growth has averaged 163,000 jobs a month and last years gains were the highest since 2005. And remember recalcitrant Republican congresspeople were putting every legislative roadblock in the president’s path their evil little minds could conjure. The commercial also trashes Obamacare with its highly beneficial reform for millions upon millions. The president’s $800 million stimulus plan (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) signed into law in February of 2009 is also ripped. Nancy Pelosi said it best when she estimated that unemployment would be in the neighborhood of 14.5% without the initiative.

Finally, Rove’s people have this poor free-lancing actress who has no clue what the lines she’s memorized means, blaming Obama for the current debt. When G.W. Bush took office there was no debt. Zero! Then he decided his millionaire and billionaire friends weren’t wealthy enough and gave them the lion’s share of two enormous tax cuts; one aimed almost exclusively at the rich. The debt soared. Bush grew the debt at an exponentially greater rate than Obama and even at that Forbes magazine shrugs off the current debt as running behind a number of countries when you consider the true gauge of debt to income ratios. At 69%, we trail France (86% ratio), Canada (84%), Germany (82%) and Israel (72%). Libya at 5%, Uzbekistan, 8% and Russia 9% are the poster children for modest debt, so as a certain preacher was once heard to utter, if you don’t like the way we do things here – leave. I’m sure Syria would love to have you.

So, surprise, surprise, the Rove commercial is really a pack of lies and distortions, just like its twin that ran last year.

But no matter how many lies and distortions he throws out there; no matter the harm he’s wrought to men, women and children, students, gays, minorities, the poor and the infirm, Teapublicans still embrace him as King Karl, their majestic Smearmeister and Bull@!$%#ter in Chief.

That says more about Republicans than it does Rove!

Obama campaigned on yes we can, which has now been turned into why we couldn't. Blame, hatred, division, partisanship is the Obama legacy. Funny how Obama and his supporters try and claim that a non-tenured law professor, community organizer, and junior senator has more experience to be president then someone that was governor of a major state and has 25 years in the private sector. If Obama had a record to run on he would. Instead Obama is running scared, and his already negative campaigning will turn off the voters.

Ahh, Smiff, a Polish resistence fighter calls for mention of Polish death camps; after all, that's one of many reasons why there were Polish resistence fighters. You know, I read conservative posts like Alan NJ, Bill Fairfax and while I may not agree with them, they make arguments with reasoned thought. Then there are those, like JS1, whose daily anti-Obama rants are simply hateful rants lacking any reasoned thought.

Rick, # 2.14 says Obama is a "a non-tenured law professor, community organizer, and junior senator"

Uhh, Rick. You may consider the gov. of state of the great state of Mass to be a world leader, but you need to stay a little more current. That other guy has been President of the United States for 3 1/2 years.

Rick: Obama campaigned on yes we can, which has now been turned into why we couldn't. Blame, hatred, division, partisanship is the Obama legacy.

So true. Obama has become the Great Divider. He has never demonstrated the ability to work with people he disagrees with, even his own party wants little if anything to do with him. For the 2008 election, it was well known that Obama had little if any experience, but that was swept under the rug by the media that got caught up in this Hope and Change and a guy that read a good speech. It will be different this time around, even the media is getting fed up with the incompetence of Obama.

So true. -has become the Great Divider. He has never demonstrated the ability to work with people he disagrees with,

You just described the Tea Party in a nutshell.

Jody Iowa: a Polish resistence fighter calls for mention of Polish death camps;

They weren't "Polish death camps" Jody, they were Nazi death camps. Just how dense are you? But, really, don't bother answering, we already know.

They weren't "Polish death camps" Jody, they were Nazi death camps. Just how dense are you? But, really, don't bother answering, we already know.

Depends on your point of view: whether you look at the people that ran it, or the people that died there.

Is it really that complicated?

What I didn't see in your post is what Romney would do to make things better

Obama has impeded economic growth by scaring cash-hoarding businesses into a historic hiring paralysis with nonstop talk of higher taxes, more national debt, more regulations, them vs. us class-warfare rhetoric, threatened government shutdowns of private plants, and higher-priced energy. Unless you've been living under a rock, you would know that Romney is foursquare against all of that nonsense.

Romney celebrates private enterprise, he doesn't demonize it the way Obama does. And at its essence, Romney's approach to improving the economy is to unleash the private sector and let them do their thing to drive a broad based prosperity where more and more folks can participate in the bounty our economic system can produce. If you think that approach is a "policy of the past" that led to the financial meltdown, I would remind you of a little thingie called the housing bubble. It was the bursting of the bubble that crashed the economy, not evil bloodsuckers in the private sector. And dare I point out, that bubble was nurtured and enabled by federal housing policy promoted by both parties.

So if that is the policy of the past you don't want to return to, then I would fully agree. As would Romney, no doubt.

And at its essence, Romney's approach to improving the economy is to unleash the private sector and let them do their thing to drive a broad based prosperit

Do their thing? Yea, let's just repeal those pesky regulations and let them "do their thing". Because having banks just "do their thing" didn't cause this Great Recession at all, did it?

It's only four year old history and already people don't remember it.

JoAnnaSmith1

Where are you getting this stuff? Do you really believe what you are writing or are you given talking points and paid to post these comments? (Or are you really Karl Rove, which is my theory.)

When President Obama was elected, he said he'd be open to any ideas Republicans had about fixing the economy. Instead of offering their ideas, however, they took the tanking economy as an opportunity to win votes. President Obama has tried and tried to work with Congress, but they prefer to use their seats to protect the wealthy at the expense of the nation. That debt ceiling crisis last year was proof of their unwillingness to compromise.

Gee Bill, I don't know if I can afford it if the private sector were unleashed to do their thing. I kinda like having a job and a modest savings account.

Is it really that complicated?

Apparently it is for you.

Rove has trumpeted that his two super PAC’s, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS have set a goal of $300 million dollars dedicated to defeating Obama. True to his core, Rove created Crossroads GPS as a phony non-profit advocacy group so he wouldn’t have to reveal its donors. In case you’re curious, both Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were limited to $29.4 million dollars each to make do for the 1980 presidential campaign.

I notice that the fact that Obama was the first candidate to refuse Federal matching funds, and therefore limits, is conveniently ignored. Yet another "flip-flop" from the President. Didn't he promise to abide by spending limits during the primaries?

Why don't you simply accept that both sides will do anything to win.

So when Obama tries to pump up the masses by assuring them we're moving in the right direction, lots of folks just scratch their heads wondering what this guy is smoking.

Occupy Wall Street participants have been reticent to accept the endorsement/ownership of a party. That is because Wall Street and corporate greed are not relegated to a single party. Decidedly, OWS is progressive/liberal leaning, but now it appears the conservatives are ready to join hands with OWS and sing Kumbaya. Just look at the post by the conservative crusader from the vaginal probing, homophobic state of Virginia; he suddenly seems to think OWS has merit. There is no other explanation for claiming Obama is smoking some serious Mary J if he thinks the economy is improving, yet crying that he hasn't seen a dime of that improvement.

According to the latest charts, graphs, and headline stories, corporations have record amounts of cash stuffed away (to the tune of $2+ trillion), average CEO pay/compensation has reached record levels (to the tune of $10m annually), and corporate earnings have also shattered all previous records (to the tune of $100+ billion). What the conservative finally understands is what OWS is all about - money is flowing freely upstream to the upper 1%, and nary a drop is trickling down to the 99%. Now if the lowly conservative would only understand that Romney's entire campaign revolves around ensuring the financial flood gates are opened full bore - for a last and final transfer of any remaining wealth from the 99% to the 1%.

Apparently it is for you.

Yea, because everybody everywhere has the same point of view.

You need to socialize more.

Jody, Iowa: Here's more questions for Mr. Romney: If you love this country so much, why do you short-change it by stashing millions off-shore to avoid taxes?

What taxes is Romney avoiding Jody. Be very detailed in your answer please.

Eh. I'm Polish and Jewish, and I lost at least a third of my family in the Holocaust. And even I think Poland is being way too Politically Correct. Yes, the concentration camps, which were in Poland, were nevertheless run by Germans. We understand. Nobody thinks Poland was the Axis in WW2.

Bill -

And dare I point out, that bubble was nurtured and enabled by federal housing policy promoted by both parties.

The crisis may have been "nurtured and enabled" by federal housing policy, but the impact was magnified and became a crisis because loans issued under the federal housing policy (as well as other loans) were used as collateral to create CDOs and other financial instruments that were highly risky, but not rated that way by insurance companies. When these instruments failed, the insurance companies couldn't cover their policie, and the crisis was on. Oh, and these instruments were only allowable due to the decreased regulations on the banking industry that Romney is all for.

Romney is against the Dodd/Frank financial reforms, and is in favor of decreasing regulatory oversight of Wall Street and the banking industry.

I also strongly disagree that businesses are not creating jobs because of the tax or regulatory environment. That may have some impact on a few start-up opportunities, but for the most part businesses only create jobs to take advantage of increased demand.

I know for a fact that in the 15- plus years I have been in business helping develop growth strategies for manufacturing companies we have NEVER discussed tax or regulatory issues in relation to adding jobs. Jobs are increased or decreased almost solely based on demand for goods and services, which improves the most in a growing economy that includes a robust middle class.

Today's investor is too greedy to invest in business or create jobs, especially when the capital gains rate is so low it encourages investment in financial instruments, not "brick and mortar" companies.

GreenTimer "That other guy has been president of the United States for 3 1/2 years."

Obviously you missed my point, those were Obama's qualifications before the last election, and they hardly add up to being president. If you add in the last 3 1/2 years Obama is even less qualified as he has been a total failure. Which is why Obama is not running on his record, he has none. A catchy campaign slogan and the ability to read a speech was all it took for the masses to be duped, history will not be repeated this time around.

I would remind you of a little thingie called the housing bubble. It was the bursting of the bubble that crashed the economy, not evil bloodsuckers in the private sector

Just when I thought there was hope for the poster from the homo-probing, vagnial-phobic (or some combination thereof) state of Virginia, in understanding the OWS movement, we get this idiotic assessment of the economic crash. One has to only ask the question - what caused the housing bubble? Answer for financially challenged - reckless lending and derivative investments by the evil bloodsuckers in the private sector. And for the economically challenged, while the housing bubble was a primary factor, it was not the sole factor.

Because having banks just "do their thing" didn't cause this Great Recession at all, did it?

The Federal Reserve of Atlanta doesn't think so, nor does Warren Buffet. Study up junior, then you might have something intelligent to contribute.

http://www.frbatlanta.org/pubs/wp/12_07.cfm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-folly-of-the-us-housing-bubble/2012/05/07/gIQA6sIw8T_story.html

You need to socialize more.

@Ruken - conservatives do not socialize, they are afraid of the word. Just look at how red in the face it makes them. Likewise, they do not communicate - it sounds too much like communist. It does explain why they can't own the major mistakes of the Bush administration .. facing up to them is too much like fascism.

Obviously you missed my point, those were Obama's qualifications before the last election, and they hardly add up to being president

I must admit I do find it amusing that a candidate, who claimed he was qualified to be the President based on the executive experience of running his own campaign, attempts to claim that his opponent, who has been a CEO of private company, Chairman of a non-profit and Governor of a major state, does not have the relevant experience.

Chutzpah indeed.

Any president or candidate who claims to be "in touch with America," is a joke.
And anyone who wont vote for one candidate because they have more money than the other is a joke.

Just look at what all you liberals have become. A group of elitists who judge others on how they look or what they have.There is a word for that, BIGOTS

Apparently JS1 has never heard of Auschwitz or Treblinka.

Sad, isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Poland#Ghettos_and_the_extermination_program

True liberals always expect to have more and to keep more. No better example then the Democratic candidate for president Senator John Kerry. Kerry believes in insider trading or parking his multimillion dollar yacht in another state to avoid taxes. Liberals only believe in taking other peoples money to handout. There is no better adage to describe liberals then do as I say, not as I do.

"Depends on your point of view: whether you look at the people that ran it, or the people that died there."

"Is it really that complicated?"

WOW, now that's some funny sh!t!!! There's no point of view, it is what it is and Obama misspoke. So you're trying like hell to defend his and other people that don't know the difference between death camps (extermination camps) and concentration camps. Yeah genius there's a big difference, but it's not of the people that were in those camps. You rock dude!! ah forget it, I forgot, you're the smarter one.........................the best part of this is that I'm in Munich until tomorrow, maybe I'll ask a German what's the difference between the two? How do you think that will go over? Time for some good German brewed beer........

The crisis may have been "nurtured and enabled" by federal housing policy, but the impact was magnified and became a crisis because loans issued under the federal housing policy (as well as other loans) were used as collateral to create CDOs and other financial instruments that were highly risky, but not rated that way by insurance companies

Ah, the Conservative rewrite of history continues. The innocent phrase "as well as other loans" is a brilliant twist of the facts. 80% of the subprime market was controlled by private lenders.

An accurate statement would be to say that the vast, private subprime market that was based on camoflauging risk with unregulated financial instruments including CDOs took down the entire world economy, including the loan portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Apparently JS1 has never heard of Auschwitz or Treblinka.

That is not what she is saying and even the WH has admitted that the President misspoke.

The White House said President Barack Obama misspoke on Tuesday when he referred to a "Polish death camp" while honoring a Polish war hero.

The president's remark had drawn immediate complaints from Poles who said Obama should have called it a "German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland," to distinguish the perpetrators from the location. Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski called it a matter of "ignorance and incompetence."

The Associated Press Stylebook states that when referring to "World War II camps in countries occupied by Nazi Germany, do not use phrases like Polish death camps that confuse the location and the perpetrators. Use instead, for example, death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-misspoke-polish-death-camp-medal-freedom-ceremony-white-house-article-1.1086465#ixzz1wMmSVsh
N

The President said the wrong thing, why do you defend the indefensible?

Lets move on.

It seems John B doesn't know either. What were they called John B? Stick on what you know and not what you think you know. What's the difference between a death camp and a concentration camp? Also tell me if the Pols ran it?

JoAnna, you do realize that six of the Nazi concentration camps were in occupied Poland, right? These included Auschwitz and Treblinka. Therefore there were Polish camps and there were German camps, all run by the Nazis.

Are you really so full of hate that you would choose to denigrate a ceremony honoring outstanding Americans?

Get over yourself.

Well Paul, strangely enough the Nazis didn't refer to ANY of their facilities as "death camps", but instead called them "Konzentrationslagers". So by your definition there were NO "death camps" and the President erred in that way.

None of which changes the fact that this is a nontroversey generated by the wingnutosphere to divert attention from Romney's new attachment to the bat-crazy phenomonon of Birtherism.

One has to only ask the question - what caused the housing bubble? Answer for financially challenged - reckless lending and derivative investments by the evil bloodsuckers in the private sector.

The Federal Reserve of Atlanta doesn't think so, nor does Warren Buffet. Study up junior, then you might have something intelligent to contribute.

http://www.frbatlanta.org/pubs/wp/12_07.cfm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-folly-of-the-us-housing-bubble/2012/05/07/gIQA6sIw8T_story.html

John B: Well Paul, strangely enough the Nazis didn't refer to ANY of their facilities as "death camps",

So if the Nazi's called them resorts, you'd be okay with that?

