Advantage Romney

Obama: "The private sector is doing fine."

4.2%: public sector unemployment rate.

8.2%: private sector unemployment rate.

11%: Hispanic unemployment rate.

14%: Black unemployment rate.

U.S. job growth: stalled.

U.S. GDP growth: anemic.

Supreme Court: poised to strike down Obamacare

Democrats: humiliated in Wisconsin.

Bubba Clinton: Romney qualified to be president.

National security: leaks, leaks and more leaks.

Mayor Booker: Bain trash talk is "nauseating."

Commerce Secretary: unfit to serve?

Eric Holder: looming contempt of Congress.

Solyndra: the future.

Lots of Dems: approve the Keystone pipeline now.

More Bubba: extend the Bush tax cuts.

Romney Democrats: one-third of union voters

May fundraising: Republicans surge ahead.

White House morale: in the crapper.

Obama: in over his head.

Like I said: Advantage Romney.

What is Romney hiding?

That right there is the $57K per day question...?

Is the Obama Derangment Syndrome so rampant, your willing to vote for the man who hides behind a curtain?

I still believe the majority of this country hasn't been infected by the ODS virus!

Louis J, I think you're off your meds here, dictatorship? We have a system of checks and balances here in the USA that protect against such.

Excellent job as always Bill.

It's amazing that the unemployment rate for public/government workers is half that for the private sector, and yet Obama whines that we don't have enough government workers. What goes on behind closed doors in the White House when Obama and the minions that work for him talk about such things? Obama can't come out and say "The private sector is just fine" and not know the truth that the 1) The private sector is suffering greatly and 2) Government workers still have a better deal with salary, benefits, healthcare, pensions, and job security. To say that Obama has a blind spot to all this is an understatement.

Also, the Liberals are always saying voters that vote GOP are "Voting against their own best interests". That is certainly true for Blacks and Hispanics who see their unemployment rates soaring compared to the rest of the population. Just what do they see Obama has done to help their cause is a mystery to everyone else. Obama only cares about each of those constituencies for their votes, the rest of the time Obama spends his time at his fund raisers, which greatly lack Black and Hispanic representation.

Two things about Jeb Bush's remarks-

First- no one in the Romney camp is going to say that "Jeb Bush is dead to us". That's reserved for the Obama camp- as they said that about Cory Booker. (Actually, Booker should be afraid- very afraid. When Don Obama gives the order, drones show up to obliterate people. And their families.)

Second- I doubt Bush was speaking on behalf of the Romney campaign. In fact, I believe he was speaking about himself. And, no, we don't need another "compassionate conservative". We've tried that- it did not work out so well, fiscally speaking.

Bush 41 made the same mistake Reagan made- he raised taxes n the Democrats' promises of cuts- cuts that never materialized. So, while I can well understand the desire to defend one's father, in this case, his father was wrong.

But nice try, First Read. I don't think it will work, but nice try.

A One-Sided Conversation with Mitt Romney

(Because, really, is there any other kind?)

"Teachers, my friends, are your problem. And librarians, and nurses, and all other blood-sucking pond scum public servants.

Rise up, I say, against the greedy thieves who nurture your children, care for your elderly, and pick up your trash. Free yourself from the tyrants who patrol your streets and put out your fires. Take BACK this country. BACK to the Dark Ages, where taxes were low and librarians knew their place. If we learned anything from Wisconsin, we learned how to put down the rabble.

"Yes, my friends, I'll say it again. Teachers are your problem. Teachers -- you know, those parasites who have the nerve to complain about having to buy school supplies for your precious children out of their own bloated union salaries, when everyone knows that YOU have so many better things to do with your own money, like buy risky derivatives, loot pension funds, and put car elevators into your sixth home. Those selfish ingrates make too much money, anyway. Hey, here’s a great idea -- cut their pay, give them more students to teach, and make them pay for their own health insurance, too. I mean, why should they have it any better than my friends who own sports teams. They have to pay for health insurance for the entire team, even though THEY'RE the job creators. How is that fair?"

"The private sector is doing just fine." Will be added to my other favorites:

“I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”.

“I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”.

“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.

“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.

“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”.

"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."

“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”.

“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration."

"I'll close Guantanamo."

"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."

"I'll unite the people of this great country."

That is certainly true for Blacks and Hispanics who see their unemployment rates soaring compared to the rest

Kinda early to be playing the race card isn't it Snuffy?

Oh, wait, look who I'm talking to... nevermind...

PS: I see where NONE of the RWNJ's can dazzle us with why Willard should be President...

Just more of the I hate Obama BS! lol

Lot's of luck winning over moderates & independents with that brilliant strategy!

President Obama has worked harder than James Brown

At what? Campaigning for Re-election? Attending fund raisers? Certaintly not at running the country.

Well said and nice to see you Louis J.

Jeb Bush, more GOP smoke and mirrors. Grover Norquist thinks Jeb is just wrong about Reagan not being welcome in today's republican party but then Norquist probably doesn't remember that Reagan raised taxes 11 times and most of those tax increases were on the middle class while giving the breaks to the wealthier folks. Truth is, I'd bet a couple dollars that most republicans today have no idea what Reagan really did.

Looks as if Bill Fairfax, tunanut and friends got their talking point lists from Breitbart, Drudge or FOX--take your pick, they all preach the same nonsense.

I guess Barry saying he was “too busy” to support the Dems BIG recall in WI is better than saying he “couldn’t find his comfy shoes”. Maybe if they had scheduled a few multi-million dollar fundraisers in the state, Barry would have been able to squeeze it into his busy schedule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o

From Politico:

Obama says he was too busy to visit Wisconsin

Asked why he didn't visit Wisconsin before last week's recall election there, President Obama had a simple answer Monday: He's busy.

"The truth of the matter is that as president of the United States, I've got a lot of responsibilities," he told WBAY, the ABC affiliate in Green Bay in one of eight local interviews he conducted Monday to launch a White House initiative that will direct $2 billion to rural communities from the Small Business Administration.

Obama has been criticized by Democratic activists for not doing more to help Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's unsuccessful effort to unseat Republican Gov. Scott Walker in last week's vote. Obama sent a tweet endorsing Barrett from his campaign account but did little else in public. "I was supportive of Tom and have been supportive of Tom," the president said.

Obama 2012 It Could Be Worse

Give Me Four More Years and I’ll Prove It.

And a Response to Scott Walker, the new "Protector" of Public Employees --

Walker was on the talk shows Sunday saying that in Wisconsin he's tried to "protect" teachers.

Ah, yes. Protect. Rolls so trippingly off the tongue.

Walker's protected teachers, all right.

He's protected them by cutting their pay and benefits by 10 to 15 percent. And he's protected them by slashing a billion dollars from education funding so that he can give tax breaks to the wealthy and privatize the schools. He's protected them by taking away their collective bargaining rights. He's protected them by leaving them open for abuse by school boards who can now order teachers to work at all hours and as many hours as possible without any extra pay.

But you can probably tell that I'm kidding, can't you?

So, what does Scott Walker REALLY mean when he says he protected teachers? Did he protect their jobs? HA. Last year, something like 74 percent of school districts laid off teachers, and this year, when there is no more federal stimulus money to keep the boat afloat, and school boards are legally prohibited from raising property taxes without a referendum, which has no chance of passing, there will be even more layoffs.

And so my friends, if Scott Walker ever volunteers to protect YOU, tell him, "no thanks."

Take your chances.

And don't take any bratwurst from him, either.

Even his own Republican cronies know better than to do that.

I don't trust polls in general, especially the QuinniPig poll.

The Republicans don't want job growth. Why you may ask? Because they are un-loyal Americans that would rather see the country fail and thus see President Obama fail.

AM: Please tell me that wasn't you who slapped Barrett in the crowd after his concession speech.

You can see the GOP coalescing around the Romney while the Democrats are starting to split, that's what happens when the party of big government starts to panic. Romney is now the leader of the party with no decent.

The same is not true for the Democrats. Summarizing, the Unions/Democrats (same thing) threw all they had to unseat Wisconsin governor Scott Walker only to lose badly in the recall election. Taxpayers were tired of the Democrats giving state workers sweet-heart deals while the taxpayer picked up the tab. Early retirement, great pensions, great benefits, and job security were all paid for with taxpayer dollars by taxpayers that didn't have anything close to the pay, job security, and benefits of government workers. And leading Democrats like Ed Rendell and Barney Frank broke ranks with the unions saying it was a stupid fight to pick, and of course there was Barack Obama, who could only generate one Tweet to support the Democrat Barrett, walked away from fight because he didn't want to get his suit coat dirty.

On tax policy, Obama enlisted ex-President and Democratic patriarch Bill Clinton on the matter, and Bill agreed the Bush tax breaks should be extended as Obama watched stunned that Bill messed up the talking point. Congressional Democrats like Senators Claire McCaskill and Bill Nelson agreed, and Obama got more flustered. Back to Bill Clinton, Bill even endorsed Romney's business record, saying it was "sterling" as Obama fumed at yet another botched talking point. Even the Democrats approve of Romney.

Obama, not to be let out of all the fun, stated that "private business is doing fine" only to come back out of his bunker a few hours later and say "private business is not doing fine". Another Democratic talking point, gone. Keystone? Many House Democrats voted for it, Obama of course is against that job creation.

Democratic spokes-model Debbie Wasserman Schultz has no idea what to say, so for once in her life, she's managed to sit down and shut up.

Unions, jobs, tax policy, Obama/Romney's qualifications, there is no cohesive strategy coming from the Democrats, only in-fighting. That coupled with Obama's internal struggles with his AG Holder, soon to be held in contempt of Congress, and just where are all those leaks in his administration coming from, will sink Obama for good.

And did I mention Obamacare and the soon to come Supreme Court ruling?

Actually, Smiff, the truth is the unemployment rates for blacks and hispanics have declined just as have the rates for everyone else. The rate of unemployment for minorities was higher than whites under Bush, too.

JiA: AM: Please tell me that wasn't you who slapped Barrett in the crowd after his concession speech.

AM has been reduced to petty whining mixed in with some insignificant backstabbing about her state and Walker. Difficult times for libbies, and not just in Wisconsin.

I'm having a hard time understanding why there is no outcry to see Mitt's tax returns. He released one year--2010--and a draft of 2011. What is he hiding? He has not released as many tax returns as his own father did.

Smiff, the truth is the unemployment rates for blacks and hispanics have declined just as have the rates for everyone else

Jody,

Snuffy & the rest know the GNOP doesn't stand a chance in hell with black & hispanic voters.

Snuffy is just blowing her dog whistle to rile up the sheet wearers...

Jody, Iowa: The truth is the unemployment rates for blacks and hispanics have declined just as have the rates for everyone else.

Wrong.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/02/news/economy/black_unemployment_rate/index.htm

Source: http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/hispaniclaborforce/

Jody, you really should go back to your talking points. Any thing to do with critical analysis, you come up way short sister.

Romney is against people working. Romney cited Wisconsin as a template to fire people and wipe out jobs. Romney isn't working toward the presidency; he's working toward a dictatorship. I'll call him for Texas and raise him an Alaska.

WI is a template, Walker didnt fire anyone, he just didnt hire. You libs can spin the truth all you want, but it will still hold as the truth. Keep listening to Ed Schultz and your union propaganda, it will keep you nice and uneducated, just the way libs and dems like you.

It is funny how you libs turn saying "dont need more" into "fire them all", idiots.

Albany Joe --

AM: Please tell me that wasn't you who slapped Barrett in the crowd after his concession speech.

You had to ask?

My manners must be slipping.

Although, to be truthful, I might have slapped President Obama, had he dared to show up.

There's ONE point that you and I agree on, Joe.

Can you tell that I voted you this morning? Those last two lines are priceless. The all-purpose bumper sticker slogan, in fact.

Because I couldn't tell whether you were talking about Mitt Romney or President Obama.

I'm glad to see that Jeb Bush agrees with what I've been saying for a long time: the Republican Party has become so extreme that Ronald Reagan couldn't get nominated now. Of course, I don't really consider that too insightful. Republican extremism has been so obvious for so long that everyone except for the polticial journalists know it.

BTW: Jeb had to get in a litte false equivalency about Democrats being extremists, but he is, after all, a Republican. It's the supposedly non-partisan media who peddle this False Equivalency propaganda who are far more annoying.

they all preach the same nonsense.

Spoken like a true Obamaphile. When confronted with inconvenient truths just dismiss them as nonsense and move on.

A One-Sided Conversation with Mitt Romney

Hi Anna Molly. GREAT!

Anna Molly,

Thanks for the update from across the river, neighbor.

Wonder which group of citizen will Walker put next on his open hunting season in WI?

Do you have a state budget surplus yet ?

Here in MN we do have a surplus . And have a state law that any surplus for the next budget cycle will pay back the 2 Billion that was borrowed from K-12 public schools.

But I will not hold my breath, smoke and mirrors have become an art for state governments when it comes to budgets. All on the backs of teachers.

trudat6445

WI is a template, Walker didnt fire anyone, he just didnt hire. You libs can spin the truth all you want, but it will still hold as the truth.