You'll go to any lengths to defend the indefensible. It certainly is comical watching you try.

The Federal Reserve of Atlanta doesn't think so, nor does Warren Buffet. Study up junior, then you might have something intelligent to contribute.

Sorry bud .. these articles do not support your claim. They do point out that there were many willing contributors that created the bubble, among them loose and easy lending, and borrowers willing to jump in - both under the belief that housing prices would never go down. Now read the article Fed Atlanta carefully, they discuss in detail that options existed to reign in the lenders. And as to the opinion page, the author is equally shy to lay blame.

“All of us participated in the destructive behavior — government, lenders, borrowers, the media, rating agencies, you name it,”

Joannasmith1

Post 2.1:

Obama....while reading it off his teleprompter.....totally out of touch as usual, managed to screw it up.

Joannasmith1

Post 2.17:

Obama....a guy that read a good speech.

You're going to have to make up your mind, or at least stick with the talking points of the day.

the impact was magnified and became a crisis because loans issued under the federal housing policy (as well as other loans) were used as collateral to create CDOs and other financial instruments that were highly risky

I agree that the housing bubble was built on a foundation of quicksand, but the hard clay turned to quicksand not because of complex and allegedly risky financial instruments, it turned to quicksand because the music in the housing market stopped when prices suddenly stopped rising. As convoluted as these financial instruments may have been, at the time they were based on the widely held notion (by consumers and professionals alike) that housing prices would continue to increase, and any setback would be temporary and eventually overcome. Based on that logic, all of these instruments made economic sense. What magnified the crisis was the breadth of euphoria in the housing market. Take that euphoria away and we don't have a crisis of nearly the same magnitude. And this state of affairs is an issue of human nature, not economic policy -- several hundred years ago there was a tulip mania in Holland, and a few years ago there was a housing mania in the U.S. It's just that simple.

for the most part businesses only create jobs to take advantage of increased demand.

Here we go again, the same tired leftist mantra that ascribes the root cause of economic problems to lack of demand. I agree that demand is a very important component of the economic equation, only a fool wouldn't. But that is a very limited and static view of the economy, along the lines of a steady state universe that never evolves. The fact is there is no consumption without production. More to the point, there is no new demand without innovative production coming first.

Until Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, IBM and others applied their creative talents, there was no demand for home computers that could fit on top of our desks. Until microwave ovens and VCRs appeared on store shelves, there was no demand for those gizmos either – heck, most people didn't even know what they were. Until the innovators at Apple showered the world with iPods, iPads, and iPhones, few knew that massive numbers of consumers would demand same. And until Nike changed the look of tennis shoes, even fewer knew we wanted a hundred styles to choose from, styles that created additional demand for a previously boring product.

In these and countless other cases, a new product was supplied to the market and it was that new supply that created the demand for those products. In these and other cases, innovative entrepreneurs invested time and money up front to bring to life their vision of a product they thought could succeed in the marketplace. And not only was there no demand for these products at that point, most people didn't even know the products existed until they saw them in a store and said: "That looks pretty cool, I think I'll buy one." And in each case the time and money invested upfront translates into one of our favorite words: J-O-B-S.

That's how the American economy works. The fixation of the left on the demand side – which can only be cured by government spending to pick up the slack – is misguided because it misses a large and dynamic piece of what makes the American economy what it is: risk taking by innovative entrepreneurs with a vision. A vision that is implemented by investing money and creating jobs well before there is necessarily any hint of demand for the products they seek to bring to market. And this early job creation is a key element of the VIRTUOUS CYCLE of new jobs that generate spending by the newly employed which then begets even more jobs and even more spending. That's the cycle that spells sustained economic growth.

I know for a fact that in the 15- plus years I have been in business helping develop growth strategies for manufacturing companies we have NEVER discussed tax or regulatory issues in relation to adding jobs. Jobs are increased or decreased almost solely based on demand for goods and services, which improves the most in a growing economy that includes a robust middle class.

We are all the product of our individual experiences, and I'm sorry yours has been so limited. Many years ago GM stopped production of the Camaro. Then a few years ago GM noticed the Ford Mustang was doing well in the marketplaces so the CEO of GM made the decision to start production of a new Camaro. Keep in mind there was no demand out there for a new Camaro since the car did not exist. And even though lots of folks were buying Mustangs, there was no guarantee enough folks in that market segment will be swayed to buy the new Camaro and make that venture profitable. So the CEO of GM was taking a risk based on his vision that GM could produce a car that would succeed in the marketplace.

That risk entailed spending money on the engineering talent to design the car and the assembly line, and spending money on the manpower to build the car – in a word, GM was spending money that was creating J-O-B-S. And every dime of that money was spent before one car was sold, before there was any hint of a demand for a new Camaro. As it turns out, there is a happy ending to this particular story since the new Camaro has hit the streets and folks are buying it – a clear example of new supply creating its own demand.

And one of countless clear examples of the limitations of focusing exclusively on the demand side of the economic equation. Folks who do that are missing the vibrancy that innovative thinkers with a vision bring to economic growth.

RTSOB - you'd have to read the talking points to JAS. When you get past one syllable words, she's lost!

Bill -- Bankers and Wall Street are responsible for the mess they created the world over. To suggest government made them do anything is beyond ridiculous. Why excuse them Bill? Why do you feel an overwhelming need to make excuses for their egregious greedy reckless behavior?

You'll go to any lengths to defend the indefensible. It certainly is comical watching you try

Actually what's indefensible is watching you try to make word pretzels out of President Obama paying tribute to innocent people who died a horrible death in Poland.

Even the memory of holocaust victims isn't beyond turning into a political weapon for Conservatives. You should be ashamed...but you won't be.

Speaking of Rove, don't you think he would have elbowed Goebbels out of the way had he lived in the third reich? And smiled with that beady eyed little face as he did it. Rove is a master of cheat and deception, and............. a republican.

Plotinus:

I think you have the hierarchy of the Republican Party off just a hair. Rove, with his talk of a thousand-year Republican-controlled nation would be far closer to Hitler. Goebbels' spot would be held by Frank Luntz.

Rick, # 2.32, the record is what the record is. Obama has served as the leader of free world for 3 1/2 years. He's saved the automobile industry, messed up with Solyndra, brought the unemployment down to 8.3%, caved in to conservatives on single payer health insurance reform but still got a measure passed whose individual features over 60% of Americans approve (as long as you don't mention that the feature is part of Obamacare), failed to close Gitmo but did shut down the Iraq incursion and seems to have seriously failed with the Fast and Furious operation.

Under his watch as Commander-in-Chief, Osama bin Laden was killed, not captured, and an American ship captain was rescued unharmed from a tiny boat full of pirates.

He has endured slanderous attacks on his patriotism, on his birthplace and on his church attendance - attacks that no white President has ever faced (except maybe Lincoln) in the history of the Republic.

All this is the record on which he runs. It is a record of 3 1/2 years of successes and failures as President of the United States. The fact that you deem it to be of no consequence says a lot about your view of America, and zero about the record of President Obama.

Now, your turn: what is Romney's record?

Then there's that piece on the internet last week that jumped through numerous hoops to "prove" that Obama is not a spendthrift and has actually presided over the smallest increases in the federal budget in almost 60 years. That nonsense has since been thoroughly debunked by many sources, including the WaPo FactChecker which gave it three Pinocchios. But that didn't stop the president from using that very same nonsense in a speech nor did it stop Jay Carney from bashing a lazy White House press corps that has somehow never been quite able to uncover these illuminating budget "facts."

Oh Bill, poor Bill. Still deluding yourself with right-wing logic??? Let me lay it down for ya: Obama did not inherit a $400 billion deficit and jack it up by $1 trillion. That is false. The recession pushed that up via lower revenues and higher spending on safety net programs. And by the way, Obama's fiscal policies only started in 2010 with the exception of TARP and the stimulus package (roughly $600 billion). 2009 spending was signed by Bush. And technically, spending increased only marginally by Obama compared to Bush and Reagan; we are talking percentage-wise, not absolutely. It would easily seem that Obama jacked up the deficit, but he didn't. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Bill, Fairfax VA

What I didn't see in your post is what Romney would do to make things better

Obama has impeded economic growth by scaring cash-hoarding businesses into a historic hiring paralysis with nonstop talk of higher taxes, more national debt, more regulations, them vs. us class-warfare rhetoric, threatened government shutdowns of private plants, and higher-priced energy. Unless you've been living under a rock, you would know that Romney is foursquare against all of that nonsense.

Don't give me that @!$%#, Bill. You know as well as I do that it is all bull@!$%#. For one thing, the reason why hiring is so anemic is because of a lack of consumer demand, as consumer salaries have not gone up fast enough to give them the purchasing power to spend our economy to a robust state. Plus you fail to mention how the past three recoveries have been slower than the one before it. As for the talk of higher taxes, you do realize that taxes are at the lowest levels in 50 years??? And who do you think Obama wants to raise taxes on??? Corporations??? Nah, he's gonna cut the rate to 28%, while removing wasteful corporate subsidies and tax breaks. Wealthy job creators??? Oh please. The wealthy do not create jobs. They simply don't have the demand for it. The real jobs in a consumption-based economy like ours come from the demand from the average consumer, who is most likely in the middle class or the working poor. The wealthy ought to be paying higher taxes; for God's sake the more we cut taxes the more wealth and income begins to flow to the highest earners. National debt, by the way, has little to no effect on job creation, and with public debt at 77% it isn't near the 120%-150% threshold for weakening economic growth. And as for regulations, you do realize that it was a LACK OF REGULATION that sent our economy over the bloody cliff??? The ONLY class warfare in the US is coming from the wealthy to the working poor. Tell how Obama's plan to raise taxes on the rich by a measly 4 percentage points class warfare while Romney's plan to cut taxes for the wealthy, increase taxes on people making under $40,000, and cutting benefits that tend to benefit the middle class and the working poor is fair??? Is it fair to cut taxes for the wealthy while sticking it to the little guy??? Is it??? No it is not, and that is what makes Romney a 1% sell-out. This guy DOESN'T KNOW HOW THE ECONOMY WORKS. I would gladly debate him one-on-one on the economy. Maybe it will shut his trap about his "private sector experience."

Romney celebrates private enterprise, he doesn't demonize it the way Obama does. And at its essence, Romney's approach to improving the economy is to unleash the private sector and let them do their thing to drive a broad based prosperity where more and more folks can participate in the bounty our economic system can produce.

Since when does Obama demonize private enterprise?? By cutting taxes for small businesses and real job creators (the middle class)??? By seeking to restore a sense of economic fairness to our society??? Last time I checked, it's okay to sacrifice economic growth for economic inequality, especially if that inequality is being a drag on growth. Romney cannot "unleash the private sector" while slashing spending and raising taxes on the very consumers that lead economic recoveries. Frankly, over the past 30 years or economy has produced wondrous wealth, but most of it has been sent to the highest earners. You really need to read a book on economics. The wealthy and corporations do not create jobs. The middle class do with their spending on consumer products. Those are the very people that Romney is going to flip off. If Romney really wanted to "unleash the private sector," he wouldn't slash spending on social projects in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and defense contractors.

If you think that approach is a "policy of the past" that led to the financial meltdown, I would remind you of a little thingie called the housing bubble. It was the bursting of the bubble that crashed the economy, not evil bloodsuckers in the private sector. And dare I point out, that bubble was nurtured and enabled by federal housing policy promoted by both parties.

Unfortunately, you are not telling the whole truth. The housing bubble was caused by federal housing policy (uncontrolled agencies and deregulation), yet that wasn't the single cause of the recession. The housing bubble collapse was exacerbated by the financial collapse following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and that was caused by risk-takers in the large banks and other financial institutions that eventually collapsed due to their risky ventures. Sorry mate, but this is the truth.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Blame, hatred, division, partisanship is the Obama legacy.

He is the Great Divider.

HUH? as opposed to the Republicans who vowed upon his election to make him a one-term President? Isn’t it possible they are the ones who were partisan and divided this country? Making Obama look bad means that Obama is the one who wouldn’t participate? LOL guess their tactic worked with you.

Bill, Fairfax:

Obama has impeded economic growth by scaring cash-hoarding businesses into a historic hiring paralysis with nonstop talk of higher taxes, more national debt, more regulations, them vs. us class-warfare rhetoric, threatened government shutdowns of private plants, and higher-priced energy. Unless you've been living under a rock, you would know that Romney is foursquare against all of that nonsense.

So while they have tax breaks, and no regulations, they won’t create jobs, because they MIGHT have higher taxes and more regulations sometime in the future? Doesn’t that feel just a little bit like manipulation? Oh, but you fell for it. So it must be true, huh?

Frisheee, you said

"The wealthy and corporations do not create jobs. The middle class do with their spending on consumer products"

Thank you for setting the record straight. Send this statement to your local nwespaper editor; email it to your friends. Get the word out there.

The Democrats are letting the Republicans sell this upside down perversion of capitalism without a fight. Any capitalist wants to create WEALTH, not jobs. Labor is just a cost of production, not the goal of the any business. Increasing labor without expanding sales is a losing proposition to any business.

As you succinctly say, jobs are created by a prosperous middle class with money to spend which increases demand. Jobs are created by increasing demand. The wealth creators respond to that demand by creating products that sell for more than the cost of production. Production costs are kept down by increasing productivity - getting more product from less labor.

Capitalism is based on the creation of wealth, not the creation of production costs like labor.

Obama can not run on his record. Obama has to try to make Romney into Bush and use scare tactics.

Obama is one and done. Americans do not want to be like Greece!

Obama has to run on his record 'cause he has one - with many good and some bad actions. I mentioned a few of both at @ 2.56. That record is public, it's known, and as an American you can disapprove of it. But that does not make it go away.

Romney deals in generalities ("I created jobs at Bain", or "Obama's failed policies". etc). He even now says that the economy is improving IN SPITE of what Obama has done. He puts forth no ideas that can be critiqued by the voters.

Please identify ONE specific item of his record that Romney can (or will) point to and say, "That's what I did." - besides the Olympics thing.

Howdy IR:

I don't know when I've read a column with which I disagreed more. There really is no easily defined thing called "capitalism". There are not varieties as the author would have us believe. Capitalism is not the product of some sort of recipe where the chef throws together ingredients, mixes, and bakes. In fact, the term "capitalism" is virtually meaningless, just as are the terms "socialism", "communism", "Marxism', "fascism", or a host of other -ism's.

It's what those -ism's have in common that really count. That commonality is humans and all the character traits we have - greed, respect, envy, and so many more.

Capital itself is nothing more than a representation of wealth, and wealth is the product of labor. The white shirt wizards of the financial sector do not really produce wealth. They manipulate it and take an outsized cut of existing capital for their negligible labor.

Is Mitt Romney, or any of his fellow white shirt execs, really worth more than the guy who puts a roof over your head, food on your table, or a road on which you can drive? Not in my world.

Well David I see where your coming from. However "Capitalism" seems to be in vogue now so the author of this piece used it and tried to define it. We have to define it as something before we can have a rational discussion about it now don't we. Call it whatever you like if it will help out. After all "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet"

IR, terrific article and added thoughts. It would be great if there was a presidential debate devoted primarily to a discussion of the type of capitalism we want. We seem to have tried them all but in my view, since the 1980's capitalism became about money making money more than it was about making stuff. That's only good for those who have the money to make more money, it does not serve the general public good for those who do not have the money in the first place.

Personally, I worked for a firm which was a combination of managerial and worker capitalism and that firm remains stronger today than it was back in the late 40's when it was started in a garage by the owner.

Jody I would like to see that debate too. Many types of "capitalism can work very well not just mr. Romney's as we are being lead to believe. I work for a Company that Is slowly moving to Employee Owned. Right now the Employees own about 38%. Gives the Boss man something to retire on and gives the rest of us a Dog in the Fight. See Folks I'm a "Capitalist" too.

@Independent Redneck Va.#3: Appreciate what you have put forth, but I completely agree with David Walker here. Capitalism is nothing more than wealth, in varying holdings, and the representative psychology relative to its use and worth. Many, maybe even "Pearlstein" idiotically believe "capitalism" to be the true and vital lifeblood of US representative democracy. Herein is a great and undoing problem for the country. The harvesting and holding of wealth by a few, at the expense and denigration of the many will not serve, maintain, and protect those basic constitutional rights as set forth by "Jefferson's" pen. However the country determines the keeping and rights of ways of wealth, it must be done inclusive of; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Best regards IR

Great thread everyone, I'd love to see this one keep sane, sensible, and moving.

It's also worth noting that Capitalism is thriving in Communist China, proving once and for all that contrary to Conservative dogma "Freedom" and "the free market" are not one and the same.

And that's what makes American Capitalism as it has been traditionally practiced something special. The Genius of the brand is pairing the creative drive of Capitalism with a reasonable and responsible level of regulation. That's necessary to stabilize markets, preventing crashes like the Great Depression and 2007-8, and to keep the market just fair enough that the American Dream stays alive.

There is no doubt that wealth or amount of investment capital plays a role in capitalism but you guys totally miss the most important point and that is this country is founded on being a meritocracy. There is more to capitalism than wealth as in order to obtain success in virtually any professional or financial endeavor, you will be judged based on some form of meritocracy. Albert Pujols makes $25 million a year because he is the best baseball player, Lady Gaga or Bono because they have enormous musical talent, or the brain surgeon because of a variety of talents including intelligence. To ignore talent, intelligence, ambition, hardwork, performance in the capitalism equation is totally misguided and the current progressive viewpoint wanting equality of outcomes. You really think a hedge fund manager who heads up KKR or Blackstone isnt extremely talented? If not, what is stopping any of you from becoming a hedge fund manager? What about doctors, lawyers, Accountants or business owners who have created professional success? You guys like to punish the successful as if the vast majority got there through nefarious means what a bunch of crap. Capitalism is the ultimate talent judge and meritocracy. Wealth is created as a result of meritocracy success. Its unfortunate this president has created such a divide that we have Tea Party movements, Occupy Wall Street, constant hyperbole against success and the rich on this blog as if success were something to be scorned upon. Self reliance and personal choice and accountability is what has made this country and its form of capitalism great not wealth.

Mac as always I enjoy somebody adding to my thoughts and to a certain extent I agree with both you and David. However I do feel that some form of wealth and wealth accumulation is tied up in this deal. Call it what you will and distribute it the way you see fit but it is a basic necessity to our Freedom. Me personally all I've ever asked is a fair days pay for fair days work. Sometimes I got it and sometimes I didn't. Without some form of "capitalism" all you have is in the words of the late great Janis Joplin "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"

@ IR Va.#3.8: Of course you are correct. I did not mean to convey any implication of triviality relative to wealth and/or the accumulation thereof. Likewise regarding meritocracy as posted by "kirk-2957282"#3.7. The country does well, when the endeavors of capitalism are framed within the greater pursuits of the peoples happiness. Unfortunately of late, these endeavors have been more at the expense, and exclusion of that happiness, and in fact, with the single minded aid of republicanism, have revealed a trampling of that pursuit. Equality of opportunity does not mean, nor do I believe was meant to mean, equality of outcomes. Regards

IR, Mac, and John B:

If we were able to sit down and chat about this for about a half-hour, I'd bet we aren't much more than a hair's breadth apart. I think John B. said it best when he talked about American capitalism which, when it has been most successful, has included a very generous dollop of what can best be called socialism. Over the long haul, wise government spending facilitates the creation of wealth.

You can take a look around you and see that nothing in the room in which you sit would be there without truckers. Truckers would have nowhere to go without roads. Venture capitalists don't build roads. They sure as hell take advantage of them, but it just irks the hell out of them to pay for the roads.

Kirk - Please explain how the framers were interested in setting up a meritocracy when they deliberately excluded all anyone who was not a male, white, free, 21, and landed. And you say, we missed the point?

Thanks Mac Now you done got down to something that I can agree with most wholeheartedly. Far as Old Kirk goes don't pay much attention to him. I don't. Heck most of the time he's just talking so's he can listen to his jaws rattle.

You too David and your right there isn't a frog hair difference amoungst us for all intents and purposes just some Southernisms. See above for old Kirk.

@David Walker #3.10: You Sir, are correct. The "hair's breadth" you speak of is more the differences of individual expression than different mindsets among us. Regards

So you are going to base meritocracy debate on what certain social values based in 1776? Capitalism is bad because at that point in time white men made all the financial decisions? If your response is that in order to ensure meritocracy is achieved across race and gender, thats a different debate. Certainly there is reasonable debate and merit across different points of view that are intended by all parties to create equal opportunity for everyone. Thats not what you were discussing and you know it. Where in any of your discussions by any progressive on this blog are conversations regarding the role of meritocracy in your opinions and conclusions? All I hear is the constant reply, I never said that it doesnt play a role or some shrug of the shoulders because none of you guys want to admit or address personal choice or consequences for behaviorial choices. It doesnt fit the progressive or Obama theme.

JoAnnaSmith1...........Have you ever read ANY history ? Guess not. Look up locations of the death camps and get back to us.

I agree, the three of your arguments are close and very near what I believe. My one concern I would like to point out David is a point about the roofer. It is hard to compare labor to ideas. For instance a man can be the greatest roofer in the world who can make the best product while some executive can create an idea that leads to everyone being able to cheaply purchase a quality roof though not at the same time at the quality of the roofer I first mentioned.

I think the problem that occurs here is how is that reward to be distributed between ideas and labor. The answer is unclear and that creates ambiguity. Now think of finance and its general role in society. They are the one's who look over money as it passes from one hand to another, they make our markets, and pirice monetary value. When that money is sitting there often they will claim it. That happens whether it is an 'idea guy' or a skilled worker, if either has something great but does not have a fiscal mind there is a venture capitalist in some form waiting for an opportunity. It seems over time they have taken claim to this money and now we are simply at a point where they don't want to give it back.

I have used your roads example many times but I feel it falls on deaf ears.

Kirk no one wants to punish success,and talent should be rewarded. Who disagrees with that? The frustration of the typical American is that the reward has been in far excess of the talent.

Also Kirk, I think David's point does tie to yours and, in fact, discredits it. You are claiming the line of personal choice and individual accountability. It is a personal choice to puposely exclued others from sharing success only based of the condition that they are a woman, black, gay or green for that matter.

At that point, it is no longer a "personalor behavioral CHOICE" barring that person from sucess it is someone else's.

It is not basing a meritocracy debate on social values, it is identifying how social values can directly conflict with the concept. To answer David's question, at least truthfully, is to admit no such meritocracy exists.

Akeem, do you really think that the reward has been far in excess of the talent or thats the way its been portrayed by the media and this administration? Its easy to write stories of wall street excesses but in a nation of 300 million, we are generally talking about a few thousand people. There are always a minority of people who take advantage of the system whether its CEO compensation abuse or welfare cheats but I would put forth those are in the deep deep minority. We hear about the Enron fraud or billion dollar ponzi schemes and enact legislation as a hammer to address these problems after the fact but the reality is that the vast majority of businesses and investment managers and run in an ethical manner. But thats not the impression thats left after the media blitz. This administration and posts from guys like John and David use these extreme examples to create a class warfare and unfair policy against people who have played by the rules and have achieved success through effort and talent. If it wasnt a meritocracy, why are so many immigrants from Asia, the Middle east, Africa so successful in coming here and starting small successful small businesses? What is stopping anyone from doing the same? I dislike the situations where reward is far greater than talent too and abuses should be addressed but not at the expense of those who have played by the rules. None of the progressives on here want to ever discuss the implications of personal choice and the consequences therein in their policy debates. Nowhere do they want to do cost/benefit analyses on the implications of their cross the board policy objectives. The easiest example is David trying to take me to task for my reply to Backhouse in his support of the mortgage principal reduction for homeowners. They want to focus on the benefits to those who played by the rules and had unintentional bad economic consequences for their decisions but dont want to hear about the implications to others who also played by the rules nor who will bear the economic consequences of these decisions. Anna Molly does the same thing and when I bring that up its I am not compassionate to those unfortunate souls but they dont want to consider the consequences to others who played by the rules too. The country doesnt have a money tree and decisions today will have consequences on others today or tomorrow which need to be factored into the discussion. And yes, progressives need to include merit and personal choice in the debate or it doesnt really have credibility.

IR,

Oh how I wish more Virginians thought like we do. We actually wish to engage in meaningful conversation with those whom we have disagreements. We do not wish to simply impose our will and destroy the opposition, but to find real and viable compromise in which we all make sacrifices and we all reap benefits.

When did political discussion turn so hateful? Where if one disagrees with another, suddenly they become a villain, perceived as an enemy. We are all Americans, we all what to live happy, successful lives in which our families needs are met and we can enjoy some sort of comfort. I don't agree with the right-wing ideology, but do I think they want to destroy America? Of course not. You may not agree with my left-wing ideology, but to insinuate that my goal is the destruction of my country or the prosperity of my neighbor is simply asinine and ignorant.

When can we stop all this fighting and start making real compromises? Unfortunately, with the abundance of weak minds on both sides, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. It's a real damned shame.

This particular thread, however, gives me at least a little hope. Civil discussion of differences of opinions. For those out there that come here to spread hate and ignorance, this is an example of what civility looks like.

To answer your response is I do not believe the wealth is split fairly between the top and those on the bottom. Immigrants coming from other nations do not refute that point.

A CEO, no matter how talented , if he/she did not create the product/company, they should not be paid astronomically. I do believe he should be paid a large wage and I think given his position a majority of that should come from compensation tied accomplishments that stretch over a span of more than 2 or 3 years.

As far as meritocracy, not anyone can become a CEO. And I don't mean simply having the talent. There are many skilled business men, in takes an amazing amount of either networking, luck, prestige, or simply knowing the right people. In some cases a combination of all

Va. Democrat. I don't know how to answer you without sounding self serving so you'll have to let me ponder a suitable response a little more. For right now I'll just say thank and you'll come on back and put something up when you get a chance. Some days I'm lucky enough to get a bunch of Posters that are willing to be more thoughtful some days not so much. It's kind of the luck of the draw but I appreciate everyone that comes here with that intention and think that they should all be congratulated. I find that I learn more from my fellow Posters than I can ever hope to impart upon them. I'm always more interested in what they have to say. After all I know what I think.

Akeem, I guess I would say that in regards an appropriate split for the top vs the rest that's been traditionally been based on an unspoken social compact. Traditionally the entrepreneur has been allowed to do more or less as he pleases as long as he shares enough of the wealth to support a healthy American middle class. Both the work and the spending of this middle class is what wrought the economic miracle of the last century, in which we became THE preeminent economy in the world.

Over the last 30 years Conservatives have worked very hard to eliminate that social compact...to ensure that the 1% have no more obligation to the 99% than Ebeneezer Scrooge had to Bob Cratchitt. The end result can only be a recreation of the sorry, sordid, desperate conditions of Dickensian England, or perhaps one of the modern-day sweatshop economies of the Pacific Rim.

In the process, however, the American economy will also lose its vigor...can't help but. Conservatives love to wail and gnash their teeth about how there aren't enough "wealthy" to support the tax structure. Well, not only are they already supporting the tax structure at a lower level than they have in many decades but if there aren't enough to help us pay for governmental services how can their possibly be enough to support the entire economy?

That's why since the dawn of Reagan, as middle class earnings have stagnated recessions have gotten progressively deeper, recoveries slower and shallower, and earnings increasingly fail to make progress or even return to where they were. The 2000's recovery during the administration of GW Bush was the first time since the 30's that median income failed to return to pre-recession levels before again plunging into a downturn.

So my short answer would be that OF COURSE some will earn more than others, and that's justified. At the same time the consolidation of wealth and earnings has reached such a point that it is unhealthy for the economy.

That's a problem.

Akeem, I agree that exclusion based on personal choice to barr someone from sucess is clearly against my meritocracy argument but basing it on 1776 social values or discrimination is irrelevant. If his argument is that under our current system, that same discrimination exists, that should have been his reply and we should debate how much of that currently exists and then debate the ways to address those areas of discrimination. But its hard to equate capitalism in 1776 with today even with arguably residual discrimination. Its hard to argue that equality of opportunities dont exist today when you an African American president, immigrants from all over the world clamoring to be able to create their own success in America and say capitalism is all about who has wealth and not about a meritocracy. Its also not fair to discuss the impact of the education gap, immigration policy, entitlement programs, and yes tax policy on these current equality of opportunity. My point to all of the progressives especially someone like David and John B, is that your world view of success and meritocracy is not based on extreme examples showcased in the media no different than all people on welfare are showcased by the welfare cheat. Lets be honest in the debate and discussion about the consequences to everyone.

Akeem and john B, I agree that CEO pay for alot of reasons has gotten out of hand in terms of pay for performance. Much of that can be tied to the tax law change enacted under Clinton that disallowed a tax deduction for cash compensation over $1 million to executive compensation. However, performance based pay was excluded so bonuses based on annual targets set by the board and all stock options were exempt. All of a sudden in the middle of the stock market boom, executive compensation was largely based on stock options. Total pay was astronomical and became the new norm. Now its out of hand. But again, even if you say that applies to the top 5,000 CEOs which I dont think it does, you are making policy and overall judgements on a very small section of the economy and population. Much more important is the impact these new policies have on small business owners which or other similar professions where pay is and should be based on a meritocracy. Instead of killing all success, lets deal with CEO pay.

John B, the problem you have is conspiracies around every corner. You lost all credibility when you act like conservatives are working in some monolithic manner to destroy the social contract and that the 1% are working in some sort of collective manner to destroy the middle class. What a bunch of crap and you know it. The middle class began losing out when several things happened totally unrelated to any CEO pay or some conservative conspiracy. Please explain how globalization, the education gap where the middle class was largely high school educated in manufacturing skilled jobs that have been replaced with higher skill required jobs or lower skill requirements at lower wage expectations and the impact of unrestrained low skill and low education immigration pushing down labor rates? Are you really trying to say that the US could have competed in the global market against foreign competitors with its old model, could have continued creating high paying but low skilled jobs while assimilating all of the low skill low educated immigrants at the same time?

This is why no one talks to Kirk. If you point out that Conservative policies have been bad for the American middle class you get back a screed about "conspiracies" and a flurry of talking points that had no previous application in the conversation.