Not after you've got done twisting the truth until it screams:

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/30/wisconsin_teacher_layoffs_scott_walker_s_budget_cuts_force_state.html

Facing deep funding cuts, the Milwaukee public school district announced this week that it will lay off 519 employees, including 354 teachers.

More teachers have been fired since that article was written a year ago. No, Walker doesn't go door to door handing out pink slips to teachers. He just slashes the budget and forces local school districts to lay off teachers. And as much as Mitt Romney loves to fire people, that will no doubt be his approach to getting rid of teachers, firefighters, and cops if he succeeds in lying his way to the White House.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Affordable Care Act, but could conservatives out there, please explain how this makes sense to you -- in terms that poor little intelligence-deprived Anna Molly can comprehend --

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamacare-repeal-would-cost-insurers-1-trillion/2012/05/15/gIQADGbrRU_blog.html

.... $1 trillion is the amount of revenue that health insurance plans can expect to lose if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. The Court is expected to issue its opinion in late June.

The figure comes from Bloomberg Government, where number crunchers have taken a look at what happens if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act and its expected expansion of health care coverage to 32 million Americans. They find that, should the Affordable Care Act be found unconstititional, insurance companies will lose $1 trillion in revenue between 2013 and 2020.

To put that in perspective, $1 trillion accounts for about 9 percent of all revenue that health insurers are expected to earn in the same period. It’s one-half of a percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Add up the annual revenues of America’s five largest banks - Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, Wachovia and U.S. Bancorp- and you’re still about $500 billion short of what health plans can expect to lose if the Supreme Court decides against Obamacare.

....

The majority of that loss - $880 billion - would be from the 16 million Americans expected to purchase coverage on the individual market. Two-thirds of that revenue would be in the form of federal subsidies, for low- and middle-income Americans to purchase coverage. The rest would come from individuals, responsible for whatever part of the premium subsidies do not cover.

Another $220 billion would be lost from the Medicaid expansion, where states have often turned to insurers to manage the entitlement program.

Much of the revenue, expected from the health reform law, would have gone out the door to other parts of the health care sector. Covering more subscribers, after all, means paying for more medical costs - and Obamacare requires health insurers to spend at least 80 percent of each premium dollar on health care costs. Barry is working on follow-up research to look at how repeal would impact other industries.

But even with most money headed elsewhere, the law still leaves decent space for insurers to profit: The Bloomberg Government study estimates that, of the $1 trillion in revenue, health plans would keep $174 billion.

“That’s a significant amount of revenue,” says Barry. “It kind of makes you scratch your head a bit to wonder why insurers initially opposed this. But maybe after it passed, they finally ran the numbers and realized what was at stake.”

Are you all idiots, or what, that you can't see exactly what's going on here?

Why would you possibly prefer this chaos to a single-payer system that eliminates the middleman and actually stands a chance of making health care both universal and affordable?

When will you figure out that YOU are not driving the bus?

Health insurance companies, with their bloated profits, and a vested interest in denying coverage and avoiding payment of claims, are driving the bus.

But one way or another, YOU are paying for it.

Bill, Fairfax VA

Spoken like a true Obamaphile. When confronted with inconvenient truths just dismiss them as nonsense and move on. 

What "inconvenient truths" are you talking about? I assume not the inconvenient truths on global warming that Al Gore got conservatives' knickers in a twist over.

A brief (and incomplete) summary of Romney’s Flip/Flops:

Minimum wage

Campaigning for Governor, 2002: Romney stated "I do not believe that indexing the minimum wage will cost us jobs. I believe it will help us retain jobs."

As Governor, July 2006: Romney stated "…there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs, and the loss of jobs is at the entry level."

Stem Cell Research

Campaigning for Governor, 2002: Romney expressed broad support for embryonic stem cell research, and said he would lobby President Bush to support it.

As Governor, 2005: Romney vetoed a Massachusetts bill to fund stem-cell research.

Abortion

Campaign, 2002: Romney's platform - "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Governor, July 2005: Romney criticized Roe v. Wade in a veto message in rejecting a bill mandating access to access to emergency contraception. In February 2006, Romney stated that his views on abortion had "evolved" and "changed" since 2002 such that he then considered himself a "pro-life governor" who wishes "the laws of our nation could reflect that view".

Gun Control

Campaign, 2002: Romney supported the federal assault weapons ban. July 1, 2004: Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." The law covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10.

January, 2008: "I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners.”

Gay Rights

Senate campaign, 1994: Romney stated “..I respect the work and the efforts he's (Ted Kennedy) made on behalf of the gay community and for civil rights more generally, and I would continue that fight. There's something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy speaks on gay rights, he's seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay rights, he's seen as a centrist and a moderate. …When Ted says it, it's extreme; when I say it, it's mainstream. I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.”

Campaign 2002: Romney's stated position was "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."

Governor, 2004: Romney stated "If the question is, 'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither. If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither."

Healthcare

Governor, 2006: …Romney successfully pushed for incorporating an individual mandate at the state level. April 2006: Romney signed legislation that mandates that nearly all Massachusetts residents buy or obtain health insurance coverage or face a penalty in the form of an additional income tax assessment. The bill established a regulatory authority called the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority to implement the law and establish insurance standards.

2010: In a speech, Romney said of Obamacare "I hope we're ultimately able to eliminate some of the differences, and repeal the bad and keep the good." He applauded the individual mandate, which he says "works."

Campaign 2012: Romney promises to repeal “Obamacare” on Day One.

Taxes

Campaign 2002: Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge put forth by Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. Romney presented a plan to balance the budget without raising taxes. Romney also favored gambling as a way to help balance the Massachusetts deficit.

2003: A windfall in capital gains tax revenue caused by a previously enacted capital gains tax increase reduced the deficit by $1.3 billion.

2006: The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship. Romney cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. In response, cities and towns raised property taxes by five percent to their highest level in 25 years. In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners.

Romney created new fees and increased fees for many state licenses and services. In all 33 new fees were created and 57 fees were increased, raising $501 million in new income in the first year of the fee increase program - more than any other state in the nation. Romney increased a state gasoline “special fee” by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue. This made for a total effective state gasoline tax of 23.5 cents per gallon.

So the Romney "economic miracle" in Massachusetts was mainly due to increased taxes:

-Increased revenue from a Capital Gains Tax increase-

-Increased taxes on state services and gasoline disquised as "fees"

-Increased property taxes

Romney - How do you like him now?

Anna Molly, that is just so much blatant BS. Why does the teachers union web site say they expect employment among teachers to grow 5% and 13% over the next 5 years? Moreover, you very well know that it isnt teacher's its economics 101. You also arent suggesting that teacher's and librarians somehow should escape the same performance and economic review as the private sector are you? If like Detroit, lower enrollment or lets say poor performance were evident they should still have jobs for life? There shouldnt be any strategic or economic review of their jobs and school districts? Are you suggesting that choice shouldnt be brought into the equation? That because someone chose to be a teacher they escape the private sector scrutiny that the rest of us are under? When they chose to be a teacher or librarian it was considered life time job security? Is there nothing that says wow I dont like the direction the school district is going so I am going to take a job somewhere else or open my own business etc? Are teachers immune from self reliance? Finally, when did Romney become influential over local school districts? For me, its the democrats in Illinois bankrupting the state and local cities and preventing education reform so not sure how Romney can make it any worse can you?

Northstar --

Do you have a state budget surplus yet ?

Here in MN we do have a surplus . And have a state law that any surplus for the next budget cycle will pay back the 2 Billion that was borrowed from K-12 public schools.

LoL I'm fairly sure that whatever artificial surplus the Walker administration claims to exist will be pumped right back into the "private sector" economy -- in the form of tax breaks -- while the ACTUAL debt just gets pushed down the road.

No joe and JoAnna should be furious about this, but curiously, they're not.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/may/31/tom-barrett/barrett-says-walker-used-credit-card-approach-bala/

But the immediate context of Barrett's remarks was Walker's announcement on May 10, 2012, that the short-term interest savings from that debt restructuring were higher than expected, helping him turn a small mid-budget deficit into a small projected surplus.

Most of the additional savings was from pushing off the debt repayment into the future; about 15 percent was from getting a lower interest rate.

Walker's Department of Administration said it would likely save an additional $78 million in the two years, and that helped knock down the projected deficit.

As backup for the claim, Barrett's campaign pointed to a memo prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the non-partisan state agency that keeps track of state finances. In the May 18 memo to Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (D-Alma) Fiscal Bureau analyst Al Runde wrote:

"Therefore, in total, since May 2011, the state has issued additional debt to restructure, or make the principal payments on, approximately $558.3 million in GPR (general purpose revenue) supported principal that would have otherwise been paid off in 2010-11 and 2011-12.

"As a result, that principal will now remain outstanding for a longer period of time and thus an estimated $156.2 million in additional interest costs could be incurred by the state."

Bob Lang, director of the Fiscal Bureau, said the payments would stretch out in the range of 20 years -- which goes to the "children and grandchildren" part of Barrett's claim.

You know, tax breaks for state companies that create jobs -- wherever they create them.

Like China. This was announced the day AFTER the election.

Long-term commitment to China. Just warms your heart, doesn't it?

Johnson Controls yesterday participated in a signing ceremony in Tianjin, China, to announce plans for a $200 million automotive battery plant. The state-of-the-art facility will supply automakers and the aftermarket in China with high-quality maintenance-free lead-acid starter batteries and advanced batteries for Start-Stop vehicles.

"This plant demonstrates our long-term commitment to the rapidly growing automotive industry in China," said Alex Molinaroli, president, Johnson Controls Power Solutions. "We are forecasting 25 million in annual new car sales in China by 2015. This plant is a further indication of the strategic importance of this market for Johnson Controls."

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/101291/johnson_controls_to_manufacture_automotive_batteries_in_tianjin_china.aspx

Those last two lines are priceless. The all-purpose bumper sticker slogan, in fact.

Because I couldn't tell whether you were talking about Mitt Romney or President Obama.

___________________________________________________

AM: The second line "Give me four more years and I'll prove it" didn't clarify that I was referring to Barry??

I thought lawyers were supposed to be experts at reading comprehension in order to do their jobs. I guess that would explain why so many of them end up as useless politicians.

JoeinAlbany,

I didn't see Romney standing next to Walker up in WI either.

Everyone Else,

Take a look at Europe in their double dip recession. That is a direct result of enacting austerity policies in an already slow economy.

I also second, Feisty. No one, not one of you, have been able to give specific, detailed examples of how Romney's going to fix anything.

More war and military, less taxes, nothing regarding entitlements, ambiguity about healthcare, nothing about Wall St, and cutting jobs, sacrificing education and infrastructure. CUTTING JOBS?!?!?!?!? WTF?

His website and you supporters of him merely give these vague, ambiguous concepts, like deregulation and lowering taxes and cutting spending. None of which really work, you know.

With a name like Trudat (someone in the middle class), you sound like you are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

But then again many of the comments from Conservative Republicans who are minimum wage workers are par for course of TEA bags flavoring a cup that was made from China with a bitter tasting poison.

Kirk,

'Why does the teachers union web site say they expect employment among teachers to grow 5% and 13% over the next 5 years?"

simple answer: the retirement of the baby boomer teachers.

AM: I'm not the biggest fan of the Affordable Care Act, but could conservatives out there, please explain how this makes sense to you -- in terms that poor little intelligence-deprived Anna Molly can comprehend -

Obamacare appears to be unconstitutional. Any financial ramifications because of its demise should have been previously vetted by the Democrats who passed it in Congress, and the President, a Constitutional lawyer no less, who signed it into law.

Or do you advocate the continued implementation of unconstitutional laws because it would be too expensive not to?

Any thing to do with critical analysis, you come up way short sister.

You sure hit that nail on the head, JoAnna.

Anna Molly, I am more in the camp of some sort of universal coverage but that article is misleading because you are only mentioning revenue. Including all of those additional insured in some sort of risk based insurance plan has to include the expenses. Most if not all insurance companies these days profit from the administration of health care not the provision of health care benefits. If you looked at these insurance company income statements, you would see that after expenses are applied to those revenues the insurance companies profit at about 7 cents for every dollar of revenue. So they have a profit margin of 7% much lower than most industries. Also do you dislike insurance company employees more than teachers? You do realize that insurance companies employ hundreds of thousands of people across the country many of them would be out of a job going to a single payer system and I know how you feel about job security regardless of economic scrutiny right?

Smiff,

I gotta hear this...

Romney's pro-life and anti-gay marriage, right??? So please, explain to us how ACA is unconstitutional, while DOMA is Constitutional and a ban on abortion, would be Constitutional...

Kirk --

Anna Molly, that is just so much blatant BS.

You are such an ignorant tool.

Why does the teachers union web site say they expect employment among teachers to grow 5% and 13% over the next 5 years?