He knows what he's doing, he's here to support the big banks for whom he consults on housing matters. He's doing a good job of it. If you stray to close to something that's not complimentary to big business and in particular big finance he starts going on about how his parents owned a Hallmark store. Notice how quickly the topic changed from CEO pay to small businesses.

I have to admit, though, the concept that there aren't enough rich people or big businesses for us to pay any attention to is a new wrinkle.

John, who are you talking to? Do you think you are on some stage educating the public about big bad old Kirk? Talk to me big guy directly. But thanks for the compliment for the first time telling me that I know what I am doing because thats true. It must be hard for you to have someone discredit some of your garbage you spew. By the way, my parents still do own a hardware, no I dont do any consulting for big banks but they do lend me money. What was so difficult in my post for you to understand? Why is it that when you are unable to provide a substantive response you say silly stuff?

First did you not say and I quote, "over the last 30 years the conservatives have worked very hard to eliminate the social contract"? Did you not go on and talk about how the 1% are eliminating the middle class? What part of the my reply was too difficult for you to respond to or were talking points with no previous application? Was it saying no thats not true because the middle class were impacted by the 3 items I set out? Were you unable to refute that because its not consistent with the punish the big bad rich and conservative view?

Where did you get that there arent enough rich or big business for us to pay attention to come from in my post? Did you intentionally embellish John? Did I say you like to call attention to abuses of a few and advocate for policies that impact the far greater number of successful people who get there playing by rules under a meritocracy?

Good try John, but if you dont have the ability to stand up to me directly and debate me on the merits, why do you speak as if you have an audience that you are convincing otherwise to? Do you really think so poorly of your critical thinking and debating skills that you just need to preach to an audience of the evils of Kirk?

OK, I'll address you directly and tell you what you already know I've directly said to you before. You talk in circles, refuse to acknowledge facts, and constantly try to shift the focus in order to avoid coming to a conclusion. You've told repeated and detailed stories about how hard your parents worked at their Hallmark store, now it's a hardware. You've expressed that you have expertise at financial markets because you're a consultant to the banking industry, now you deny it. You've expressed that your work is in the housing market, now it's...something, who knows what. For some reason I think of that as a credibility gap. Go figure.

I spent a lot of time debating you on the merits, before discovering that you refuse to post details or supporting evidence and insist that the supporting evidence of others is immaterial. Every point is met with an expansion or diversion of the argument, not an exchange of positions or any sort of enlightenment.

I understand you fine...that's why I don't interact with you on the board. Good day.

So again you have no ability to respond directly to substance. No I dont go around in circles, no I provide plenty of support when asked and for the most part, much of what I say is opinionated conclusions from experience no different than anyone else on here. I have been totally consistent with my background and experience, I am not sure you guys spend much time actually reading. Somehow the spell check changed Hallmark to Hardware, but no my parents own a Hallmark. I practiced as a corporate attorney/tax attorney for a large firm then corporation for a number of years, eventually became a CFO for a family office portfolio company and now work with my former boss in a real estate private equity investment company. Not sure where consultant to the banking industry comes from but yes I have had a ton of experience with banks and investment banks and private equity firms. That story has been consistent along with have 4 kids. That hasnt changed either to my knowledge.

As for debating, the last few posts by you are a perfect example as to your style and plenty of others like David. You definitely are different than Fiesty or Seeking Sanity who just use the art of personal attacks with zero substance but you get annoyed if someone doesnt agree with you. For example, you want to claim that I am circular, change positions or dont provide some sort of enlightment but lets examine the last couple of posts. You want to claim that conservatives and the 1 percent are directly responsible for destroying the middle class. I was certainly making light of your argument tongue in cheek with the Robert Ludlum conspiracy claims but I also responded with very legitimate and clear reasons other than the 1% being responsible most of which is backed up by the CBO report on income inequality and also by a ton of economists just google it. Instead you refuse to acknowledge or even debate my very reasonable assumption regarding the impact of globalization. immigration or education. Because I didnt follow or support your claims, you need to rationalize me away with these false ridiculous fabrications to try and make light of my personal credibility rather than even address a very reasonable reply although not consistent with your world view. Explain again to me, why you find me so hard to debate?

I truly dont get it. If you have the better arguments, then it should be very apparent in your reply and then you can let your audience make an informed decision right?

You talk in circles, refuse to acknowledge facts, and constantly try to shift the focus in order to avoid coming to a conclusion

JohnB - you have way more patience then I do with little Kirky!

Talk about a dog chasing his tail in circles... lol

Don't waste your time pursuing Wag the Dog!

What a attention hound!

Great job, IR. Excellent view on the different types of capitalism. Sorry David, but I gotta side with IR on this one.

As for the different types of capitalism that you have just stated there, IR, I personally have a blend of sorts that would serve well with the diverse US economy, just like it it sometimes tasty to mix rocky road and rainbow sherbet. When I heard you talking about things like "worker capitalism" and "state capitalism," I began to feel that we needed a unique form of capitalism that would contain elements from most of the forms that you have just listed. I think that a combination of state capitalism, worker capitalism, managerial and entrepreneur capitalism, and even financial capitalism, would form a sustainable economic model on which our economy can flourish upon.

First did you not say and I quote, "over the last 30 years the conservatives have worked very hard to eliminate the social contract"? Did you not go on and talk about how the 1% are eliminating the middle class? What part of the my reply was too difficult for you to respond to or were talking points with no previous application? Was it saying no thats not true because the middle class were impacted by the 3 items I set out? Were you unable to refute that because its not consistent with the punish the big bad rich and conservative view?

Well Kirk, we can all agree that it was a mixture of problems that caused the rampaging income inequality in the US. The problem I find with using things like the rise of globalization and high-skilled jobs is that there are examples in other countries where these factors do not have to exacerbate income inequality. For example, if you look at countries like Finland, they are currently growing at around 3% a year, have unemployment lower than that of the US, and have high tax rates and a strong safety net, and have very little income inequality. Essentially, they have weathered the same stormy conditions that America has, yet they have a relatively more equal distribution level than us. Those problems, while formidable to say the least, are not necessarily the main causes of such inequality. Essentially, had we kept our tax rates at understandable levels (not 91%, but maybe around 40% to 50%), strengthened social programs and things like education, prevented the rise of an uncontrollable financial sector, and sought to invest in areas like manufacturing and high tech to provide something like a buffer to take some of the punch out of the problems that hit us economically, we would be in a much better shape than we are now in terms of economic distribution. These problems did have a large effect on economic equality, yet they do not absolve the irresponsible fiscal and domestic policies that our government has taken over the past quarter century that have by far only benefited the highest earners. That is quite simply the truth.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Fiesty--so I am an attention hound because I dont agree with you? What does that make you given that the number of posts you make out number mine by the thousands so I guess that makes you a paid campaigner. Thanks but no credibility with your posts.

Freshiee--thanks for actually making a reasonable reply. So I guess you must not agree with David, John and the others that I just make circular arguments with no substance. Clearly there is room for debate in all the issues discussed on here and neither progressive or conservative has a lock on the solutions or even an understanding of the problems. The unwillingness to even open ears to discussion by the Obama campaigners on here is unsettling to say the least. So I appreciate you actually taking the time. So first you do realize that Finland's demographics and manufacturing base dont make a good comparison to this issue and to some extent support my position. For example, the education gap in Finland is not nearly the same as here in the US. In the US, we continue to have a huge difference in education and skill set divided by race and economics. No matter how much money we have thrown at this issue, we have made very little progress. Education reform has been stymied by the teachers unions and democrats hurting various classes of people. Finland doesnt have that problem. Second, do you really believe that Finland is like the US in its ability to compete globally? You really think without some reset of wages and benefits, GM and Chrysler was going to be able to compete with Toyota, Kia and others for car sales in Europe or china or wherever? You do realize also that Finland is much closer to a socialist society with very little upward mobility and whatever income class you were born into, you stay for life right? Also I realize we have income tax inequality reform issues but the vast majority of working wealthy already pay taxes in the 40-50% range in this country. What we need is reform not higher rates. Your example is interesting and certainly a possible choice that america could move to in which we all work 30 hours a week, make a standard middle class salary, take August off, ambition and hard work wont really improve your economic situation but maybe the overall happiness is higher. Probably not the economic environment I would want to move to but I can see it being attractive to average to low achievers. As for irresponsiblbe domestic polices by the government benefiting the highest earners, can you explain that one? Are you saying that because high skilled, highly educated people faired better in an economy that was shedding low skilled manufacturing jobs, I agree. If you say some of Clinton's tax policy provided additional benefits to executive compensation, I agree. If you say government policy (as reported by the CBO) has benefited our very wealthy seniors in the aggregate due to social security and medicare, I agree but I think government policy has been a drop in the bucket compared to the far more detrimental impact of globalization and immigration. The education gap was a fact and reality before these economic changes we just didnt address them very well. Again, not sure how John B's comments regarding social contract applies at all which is why he has not shown back up and has disappeared.

Freshiee--thanks for actually making a reasonable reply. So I guess you must not agree with David, John and the others that I just make circular arguments with no substance.

No, I agree with those guys a lot. Seems like they are making sense much of the time.

Clearly there is room for debate in all the issues discussed on here and neither progressive or conservative has a lock on the solutions or even an understanding of the problems. The unwillingness to even open ears to discussion by the Obama campaigners on here is unsettling to say the least.

Technically, the same goes for the Romney and anti-Obama campaigners on this site, is it not??

So I appreciate you actually taking the time. So first you do realize that Finland's demographics and manufacturing base dont make a good comparison to this issue and to some extent support my position. For example, the education gap in Finland is not nearly the same as here in the US. In the US, we continue to have a huge difference in education and skill set divided by race and economics. No matter how much money we have thrown at this issue, we have made very little progress.

Yes, but nonetheless Finland shows how a so-called "entitlement society" can actually be an economic asset, rather than a liability. Finland's demographics are different, I'll give you that, but the fact is that while a lot of money has been thrown at education, we are still under-funded due to states laying off teachers and cutting education to balance their budgets (which I think is insane).

Education reform has been stymied by the teachers unions and democrats hurting various classes of people. Finland doesnt have that problem.

Not necessarily. While I do agree that teacher unions can be at times a bit obstructive, Democrats are not necessarily stymieing reform. The problem is the lack of funding and the lack of centralization in our education system. It is much harder to reform a system by doing it in 50 steps than doing it in one step. Centralized education is our only option, as the states have proved to be unable to fund education and manage it due to their periodic budget crises. Finland doesn't have to deal with states like we do. The fault lies with both parties, but also on the decentralized system that we have created and hampered.

Also I realize we have income tax inequality reform issues but the vast majority of working wealthy already pay taxes in the 40-50% range in this country. What we need is reform not higher rates.

I do not know of any working wealthy person (and I wonder what is the salary of such a person) who pays 40% in taxes. They do not pay the 35% tax rate; after deductions and exemptions, it could be as low as 18% or as high as 25%, and I doubt that state taxes (exempting the sales tax) would total 25%. I do believe that, on average, wealthy households pay 18.1% of their income now, compared to 29.9% in the late 1990s. That doesn't sound very fair. And what is so bad about raising tax rates back to Clinton levels??? The wealthy were making big bucks back then, so I don't think raising taxes by 4 points for income tax and 5 for capital gains will hurt them that much.

I think government policy has been a drop in the bucket compared to the far more detrimental impact of globalization and immigration. The education gap was a fact and reality before these economic changes we just didnt address them very well. Again, not sure how John B's comments regarding social contract applies at all which is why he has not shown back up and has disappeared.

Actually, government policy is not a separate factor. Globalization and immigration have government policy in them. The negative aspects of globalization and the education gap could have been circumvented had we used efficient government policy, like avoiding massive tax breaks and instead investing that money to transform America to occupy the middle and high-tier sections of manufacturing and high tech and to improve education in order to stabilize our economy. Not to mention that the fact that the deregulation of our economy, especially the financial sector, caused our economy to collapse and our middle class to become crushed.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Jody---That is a reality check that Republicans should be clubbed with over and over. Excellent!

Jody:

You have outdone yourself. How sad the election will be determined by how the economy is faring the day before we go to the polls. You have shown so clearly the differences between the values of the left and the right.

It is the totality of our values that make the Republic, not the amount of cash we have in our wallets the day before we vote.

Some time ago, I stopped hoping the right wing had brains enough to recognize the big picture. For them it's me, me, and more me. What I still hope is that Dems, lefties, progressives, and true conservatives understand the destructive force the right has come to be. It is my fervent hope they will vote not only to preserve what has made America great, but to destroy the cancer that threatens the nation.

Well every time a balanced budget amendment has come before congress it is the Democrats that kill the bill. As if either party is fiscally responsible. As if the American people should allow this behavior to continue, and it will without a balanced budget amendment.

Obama said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, and instead he more then doubled it. Obama simply does not care about fiscal responsibility and his budget proposals prove that fact. The entire Democratic Party can't find so much as a dime of spending to cut, so let us not pretend they have the nations fiscal health in mind.

This country is headed for a fiscal collapse and Obama has done nothing but accelerate its happening. As if future generations should be saddled with mountains of debt for spending on handouts and vote pandering this nation could not afford. What a legacy of irresponsible behavior by ALL in Washington.

Thanks, Tom, David.

As for you, Rick, you really should do your homework. This country is not broke, it is not headed for financial collapse and you really should not listening to the right-wing fear mongerers. What better time for the USA to invest in huge infrastructure and education projects than when the interest rate is 2%. By borrowing today at such a low rate, we infuse the economy into another huge spurt of growth, create millions of jobs and update an aging and crumbling system. We are NOT broke; we are not Greece or Spain or any other troubled nation.

It was the House GOP which walked away from a $4 trillion debt reduction plan President Obama offered them because they didn't like some things in it; never mind those things could have been amended and negotiated in the House and Senate. As far as the balanced budget amendment, when the GOP puts one up that isn't loaded with bear traps which would cause great harm, one that provides for emergencies, one that doesn't require a 2/3 majority to undo any damage the provisions may have, then we'll talk about a balanced budget. Don't forget in their balanced budget, the GOP was UNWILLING to increase any revenues, UNWILLING to close corporate welfare tax loopholes and those balanced budget amendments banned ever raising taxes without a 2/3 vote thus insuring that Grover Norquist and the richest 1% will forever be the big winners. When the GOP gets serious about cutting defense spending instead of everything else that makes this country strong, then maybe we'll talk about a balanced budget amendment and the pros and cons of having such a thing.

As for Jody in Iowa, clueless. 4 trillion in debt reduction, yeah right, can I interest you in an acre of prime real estate on Mars? Proves you can fool an Obama supporter with smoke and mirrors. You can fool an Obama supporter all the time, but the rest of the nation is not as gullible.

If Obama had a record to run on, he would. What is the campaign strategy for Obama again? Oh yeah, negative campaigning with more attacks, blame, and hatred. Obama loves the nations American Express card, and he never leaves the White House without it. Nothing but a balanced budget amendment will give this country hope, and the Democrats block it every time.