Which teachers union website was that? I doubt it's Wisconsin. THIS is from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website.

http://dpi.wi.gov/eis/pdf/dpinr2012_58.pdf

311 out of 424 school districts, or 73 percent, reported teacher layoffs in 2011-2012.

You also arent suggesting that teacher's and librarians somehow should escape the same performance and economic review as the private sector are you?

Can you say STRAWMAN? Show me where in my post I said that.

Finally, when did Romney become influential over local school districts?

That's what I thought, too. Then ask yourself, like I did, what was Romney doing in Philadelphia talking up larger class sizes? And why did John Sununu double down on Romney's recent remarks, just the other day?

Because that's his plan, that's why.

By the way, according to the same DPI report, of those school districts that cut teachers, more than half had INCREASING ENROLLMENT, demonstrating that Sununu doesn't have any more idea than Mitt Romney what he's talking about.

And neither do you.

I'll say it again. You are such an ignorant tool.

And getting quite tiresome in your dog-eared dogma.

Funny. My net worth has gone up since Obama has been in the White House. Of course I've shorted the markets here and there and from that profits sprang.
I'd have to say I'm happy as a clam. Obama in 2012! (I don't like his policies but he's making me $$$)

Blare-a: please, explain to us how ACA is unconstitutional,

The government cannot force people to buy a private product. Insurance in this case.

Why does the teachers union web site say they expect employment among teachers to grow 5% and 13% over the next 5 years?"

NS-DFL simple answer: the retirement of the baby boomer teachers.

If 100 baby boomer teacher retire, and 100 new teachers are hired to replace them, that's zero growth. You're using the Obama Method to count jobs/growth.

I would really like to see this nonsense stop and get the damn debates started.

I absolutely can't wait.

Remember folks a Democratic House is more important than a Democrat for President we can make Romney a Republicrat

Not after you've got done twisting the truth until it screams:

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/30/wisconsin_teacher_layoffs_scott_walker_s_budget_cuts_force_state.html

More teachers have been fired since that article was written a year ago. No, Walker doesn't go door to door handing out pink slips to teachers. He just slashes the budget and forces local school districts to lay off teachers. And as much as Mitt Romney loves to fire people, that will no doubt be his approach to getting rid of teachers, firefighters, and cops if he succeeds in lying his way to the White House.

Sorry Houston, again spin it all you want, but Walker doesnt have the authority to fire any teachers, the teachers were let go by the municipalities and unions because they werent willing to make concessions.

If you want to blame people for teachers losing their jobs, look to the right people, the unions who prefer mor emoney over jobs.

Go learn how the system works, not what Scultz and maddow tell you.

Albany Joe --

AM: The second line "Give me four more years and I'll prove it" didn't clarify that I was referring to Barry??

I thought lawyers were supposed to be experts at reading comprehension in order to do their jobs. I guess that would explain why so many of them end up as useless politicians.

LoL And your point?

But actually, I was just funning with you. You DO know about fun, don't you Joe?

At least you could give me a few props for agreeing with you about Obama's failure to lift a finger to help Wisconsin, which opinion I expressed much to the disapproval, no doubt, of my liberal friends.

If he think that helps him here, it doesn't.

More likely, it will cause a few more than a few disenchanted Wisconsin democratic voters to sit this one out, on the theory that what difference does it make, anyway. You know, 2010 all over again.

JAS,

The government cannot force people to buy a private product. Insurance in this case.

The Federal Government can regulate interstate commerce. As, shall we say elequent, as your legal argument there is, can you please illustrate how this doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause?

And then, please explain why you hate the idea so much, seeing as it originated at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and is a private sector alternative to a sinlge payer system.

And then, please explain since Romney implemented it in MA, why you aren't being hypocritical when demonize Obama for it.

Thank you.

Anna Molly, do you have any idea, any idea at all why a company that manufactures very large, very heavy, very toxic batteries might want to produce them in the country in which they will actually be used?

Do you honestly believe that the Growth of Johnson Controls in China, doesn't help the Company overall?

Do you understand the importance of China in the Global Auto Industry going forward? Not only as a producer of vehicles, but more imporantly a Consumer of vehicles?

Are you this upset over General Motors building Cadillacs in China?

General Motors Co. announced Monday at the Beijing auto show that it will begin building its all-new 2013 Cadillac XTS sedan in China this year and later will bring the ELR luxury electric coupe in the country.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120423/AUTO0103/204230371#ixzz1xabio2J1

Anna Molly, do you have any idea, any idea at all why a company that manufactures very large, very heavy, very toxic batteires might want to produce them in the country in which they will actually be used?

Good Grief!

Now we are cherry picking which jobs should stay here & which jobs should go...

Lovely!

Dang Red you missed the whole Point. (I'm shocked, I tell ya!)

It isn't about the Job, It is about the Product.

Logistics can be a real bitch.

You know all about logistics right?

trudat6445

Sorry Houston, again spin it all you want, but Walker doesnt have the authority to fire any teachers, the teachers were let go by the municipalities and unions because they werent willing to make concessions.

I see you have reading comprehension problems. Nobody ever said he had any such authority. He just slashes the budget and forces local school districts to fire teachers. And you're just plain lying about teachers not making concessions. Public sector unions made all sorts of concessions on benefits and pay to Walker. The only concession that they weren't willing to make were on bargaining rights and odious rules imposed on how unions elect their leadership.

And then, please explain since Romney implemented it in MA, why you aren't being hypocritical when demonize Obama for it.

It's pretty simple actually, Romney was "attacked" for implementing it in MA, but he was also governor of a bunch of liberal dolts who wanted it. So in his defense, he was doing what the people of that state wanted, as dumb as they are for it.

Not sure if youve gotten the memo, MA is the epitomy of a nanny state, MA treats everyone like they are children.

I see you have reading comprehension problems. Nobody ever said he had any such authority. He just slashes the budget and forces local school districts to fire teachers. And you're just plain lying about teachers not making concessions. Public sector unions made all sorts of concessions on benefits and pay to Walker. The only concession that they weren't willing to make were on bargaining rights and odious rules imposed on how unions elect their leadership.

The whole recall effort was so they wouldnt have to make enough concessions to deal with the problems of the state. Walker passed the budget the state needed, the teachers and the unions didnt care about the state, just themselves (as all libs do). They could have kept all those jobs if they had put the recall funds into the teachers salaries and pensions, they were too selfish, just deal with it.

Walker is the state governor, not the teacher union president, his did his job to protect the state's taxpayers.

And then, please explain since Romney implemented it in MA, why you aren't being hypocritical when demonize Obama for it.

Thank you.

Sarah,

This is the part where Snuffy slinks off back under her rock!

The e-mails she received from the RNC this morning did not cover your questions...

Critical thinking is not her forte` ☺

Trudat,

But it was a bunch of conservatives that thought the idea up in the first place. Ever hear of The Heritage Foundation?

How do you GOP people suggest we fix healthcare then? If you say no to the mandate and no to a single payer system???

Sarah: The Federal Government can regulate interstate commerce. As, shall we say elequent, as your legal argument there is, can you please illustrate how this doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause?

The federal government forcing people to purchase insurance is at the very least an extension to the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court members seemed very skeptical of the arguments put forth by the government that the Commerce Clause should be extended in that way. It's up to the SC to now decide. We'll know their decision on the matter in a few more days.

And then, please explain why you hate the idea so much, seeing as it originated at The Heritage Foundation,

Looks like the HF got it wrong.

And then, please explain since Romney implemented it in MA, why you aren't being hypocritical when demonize Obama for it.

States have the right to do so. The federal government (currently) does not.

Anna Molly--interesting. So you dont think your preaching and campaigning is dog eared dogma? Somehow mine is worse than yours? I misspoke it is the Teachers Trade association not Unions that promotes teacher education and of course they have a bias wanting college students to go into education. Thanks for the kind words though. I always found it interesting that the person who always looks at problems as not being a zero sum game ISNT the ignorant tool but again I am wrong. Its always easy to pick out the one factual situation that fits your political agenda, but as you know politicians cant make policy decisions based on one person or school district. You want to make this about Wisconsin and I didnt say anything about Wisconsin I replied to your conversation with Romney that seemed to mean it applied in general across the board. The fact that you refuse to analyze issues in a manner that looks at solutions wholistically doesnt make me ignorant, I would say it makes you foolish. Its like my local town's board meeting last night in which 7 residents wanted the village to pay and create a barrier at the end of their street because traffic is temporarily heavier due to local construction. They say its for the safety of their children which is a tough issue and reply but when you point out to them that all you are doing is shifting the traffic to another street creating the same safety issues for their neighbors but not them, they dont care. Thats you. You want to give us all the wretched examples but could care less about the impact on others from your solutions. You also want to totally eliminate the concept of choice and consequences therefrom in any discussion. And I am the ignorant tool?

Do you honestly believe that the Growth of Johnson Controls in China, doesn't help the Company overall?

In two words, SO WHAT?

I don't care about the "Company overall." I don't care about the profits of its shareholders.

I care about the workers. I care about jobs, like Mitt Romney claims that he does, and I'm sure you do, too.

So YOU tell me -- EXACTLY how does Johnson Controls building a battery plant in China create jobs in the US?

You know it doesn't.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Are you this upset over General Motors building Cadillacs in China?

General Motors Co. announced Monday at the Beijing auto show that it will begin building its all-new 2013 Cadillac XTS sedan in China this year and later will bring the ELR luxury electric coupe in the country.

Yes. I would MUCH rather that they build those cars here, and I have said that for many years now.

I would much prefer to buy a Honda or Toyota that is built here -- and I do -- than a Cadillac built in China, for exactly that reason.

But at least one of us is consistent.

Kirk --

And I am the ignorant tool?

Yes, and yet another post that proved it.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Anna MollyAnd a Response to Scott Walker, the new "Protector" of Public Employees --

Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) superintendent Dan Nerad noted on February 25th that worst case-scenario, MMSD would need to layoff 289 teachers. The worst-case scenario did not come to fruition. According to the MMSD human resource department the actual number of layoffs was zero.

Data from school district human resource departments reveal that neither the state budget bill nor the state budget repair bill resulted in widespread teacher layoffs. Below is the number of layoffs from the 2010-11 to the 2011-12 school year in six large Wisconsin school districts:

•Beloit: 0
•Eau Claire: 2
•La Crosse: 0
•Madison: 0
•Racine: 1
•Wausau: 1.05 (full time equivalent)

Emily Koczela finance director for the Brown Deer school district stated in an interview, "27 teachers on the chopping block were spared. With “collective bargaining rights” limited to wages, Koczela was able to change the teachers’ benefits package to fill the budget gap. Requiring teachers to contribute 5.8 percent of their salary toward pensions saved $600,000. Changes to their health care plan​—​such as a $10 office visit co-pay (up from nothing)​—​saved $200,000."

I don't think requiring a Teacher to contribute 5.8% to their pension nor paying a $10 co-pay is outlandish and anyone that does is a fool.

So get over it already, Walker won the recall election, not by 2-3% points as predicted by the poles, but by 6.8%. More than he won in 2010 against Barrett.

Sarah, What the Supreme Court Justices have already questioned is whether the Congress of the United States can MANDATE that there "be" commerce in order to regulate what they have mandated. This "power grab" by Congress is at the very heart of the case now being decided.

How do you GOP people suggest we fix healthcare then? If you say no to the mandate and no to a single payer system???

A) Im not GOP, im just not an ignorant lib that wants everything for free and has the same ideology as a 10year old.

B) There is no reason on this planet why i should be forced, with a penalty, to have health insurance. Ive gone plenty of my life without health insurance, if i had to go to the doctor i dealt with it. It is ludicrous to say people HAVE to pay for healthcare if they dont want it, as ludicrous as having laws that require people to wear seat belts. I am not a child, i dont need the state to interfere with every aspect of my life, im capable enough on my own. Just because you arent, isnt my fault.

In two words, SO WHAT?

I don't care about the "Company overall." I don't care about the profits of its shareholders.

I care about the workers. I care about jobs, like Mitt Romney claims that he does, and I'm sure you do, too.

That's the typical liberal mantra, which should just be converted into, "I dont actually get it" without the profits and the shareholders, there are NO jobs.

2008: Yes We Can

2012: Well We Tried

At least you could give me a few props for agreeing with you about Obama's failure to lift a finger to help Wisconsin, which opinion I expressed much to the disapproval, no doubt, of my liberal friends.

Sorry, but, I was laughing about it while you were angry about it, so we really weren't in agreement.

If he think that helps him here, it doesn't.

More likely, it will cause a few more than a few disenchanted Wisconsin democratic voters to sit this one out, on the theory that what difference does it make, anyway. You know, 2010 all over again.

Let's hope so.

JAS1 --Why is it the government had the power to mandate hospital ER's treat anyone, regardless of their ability to pay?

“Median net worth declined from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010, a Fed survey of family finances found. The median marks the point where half had more and half had less. The recession officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009,”

While the media likes to try to blame Bush for the recession, I blame the Democrats in Congress, because Bush made literally dozens of attempts to reform the sub-prime lending practices of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, beginning only 3 months after taking office in 2001, but the Democrats (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) stymied every effort by Bush, even threatening filibusters, and then had the gall to turn around and try to blame Bush when those loans went sour.