There's a reason the balanced budget amendment has gone nowhere so far...it MUST go nowhere. While constant, never-ending deficit spending is something we should fix (and wouldn't have, were it not for the Reagan and Bush tax cuts) the ability of government to deficit spend on a short term basis is critical to the functioning of a modern society. It facilitates everything from the ability to wage war without ruinous taxation to the ability to jump start an economy through deficit spending. A federal balanced budget amendment would forever consign America to has-been status on the world stage.

If Obama had a record to run on, he would

He is running on that record, and it's a GREAT Record.

Excellent post Jody, and excellent response to Rick. Rick is emblematic of right-wing politics in this country. They remind me of how people react to a fire in a theater .. while most of us see the fire and work our way to the exit, the Rick's of the world run around in circles screaming 'fire, fire' until either succumbing to the smoke, or until some wiser person knocks him out and drags him out the exit, saving his sorry butt.

Indeed, comparing the US to Greece - ridiculous.

Jody - as usual an excellent post. Too bad Rick just doesn't get it.

Missed your post Friday!

a

Reality Check. It is one thing to believe in fiscal responsibility, it is another to be fooled into thinking the modern GOP is fiscally responsible just because they say they are.

Hey Jody, I just want to let you know I agree with your statement. I believe in fiscal responsibility and argue that the Bush Administration was the most fiscally reckless in living memory. However, they are getting serious competition for that title from the current Administration.

It is one thing to believe in small government, it is another to be fooled into thinking that the smaller the government or no government, the better off we are.

I disagree with this statement. Government by it's nature grows over time and becomes stale and unwieldy. Unless we continue to restrict government to defined functions it will attempt to intrude into all aspects of our lives (regardless of the party in power).

Oh SeekingSanity I do get Jody of Iowa's post. It is simply okay to leave mountains of debt for others to pay for as long as you get what you want, today. We should all just accept what liberals think the government should be paying for, regardless of the cost. Funny how tax cuts are always mentioned, but if they all went away today, we wouldn't even cut the Obama annual deficit in half. If we also eliminated all defense spending, we might get the Obama annual deficit cut in half, but only if you don't take all of the people private and public that would be out of work and not paying taxes into account. You simply do not add up any more then Jody of Iowa does. Liberals just do not want any fiscal responsibility, because who knows when the next bridge to nowhere will be needed.

Rick - as usual, you DON'T understand. As usual, your posts are one-sided and accuse the "liberals" of not wanting fiscal responsibility or understanding what got us into this mess. But, as usual, it is YOU who don't have a clue.

Wow SeekingSanity it still appears you haven't found it yet. So where is the fiscal responsibility you claim to want? Has it come from Obama? No. Obama has added over 6 trillion to our national debt. Obama has run trillion plus annual deficits every year he has been in office. In fact Obama has added more to our national debt in one term then any previous president has added in two terms.

But of course you have endless excuses. Others to blame. In fact it there is always someone else to blame when liberals fail. No big boy pants in a liberal world, just finger pointing, blame, and excuses. The Reid lead senate hasn't passed a budget in three years, no fiscal responsibility in that branch of government. But we know plenty of excuses. Has Obama criticized the senate? Not once.

So continue to seek sanity, because you are absolutely clueless. Not a plan. Not a single solution. Nothing but excuses. That is what liberals have done for us in Washington. So keep pointing those fingers and blaming everyone else, it seems to be the only things liberals do well.

Rick - keep seeking sanity in the GOP every day but clueless people like you convince me it is hopeless!

Rick-3416939

Oh SeekingSanity I do get Jody of Iowa's post. It is simply okay to leave mountains of debt for others to pay for as long as you get what you want, today. We should all just accept what liberals think the government should be paying for, regardless of the cost. Funny how tax cuts are always mentioned, but if they all went away today, we wouldn't even cut the Obama annual deficit in half.

Rick, you fail to understand that the only time the conservatives EVER began to bitch about deficits was when Obama was in office. The only people who criticized Bush's deficits where Democrats and economists, and Bush violated economic law by having deficits during a good economy. If we hypothetically removed all of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, we would save roughly $3.8 trillion over the next decade. That would reduce the deficit in 2012 by $380 billion (well under half of the deficit), yet over the long term it would slice the deficit by over one half.

If we also eliminated all defense spending, we might get the Obama annual deficit cut in half, but only if you don't take all of the people private and public that would be out of work and not paying taxes into account. You simply do not add up any more then Jody of Iowa does. Liberals just do not want any fiscal responsibility, because who knows when the next bridge to nowhere will be needed.

Okay, don't you realize that cutting Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and the rest of the safety net would also hamper our economy, and thus our deficit??? And technically, Jody of Iowa got it right. Liberals have offered budgets and deficit reductions time and again, you just have to look for them. Liberals have offered trillions in spending cuts, and in the case of Simpson-Bowles entitlement reform, and all they asked for was revenues, and yet the GOP said no. Tell me Rick, if somebody offered you both spending cuts (for social programs) and entitlement reform, and all they asked for was some tax increases, would you say yes??? If you did, you ought to blame the GOP for not doing that with Obama's debt deal, which they skirted away from. If you didn't, than you're with the rest of right-wing pack.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

It's just more FAKE outrage coming from the right wing.

And most of the killings by the Nazi's was done at the death damps in Poland. Why don't the right wing looneys just focus on his Obama's birth certificate again. Or something more significant to the issues facing our nation.

The reason they focus on stuff like this and take things out of context is that is all they got and you can sum it up in one word. Hate.

Job1 -- No, you are wrong. The outrage is from the Poles whom President Obama has repeatedly insulted since taking office as noted below. The bold is mine but the reference made is about our President.

“The White House will apologize for this outrageous error,” Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski tweeted. Sikorski said that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk “will make a statement in the morning. It’s a pity that this important ceremony was upstaged by ignorance and incompetence.”

And more from the UK Telegraph article:

President Obama has a long track record of insulting the Poles. In 2010 he chose to play golf on the day of the funeral of the Polish President Lech Kaczynski, the Polish First Lady, and 94 senior officials who perished in the Smolensk air disaster. Eight months earlier he humiliated Warsaw by pulling out of the agreement over Third Site missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic.

OU -- Nothing our of context. President Obama made a huge blunder yesterday. It is worthy of being reported and discussed. This is not right wing stuff but rather outrage from a European friend.

You appear to realize that the Nazis did the killing in the death camps they set up in Poland, do you wonder why our "smartest President ever" did not know that?

And for those that are unwilling or unable to do their own work, here is the text of the Polish PM statement from earlier today.

The words uttered yesterday by the President of the United States Barack Obama concerning “Polish death camps” touched all Poles. We always react in the same way when ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad intentions lead to such a distortion of history, so painful for us here in Poland, in a country which suffered like no other in Europe during World War II.

For Poland and for our country, but also for all our fellow citizens, this is something that we cannot ignore. Here, in Poland, we cannot accept such words even if they are spoken by the leader of a friendly power - or perhaps especially in such situations - since we expect diligence, care, and respect from our friends on issues of such importance as World War II remembrance. In Polish-American relations, in friendly relations, respect vis-à-vis the smaller partner should be the most recognizable sign of such relations.

But this is not only an issue of justified sensitivity when it comes to Nazi German concentration camps which were placed on Polish soil in order to murder Jews, but also Poles and other nations. Today this is first and foremost the problem of America’s reputation. We expect Americans to become involved - in particular in relation to this statement - in our efforts, in our measures which will enable us to eliminate, once and for all, these false phrasings, so immensely unfair for Poland.

Perhaps this is paradoxically a very good occasion for the U.S. administration, for Americans, and for the President of the United States to support Poland in its efforts towards historical truth, towards the correct phrasings, the right assessment of what happened during World War II on Polish territory and throughout Europe. This is also important for the United States, since American soldiers, too, died during World War II. If these were “Polish death camps,” then at whose hands did American soldiers die? If these were “Polish death camps,” then from whose hands did the uncle of the President of the United States liberate the Buchenwald concentration camp? When someone says “Polish death camps,” it is as if there were no Nazis, no German responsibility, as if there was no Hitler - that is why our Polish sensitivity in these situations is so much more than just simply a feeling of national pride.

This truth about World War II is important and must also have importance for every other nation. I am convinced that today, our American friends are capable of a stronger reaction - a clearer one, and one which perhaps eliminates, once and for all, these types of mistakes - than just the correction itself and the regret which we heard from the White House spokesperson. We take note of these words, but it seems that it would be even more important for the United States than for Poland to end this with class. That is how one acts with regard to tried-and-tested friends, but this is also how one acts in your own, well-defined interest. I believe our allies are capable of such behaviour. Thank you very much.

If Obama had a record to run on he would. Yes we can has been replaced by why we couldn't. Blame, hatred, division, partisanship is the Obama legacy. Obama will go down as the worst president ever.

The Death camps were were in Poland and set up by Nazi Germany who took over Poland . In this sad case many Polish people did work for Nazi Germany within their army and within the camps.

In this case the President could have said the Polish death camps set up by Nazi Germany.

Anyone of non-Polish decent pushing the statement of the President as a evil or a bad statement, is pushing the fake outrage button.

Many times growing up, I heard history teachers say "Polish death camps," in reference to location.

You know James, with your faux outrage over misspeaking. The Polish PM's statement is an over the top reaction to a misspoken phrase.

Perhaps you and and the PM and any others who are ludicriously trying to make the President out to be anti Polish with statements like this, should think there were plenty of brave Polish Freedom Fighters, many who died for their country, and I'd seriously doubt that any of them would over react like this, what is your point in trying to push it?

Do you really want to turn a beautiful ceremony, where we honor men and women for contributions to help and enrich mankind into some sort of political food fight? Grow up.

This is a subject that does not need to be litigated much less discussed. It was a mistakenly spoken phrase nothing more nothing less. You are being disloyal to your President and your country in your criticism and in taking up a faux cause for a foreign nation.

and when he apologizes,...

The tighty righties will accuse him of appeasement,...

Poutrage is their Speciality!

Clearly the silliest non-story of an already silly season. I've rarely seen Republicans so overly PC and faux deeply offended.

As in the words of the first lady following the Obama election, for the first time in her life she was proud of her country. The Obama's are two peas in a pod, they grew up hating everything this country stood for, and there is no doubt they have an agenda to change it. There is no ally of the United States that should sleep with both eyes closed now that Obama is watching their backs.

I hate disagreeing with our hosts and my dear friend Feisty on FR, but you did miss THE STORY while focused on Trump and his ill fitting tin foil hat. (He can't fit it over that nest he wears)

Romney didn't wave around a birth certificate, he was waving around a Certificate of Live Birth, which clearly shows that his father was born in (GASP!) Mexico!

These are the very reasons that Trump and the "teabaggers" claim as evidence against their President being eligible to be, well, President.

What to do, what do do....will Trump and the tin foil hat crowd now DEMAND that Romney PROVE he is eligible to be President? Will they DEMAND his college transcripts and grades....

Or are they the bigots we have always said that they are?

Stay tuned, folks.....

Hey, folks it seems that James, and Joanna Smith got the same right-wing talking point this AM; must have been from Karl Rove or Frank Luntz or maybe they got together on this one. An insult to Poles is the nonsense you and Smiffy are posting.

Where were Auschwitz and Treblinka camps located?

Occupied Poland.

End subject.

Jody - JAS and James are both nonsensical so really, it's no biggie. Just more garbage from the two of them.

An insult to Poles is the nonsense you and Smiffy are posting.

Jody, when the Foreign Minister of Poland is claiming "ignorance, lack of knowledge", I am guessing that the Poles are genuinely insulted. The President screwed up, (which even the WH is admitting). Why can't you just admit it and move on?

BTW Job1 I'm not of Polish descent and I'm not outraged by this statement, but I recognize a f...k up when I see it and the defense of it is just laughable.

I expected all the trashy talk, name calling, placing your values against me, declaring that my outrage is "faux" but to denigrate and insult the Prime Minister of Poland is beyond the pale.

How can you possibly be so elitist to dismiss the Prime Minister's clear statement to President Obama.

An apology from a spokesperson is not acceptable as he noted.

President Obama should have picked up the phone and had a conversation with him this morning as a true world class leader would have done. It is not too late for him to do so. I wonder if he will?

If the Polish Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister know the places were indeed Nazi death camps why are they protesting so much? Could it be they are more "Polacks" than Poles? Goddamn!, the President misspoke. I think It's mostly right wing racists, and republicans who are trying to keep this non story going.

And Obama didnt in 2008? Talk about your high dollar prostitute. He was used by so many union thugs it was ridiculous. Jeeeesh..

MSNBC will not need to do that, the polls are doing just fine!!! If everyone who voted was rich white males then Romney is a shoe in!!!

Anyone with half a brain knows what a GREAT job President Obama has done as President. Facts are facts.

Mr. Obama lost us with "Change". The Obama administration are racist, and we are sick of it! Mitt Romney at least has some experience outside the welfare sector. also, he' doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve.

To Pissedoffperson,

Hey Pissed, you need to go to the rest room. I and others that will be voting for Mitt are are middle class, of course according to your like, we would be classified as idiots wright wings. Just one problem with that, I'm an independent, and at this moments Mitt holds the most votes on that group.

Job1, I think Obama has the "half brain" vote sowed up. I am encouraged by the number of people who are taking a far more educated approach to the election of 2012. It looks like the common sense voting of 2010 will continue...

Job1,

Only the folks with half a brain thinks he's has done a good job. He bailed out the union's, Not GM. He has made some of his financial supporters wealthy with tax dollars....he's speaks out in support for Trayvon and fluke? My vote is Mitt 2012

Concern Citizen & UAW -

Apparently you did not read the article to which you are "posting", if you did you would realize Romney has a difficult if not impossible path to victory via the electoral college.

Independents are NOT going strongly for Romney, he is only winning RED states that Obama didn't win in 2008.

Gas prices down, Dow up, GM hiring, Unemployment hit 6% in Ohio!! Life is good!! I received a letter from my health care provider about my refund that Im getting and It will be put in my acct in 5 to 10 days YESSSSS!!! Am I better off then I was when President Obama Took Office? YESSSSSSSSS again!!!

Dont Hate!!! Enjoy!!!

Dont Hate!!! Enjoy!!!

This coming from a guy with the name "Pissedoffperson".

What exactly are you pissed about Pissed? Certainly many people are pissed with the promises made and broke by the current administration. You just cannot seem to comprehend how many and how much people are hurting in this country. Nearly half the country gets a government check of some kind every month. Do you think that's sustainable? $6 trillion in additional debt in 4 years, so just who is going to pay for that? It certainly good news that you're better off than you were 4 years ago, because most people are not.

Nearly half the country gets a government check of some kind every month.

This is highly ironic from a person who doesn't even work to support herself. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black, eh?

There are 30 governors praising how well this country is doing and 97% were GOP governors. The unemployment rate is under the national average in over 20 states(under 7%). Its getting better , not perfect but better and all I hear is how horrible this country is. Well its not! I ordered 2 American made Flat screen TV's , for the first time in history I ordered 2 flat screen AMERICAN made TV's. That is a wonderful thing!! You talk about 6 trillion but not the 10 trillion that was on the books, figures!!! Im glad that IRAQ is over and Afghan is ending but no one else is. Ohio is doing great and Im glad Im here!!!

If more people are working , that means more taxes are paid and the debt will go away, Clinton proved it so it works well. President Obama want to create infrastructure project and the GOP is stopping him at all steps. The govt spending less and shrinking but all the GOP says is that he is spending like crazy. lololololol

The banks screwed up this country by deregulation and the Gop is fighting against any kind of oversight on wall street. Why? If trickle down economics do not work why do the Gop keep pushing it? I can name several things President Obama has done for the middle class. What has Romney done that benafited anyone out side of Bain? When he was govoner did he improve or screw up maine? When you go down to 47th in Job creation this proves he cannot create any jobs. Bain made money not create jobs so since President Obama has created over 4.5 million Jobs in 26 months he is on the right path!!

Obama/Biden 2012!!!

I'm an independant that voted for Obama, as many republicans did on the promise of hope and change. I would vote Democrat again if Hillary would run, however the con's outweigh the pro's on voting for another 4 years of our current situation. Before everyone jumps on the "blame congress" bandwagon, it is what it is, and the current leader does not have a record of working with them to fix the problem. As my grandad always said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!"

I feel that I don't have a choice, as MY Children's future is important to me.

Thats good because you will be living with them!

sirie - and if Romney wins you and your children will be looking for a hovel to live in.

Many of us are better off than we were 4 years ago. And, to the person who said more Independents would vote for Romney - wake up - not gonna happen. Most Independents will again vote for the best candidate - President Obama.

I loves me some Obama bucks...

LOL PissedOff, that was funny... unfortunately they are 6 and 4 years old, not yet out from my umbrella!

I think most all of the politicians are crooks, and will vote for many democrats and many republicans, based on their beliefs and records. I really can't see how people vote straight ticket, it amazes me that they put their trust in blindly doing so...

The reliable "Who will screw me the Least " Method. That is what Im using !!!

Nearly half the country gets a government check of some kind every month. Do you think that's sustainable? $6 trillion in additional debt in 4 years, so just who is going to pay for that?

Poor Joanna. You really need to lay off the right-wing kool aid. First of all, the reason half of America is taking a government check (if they are) is because of the @!$%#ING RECESSION!!!! This was the worst recession since the 1930s!!!! If it weren't for those safety net programs, we would stuck in the depression for another few years!!! It isn't sustainable, but it will subside after we get a full recovery. And is cutting taxes by trillions of dollars also fiscally sustainable???? I think not. And to be exact, all Americans get a government check. Not necessarily every month, but every year. Wanna know why??? Because of the Bush tax cuts. You wanna stop giving Americans government checks??? Start with the tax cuts. It's as simple as that. Seek some truth, Joanna, for the truth shall set you free.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Funny how all politicians know what the issues are, yet we see things like "gay marriage" and "religion" constantly topics of the day. Was once a time when real issues were the campaign, remember that? There are so many things that this country needs right now, but the politicians want to keep our minds off of the problems and want these "sideshow" antics instead of coming up with real solutions... wonder why that is? (sarcasm)

That's right Citizen, keep an eye on Wisconsin, where not only is Walker AHEAD of his opponent, but the UNIONS in Wisconsin are now screaming at Democrats for not sending any money their way.

Keep on eye on Wisconsin, where the TAXPAYERS of that state are seeing for the first time in YEARS a state that isn't in deficit spending. A state that is actually CREATING jobs for its citizens.

What the left ran on in 2008 was "blame Bush". Guess what, after almost FOUR YEARS Bush is gone and everything going on in this country belongs to good old Obama.

You know, like gas prices being over double what they were when he took office. Like food prices being up over 25% since he took office. Like housing prices being up, but not SALES. Like people's health insurance premiums being UP after being promised they would go down. Like the deficit DOUBLING for four straight years now after being promised it would be cut in half. Like almost a TRILLION dollars being spent with a promise of unemployment never going over 8% and and it's never been UNDER. Like payoffs, paybacks, and exemptions that cost the taxpayers tens of BILLIONS being given to unions, but not to other citizens of this nation.

Like "green" money being given to Obama bundlers, supporters, and even STAFF members in the tens of Billions, all of it guaranteed by the TAXPAYERS of this nation. Like those same bundlers, supporters, and even staff members raking in hundreds of millions while the taxpayers PAY the cost when those "green" companies die.

Don't talk about 2008 Citizen, it's LONG gone. Talk about TODAY.

I agree with citizen,

I believe Walker will get re-elected in a land slide of sensible voters. The unions have worn out their welcome in american manufacturing, teachers and fire fighters unions are pathetic also as there are many safeguards in place like the EEOC and rights activist that render the unions a waste of your paycheck and detriment to any company's competitive welfare.

What happened in Wisconsin also happened in Maine.

Our Tea Party Governor took his orders from the same national right wing agenda. He set about demonizing public unions, (famously removing a mural from the Maine State Labor Dept that depicted striking shoe factory workers,) cutting 20,000 low income Mainers from Medicaid, and turning around and giving the wealthiest Mainers a tax cut.

Like Walker, Paul LePage has pitted Mainers against each other, and created an uncivil atmosphere that is out of step with traditional Maine manners. He has conducted witch hunts, and generated unnecessary controveries, while his own administration has been racked by allegations of shady dealings.

funny, I thought Wisconsin led the nation in negative Job Creation? Hmmm, where did I read that?

http://www.politiscoop.com/us-politics/wisconsin-politics/807-wisconsin-worst-in-the-nation-for-job-creation-2011.html

Good times! Nothing like the collegiate drop out not getting it done, eh?

PS. any surprise that the majority of the 'losers' are RED states?

here's a hilarious one,...sad when they have to teach republicans HOW to do math:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/28/republican-party-wisconsin/wisconsin-republican-party-says-more-than-half-nat/

lmao

Correction:

When you on the right can actually debate with FACTS and TRUTH instead of hate and filth, maybe you'll have a chance this November.

Meanwhile, it looks like 2008 all over again to me.

Wow, you mean it actually took you eight minutes to copy and paste and change one word of what I put in?

And you NEVER answered anything else.

You are EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You can't debate. You can only repeat, and maybe change a word or two or what you are repeating.

How about actually debating jobs? Where's your debate on the "recovery"? Where's your debate on housing sales? Where's your debate on anything at all?

None I guess. People like you have gotten so used to just repeating everything that you're told to that you can't actually do any real research or intelligently debate anything anymore. You just twist the words to fit what YOU want and call it "intelligent".

You can't debate.

Exactly how do you debate with a hysterical, hate-filled Harpy like yourself?

Take you meds Cheryl, you're shriller then usual this morning...

So what is the big debate on housing sales? For years, $100,000 homes were selling for $200,000. Obviously that was gonna go BOOM at some time. Now homes are approaching what their actual value has been all along.

What exactly is there you wish to debate? Be specific and I'll play along.

Okay, Cheryl, here are some facts about unemployment.

Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 measures Unemployed and Underemployed, and includes both those no longer actively looking for work and those who are working part-time but would like Full-time employment.

U-6 was at 14.2% in January of 2009 when Obama was inaugurated. It rose quickly to over 16% by May of 2009 and peaked at 17.2% in Oct of 2009. Since then it has steadily decreased/improved to the April 2012 number of 14.5%. April marks the third straight month that U-6 was under 15%.

The Dow Jones Industrial average was around 9000 at the beginning of 2009, then "crashed" to around 6500 in April of 2009. It has steadily improved, with ups and downs, to over 13,000 in 2012.

So now that we have proven that the economy and unemployment has improved under the last three years of President Obama, show me some FACTS that Romney's plan would do better.

Job what kind of truth you want? Obama's version or real world?

You mean Obama's claim that he has issued more oil permits than any previous president? He conveniently forgets to explain that he is issuing permits to Mr. Walker's pig farm in Abilene TX and the like and not to areas where major reserves are located. In fact, permits issued for exploration where large proved reserves are sitting have DROPPED 50% under this president.

Is that the truth you are looking for?

Or is it Obama's claim that Romney and Bain killed a steel plant owned by Bain throwing hundreds out of work? When Romney was not even at Bain anymore? Moreover, fact is that steel company begged Bain to come in because they were headed to bankruptcy. Bain injected capital to upgrade equipment and affect better efficacy in the plant but it still failed.

Is that your truth?

Democrats are liars.

You are EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You can't debate. You can only repeat, and maybe change a word or two or what you are repeating.

It's a waste of time to debate a right wing idiot that doesn't know anything.

And right on cue comes the Feisty Dumb FUX to make the point that she (?) is still incapable of a rational, well-thought out and considered comment. Insults, quick-hitting one-liners, name calling. That's her schtick, that's all she has, that's all there is. So sad.

That's her schtick, that's all she has, that's all there is. So sad.

U mad?

• TNSEVOL,

How dare you use facts and the truth..

Job, job, no jobs writes It's a waste of time to debate a right wing idiot that doesn't know anything.

Interesting. What you wrote means to any logical person you cannot defend your position let alone refute my facts so you devolve into nothingness from an intellectual standpoint.

GOOD JOB!

Your daily right wing non-facts and statements of false hoods prove my point!

So I repeat, it's a waste of time to debate a right wing idiot that doesn't know anything.

Job.....I think that you have a difficult time because you don't debate anyone. You simply call people names. Most of your posts have about the same intelligence as a second grader on the playground. When you grow up, people would be happy to debate you about ideas. Until then, you are a waste of time because of your lack of ideas or critical thinking skills.

Are you aware that we've heard at least a dozen times now how we are in a "recovery"? A recovery that has up to two millions MORE homes being foreclosed on this year. A recovery where MSNBC and the left crowed juste yesterday about "housing prices" going up, but failed to mention that home SALES are not?

Why bother debating when your reading retention is a massive failure. The article you reference, but fail to cite, says this, contrary to your bogus claim.

Tuesday's data was another piece of evidence recently that the housing market is making a bumpy revival. The median price for a new home rose 4.9 percent in April, year over year, while sales of existing homes rose 10 percent last month versus April 2011. http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/29/11936181-home-prices-climb-for-second-month-in-row-in-march?lite

Rebel, go back and read Cheryl's original post. Then come back and we'll talk about nothingness.

Job1 - apparently today it's your turn with the nut jobs! Cheryl who only posts hateful posts time after time; jim- who stalks his choice for the day; rebel - who is just nasty every day!

Sorry - but looks like you win for the day!

CherylLM

Is it EVER going to be possible for any of you on the left to actually discuss issues like the economy, gas prices, home sales, foreclosures, or even JOBS?

Funny about how you bitch about the left seems to ignore the main issues when it was OBAMA who offered a bill to create 2 million jobs last year, gas prices are actually going down, and the housing market is beginning to stabilize, huh??? Didn't think about that, did ya?

Or are we going to have to continue to listen to the same old class warfare filth, racism, lies, twisted truths, taken out of context comments, and general filth that Obama and his handlers have sewn across this nation?

Hmm, so asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes is class warfare??? Wonder what you will say when Romney cuts his own taxes while raising that of a $30,000 worker, huh??? Is saying that the wealthy have been paying the lowest taxes in 50 years and that cutting taxes (and regulations) for them has done nothing to help the economy a lie and a twisted truth??? And as for taken-out-of-context comments, where were you when Romney accused Obama of apologizing for America when Politifact disproved that??? Where were you when Republicans accused Obama of being ineffective when he was the guy who killed bin Laden??? Cheryl, you really need to find the truth. Seek it, for the truth shall set you free. Sorry, but in this case the truth rules.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshieee, Obama did not KILL Old Binny, he simply told someone else to do it. He killed a man so hated that even a wife ratted him out, a man so hated he no longer had support by those who cheered when the towers fell. I love how people seem content to blame Bush for the 'illegal' wars, when we did in fact have people crowing in the streets of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc when the towers fell and thousands of Americans died. We the hated, we the infidels, we Americans!!!! How can anyone NEED a REASON to go after those that hate us, WHY did Bush have to LIE? BC people REFUSED to believe we were not the golden all loved nation and that we couldn't possibly have that many people waiting to stab us in the backs. I remember and I remember well, the cheering of other nations as our people BURNED and suffocated in the towers and on the planes. I remember the footage from BRITAIN of all places showing Muslims cheering in bars or wherever they go to chit chat. You may not like the fact that we could not accept such a wide spread dislike that Bush lied to protect us. But we had enemies sitting behind their Korans in almost every nation you can think of, cheering at the damage inflicted on the American infidels. And if it took invading Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc...to protect us and our freedoms to choose and if Bush did not feel we could handle the truth of just how pathetic and unworthy of life a certain people saw us, that he had to lie to protect us in our ignorance, then so be it. We had muslims cheering in our own nation, here on American soil. Old Binny is PROOF our enemies are not stationary, they move and exist in many places and it was the job of our POTUS to remove the power of a man seen so highly by his people of various nations and locations. I DID NOT WANT A MARTYR!!! You may think all you wish bad about Bush, but Obama is not a hero for dis-empowering Bin Laden!! Our military did that, our strength of will screamed, that you may strike at us and hate us, and we will stand fast and ready to defend ourselves against all odds. Bush created a presence wherever he could to show that we will not stand for being attacked even by people of an allied nation. And if it had been Obama in the hot seat, the only thing I would have changed was to tell the people the truth, that we are not so loved and maybe admitted that " hey there is oil there and sure we would like to get our hands on it, but there are still people there that were overjoyed at American deaths at the hand of terrorist, people with guns and a concept that we are unworthy of life without THEIR beliefs."

Obama may work fine now that we have assisted the people who wanted assistance. He is the son of a Muslim born man and has a deep respect for Muslims not to mention his knowledge of the religion far outshines Bush's. But had he been President when they attacked, he would have had a bigger mess than Bush BC he does understand their reasoning and has lived among them. Do you think he would have dis-empowered Laden and then assassinated him? Or would he have created another martyr in a popular man with swift justice? Pick you evil folks bc it not so cut and dried as we are being told. By the by you must remember that we demanded some form of action and the U.N denied us our right to defend ourselves. Congress tried to toe a line of 'wait and see' even while we were still pulling body parts from the rubble. Even liberals were screaming for payback and an end to the war with terrorist. We wanted swift justice and failed to consider that creating a martyr in Bin Laden, at that time, was irresponsible.

Now taking that into consideration, answer this...what would Obama have done differently and would the people have been satisfied with his actions?

P.S Freshieee, I doubt anyone will have the guts to do what needs to be done to equalize the income differences in our nation. Even if we had nothing but demos in WH, Congress and senate, I still do not think it would get done. Even Obama is taking advantage of the upper class and 1% in his campaign. Obama could have kept my vote if he had done many things but one thing would have been nice, refused to take money from anyone earning over 200k a year and given all of his book earnings to the federal debt. That would have shown me a middle class superstar President!!! All the actors going "team Obama" do not make one bit of difference to me, I would no sooner listen to George Clooney on who to vote for than voting for who my mother told me to!