When we look at Bush's OVERALL economic record, it was one of the best in the last 40 years - Just compare the average 'Misery Index' (combined Inflation and Unemployment Rates) for recent Presidents - link below;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_%28economics%29

And if you include Interest Rates, Bush even beats Clinton.

It is clear now that Obama is not only extrememly proficient at destroying jobs, but he is also proficient at destroying wealth... So many talents for a single president.

trudat-

It's pretty simple actually, Romney was "attacked" for implementing it in MA, but he was also governor of a bunch of liberal dolts who wanted it. So in his defense, he was doing what the people of that state wanted, as dumb as they are for it.

Revisionist history - the individual mandate was Romney's baby, he pushed for it in Massachusetts and got it implemented.

In 2010 Romney applauded the individual mandate while talking about Obamacare, saying it "works."

Geez, Anna Molly, the solution for you is obvious.....start your own company. Yep, ignore profits, ignore your shareholders, but make sure all of your workers are happy...lots of pay and bennies. I'll bet you'll go really far. And oh yes, I suggest you call it the Fantasyland Company.

AM, I noticed that when you are provided inconvenient truths and facts in reply or in response to your ridiculous knee jerk emotional based posts, you deflect and avoid. I feel so ignorant now.

Dcia: JAS1 --Why is it the government had the power to mandate hospital ER's treat anyone, regardless of their ability to pay?

The federal government has many unfunded mandates it requires the states to comply with. With this one, there is no tax the federal government is implementing, there is no requirement that an individual purchase a private product. In effect, there is no commerce being generated. The state is made to figure out how to pay for it.

Revisionist history - the individual mandate was Romney's baby, he pushed for it in Massachusetts and got it implemented.

I dont think you know what "revisionist" means. For nothing you posted has anything to do with me changing history, which would be the only accurate part of your rebuttle, since i didnt.

Geez, Anna Molly, the solution for you is obvious.....start your own company. Yep, ignore profits, ignore your shareholders, but make sure all of your workers are happy...lots of pay and bennies. I'll bet you'll go really far. And oh yes, I suggest you call it the Fantasyland Company.

She's a union hack, what would you expect here to understand about business?

Why is it the government had the power to mandate hospital ER's treat anyone, regardless of their ability to pay?

_____________________________________________

Easy question to answer: the feds made the ER mandate a condition of the hospital being eligibile to participate in Medicare. No hospital could survive financially without taking Medicare, so, thay had no choice but to accept it. It's called financial blackmail by the federal govt.

JAS,

States have the right to do so. The federal government (currently) does not.

Why is this true?

TruDat/Jim,JAS...

The mandate isn't forcing you to do anything, it's regulating what we already do, so that those with insurance don't grow broke.

Everyone, think of it this way...

1. You're not being forced to engage in commerce or buy anything, YOU ALREADY DO. Inevitably you will seek healthcare, ergo you're already engaging and not being forced to. The engagement in commerce is when you seek medical attention, the regulation of that commerce is the mandated insurance. And because healthcare crosses state lines, it is interstate commerce, and subject to regulation by the feds. This isn't about how they can regulate, it's about the effect on nationwide commerce.

2. The insurance market only works if everyone participates. That's not true for any other example you can give. The vegetable market doesn't need 100% participation, does it? If you walk into a grocery store and say you're starving, they don't HAVE to give you food. You don't HAVE to purchase flood insurance, because it isn't inevitable that one day your house WILL flood. If we continue to allow health insurance to be voluntary, while not allowing for discrimination against preexisting conditions the healthy people will exit the system and only reenter it when they're sick, CRASHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

3. Furthermore, the free loader system is WHAT WE HAVE NOW. Unless you are willing to deny sick people, who don't have insurance, care, you will continue to pay for them through your premiums.

And I still have yet to hear anyone come up with an idea, other then the mandate or the single payer system, that would fix healthcare in this country. If you don't like either of those options, come up with something better, or quit whining.

John - 2032532

2012 - Obama has tried and done a lot right. The GOP has tried to destroy the country but we won't let them!

Anna Molly - now you've gone and done it. Trying to talk sensibly with Kirk. Didn't we warn you it can't be done. No matter what you say or what your facts, he'll change his argument and then call you ignorant. Trust me - it's not worth it! And, he has no arguments, no facts, just arrogance which he is sooooooo eager to put out there. It makes his day!

Anna MollySo YOU tell me -- EXACTLY how does Johnson Controls building a battery plant in China create jobs in the US?

Let me see, Johnson Controls corporate headquarters are in Milwaukee. So the corporate headquarters which handles human resources, accounting, administrative, IT and various other functions through those headquarters. ANYTIME a facility is built whether in the US or China individuals have to be added to the Corporate headquartes to handle the various functions relating to that plant. I worked for JC and I am here to tell you everything mentioned above regardless of where you are located is handled through Milwaukee, with the exception of administrative & accounting which is located at all facilities, but ultimately all reports end up in Milwaukee. So this will create jobs in the US, just as it has created jobs any other time they have opened up a facility. Johnson Controls increased from about 2,300 employees in the Milwaukee area in 2007 to about 3,425 as of March 2012. At present their are 1100+ jobs available at JC in the US.

Sarah, its not as easy as that even though I dont have an economic issue with the individual mandate, I do have an issue with the federal government mandating an individual purchase of any product. This had an easy solution and that was to call it a tax and have the federal government take over healthcare payments. Regulating overall commerce is much different than forcing people to pay. I think even the liberal judges have a problem creating this precedent that could be used in the future for other goods and services. People have come up with a variety of other solutions but various constituencies lobby for or against to keep many of them from ever seeing the light of day. Look at what happened to Ryan's plan and all the false misleading information about it (not saying its a pancea either). The most compelling plan has always been a single payer catastrohpic plan in which all of us become responsible for paying the first $_____— annually of our own medical costs (similar to an HSA) and then we are covered 100% for the unfortunate more expensive aspects of health than can happen to us. That would require us to take a more active role in our health care, would certainly drive down costs as we actually shop and doctors and hospitals will have to compete for our business and it takes the incentives to perform every test etc for all our wellness care. Doctors, hospitals, dieticians and hypochondriacs hate this system because its fair and makes people pay personally for what the health care they consume while being covered for bad things.

JoAnnaSmith1

Blare-a: please, explain to us how ACA is unconstitutional,

The government cannot force people to buy a private product. Insurance in this case

Joanna your right and Mitt is going to have to explain why he was all for making the people of mass but but now because he is running for president he says, NO its unconstitutional.

i guess it is when you Bull SH*tting the American people cause you got to be president any thing goes,

so far his support for a women's right to choose is goan,

his love for universal heath care is goan,

he love to raise the minimum wage is goan,

i guess next he will give up being a Mormon

i can see why John McCain Beat this goof 4 years ago.

he is always changing and he is always GOAN!!!!!!!!! in a different direction

Kirk,

I do have an issue with the federal government mandating an individual purchase of any product

They aren't making you purchase anything. They're regulating how, and that, you pay for what you have either already purchased, or will inevitably be purchasing, so as not to push the costs of your purchase onto others. It's ensuring that people don't just show up at ER's and get treated with no ability to pay. Unless of course you advocate for denying care to sick, uninsured people, it doesn't get any more "conservativey" then the mandate.

This is a conservative's wet dream, personal responisbility through private sector purchases. The only explanation for the GOP hating it, is that Obama passed it. In which case... PATHETIC.

Seeking Sanity--is your reading comprehension challenged? Maybe I was mistaken but it was Anna who called me ignorant. It was Anna who couldnt provide a reply. She was unable to provide facts ON POINT to the discussion. She pointed out a Wisconsin example that was and is the exception. She wants to avoid the tough economic debate but blame it all on the big bad GOP without any real cost/benefit analysis. She is the classic I have no problem shifting my problems to my neighbors as long as I get mine liberal. But thanks again for chiming it with zero critical thinking but full of your personal attacks. Wow you got me again SS.

What's wrong with this picture?

Saint Ronald, the founding father of the "Reagan Revolution" could not be elected DOGCATCHER by the GOP today. That's basically what Jeb Bush is saying. The GOP of his father, Reagan's successor, is so far right that neither of them would be electable in 2012. Amazing.

If you need further proof that we are living in bizarro world thangs ain't quite right, look no further than the fact that Glenn Beck just signed a 100 MILLLION, yes 100 MILLION, dollar contract to do a radio program for Clear Channel. WHAT? Who would pay that nut job ANYTHING to be on the radio? WHO WOULD LISTEN TO HIM? He's as crazy as crazy gets! Even FOX kicked him off the air, he was too crazy for THEM.

One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive (we are told repeatedly) is because of the dead-beat folks with no insurance who clog the emergency rooms and hospitals with no ability to pay. OK. So the ACA REQUIRES those folks to get insurance and stop being dead-beats and the biggest complainers of all about "Welfare Queens" and "Welfare abuse" are OPPOSED to requiring them to get health insurance? In what reality does THAT make any sense?

Hell's Bell's folks, if you operate a car in almost any state you are REQUIRED to buy a tag for that vehicle, no option, and in most states you are REQUIRED to by car insurance. HUH? Why aren't they screaming about that as well? Those REQUIREMENTS affect everyone, not just the currently uninsured.

Well, the answer is simple, we now live in bizarro world where good is bad, right is wrong, and people like Glenn Beck, who should probably be institutionalized is paid 100 million dollars to abuse the public airwaves and spout his ridiculous propaganda.

Un-freaking-believable!

In bizarro world, the working men and women have no Unions to protect them from corporate greed. Corporations can buy all the politicians they like and finance their campaigns. In bizarro world the dream of owning a home, sending your kids to college, and living in comfort in your old age is something only available to the wealthy. There is no Social Security or Medicare, which of course you paid for all your working life. That money will all go to the Military/Industrial complex so the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer.

Welcome to bizarro world. I tell you, you just can't make this stuff up.

America is doomed. And you think it's bad now? Just wait until President Romney takes over. Hell, he'll probably make Glenn Beck his communications director and outlaw unions nation-wide. All our 401K's and Social Security and Medicare will suddenly be un-funded and worthless and we'll have 80 year olds working at Wal-Mart until they die. What a world. Not even Saint Reagan would have put up with this stuff.

Obama/Biden 2012 He's our only chance.

They aren't making you purchase anything. They're regulating how, and that, you pay for what you have either already purchased, or will inevitably be purchasing, so as not to push the costs of your purchase onto others.

So i should pay for healthcare now, even though i havent been to a doctor or ER in 17, because i will need it in the future? What if i die in a plane crash in 4 years? Does my family get the money back i didnt want to spend but was forced to?

Oh right, youre not being forced, its just a pre-emptive payment for future care. you sound like a hypochondriac who wants everyone else to pay to lower your premiums.

I don't care about the "Company overall." I don't care about the profits of its shareholders. With out these two the bottom two go away! When my company was not doing well in 2008, lots of my friends lost jobs. Companies do not exist to give people jobs, that's a by product of being successful.

I care about the workers. I care about jobs, like Mitt Romney claims that he does, and I'm sure you do, too.

Sarah, you can spin as regulating but if a person still must write a check so that is forcing someone to pay. You can use that same argument to force any purchase of a good and service that has economic consequences to a large group of people or anyone? But what about christian scientists who dont use the health care system? Are you regulating them? You could use your argument in the future and the federal government could force everyone to purchase a gun because they decide the safety benefits to everyone is less expensive than just letting the police provide our safety. There are many examples in which overall benefits could be argued to create a purchase of a service or good is regulating commerce and you dont want the political party in office to have that much power. You cant override the constitution to get the consequences you want when there are easier methods of getting there anyway.

TruDat,

So i should pay for healthcare now, even though i havent been to a doctor or ER in 17, because i will need it in the future? What if i die in a plane crash in 4 years? Does my family get the money back i didnt want to spend but was forced to?

Yes, you should. Because if you don't and you are, God forbid, in a plane crash and happen to survive, I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR MEDICAL COSTS.

Just like even though I'm young, and completely healthy I have to buy it too. Because one day, I'll be the one using it, and who knows, that "one day" may be tomorrow.

You don't get to bit** about paying for other people, then support the system we currently have, because that is EXACTLY what you're doing now. You only get to bit** about paying for other people if you advocate for letting sick people with no insurance die or refuse them care. Do you???

You sound like a naive, whiney pants.

JAS1 --No, the state is not made to figure out how to pay it. The majority of hospitals are in business. Business must make up the costs by raising prices for items and services. Those that pay cash or have insurance pick up the tab. This is called cost shifting.

Kirk,

Sarah, you can spin as regulating but if a person still must write a check so that is forcing someone to pay

So they shouldn't pay for their care??? AHHHHHH, are you a SOCIALIST???? Saul Alinksy! Saul Alinsky! Saul Alinksy! Listen, you would be paying anyway, or I would be paying for you. That's the point.