I love how people seem content to blame Bush for the 'illegal' wars, when we did in fact have people crowing in the streets of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc when the towers fell and thousands of Americans died. We the hated, we the infidels, we Americans!!!! How can anyone NEED a REASON to go after those that hate us, WHY did Bush have to LIE? BC people REFUSED to believe we were not the golden all loved nation and that we couldn't possibly have that many people waiting to stab us in the backs. I remember and I remember well, the cheering of other nations as our people BURNED and suffocated in the towers and on the planes. I remember the footage from BRITAIN of all places showing Muslims cheering in bars or wherever they go to chit chat. You may not like the fact that we could not accept such a wide spread dislike that Bush lied to protect us. But we had enemies sitting behind their Korans in almost every nation you can think of, cheering at the damage inflicted on the American infidels. And if it took invading Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc...to protect us and our freedoms to choose and if Bush did not feel we could handle the truth of just how pathetic and unworthy of life a certain people saw us, that he had to lie to protect us in our ignorance, then so be it.

Okay, I'm a little confused (seriously). Are you in favor of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or against them?? I don't know. Some part of your comment seems to support it, but my limited knowledge about you and your ideological preferences tells me otherwise. Could you please clarify this for me?

Now taking that into consideration, answer this...what would Obama have done differently and would the people have been satisfied with his actions?

Well, according to my father, Obama would have done what Bush did, and the people would have been satisfied, for now. My own beliefs is that Obama would have only invaded Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't think Obama is the kind of guy who would bypass the UN, I just don't.

And if it took invading Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc...to protect us and our freedoms to choose and if Bush did not feel we could handle the truth of just how pathetic and unworthy of life a certain people saw us, that he had to lie to protect us in our ignorance, then so be it. We had muslims cheering in our own nation, here on American soil. Old Binny is PROOF our enemies are not stationary, they move and exist in many places and it was the job of our POTUS to remove the power of a man seen so highly by his people of various nations and locations.

Technically, even though people celebrated in Iraq and maybe even Iran, we had no right to invade them. I mean, we still didn't. If we did, then the Soviet Union had a right to invade us after we kept bashing them in the streets during the Cold War. Enemies are everywhere, all around us. There are no doubt terrorists in every country in the world. But that does not give us the right to invade every country out there. We need a reason; a real reason, to suspect that terrorists are being supported by a government. There was no such reason in Iraq. There weren't any WMDs there, at least not any functional ones. And we most likely were the ones who gave it to Iraq. And even if a government supports terrorists, we still need a practical plan, not running into a country and shooting up the place like a drunken madman. I would have desperately wanted revenge as well after 9/11, and after seeing people running in the streets of numerous cities and cheering while 3,000 lives were lost and millions more scarred forever. But that does not justify a reckless invasion of a sovereign country that had nothing to do with the attack. Yes, we needed retribution. Unfortunately, we went overboard with it when we sent our troops into Baghdad.

P.S Freshieee, I doubt anyone will have the guts to do what needs to be done to equalize the income differences in our nation. Even if we had nothing but demos in WH, Congress and senate, I still do not think it would get done. Even Obama is taking advantage of the upper class and 1% in his campaign. Obama could have kept my vote if he had done many things but one thing would have been nice, refused to take money from anyone earning over 200k a year and given all of his book earnings to the federal debt. That would have shown me a middle class superstar President!!! All the actors going "team Obama" do not make one bit of difference to me, I would no sooner listen to George Clooney on who to vote for than voting for who my mother told me to!

Yes, most likely income inequality would not be dealt with immediately, even with a Democratic government. But it could eventually. That is, if the New Deal Democrats are resurrected and are embodied in the person of a 21st century FDR, who would hopefully lead us to another few decades of prosperity. Whether that will happen in our future remains debatable. All we can do, however, is hope that somehow, we will resolve economic inequality, if not during our time but in our children's time.

I am more for a war of intelligence over a war of numbers!!! The question of WMD in any nation is a concern to all nations and peoples of this planet and therefore, each society SHOULD have come together under the U.N and only looked for intelligence information and if information was found of WMD then we still do not need to INVADE anyone. We simply deal with the problem quietly and efficiently (provided we are avoiding creating a martyr). No need to risk the lives of millions to cut off the finger that hovers over a button. Old Binny was too popular for us to get away with eliminating so quickly after 9/11, so Bush took the only action that he could. And action had to be taken using the only means available, even though we dislike invasion, it was our only course to reminding a people that we did not want to harm them but they forced our hand to deal with them. They tried diplomacy and our wishes were shrugged off, little pats on the head were all we got and a strict order to get over it.

When a president is faced with the decision to get the revenge his people continue to demand and is also being told to 'get over it' by a faction of people not in control of his presidency. A president has two choices, he may either represent the people who he promised to represent or he may step down for another who will. A presidents job is to represent us, his voters, his constituents as well as to protect us from threats foreign and domestic. Bush having the hot seat of the time, had appeared to fail in protecting us so in order to save face he had to give into our demands. Now many people were honestly under the impression that we would just waste a bullet and be done with it. That is not how it was or should have been handled and Bush, like I have stated, took the most logical course of action in order to represent the wishes of the American people while attempting to make a popular man unpopular. He knew it would take forever and too many Americans did not think that far ahead.

As for Iraq, I always try to keep in mind just how much is not usually told to regular citizens. We have a federal govt with a history full of misleads and lies. What worries me is what was not mentioned and what is still not being told. Somethings we may never know!!

To re-answer your question, I do not believe thousands of feet on the ground is always the solution and in the case of Afghanistan, we had no other way to show our power and to exact our revenge without creating a martyr. Iraq was a different story, we could have sort of occupied without invading, we could have blended and attempted to gain better information as to the emotional feeling toward Americans. I would have rather spent more money on surveillance equipment than on troops. But pick your evil, blunt force with feet on the ground or espionage to the extreme. When in doubt you gotta pick one!!

As to what you said about Obama, may-hap he would and may-hap he wouldn't. That would have all depended on just what information came across his desk! A trusted adviser can still lie or twist certain facts to their own personal advantages. That is the nature of the beast! Charlie Wilson's war!

Well Tex, you lost me at the point where you said Bush had to lie because he had a really good reason that regular folks wouldn't understand or get behind.

That pretty well encapsulates the reason why the modern Conservative Movement is just about the most anti-American thing to come down the pike in generations.

I would prefer being told the truth, that we Americans are not popular and that few will stand behind us in OUR time of need. And that we have few options available to us that will assist in our own protection. But I also tend to see the term weapons of mass destruction as far larger than a bomb, I see it as an all encompassing hatred for our very freedoms and choices and a war against those freedoms and choices. They will attempt to kill us for our beliefs and we will kill them for their beliefs. That is a weapon of mass destruction bc it is a never ending feud. Look how they fight among themselves and their neighbors for hundreds of years over minor differences and here we are with MAJOR differences. I think Bush should have said "something has to give and we will refuse to be the ones handing over our rights and freedoms just to make everybody else happy." We have enemies with no qualms over destroying Americans en-mass and therefore they themselves are weapons of mass destruction. Is a single man with a loaded weapon not a weapon for destruction, therefore thousands of men with loaded weapons are and should be taken as weapons of mass destruction. Hitler needed no nuclear bomb to gain control and in that context he and his followers became weapons of mass destruction. That is what Bush should have said and been honest with everyone.!!!!

A bomb can be dismantled, a mans religious and personal beliefs have proven far scarier and more dangerous. Besides, ummmm what nation is the only one to use so called "WMD"? And what right should THEY have to tell others what choices to make regarding WMD!!!???? And what right does said nation have to tell others they cannot have what the said nation has thousands of(maybe hundreds). I would prefer a little less hypocrisy, please!!! But we do have the right to search out and either reason with a conflicting people or defend ourselves when conflicts can not be resolved.

Bush should not have lied, but if that was the only way to simplify for the people what was going on, then so be it. Any person who thinks we were only concerned about BOMBS needs to have their head examined, Bombs are easy, an intelligent people slowing picking you off 1 by 1 is terrifying in comparison to a bomb. Remember, there are still people who do not believe the holocaust ever happened and that is the mentality of people every president has to deal with. I believe at the rate we are going we are headed for another civil war, once again you have one side trying to FORCE the other side to do things their way and once again taxes are involved and we the American slaves are involved. Only now we are not being separated by color, we are being separated by income classes. We the slaves are working and paying taxes to a plutocratic governing body. How in the world is this not comparable to our own civil war? How is being told to "work for us and we shall provide for all your needs." Not comparable!!! ???

But no John, No POTUS should ever lie and we the people MUST know how we fair on this planet in our friends and enemies. But when a parent feels the need to hide a horrible truth from their child, they lie!!! Luckily you John and Freshieee take advantage of our information available and seek the truth, but you only seem to see one side of the 'Whys' and forget that sometimes 'man is man' and there is not always an understandable why, only pure want, irregardless of logic. The Muslims WANT us to believe as they do and WANT us to act as they demand. We do not WANT to believe as they do and act as they do, therefore we are heathens and the book they WANT to believe WANTS them to punish us for our different WANTS!!! How many people could possibly understand that due to both these wants, there can never be a victor, the can only be the controller and the controlled. AND that sucks!!! Americans refuse to believe that we could possibly be fighting for thousands of years against the Muslims, most do not even know we HAVE been fighting them for hundreds of years. Too many people think this whole thing started on 9/11 and REFUSE to believe it is not cut and dried, that it is and was not easily fixed and will probably never be fixed unless we change or they change. Blame Bush all you wish but he is not responsible for our own chosen ignorance!!! Freshieee even admitted that Iraq might have had people cheering the day the towers fell but even he would have left them alone to grow and fester into another Afghanistan terrorist group. Does that make sense!!!?? When we find the cure to AIDS do we just cure the nation with the biggest infection or do we cure it all??? ( I am not advocating murder)

I am all for living in peace with the Muslims so long as they see we are not heathens to be slaughtered, but are they capable of ignoring such a demand from their religious text? will they choose to do as we have done with our own religious text and only take small parts from them and leave those which cause harm to others?

There is more than one issue and reason for lying to an injured people!! Lying is not the best option but at times it is the only one available to protect your children from the truth!!! I am more upset about being told my money is gone and spent and on NOTHING!!!

You have to ask yourself, could Americans have taken the truth that there are multiple nations which despise America and her citizens? How many people can you think of that believe Americans are just 'so loved and so adored' by the rest of the world and just "can not understand all this violence." the ones you keep explaining the "why we can not all just get along......yet." theory! Who say " well people just need to get over themselves and move on." And your thinking " its just not that darn simple, why can't you see that.?"

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And John, Thank you for being a debate worthy commentator! You do not appear to throw insults which waste your intellect. I appreciate that and wish more would debate with the same intelligence!!!

Tex, I thank you for your compliment and return it. You state your position clearly and in a well thought out manner.

My biggest issue with the whole world situation is both historical and bipartisan. We have a problem that's easy to state and yet we've made the same mistake repeatedly for decades...we keep giving guns and money to people just because they claim to be our friends and it keeps coming back to bite us.

The Middle East is a perfect microcosm of this. It all starts with the joint British/US coup d'etat of a legitimately elected government in Iran. After the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh the United States became inextricably linked with a tyrant hated by his people...the Shah of Iran. It shouldn't come as a big surprise that when the Iranians threw off their oppressor they hated us.

So we needed a foil in order to help stabilize the region, so we adopted the leader of a neighboring country as our own. The United States was more than willing to overlook any little human rights abuses of our friend Saddam Hussein because he was on our side. As it turns out that was a very one-sided relationship and his friendship was limited by our willingness to continue giving him guns and money while letting his megalomania run free.

Not too far from there the Soviet Union was trying to conquer a poor, third world country of little importance known as Afghanistan. Since our foreign policy dictated being on the opposite side of the Soviets in every corner of the world we went looking for friends. We paid them, armed them, trained them, and tagged them "freedom fighters." It worked pretty well as the Soviets exhausted themselves in a futile 13 year effort to claim a box of rocks.

A few years later they were going by their own preferred name as the Taliban and one of the people we trained, Osama bin Laden was training terrorists there to export terror overseas.

So by my reckoning we've largely made our own bed in this. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ensure the safety of our citizens. It does mean that war is a poor way to create peace.

In a nut shell folks!!!

May 30, 2012

BATTLE FOR WHITE HOUSE (Need 270) to Win

Current Projected 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 Toss Ups Obama needs 43 to win.

Of the Above Toss Ups Romney needs 100 to win.

So for now, I will use my current research data and pick the following: (Note: The totals will change from new data input polls)

Arizona (11) Romney

Colorado (9) Obama

Florida (29) Romney

Iowa (6) Romney

Michigan (16) Obama

Missouri (10) Romney

New Hampshire (4) Obama

North Carolina (15) Romney

Ohio (18) Obama

Virginia (13) Obama

Wisconsin (10) Obama

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

Projected Winner Obama 297

Projected Loser Romney 241

Job - wrong. You need to look to the past for your answer. No president has ever been re-elected when unemployment is over 7%.

Obama, when using the more accurate likely voter macro as opposed to registered voters, is even with or losing to Romney in the key battleground states excepting at this time Ohio - and that'll change.

Lastly, just a week ago 62% of likely voters polled showed that they believed he was doing a poor to fair job on the economy. With a plurality in the poor column.

That alone makes your electoral projections moot. In addition, Obama is not going to win VA, NC and Ohio. Obama loses.

You bet, keep on "projecting" Job.

It's almost as good as Obama saying he was going to cut the deficit in half, and instead doubling it, for four years in a row now.

It's almost as good as gas prices going from $1.81 when he took office to $4 today.

It's almost as good as spending almost a Trillion dollars on a "stimulus" and then joking about how that almost Trillion dollars didn't actually stimulate anything.

It's almost as good as promising health insurance premiums would go down under ObamaCare and instead they have gone up.

It's almost as good as giving not only tax exemptions to ObamCare to unions under ObamaCare, but even given exemptions from even participating in ObamaCare, while the rest of the nations gets the additional costs.

It's almost as good as signing an Executive Order to close Gitmo within a year and four years LATER Gitmo is still operating.

It's almost as good as spending tens of Billions of taxpayer dollars to pay back teachers and public employee unions for their support.

It's almost as good as using over 100 Billion taxpayer dollars to give guaranteed loans to Obama bundlers, supporters, and even staff members who are running "green" companies.

Keep those "projections" going Job, while the REST of the country looks at the FACTS.

Thanks for your work, Job1! If Chuck Todd is ever out with the flu, you could fill in!

rebel/cheryl

the sounds of two very desperate and frightened teapublicans.

rebelwcause -

I think Florida will go to Romney, and Virginia may be a toss-up, but you are DEAD WRONG on Ohio. The auto bailout alone may have carried Obama in my state, which still relies heavily on the auto industry and it's suppliers. Ask the GM workers in Lordstown and the Chrysler workers in Toledo, both locations which are adding shifts and jobs.

Add to the mix the fact that the teachers', firefighters', police officers' and government workers' unions are still organized and pissed due to the failed Prop 2 issue in 2010 and I think voter turnout will highly favor the Democrats and Obama in 2012.

Not at all Dune - I am smiling and feeling warm and fuzzy at the thought of November when our worst president since Carter is sent packing.

TNS - NE Ohio cannot carry the day for the Obama. Cincy, Columbus and the rural counties in OH will be all Romney and erase any edge Obama has in NE OH.