You could use your argument in the future and the federal government could force everyone to purchase a gun because they decide the safety benefits to everyone is less expensive than just letting the police provide our safety.

No they couldn't. The slippery slope here is disengenuous. You're reaching. Until you can show that every person will have a show down with some sort of violent criminal, wherein the only applicable response would be the returned use of force through a fire arm, you have no point.

There are many examples in which overall benefits could be argued to create a purchase of a service or good is regulating commerce and you dont want the political party in office to have that much power.

No, there aren't. Find me any other market, that every single person will engage in and no one can be denied service...

Johnson Controls is a great company. I've done work for the as local counsel.

But forget about all that - I was just reading the USA Today.

How about North Dakota? Eliminating property taxes because economy is booming.

That right there, this model is what will be the Obama and the progressive/green death knell.

So let's all get on the brown energy wagon and get this economy going. Not like there is not a huge amount of oil in Cali. FU Sierra Club.

Sarah, again I have no problem with the individual mandate, just how it was enacted and I am for a single payer system as I already posted. This had an easy solution by calling it a tax but Pelosi and Reid didnt like that politically. That doesnt change the fact the current solution is not constitutional. My slippery slope is definitely reaching and thats the point. The party in office could always use this precedent to intrude more into personal liberty. There are many things including public safety in which every single person engages and wont be denied but not applied equally across the board. Public safety and the gun example is very similar to health care but I could see the individual mandate as you envision it to apply to food, shelter, public safety, water rights, education. Sarah, this is an area that I am not as critical of Obama so dont paint me in that corner. I just think there are better solutions.

Sarah, Here's how they solve the health care situation (and it has already been said): If you're not rich enough to afford it, you don't get any and you die. Fortunately, there are countries not too far away, such as Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, that have outstanding health care at a fraction of the cost we have to pay in the US. Even travelling there, staying in a hotel, and paying cash for the treatment costs you maybe half of what you'd have to pay here, as an uninsured person.

Lynda,

Here's how they solve the health care situation (and it has already been said): If you're not rich enough to afford it, you don't get any and you die

Yeah, I will never agree that in a nation where we can afford a military 14 times the size of the second biggest, we should be allowing sick people to die from curable illnesses and conditions.

And, psst, hopping on a plane to Ecuador isn't quite as easy as you make it out to be.

Roy Wilson --

And the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded in 2010 that “by almost any economic indicator, the economy performed better in the period before the [Bush] tax cuts than after the tax cuts were enacted. . . . GDP growth, median real household income growth, weekly hours worked, the employment-population ratio, personal savings, and business investment growth were all lower in the period after the tax cuts were enacted.” The years 2000 to 2007 were the period of the weakest job growth in the United States since the Great Depression.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-romney-is-wrong-on-tax-cuts/2012/06/07/gJQAy1pHLV_story.html?hpid=z2

@Sarah #1.74, Obamacare does, indeed, require that an individual MUST BUY INSURANCE or BE FINED ... have you been asleep ? The bill was deemed "passed" by the Democrats so now you "can see what's in it".

Of course, for a young, healthy person, a man/woman might prefer to accept the risk of no insurance and use his/her money instead to buy a car, or pay off student loans or save for downpayment on a new house. Under Obamacare, that choice is taken away entirely to satisfy a federal mandate that an individual MUST buy an insurance product from a private company.

Did Anna Molley, who is no dummy, really say "I don't care about the company overall, I only care about the workers?"

Really AM?

SO if the company is doing poorly, might that effect the workers?

You do understand basic economics, right?

I mean there are the economics of your $300 per hour rate, then there are the economics of your client's ability to pay.

Now, I bet you understand those two issues, right?

Of course you do.

Jim,

Obamacare does, indeed, require that an individual MUST BUY INSURANCE or BE FINED ... have you been asleep ?

Duh, have you read my posts??? I think I've laid it out pretty clear, but what's one more time going to hurt?

Try again...

The engagement in commerce is when you seek medical attention. THIS is the purchase.

The regulation of that commerce is the mandated insurance. Ensuring that the commerce you engaged in, or the purchase you made, is paid for and not shifted onto others.

Of course, for a young, healthy person, a man/woman might prefer to accept the risk of no insurance and use his/her money instead to buy a car, or pay off student loans or save for downpayment on a new house

I'm living that right now, buddy. But here's the thing. One day I WILL be seeking medical attention, regardless of what I have currently on my plate. And, as I said above, that "one day" could be tomorrow.

Skip -- Well said!

To go back to one of the original arguments: "

Jody, Iowa: The truth is the unemployment rates for blacks and hispanics have declined just as have the rates for everyone else.

Wrong."

Actually, JAS, you are wrong and Jody is correct. In 2001, when the overall rate of unemployment was 4.3%, it was 8.4% for African Americans and 8.7% for Hispanics. During the recession, the unemployment rate for African Americans peaked at 17.3% in January 2010 and declined to 13.3%. Unemployment rates for Hispanics peaked at 13.3% in January 2010 and declined to 10.4%. You can see for yourself here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#race

You can be as partisan as you wish, but let's be correct.

The rich gonna lead us to the promised land. That's in the good book, I believe. And it don't make no diffrence Romney ain't no christian. we salt of the earth gotta believe..

Spanky: Did Anna Molley, who is no dummy, really say "I don't care about the company overall, I only care about the workers?"

Apparently so. It's the Lizzy "Cherokee" Warren method of looking at businesses. It's the workers that make the business, not the business that makes the workers to the Lizzy types. But of course we all know that jobs are a side affect of business. A successful growing business will increase its workforce while an unsuccessful declining business will decrease its workforce.

For the AM/Lizzy types, if they had a business, they would pay their workers double the rate other workers of the same type make for doing the same work. They would provide benefits like vacations, pensions, and healthcare superior to that of their competitors. And they would go out of business in about 6 months, or get laughed out of the bankers office when they presented their business plan for the capital loan they need.

Oh my Anna Molly,

Really?

Read CLB's post 1.76 He has more patience than I do.

You seem to be having a bad day.

Hope it gets better.

Spider --

Geez, Anna Molly, the solution for you is obvious.....start your own company. Yep, ignore profits, ignore your shareholders, but make sure all of your workers are happy...lots of pay and bennies. I'll bet you'll go really far. And oh yes, I suggest you call it the Fantasyland Company.

I have ALWAYS said that I would rather have local jobs and foreign profits, than the other way around.

Having Toyota and Honda build plants in the US ought to have driven that point home.

This country has not suffered one little bit because of Honda and Toyota. Rather, it has prospered because they brought JOBS. On the other hand, this country has suffered because AMERICAN companies, like GM and Johnson Controls, aided by NAFTA, among other things, have seen fit to take the JOBS overseas and keep the profits to home -- or the Caymans, or Switzerland, or wherever fashionable shareholders hold their assets these days.

Of course, this helps shareholders. Duh. Why don't you tell me something I don't know? Any idiot knows that.

But that's not the issue, is it?

The issue in THIS election season, as Mitt Romney himself likes to frame it, is JOBS.

Which building plants in China doesn't help, even if the shareholders DO get richer.

But I see that you are finally openly admitting that Republicans do not CARE about keeping workers happy -- or even employed, evidently.

Gotcha, hypocrite.

So sorry. Double post.

WCA --

Read CLB's post. He has more patience than I do.

You seem to be having a bad day.

Hope it gets better.

I'm having a great day. You, on the other hand, apparently don't have an argument, so you fall back on the personal attack.

Why am I not surprised?

CLB --

Let me see, Johnson Controls corporate headquarters are in Milwaukee. So the corporate headquarters which handles human resources, accounting, administrative, IT and various other functions through those headquarters. ANYTIME a facility is built whether in the US or China individuals have to be added to the Corporate headquartes to handle the various functions relating to that plant. I worked for JC and I am here to tell you everything mentioned above regardless of where you are located is handled through Milwaukee, with the exception of administrative & accounting which is located at all facilities, but ultimately all reports end up in Milwaukee. So this will create jobs in the US, just as it has created jobs any other time they have opened up a facility. Johnson Controls increased from about 2,300 employees in the Milwaukee area in 2007 to about 3,425 as of March 2012. At present their are 1100+ jobs available at JC in the US.

Nice try, but no go.

The issue is not creating administrative jobs. Those would be created whether the manufacturing jobs were here or not.

Where are the manufacturing jobs? The jobs that produce something?

Don't YOU get it, either? We are becoming just like India. A nation of call centers and insurance sales.

It simply won't sustain us in the long run.

But conservatives don't care about the long run, do they?

They only care about short-term profits.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

From JAS1: That is certainly true for Blacks and Hispanics who see their unemployment rates soaring compared to the rest

Kinda early to be playing the race card isn't it Snuffy?

Oh, wait, look who I'm talking to... nevermind...

PS: I see where NONE of the RWNJ's can dazzle us with why Willard should be President...

Fisty... I find it entertaining that any discussion of demographics is "RACIST" if it is coming from the right... but perfectly acceptable if coming from the left... (hypocrites)

Secondly... I see PLENTY of posts above that provide TONS of reasons why Obama should NOT be president. HAHAHAH!

Trudat:

How do you GOP people suggest we fix healthcare then? If you say no to the mandate and no to a single payer system???

A) Im not GOP, im just not an ignorant lib that wants everything for free and has the same ideology as a 10year old.

B) [More ranting about the individual mandate]

In other words, you have no alternative. Former Congressman Alan Grayson was right: The Republican health care plan is: "If you get sick, die quickly."

Spanky --

Did Anna Molley, who is no dummy, really say "I don't care about the company overall, I only care about the workers?"

Really AM?

SO if the company is doing poorly, might that effect the workers?

This is idiotic, even by your standards.

Tell me, Spankster, how does the company do well, without the workers?

Or, wait ... that's the Bain model, isn't it?

Got you, too.

Like every other conservative here today, you seem to have abandoned even the PRETENSE of being interested in JOBS.

Yes, you should. Because if you don't and you are, God forbid, in a plane crash and happen to survive, I WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR MEDICAL COSTS.

Just like even though I'm young, and completely healthy I have to buy it too. Because one day, I'll be the one using it, and who knows, that "one day" may be tomorrow.

Talking to you is like talking to a typical lib, useless, but anyhow.

So youre saying that although i havent been to a doctor in 17+years, i should have been paying for healthcare, thorugh a private entity, this whole time, even though i could die tomorrow, because...??? Oh it will make you feel better because it isnt your money, more lib theory. Always spending other people's money.

Gotta love lib "compassion" with other people's money.

Jim, you say, "Of course, for a young, healthy person, a man/woman might prefer to accept the risk of no insurance and use his/her money instead to buy a car, or pay off student loans or save for downpayment on a new house".

And when that healthy person gets into a car crash or has an unexpected illness that requires expensive emergency room care and then long term follow up care (and, btw, can no longer get insurance due to a pre-existing condition) - who do you think pays for this "healthy" person's healthcare? I do (and anyone else that carries health insurance), that's who, with higher insurance premiums and higher costs for care to cover the uninsured. Where is MY choice to pay for myself and not some selfish jerk who THINKS they are invincible and will never get sick or need medical care, but buys a brand new car or puts a down payment on a house instead? Where is MY choice to pay for myself and not someone who uses the Emergency Room for standard health care?

We all need and use healthcare. I don't want to pay for someone else so they can choose to buy a new car.

Hi, everybody!

Hugs!

who do you think pays for this "healthy" person's healthcare? I do (and anyone else that carries health insurance), that's who, with higher insurance premiums and higher costs for care to cover the uninsured.

Some of us arent libs and willing to take responsibility for our own actions and actually pay for ourselves, wow crazy talk isnt it.

We all need and use healthcare.

And that's your generalization of life where you are completely wrong.

Trudat,

Seriously??? I'm advocating WE ALL PAY FOR OUR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE, and you accuse me of spending other people's money???

How on earth does that make sense?

So, what happens if you get hit by a car tomorrow, have to receive medical care for the rest of your life, and don't have insurance? Should I let you slowly deteriorate and die, because I don't want to pay for you?

Yes, or no?

Oh it will make you feel better because it isnt your money, more lib theory. Always spending other people's money.

You're right, because I'd be spending my money on my insurance, and you would be spending your money on your insurance. That makes sense to me. At least more sense, then me shelling out for both of us, because you happen to not visit a doctor for some ungodly amount of time, which, by the way, I'm calling BS on.

Your gambling debt, in the off chance something happens, shouldn't have to be picked up by the rest of us. It's really easy to lay other people's money on the line, isn't it???

Some of us arent libs and willing to take responsibility for our own actions and actually pay for ourselves, wow crazy talk isnt it.

Some of us are, YOU however are not. In a million years, you would NOT be able to pay out of pocket for any serious long term or advanced medical care, meaning WE would be paying for you.

Seriously??? I'm advocating WE ALL PAY FOR OUR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE, and you accuse me of spending other people's money???

Youre advocating that people that dont use health services have to pay for healthcare costs, yes that is advocating that people pay for others healthcare.

I have no issues being held responsible for my own actions, if i die because of something i did, i wont go and sue the doctor for not telling me to not have a 3some.

because you happen to not visit a doctor for some ungodly amount of time, which, by the way, I'm calling BS on.

And again youd be completely wrong.

Anna Molly:

Are you all idiots, or what,

You are such an ignorant tool.

I'll say it againYou are such an ignorant tool.

Gotcha, hypocrite.

You, on the other hand, apparently don't have an argument, so you fall back on the personal attack.

Like I said Anna Molly, I hope your day gets better……..

Newsflash: You pay for other people's healthcare whether you want to or not. You either do it privately or publically and that means whether you use health insurance or not.

The question is how would you like to pay for other people's healthcare when they get sick and you aren't, not if you do. Or how will they pay for yours.

I will say there is a group of people who have never paid for healthcare for others. It is the people who meet the following criteria:

1) They have never paid taxes. Ever. Including garnishing a paycheck where taxes were automatically taken out by the fed or their state.

2) They never paid a bill for any healthcare whatsoever, no matter where it came from.

3) They never made any purchases with money.

So, basically, if you barter and trade, and never, ever went to a doctor for any reason using money, well then you probably qualify. You could be an illegal immigrant. You could be a criminal. You could be homeless. You could just be a slum dweller living off of someone else. In which case, I doubt you are actually posting here on Newsvine.

Too funny Trudat, "Some of us arent libs and willing to take responsibility for our own actions and actually pay for ourselves, wow crazy talk isnt it." Re-read my post: this is one lib who pays for himself AND relunctantly for those who don't carry health insurance (really I'm not given any choice) .

Good luck with staying healthy, btw. Health care costs are the number one reason for personal bankruptcy. Hey, wait, that's another burden on society from those with no or inadequate health insurance.

That's very optimistic of North Dakota.

In 20 years, they'll be in the same pinch other states are in.

That's called a 'cycle', and I'd hope you'd learn to recognize them.

Things are going well, gov't makes big promises, things turn south and gov't can't afford to maintain those big promises any more.

Nothing new to see here.

Move along.

WCA --

Are you all idiots, or what,

You are such an ignorant tool.

I'll say it againYou are such an ignorant tool.

Gotcha, hypocrite.

You, on the other hand, apparently don't have an argument, so you fall back on the personal attack.

Like I said Anna Molly, I hope your day gets better……..

Oh, I assure you -- it could hardly get any better since I've adopted the conservative model of discourse, which is --

Shoot first and answer questions never.

Feels good to push back for a change.

And the best part is, you don't even recognize yourself in this scenario.

This is exactly how you and other conservatives behave in post after post after post.

Gotcha once more.

Have a nice day, and I do hope you feel better soonest. Hugs.

Doing just Great Annam Molly, thanks for the concern!

BTW , could you at least point out to me, where in my initial post to your reply I fell back on a personal attack?

Did you take my concern for how your day was going as a personal attack AM?

I find that interesting........

Oh, I see.

Your telling me that you "hope I feel better" is not implying something, WCA?

You know darn well what you were saying. And your innocent claim to be concerned for how my day was going, coupled with "I find that interesting" is cut exactly from the same disingenous cloth.

It's all meant to imply that there is something wrong with ME.

This is something you conservatives -- and especially JoAnna -- do all the time, in order to poison the well and cover for the fact that you have no answers.

I have JoAnna on ignore for that very reason. Reading her venomous attacks post after post makes me nauseous, and it has nearly driven me off this board, more than once.

That's not my approach, and you know it.

I just gave it back for a change to see how you all would like it. Not very much, it appears.

And if you want to look back and see where I got the idea, just look at Kirk's first post to me.

I wasn't even talking to him, and he started out with an demeaning remark, specifically intended to attack my personal credibility --

So where did you tell Kirk that you hope HE feels better soon?

Or is that just how he is?

See my point?

Look to your own house, WCA. It appears to have glass walls.

AM, werent you the one along time ago telling me to get a tougher skin and stop being so sensitive? So you really read that demeaning of words in my post? Are you that sensitive? I dont think I need to be demeaning to attack your personal credibility as we can all judge for ourselves via your words and positions you use to address others. Obviously those who agree with you find you brilliant and those who dont less so. But as you have told me numerous time, you need to get tougher skin to play in the sandbox and your posts have definitely gotten more emotionally charged and less fact based. I dont believe for a second, you dont understand that a companys ability to compete in a global economy is more than NAFTA and that higher US wages and benefits would have a direct impact on its ability to compete in the US and without. Do you really think that Coca Cola or GM shouldnt build cars overseas or parts to compete?

All the prognosticating makes me want to prognosticate too. In President Obama, the people see a man who is slowly bringing the country back, despite the Teapublican intransigence. In candidate Rombot, the people see a privileged plutocrat who believes it's his turn to rule.

Teapublicans in Congress have destroyed Rombot's chances in the general, because the electorate can see what is coming if Rombot is elected. A thirteen percent approval rating doesn't come over night.

Don't even get me started on the conventions, because the Teapublican convention will make 1992 look like a Valentine's Day card. The Democratic convention will highlight the President's successes, which are multiple and manifest.

Plus...

Rombot.Has.Nothing.

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy Wilson --And the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded in 2010 that “by almost any economic indicator, the economy performed better in the period before the [Bush] tax cuts than after the tax cuts were enacted. "

You mean the one controlled by the Democrats? Is that the same group that said that 'sub-prime' lending did not cause the financial collapse?

Let's look at some REAL figures;

For the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, the economy grew by 27%, but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, the economy grew by 31%.

And for those who say the Bush tax cuts reduced government revenues and caused the deficits to soar;

For the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts, total Federal Revenues had increased by only 3.5%, but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, total Federal Revenues had increased by 41.6%.

And let's also consider Employment;

For the 5 years before the Bush tax cuts, total Employment increased by 4.07 million workers, but in the 5 years after the Bush tax cuts, total Employment increased by 6.79 million workers.

Those 'facts' from official government sources certainly get in the way of a good 'spin', don't they?

I'm fine, Kirk. Don't you worry about me.

Perhaps I did go a little over the top, and for that I apologize, but I really was just using you as a springboard. You see, I've been trying to ignore JoAnna and not refer to her posts. But it was really HER post, #1.18, that set me going. You just caught the brunt of it because of the way you led.

In case you can't find JoAnna's post, I'll quote it for you and for WCA, who also seems to have missed it.

AM has been reduced to petty whining mixed in with some insignificant backstabbing about her state and Walker. Difficult times for libbies, and not just in Wisconsin.

Instead of jumping all over me, perhaps the two of you should get together and talk with JoAnna about HER seemingly neverending capacity to say venomous things to people that don't address the substance of anyone's posts. I wonder whether she feels okay today.

Maybe it's not so much that my skin isn't thick enough -- which by the way is just a way of blaming me for what you said -- but rather that her fangs are way too long and need to be clipped.

But whether you do or you don't, it won't matter, at least not to me.

I'm fine.

Roy Wilson -- Here we go again. Spin much? Here's the deal. I'll bet Fareed Zakaria is way smarter than you and if the CRS report is good enough for him it's good enough for me.

One thing I will say on your behalf.....you sure are consistent. That is you consistently cherry pick data to suit your needs.

Anna Molly

A One-Sided Conversation with Mitt Romney

(Because, really, is there any other kind?)

Good-un AM. And the hyperventilating and odd use of words. That's not what I'd hold against a person though. That Romney has no compass beyond his Mormon indoctrination is inexcusable.

For the rightwing it is more than economic anxiety. The GOP/TP is 98% white, and older citizens in the population. These folks are freaking out.

Sarah-3043284 "The mandate isn't forcing you to do anything, it's regulating what we already do"

Boy, what a relief - I thought that it would require me to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

Could you please give me the source for your statement so I can verify it?

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy Wilson - One thing I will say on your behalf.....you sure are consistent. That is you consistently cherry pick data to suit your needs."

So a continuous 10 year period (5 years before to 5 years after the Bush tax cuts ) is 'cherry picking'?

How about a continuous 30 year period;

Who's responsible for the Budget Deficits and the Debt?

While it's tempting to blame the President for Budget Deficits, it's actually the responsibility of Congress to pass a spending budget, which establishes the amount of the Deficit each year and any required borrowings on the Debt. So what does the record show, based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years (through 2010);

DEFICITS ($7.304 Trillion)

Total Deficits when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $5.022 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $1.219 Trillion.
Total Deficits when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.063 Trillion.

NEW DEBT ($12.620 Trillion = 93% of all the Debt in our History) (a)

Total New Debt when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = $7.600 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = $3.238 Trillion.
Total New Debt when Congress was split (8 years) = $1.781 Trillion.

Spin it all you want, but these are the FACTS

(a) – Contrary to popular belief, the National Debt increases far more than the Deficits for each year, mainly because of the way that the government treats 'borrowings' from 'Trust Funds'.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify National Debt increases is;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 7.1

The government site to verify the Deficits for each year is;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals See Table 1.3

I'll let the facts speak for themselves as to which Party is more fiscally responsible.

Dont_carry_it_all

And let's take a look at job creation too;

How can government create jobs? What does the record show?

The government does not create jobs (except when they hire more people in government). They can only create an environment for the private sector to create jobs. That business environment is set by Congress, through taxes and regulations (either pro or anti growth). The President has little to do with it, except by signing or vetoing legislation.

When we 'do the numbers' based on who controlled Congress over the last 30 years (Through 2010), here are the actual results when it comes to 'creating jobs';

Jobs created when Democrats controlled Congress (12 years) = 8,605,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Republicans controlled Congress (10 years) = 23,239,000 net new jobs.
Jobs created when Congress was split (8 years) = 7,502,000 net new jobs.

PS – Over the last 30 years, we needed an average of about 160,000 net new jobs per month to maintain a stable unemployment rate. Anything less increases the (real) unemployment rate, while anything more decreases the (real) unemployment rate.

Sources - Democrats controlled Congress from 1987 – 1994, and from 2007 – 2010. Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 – 2000, and from 2003 – 2006. There was a split Congress from 1980 – 1986 and for 2001 & 2002. The government site to verify average employment by year is;

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

I'll let the facts speak for themselves as to which Party is better at creating jobs.

Anna Molly--I accept the sort of apology and I apologize if I led too strong. I will be the first to admit that I am opinionated and never said otherwise but I also dont participate in personal attacks of the type that are meant to question someones cognitive ability. I definitely question someone's motivations or assumptions and even critical reasoning that backs their own opinion but I dont call you an idiot for example.

The idea that any of us has a monoply on experience, knowledge or answers is pretty ridiculous and I dont pretend to do so. But the idea that only progressives or democrats or Obama are the answer is equally so. I will admit I tend to be logical and look at the economic consequences of public policy to everyone and you progressives tend to focus on the individual and ignore the consequences of creating policy to address the individual. Its never a zero sum game and every benefit to one group is a cost to another. How is it that I am always the bad guy for pointing those costs out. That doesnt mean we all cant have a public policy debate as to whether that cost (like higher taxes for the rich) isnt worthwhile.

It's not a "sort of" apology. It's an apology. I'm sorry. I was cheesed off by the so-predictable personal attacks from JoAnna, and also from you. Your lead was wholly inappropriate, so I matched it. There was no BS in my posts. They were factually based, and the Romney post in particular was based on his own words, both recently, and otherwise. But even if there had been BS, it would have served you better to show where I was mistaken, rather than to use that sort of demeaning shorthand.

As for the issue of cost and merit evaluations, that was not part of my original argument, so I considered it irrelevant. I've been doing what I do long enough to know that when people aren't doing their jobs, or when economic circumstances legitimately do not support them doing their jobs anymore, then hard decisions have to be made.

But I also believe the evidence is pretty good that a lot of what we are seeing from Mitt Romney and Scott Walker really has nothing to do with those issues, and that public employees are being arbitrarily, and short-sightedly, singled out for villification and punishment because it forwards a much larger agenda. You seem to be one of those who has drunk the kool-aid that somehow teachers are the enemy. If teachers aren't doing their jobs, then weed them out. I was a teacher, you know, and those of us who worked hard didn't appreciate those who didn't, any more than that's true in the private sector. For heaven's sake, evaluate them. Whoever said otherwise? But that's not anyone's fault but administration's, if it's not done. And poor teachers are not the fault in every case. But in Wisconsin, just as one example, EVERY teacher has been punished so that Scott Walker could give out tax breaks to the corporations. Every firefighter, too, and every police officer, public health nurse, librarian, janitor, DNR worker, and so on. And Mitt Romney's positions on class size just make no sense to anyone who has worked in education. John Sununu's comments about larger classes because there are fewer students are are just plain clueless, as my statistics demonstrate.

What's worth anything to you, Kirk? What are you willing to pay for? Schools? Roads? Firefighting? Law enforcement? Cancer research? Doctors? Hospitals? Food inspection? Military?