In addition, I doubt Obama has more than a 6 point edge right now in Cuyahoga county which includes Cleveland.

just another desperate post - trying to convince yourself...

btw - "the worst president since Carter"....good grief rebel - Obama isn't even the worst President of the last two!

dune - don't patronize me. Facts are stubborn things. Go watch some more MSLSD TV for its Pavlovian liberal charlatan effect that has so overwhelmingly captured your cranium.

Projected Winner Obama 297

Projected Loser Romney 241

Rebel

"don't patronize me".....one would have to have some level of intelligence to be "patronized"....that leaves you out...

as for "facts are stubborn things"....to begin with - you have provided no facts - just one persons opinion! I suppose you can call the "home office" and have them give you some...but of course none of those will be undisputable so we will be right back to "one persons opionion"!

btw - your desperation and fear is becoming more evident as each moment passes!

Unfortunately, most Americans don't really follow the news or politics. The economy is not as important for the election as the perception of the economy. Yes, we who follow the news all agree that the economy is improving. Sadly, the perception among most Americans is that it isn't.

As Americans, we have a duty to become more knowledgeable about what is actually going on in the country and world, to understand the policies underlying what's happening, and most importantly, to vote (regardless of who you're voting for.)

The rest of the world can't believe that Obama isn't way ahead of Willard, because they follow the news. Americans are much more into their own perceptions (or misperceptions) than reality. Unless these perceptions improve, Willard might, quite astoundingly, beat President Obama. Unlikely, but possible.

To Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Exactly how do you debate with a hysterical, hate-filled Harpy like yourself?

Take you meds Cheryl, you're shriller then usual this morning...

Hi girlfriend Beisty, spoken like a true lol that you are. Sherryl was truly debating, but no you folks from the left are the most vile, always calling others what you do the most, you Hypocrites. And then you gang up on anybody that disagrees.

Sometimes I wonder if you are the way that you are, because you are a lonely, miserable old bat, needing attention. Go ahead and take your best shot, We are not going to take it anymore, We have awaken.

rebelwcause-

Lordstown is not in NE Ohio, and automakers and their suppliers are spread throughout a good portion of the state.

Ohio is still a big union state, where lots of people either worked for the unions in the auto plants or knew someone in their family who did. And the Prop 2 issue resonated throughout the state, and was a big loser in every county except one. I know personally of several lifelong Republicans (police officers and firefighters) who will either vote for Obama or stay home after Governor Kasich (R) tried to "bust" their unions. And the teachers' unions will be out in force after Romney's recent comments.

The strategy of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the police officers and firefighters will continue to haunt the Republicans in 2012.

Gov Kasich is talking about reducing the personal income tax by offsetting it with additional taxes on the natural gas industry. That doesn't tie in with Romney's "lower energy" cost strategy, now does it?

Dune - you really are a dunce! One's intelligence or lack thereof has no bearing on your ability to write condescendingly of another as you have done. It does have a bearing on your inability to argue your case for Obama.

You have hurt my feelings, you truly have, but the facts reassure me that November will bring a brighter day for all in this divided country made even more divided by the great uniter, Obama. Fact 1.

Fact 2. 62% of likely voters polled last week answered Obama is doing a poor to fair job with the economy with a plurality in the poor column.

Fact 3. Oil permits issued where large potential reserves are located have dropped over 50% under this president and his Dept. of No Energy. Permits have increased to Uncle Walter's pig farm in Abilene and the like which Obama uses as proof issued permits have risen on his watch. How sleight of hand.

Now what other facts do you want that I have noted in this thread?

CherlyLM: It's almost as good as spending almost a Trillion dollars on a "stimulus" and then joking about how that almost Trillion dollars didn't actually stimulate anything.
Me: But it did.

CherlyLM: It's almost as good as promising health insurance premiums would go down under ObamaCare and instead they have gone up.
Me: If the original Obamacare had passed, it would have. But what we got was a watered down version that was an attempt to compromise with the repubs, who turned around and stabbed us all in the back to adhere to their stated program of making Obama a one term president (no matter how badly the repubs represent the interests of the public).

CherlyLM: It's almost as good as giving not only tax exemptions to ObamCare to unions under ObamaCare, but even given exemptions from even participating in ObamaCare, while the rest of the nations gets the additional costs.
Me: Exemptions are used when an organization has an existing healthcare agreement/contract, or if it is a religious organization and some elements of Obamacare are in violation of their beliefs. When an existing healthcare agreement expires, obamacare is enforced.

CherlyLM: It's almost as good as signing an Executive Order to close Gitmo within a year and four years LATER Gitmo is still operating.
Me: Thanks to the repubs insisting there would be a Muslim suicide attack on the US prisons where the detainees would be held. This ignores the fact that there were already 300+ terrorists in US prisons, and there was an Illinois town that was begging to house the detainees. Obama could not move the detainees without an approved facility, which the repubs filibustered (again).

CherlyLM: It's almost as good as spending tens of Billions of taxpayer dollars to pay back teachers and public employee unions for their support.
Me: Hillarious. Providing funds to avoid additional lay offs which would deepened the recession into a full blown depression is called pay back? GM was given a loan via a stock purchase by the govt (not a grant) and millions of jobs were saved. States were provided funds to keep the services functional (fire, police, schools) to try and ride out the economic storm. And all you see is payback? You're a moron.

Rebel

1. Did you show the country is more divided under Obama......nope!

2. Whether 62% responded Obama is doing a poor to fair job with economy means what exactly?

did you provide facts this will translate to votes for Romney?.....nope!

3. Oil permits?....proves what....do you have anything to show that decreased "oil permits" will lead to votes for Romnye?.....nope

Did you provide anything that shows Obama is the "worst President" since Carter?.....nope!

Sorry to burst a few bubbles but Obama will take VA and NC. He may still take FL since the cuts the GOP wants to make in SS and Medicare will impact so many there. Ohio is a toss up but I think it may go Obama. We'll see a lot of back and forth between now and November but when the dust settles Obama will come out ahead and Romney can go back and ride the car elevator up and down with Ann.

Dune -

Let's see higher energy costs will not lead to votes for Romney. Ya think?

62% think Obama is doing a lousy job on the economy means what exactly? Huh? What do you think it means - more votes for Obama?

Did I show the country is more divided now than ever? Look around and take your head out of the sand you dunce! Are you for real?

Rebel

Yes I am for real....more importantly I have not forgotten the years between 2001-2008. There is no more division today then during that time period..

Your key words..."did I show"....nope - you showed nothing! Nothing but one mans opinion - just like I said from the beginning.

Tell me Rebel - why isn't Romney up by 10-15 pts?

Typical teapublican - yap, yap, yap - but when asked to provide facts - just a blank page!

b dune - it clearly doesn't pay to try to discuss reality with rebel - he's so indoctrinated with the "hate Obama" rhetoric he's too far gone to help.

Don't waste your time!

rebelwcause

Job - wrong. You need to look to the past for your answer. No president has ever been re-elected when unemployment is over 7%.

Correction: no president has ever been re-elected when unemployment is over 7.8%. Smaller margin there. And they said the same thing about Bush and his low approval ratings in 2004. And look what happened.

CherylLM

You bet, keep on "projecting" Job.

It's almost as good as Obama saying he was going to cut the deficit in half, and instead doubling it, for four years in a row now.

It's almost as good as gas prices going from $1.81 when he took office to $4 today.

Okay Cheryl, thanks to my good friend blearyeyed I am only gonna take on these two statements.

For the deficit thing, I agree with you. It was a rash and irrational move. However, Obama did not double the deficit. The deficit was $1.4 trillion in his first year 2009, signed by Bush, and was a result to the loss of revenues and increasing spending due to the recession. Shall I also blame Bush for turning $5 trillion in surpluses into $6.4 trillion in debt, doubling the national debt in his 8 years??? As for gas prices, you do realize were low BECAUSE OF THE RECESSION due to low demand and high supply, plus speculators driving the price down??? And by the way, gas prices are at an average of roughly $3.65 a gallon. What about how gas prices soared to $4.18 in the summer of 2008???? Shall we blame Bush for it??? Frankly, gas prices are not determined by presidents, or even by single nations. OPEC and Wall Street speculators control the price. The reason why gas is so high is because of the flurry with Iran, and Romney would send prices skyrocketing with his hawkish mentality on foreign policy. Cheryl, you REALLY need to lay off the right-wing kool-aid. Seek the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Money moves D.C. Always has always will. It isn't a problem unless one can be corrupted by the process.

Someone who is already rich is far less likely to be bought than someone who is not rich and your typical pandering man of the people type of candidate.

Look at Obama. He has been bought, sold and hung out to dry by the green energy clique that he has loaned money in return for large sums of bundler cash.

Nixon pulled that BS with ATT in the late 60s and was attacked for it by the liberal media. Obama, who by his actions could easily lead any reasonable man to deduce his hero is Nixon, does the same thing and not a word about it in the liberal mainstream media.

Bias? You decide.

If Romney is elected President and reduces the capital gains tax to zero, he stands to make $18 million in additional income over the next four years, based upon his investments as declared in his 2011 return.

Still think he is looking after your interests?

Yes, he cares about business growing so they can hire people and spread the wealth around the right way.

He cares not a wit about the benefits of zero capital gains rate to his portfolio - he is already loaded and it's no crime - it's an American success story you moron.

Yes, he cares about business growing so they can hire people and spread the wealth around the right way.

Is that what Wal-Mart does? It spreads the wealth?

It's called 'crony capitalism', or just another form of 'socialism' in sheep's wool.

rebelwcause -

How will businesses grow by cutting the capital gains tax? Most of the "big money" investors don't invest in business, they invest in leveraged financial instruments.

If Romney doesn't care about the taxes he pays, why has he tried so hard to avoid paying a higher rate? By your logic, the very rich are already very rich and aren't concerned about zero capital gains rates - so why aren't they investing in more businesses now?

Lower capital gains rates don't result in more investment in businesses, and don't create jobs. They create wealth for the investor and the Wall Street investment firms.

Your mention that most capital gains are invested in leveraged instruments is ridiculous. Your very mention of why a cap gains cut is bad means one benefits when they sell at a gain a leveraged instrument or stock.

At-risk capital drives the market. You cannot possibly know whom invests in what when they realize capital gains.

The bottom line is capital gains makes it possible for private sector business ventures to develop whether it be commercial real estate, venture capital for start-ups or investment in an already established business with new plant, property and equipment.

The above are also known as macros for growth in an expanding economy.

We still need the 'next big thing' that drives the economy. That means jobs for the middle class instead of more financial mechanisms that create wealth for the bundlers who don't produce anything.

And how would any president handle something like this - from:

IBM has told Personnel Today that it could reduce its workforce from 399,000 today to 100,000 in 2017.

2017 is the planned completion date of the completion of its its HR transformation programme.

Tim Ringo, head of IBM Human Capital Management, told Personnel Today IBM would re-hire the workers as contractors for specific projects and when necessary use crowdsourcing.

He said it was only being considered at present.

"There would be no buildings costs, no pensions and no healthcare costs, making huge savings," he said.

Sounds like what in India is known as "The Bench."

Me again:

------

Where is the social responsibility by the employer? Why are companies ignoring the wisdom of Henry Ford? If employers don't provide the means for employees to buy things, it will be just like Foxconn in China. People working 16 hours a day for 35 cents an hour, living in company dorms, and eating in company cafeterias until they can't stand it anymore. That's why they have netting surrounding the dorms and factories - to catch the suicide jumpers.

This isn't a one way street. Employers and employees have to support each other - supply and demand. It can't work any other way in this country.

Rebel......I agree that capital gains makes it possible for the private sector to work, but I don't see why it should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. I also think that both of you are right when it comes to venture capital. Those leverage instruments invest in venture capital.

Rebel -

Apparently you know little of the investment strategie of the wealth. nyone with a CAP or an MBA knows that big investors typically don't invest primarily in the stock market, they invest in futures or options which contribute NO capital to businesses. Investments in new property, plant or equipment usually comes from organic cash flow, not outside investors who demand a quick, high rate of return.

Do some research. You will find that most big investors want a quick, high-rate return and don't have the patience to invest in a business and wait for a return. Private Equity and Venture capital firms have their place, but again their thirst for quick returns doesn't translate into the best vehicle for long-term job creation.

Tnsevol....I am pretty sure that you can't claim capital gains rats on options or futures.

TNS = intellectually blank. Knows nothing of what drives economic expansion. Writes that private equity only cares about a quick return that does not translate into long-term job creation.

Moron, I do not know what you consider to be a great return but private equity sticks with businesses that grow. Why would anyone sell a business that is growing, say, at 10% year over year? You are doubling your investment every 7 years at that rate of growth.

I will tell you when - when someone comes along willing to not only pay EBITDA x at least 2 but also a good faith premium on growth. Only an idiot would keep that off the table. And a new owner certainly is not going to fold his new successful business.

Your argument is nonsense. You are a moron. Enough written on this because you cannot make a solid basic point..

Approximately 4700 miles between Chicago and Warsaw. What else do you need help with understanding?

So your are suggesting that when the President of the United States makes a terrible mistake, whether out of ignorance or arrogance, and insults one of our good friends it is a distraction??

As the leader of the free world he should be better prepared but following a bit more than 3 years of OJT he still makes these tremendous blunders.

If only he would spend some time working with Congress to produce a comprehensive jobs package we would all be better off.

to describe one of our most intelligent President as ignorant is insulting

Obama and the Dems ARE an insult to freedom the world over.

False indignation, James. My wife and her family are from Poland. They have seen and tollerated more than their share of insults since coming to this country. Tollerated with class and graciousness I might add.

To have you so upet that our President refererred to a "death camp in Poland" as a "Polish death camp" does not rise to an insult of any consequence compared to other indignities suffered. Furthermore, I agree with you that it is unacceptible to denigrate the Polish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister - do you agree that out President deserves the same courtesy?

a soulless narcissist, and an immoral and unethical liar

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

Isn't this the Webster's Dictionary meaning for "American Politician"?

Anax - I have read your post and it spells O-b-a-m-a perfectly. Think a bit and get back to me. Hint - consider Obama's actions in words and deeds.

rebelwcause - back to you and Anax's description was spot on Romney!

DKL - typical unhappy liberal with bad manners.

Mitt's father was born in Mexico to two American citizen. McCain was born in Panama at a DoD hospital on a US military base, which is basically the same as being born on US soil. Another liberal without any facts.

Good lawrd - these righties continue to stoop, stoop, and stoop. This one stoops so low, I'm surprised he hasn't tunneled the terra firma and popped out in China. Got any more email chain letters to be debunked?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

Jason: Where on page 107 of the AHC act did you see the word "dhimmitude?" Research by Fox News or just something you read that suits you to repeat?

Great catch Red Devil.

wastelandpast - wasteland is certainly an appropriate name for you. Are you what, 12? Your disgusting post and filthy racial putdown of our very good President say more about you than it does about him and nothing it says about you is good. Clearly your mother will have to have intensive cleaning our her home to get your stench out!

Obama/Biden 2012

Go suck on some more eggs goofy, And what does your name say about you, you believe in this moron as a prez says you need some sanity, and if my mother were still alive she'd tell you to vote for someone who knows there aren't 57 states and marines aren't called corpes and saying, we're here to honor the fallen today some of which i see in the crowd, Bwahahahahahahaahhahaahahahaha