The conservative agenda is always backwards. You don't decide how much you'll pay and then go out and buy a car. You decide what sort of car you want and need and then decide whether you can afford it. Why do you do the opposite with government? Make the tough decisions first. Prioritize. And then figure out how to pay for it. Finance shouldn't lead the debate. Finance should follow. What is happening now is the height of lazy thinking, which causes us to lurch from one crisis to another, on and on, ad infinitum .....

Look around you, Kirk. Name a single thing that has improved in society since this country has taken its turn for the right, beginning in the Reagan years. Name just one. There's a reason that you can't. The conservative agenda doesn't work, and it's choking the lifeblood out of everything that previous generations have accomplished.

I didn't call anyone an idiot, and I certainly didn't call you an idiot. But I apologize for using that word. I was fed up, mostly by what JoAnna said -- it seems no one, including apparently not you, thinks it's necessarily to curb the vitriol that she spews, and especially at me. It was a perfect example of what I described to WCA -- the use of poisonous ad hominem to deflect attention from the fact that she can't answer the question or even provide a reasoned response. It's her favorite trick, and she gets away with it.

She gets away with it because you and other conservatives let her. It's not decent, it's not legitimate discourse, and it's not funny. It's mean and it's hurtful, and if you want to be taken seriously yourself, you should say that you don't approve of that.

Why don't you, I wonder.

See you later, Kirk. Take care. I won't be back here for a while, if ever. I've had enough of JoAnna and Spanky today to last me the rest of my life.

@ True Pat --

I would be remiss if I didn't thank you, and others, for the kind words. I really appreciate them. But I find that a few kind words no longer make up for the other, more unpleasant things that I encounter out here, whenever I'm brave enough -- or foolish enough -- to attempt it.

I had taken some time off, and for some reason that escapes me now, I had decided to come back. I thus fulfilled the classic definition of insanity because I had the strange idea that somehow things might have changed. But now I see that some things never do. Maybe there is a different sort of place for me, somewhere out there in cyberspace.

Take care. You are, indeed, a good 'un, yourself. Keep up the good fight. It's been a pleasure.

JoAnnaSmith1

Excellent job as always Bill.

It's amazing that the unemployment rate for public/government workers is half that for the private sector, and yet Obama whines that we don't have enough government workers. What goes on behind closed doors in the White House when Obama and the minions that work for him talk about such things?

Where is thy proof??? And by the way, you do realize that unemployment would be at 7.2% had we kept those 600,000 public workers by giving the states the money they needed to balance their budgets??? Can you abandon your apparent dislike of public jobs and admit that hiring those people back would have a actually HELPED our economy???? At least the private sector is hiring people; for months governments have been slashing their payrolls because of stupid balanced budget amendments that literally put them in a fiscal straitjacket during a recession.

Obama can't come out and say "The private sector is just fine" and not know the truth that the 1) The private sector is suffering greatly and 2) Government workers still have a better deal with salary, benefits, healthcare, pensions, and job security. To say that Obama has a blind spot to all this is an understatement.

Who cares about whether government workers get better deals than the private sector??? If the positions were reversed you would actually be applauding it. In your own words, why don't you work for the government then??? And btw, he was COMPARING the private sector to the public sector; at the private employers are hiring...

Also, the Liberals are always saying voters that vote GOP are "Voting against their own best interests". That is certainly true for Blacks and Hispanics who see their unemployment rates soaring compared to the rest of the population. Just what do they see Obama has done to help their cause is a mystery to everyone else. Obama only cares about each of those constituencies for their votes, the rest of the time Obama spends his time at his fund raisers, which greatly lack Black and Hispanic representation.

And what would Republicans do??? Oh wait, I know. They would cut food stamps, cut Medicaid, cut Medicare, cut all the social programs, and then tell the minorities to have a better "work ethic."

trudat6445

They aren't making you purchase anything. They're regulating how, and that, you pay for what you have either already purchased, or will inevitably be purchasing, so as not to push the costs of your purchase onto others.

So i should pay for healthcare now, even though i havent been to a doctor or ER in 17, because i will need it in the future? What if i die in a plane crash in 4 years? Does my family get the money back i didnt want to spend but was forced to?

What if you DO survive??? What if you get into an accident??? There are a lot of ifs in life. This is merely security against that. I don't care whether you are healthy are not; the truth is, NOBODY KNOWS when they need healthcare. Nobody. That is why the private sector fails at healthcare; they, as you conservatives like, rely on certainty; yet nobody knows when they are going to need it. That is why the government has to step in to ensure that the insurance market is sustainable, and it ONLY is if everyone is engaged in it. I don't care whether you want health insurance or not; either you get health insurance, or you don't get served in an ER. Simple as that. That is what should be the argument.

Oh right, youre not being forced, its just a pre-emptive payment for future care. you sound like a hypochondriac who wants everyone else to pay to lower your premiums.

You do realize that everyone paying would actually lower premiums, or at least their annual increase??? Asking more people to get into the insurance pool would greatly lower the cost increase.

jim-1455434

Sarah, What the Supreme Court Justices have already questioned is whether the Congress of the United States can MANDATE that there "be" commerce in order to regulate what they have mandated. This "power grab" by Congress is at the very heart of the case now being decided.

This is personally why I think we are so slow in America to change. We are always burdened with a small group of status quo-backers who always invoke the Constitution whenever they want to block change. For God's sake, the document is over 200 years old!!! It was meant to be changed, both in meaning and in interpretation. America cannot sustain private healthcare; either we go into a mixed health industry with both government and private plans, or we go (as I would advise) single-payer. That is the choice. The only good thing I see for liberals if Obamacare is overturned, besides having the base energized, is that single-payer will be endorsed by the Democratic Party. The Constitution SHOULD NOT be used as a way to block change. Nor should the American people be handcuffed to their constitution. Some of what the Constitution makes sense; some doesn't. We have to have a flexible interpretation that changes as society advances while maintaining the document's core doctrine.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

But I find that a few kind words no longer make up for the other

To my dear friend Anna Molly - to say I am disappointed with you would be an understatement!

After all these years -WHEN have you ever thrown in the towel?

You my friend are playing right into their nasty ass hands by conceding!

She plays you only because YOU allow it! Let the nasty bitch choke for all I care...

I expected better...

Snuffy is incapable of even slinging a semi-decent insult anymore & YOU are going to allow her to run you off of First Read?

Take some time to recuperate... BUT... please don't tell me you're leaving....

{{hugs}}

You're disappointed with me, Feisty?

I see. Well, of course, I'm sorry for that. Please forgive me.

You're disappointed with me, Feisty?

Girlfriend - please stop with the drama queen crap - YOU are so much better then that!

And Yeah I am - no one on this board has a bigger @!$%#ing bullseye on their back then ME - yet I am here day after day fighting for what's right@!

Are YOU seriously let Snuffy silence YOU? If so, then I repeat, I am disappointed in you!

I thought & believed you had much more of a fighting spirit!

This is NOT about YOU & ME ... this is about keeping OUR country on track...And right NOW I am unwillingly to got down without fight these bastards at every turn...

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

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

I don't have anything new to add other than to tell Anna Molly to hang in there and continue to try to ignore JAS even though that is like trying to ignore a piece of sand in your eye. As usual Sarah and Feisty reflect my opinions pretty well even though I don't have very much time anymore to post like I used to due to the fact that the mortgage business is really heating up in my area.

One kind of stupid observation I just made...Did you ever notice how Romney always points at people at his rallies and laughs at them? I guess he considers it pretty amusing that anyone would show up to listen to him, as well.

Keep up the good work you right wing liberals. Not all of the news has been great lately but take solace in the knowledge that we are on a righteous mission and the tide will turn once again.

OBAMA 2012!

Anna Molly I certainly hope you return. I do so enjoy your posts, although I do not always agree with them. We had a few interesting battles about 10 months ago, since then I have not been able to actually get on early enough due to work committments. You should disregard personal attacks, because in the long run personal attacks come from those who can't debate the issue on its merits, no matter which side of the political spectrum you believe. However, if you decide to leave, Good Luck in all your future endeavors.

Anna Molly--I apologize for the inappropriate manner I led my post and you are correct that because of the discourse on here you can get caught up in it. You must have missed it but I said that I was uncomfortable with the tone and words that Joanne uses and dont approve of it. The reason I dont take her to task is that in general and she shouldnt apply it across the board, she is responding in kind to people like Fiesty, Backhouse or Seeking Sanity who also seem to enjoy the personal snarkiness and attacks. Its wrong on both sides. Thanks for the apology and I really do appreciate it.

As for the substance, most times its almost impossible to be inflection, context and how someone can really feel and understand an issue on these blogs because of the preconceived way we read them to start. Even though I may come from a more fiscal conservative view point and in most cases my personal experiences are consistent with my fiscal views, that doesnt translate into me being a part of any political party. You always assume that. I am very socially liberal except for guns and my economic views are not inconsistent with many democratis policies--just for the most part Obamas. I dont hate teachers as I have said over and over, my mom and sister are or were teachers. Moms retired. I blame the politicians for creating this corrupt relationship with the government workers unions and causing the economic mess we are in. Here in Illinois its beyond scandalous and the political party just happens to be democrat whether that means anything.

As for conservative versus liberal, I disagree with some and but agree with alot but I dont put the blame on one political party or philosophy but blame them all. Its not as if everything went down hill immediately with Reagan as I believe the country was doing pretty well with both him and Clinton including government services. But where I think we probably disagree is your car example. Government services I believe arent an open checkbook. You cant ask what kind of car do we want and then just tax everyone to pay for it. You need fiscal discipline there too because spending other people's money is always much easier. Of course I want all the services you ask for and we have all of those services many which are the best in the world and their budgets have grown faster than the rate of inflation by many multiples so you cant say we havent stood behind those issues. The other side of that coin is always the unintended consequences of many of the good intentions behind the things you want which is what I always want to know before we just knee jerk and go down a progressive path that causes more harm than good. You want to go back to Reagan and say where things have broken down but you can also go back over the last 40 years and see the failed policies of many a progressive plan that has caused more harm than good whether it be health care, many aspects of the war on poverty like cluster low income housing, insurance, etc where the full consequences of good intentions were never looked at.

Finally, where you and I differ many times is the appearance of this view that success is bad and should be punished or that success is most times the consequence of luck and that lack of financial success is based on lack of equal opportunity instead of choice or talent. I am not saying we both cant find individual examples that differ from the large group statistics but its hard to create US national policy on whats good for the individual rather than the whole. When I argue with you, many times its because we all want to avoid the uncomfortable or politically incorrect conclusions that cognitive ability or choice dont matter. No one wants to face those uncomfortable truths but that doesnt mean I am somehow not compassionate or not willing to discuss policy, its more lets get all the facts on the table before we conclude.

I am more than happy to debate and respectfully agree or disagree with you but it certainly would be alot nicer if we left the campaigning for a candidate out of the conversation. My guess is that the discussions on here would be far nicer and alot less personal if we were prohibited from mentioning a candidate's name or political party and just debated policy but maybe I am dreaming. I hope you stay here and continue to point out my errors and dont avoid those who dont always agree with you and I promise to play nicer.

Who cares about the definition of "success" as making a sh!t load of money regardless of how it is made, or claims that the rich are job creators rather than just wealth creators, clearly this study shows we should give more tax cuts to the rich. (Not!)

AM, don't leave. Just post your thoughts without responding to others. I actually scroll past most of the tripe, and only respond if addressed--sometimes not even then (if it's just an attempt by a troll to bait me). Your contributions are valuable!

Take care. You are, indeed, a good 'un, yourself. Keep up the good fight. It's been a pleasure.

Don't go, Anna. I know we rarely chat (if ever), but you are an important part of this newsvine. It'll never be the same without you.

Right On Schedule: The republicanCrimeCartel Created this disaster back in Reagan's time and Perfected it with the Bushies, especially With KingGeorge the VaccumBrained during his NOTORIOUSLY SHAMEFUL Shrubber Reign 2001 - 2008. FACE IT Fellow and Sister Americans, The republicanCrimeCartel IS Causing this Depression we are back into to get people mad at Prez O and vote for Rommel and Whomever his love mate is. You KNOW what Rommel's got in mind: HUGE American military, OTHER PEOPLE's Sons fighting Newly thought up And VERY PROFITABLE WARS And NO American Universal National healthCare System. Even Prez O was "forced" to cut a deal with the powerful health insurance industry. Does ANYONE KNOW what the ceo of United HealthCare took Home for 2008 Salary? Hold onto your hats: $128,000,000 *C A S H* WHILE, Mind You, their paid policyHolders were denied and DIED. The fact that America HAS NO Universal HealthCare System like the other countries, which take care of their citizens, instead of fattening the wallets of the EVIL Rich and paying for Unending Wars, IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE... YEAH, A lot of US are mad at Prez O; He let the $4.00+Gas and oil go by without a protest OR Complaint to the Justice Dept Going after the oil companies for price fixing And price GOUGING. AND that shaking hands with karzai of afghan
after what he said????? "thanks sucker taxpayers..." NONEtheless has anybody got an idea what republicanCrimeCartelSoldierRommel will do to US and ANY economic progress made?? He will GUT US LIKE A FLAPPIN' FISH ON THE DOCK.....You're gonna' see Unemployment up to 38% and NO Social Security..Gotta Pay for New Wars And NO MEDICAL CARE
AS "healthcare" policies cost SKYROCKET out of control. Don't fall for the republicanCrimeCartelPropaganda and just say NO!!! to MittTaxPittanceRommel.

Here's the rundown on Mitt Romney's devastating record as CEO of Bain Capital, a tenure marked by bankruptcies, bailouts, and mass layoffs — all while Romney and his partners raked in Billions of Dollars in profits for the firm and Romney himself amassed a Quarter-Billion Dollar Fortune.
Romney's Bain Capital Caused Mass Layoffs, Sent Jobs Overseas
Thousands of Americans were laid off by Bain Capital at companies it purchased, managed, and, at least a quarter of the time, drove into bankruptcy, ruining Lives, Destroying Careers and Families including Many Many Suicides While stuffing his pockets, Keeping his Darling son OUT of service to his country with the line "My son is Fulfilling his Patriotic Duty by helping me get elected"...Got that one?? and, Of Course, installing the InHouse car elevator for his "darling little boy's $180,000Ferrari....Listen Up People...This guy IS Count Dracula In carnate. A vote for ANY Republican politico is a vote against Yours and YOUR FAMILY'S Well Being. You can take that to the bank.

It is quite obvious from the Liberal posts above that I, a Democrat, will NOT BE VOTING FOR Mr. Obama thereby terminating his Administration's henchmen/women.

Time for "Change" ? Yep. The White House revolving doors and "Go Green" legislation for special interest groups and friends will cease.

Time to move "Forward" ? Yep. Terminate the socialist/European atmosphere in the White House and within the Congressional Halls.

Further, one more term of Mr. Obama and America will no longer exits....AND YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK.

*Exist vs exits.

I find it terribly interesting that all the Obama groupies on this blog - Feisty, Bev, etc - you know, the people that would defend Obama even if he were caught raping young children - keep whining about the House not passing Obama's jobs bill (forgetting the fact that they've passed several of their own jobs bills) and that they are obstructing while Senator Reid won't bring any of the House bills to vote, hasn't passed a budget in over 1100 days but yet finds it urgent to work on some boxing bill because he didn't like the results of the split decision the other night! All of the economic issues this country is facing and THIS is what's important to Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats????

Let's think about this for a minute... say Obama wins. Next, say the republicans and democrats in congress keep up their stubborn "no compromise" ways, the country keeps struggling along, debt keeps running out of control...

Maybe we have no hope!

Sirie,

Hopefully Democrats take the House back and something can get done.

Something needs to change, that's for sure!

Wonder how the property tax ban in North Dakota will turn out today... wish they would do that in Illinois!!

Don't worry, sirie, help is on the way!

Maine will elect Independent former governor Angus King to the Senate and he will work with President Obama and Harry Reid to take pragmatic action in resolving these conflicts. King will be a moderate, like Collins and Snowe, but without their need to toe a Party line. He is free to do what is best for the nation. Let's hope more states elect Independent candidates to Congress, going forward.

Hopefully Democrats take the House back and something can get done.

LOL. They'll be lucky if they can hold on to the Senate.

Hopefully Democrats take the House back and something can get done.

Yea maybe with the house they can do what they did in '09 when they had all 3 bodies.

trudat6445

Hopefully Democrats take the House back and something can get done.

Yea maybe with the house they can do what they did in '09 when they had all 3 bodies. 

You mean like passing the stimulus that prevented the Bush Recession from becoming the Bush Depression? Or the Lilly Ledbetter Act, that removed the road block that radical Roberts' Supreme Court threw up against women being able to seek justice for wage descriminiation? Or are you talking about the Affordable Care Act that everybody hates except for everything that's actually in it other than the individual mandate?

trudat, guess you choose to ignore the GOP filibuster in the Senate for convenience.

Get rid of the archaic filibuster rule along with some other outdated rules and Congress might actually stop being dysfunctional. I don't have a problem with a filibuster, but I do have a problem with the current method of it. It should be real, verbal debate and it should be nonstop debate to maintain; none of this a vote equals filibuster. Want to filibuster, then Senators must work at it and work hard to do it. Force the opposing party to justify their filibuster. Change the rule so that the majority party can bring the bill back to the floor for more debate and the second time, a majority vote breaks the filibuster and the Senate can actually take a bill to the floor for debate, amendment and vote. We need to return the Senate to the rules of the Constitution--majority rules not the minority by filibuster. A simple majority for all votes except those already stated in the Constitution that require a super majority. Doesn't matter which party one aligns with, the minority should not rule against what the majority the American people selected to govern them.

The American people have no hope.

Here is our TRUE economic anxiety:

http:/ /www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/08/1098434/-Eric-Cantor-Paul-Ryan-Kevin-McCarthy-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz

Republican/Tea planned to sabotage the U.S. Economy back in 2009 and THAT is the reason for their obstructionism and for McConnell making his famous statement about his purpose.

Really!

GOP-TEA planned - with malice aforethought to "sabotage" America's economy.

I say investigate, indict, prosecute and those not sent to prison, send back home to their farm to work for a living like regular folk.

Willard certainly could not exist in middle class America, so he should not exist in the White House either IMO.

We should not put up with this type shenanigans from the 1% and tea-publican politicians!

Lets organize, mobilize and take our country back from those trying to take it all away from us!

President Obama for President 2012!

The Democrats have a good chance of taking back the house and will hold onto the Senate. That means we can actually get things done and stop the obstructionists in the House. I would love to think Ohioans would come to their senses and get rid of Boehner but who knows? They seem to like stupid!

Obama/Biden 2012

Seeking- Yeah. You also loved to think that maybe Wisconsinites would have recalled Scott Walker. How'd that work out for you? Oh, that's right. I forgot. That was ALL a matter of Walker's supporters spending more money.

Now you'd like Ohioans to "come to their senses" but they "seem to like stupid." Do you people ever get tired of being so elitist and condescending? Don't answer. We already know. Anybody that doesn't vote the way you want them to vote is an idiot, right?

jody -- have you an explanation why the Senate did not change the rules during the time they had a filibuster-proof majority? could it be that they realize that some day they will be the minority party and will want to do some of their own filibustering?

Seeking Sanity,

The Democrats have a good chance of taking back the house and will hold onto the Senate. That means we can actually get things done and stop the obstructionists in the House.

Please do tell.

Damage, my brother:

The rich gonna lead us to the promised land. That's in the good book, I believe. And it don't make no diffrence Romney ain't no christian. we salt of the earth gotta believe.. (and we don't need no science and edumacation neither!!)

NoLimitSoldier50

That is what you call Independent? Sanders is a so-called Independent and votes with Dmeocrats on everything. Is that being Independent? Lieberman caucus (whatever the hell that means) with the Democrats. Is he Independent? Okay he agrees with Republicans on a couple of things.

If you don't know what caucus means or where Bernie Sanders stands then you have no business in a political conversation. It's probably best if you stayed silent until you have a clue.

I think NoLimitSoldier50 has every right to express his opinion here on this website. Your attempt to have him silenced, however, simply shows your intolerance for opinions different from your own. But then again, you are quite adept at the one or two sentence attempted put downs.

You noticed Jim?

Chris..Dorr...MI: in response to your post that said "my only hope is Obama in 2012"...on the contrary

my only hope is me...I do not depend on Obama and his nanny state, or any other level of government or anyone else to take care of me and my problems.

Now you'd like Ohioans to "come to their senses" but they "seem to like stupid." Do you people ever get tired of being so elitist and condescending? Don't answer. We already know. Anybody that doesn't vote the way you want them to vote is an idiot, right?

No, I don't think we ever get tired of being so elitist and condescending. We also know that that doesn't annoy people, because if it did they'd vote out the GOP...

juanita dominguez

Chris..Dorr...MI: in response to your post that said "my only hope is Obama in 2012"...on the contrary

my only hope is me...I do not depend on Obama and his nanny state, or any other level of government or anyone else to take care of me and my problems.

Juanita, if you know in full detail what a nanny state is, you'd know that Obama is nowhere near that. And if having "socialist medicine" and a well-regulated economy means that I'll be living in a nanny state, than let the nanny state begin!!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

If people are silly enough to believe Romney or Ryan on their budget plan, in which more tax cuts and spending cuts are the answer, then they really are fools.

Let’s all think back to September 2008 and the financial storm that had developed and the whole government and the rest of the world that was unraveling in financial markets. The jobs were going down so fast that and the United States had suffered the worst crisis sense the great depression.

Then Obama takes over on January 20, 2009, and suddenly it’s his fault. No way! Obama stepped into this storm on the brink of depression, and Obama has done a GREAT job of turning the country around.

I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality, and living in “Rush World.”

Wow, Jody. Just wow.

Greece is in trouble because of austerity? Are you serious?

Greece is in trouble because their spending went through the roof. When the time came to pay their bonds, they were flat broke- so most bond holders had to take less than half of the amount they lent the government. This does not make for happy lenders- anymore than you would be happy to lend money to your brother in law if he only repaid 40% of what he borrowed first time around.

The austerity measures Greece promised to put in place have not, yet, been enacted. People are reacting to the promise of cuts in government handouts- not the actuality. If the "Free Stuff" party wins this week's elections, you can kiss the Eurozone goodbye- Spain and Italy will follow Greece, as they will be closed out of the bond market- and, without borrowed money, there is no more free stuff.

You'd actually better pray to whatever idol is ahead of Obama in your cult that the Greek electorate is smarter than it looks- if the Eurozone goes, it will make the Fall of 2008 look like a blip on the screen. Don't say you weren't warned- I did warn you, last Spring, that this was coming.

Oh, and Jody? We're next, by the way. That cut in our bond rating? We're right after Spain in the eyes of folks who buy bonds.
Not the greatest spot in the world- not Greece, yet, but headed that way.

Spain thought they were too big to be closed out of the bond market, too- even after they were warned they were not.

Job1, that financial storm of 2008 had been brewing for 30 years because of Reaganomics and sadly, Clinton, put the final nail in the last vestige of regulation coffin when he signed the repeal of Glass Stegall. "Rush World", that's part of the problem, too many of the uninformed republicans are informed by the likes of Rush, Hannity, and friends. Add to the mix that republicans must sign the Pledge to King Grover Norquist to never raise taxes and that includes closing tax loopholes or else. That kind of mentality gave us the Perfect Storm.

Greece is in trouble because of austerity? Are you serious?

No:

They were trying to make this arguement about France as well. Decades of free loading Socialists draining the system dry and because one year of half-hearted austerity didn't immediately fix things, austerity doesn't work. Some of the more delusional liberals were actually trying to blame austerity for the current state of the European economy as well.

Jody---if we are ever to have a viable two party system where each party fairly represents different interests and works at a compromise for the good of us all, we need people like Jeb Bush to speak out and remind us of our history. Reagan did compromise with the Democrats and he raised taxes 11 times.

NJNB -- Greece is also in trouble because many felt paying taxes was unnecessary or unpatriotic. Sound familiar?

It became his problem when he ACCEPTED the job. It became his fault when he ACCEPTED the job.

I don't think he expected the GNOP Grand Poobah's to be plotting total gridlock for 4 years on the night of his inauguration...

Since when did it become acceptable to sit on your hands collecting full pay & benefits because you're side lost?

We were in the middle of a full blown depression & that is how they chose to assist in our recovery?

Treasonous Republican bastards!

Our debt will kill us as a great country. Thank you Obama. Thank you GOP.

Feisty, you over simplify. Treasonous? A bit strong. Just politics as usual.

NoLimit, anyone who studies history understands we were on the brink of depression. You can look at graphs of both periods and they could practically be superimposed one on the other; the parallels are astounding. The entire financial system was collapsing in 2008 just as it did in 1929; income disparity was the highest since prior to the Great Depression, political polarization was at its highest just as it was, etc. TARP and the Stimulus both stopped the bleeding and both prevented a complete fall off the cliff. It isn't hard to see just how awful it was and just how close we came to a second Great Depression--that is if one has an open mind about facts.

MarkTaft, wrong, just thank the GOP which claims to be fiscally responsible while doing the opposite for 30 years.

Feisty, Grand Pooh bahs is a perfect description of them.

Not so sure Mark:

Maybe not treasonous, but how about seditious...

at the very least, I would venture that Ryan, Boehner, McConnell, Luntz & company are guilty of conspiracy against America:

http:/ /www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/08/1098434/-Eric-Cantor-Paul-Ryan-Kevin-McCarthy-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz

Republican/Tea planned to sabotage the U.S. Economy back in 2009 and THAT is the reason for their obstructionism and for McConnell making his famous statement about his purpose in the Senate: to insure that the President only served one term.

How out of touch is that?

Jody--my financial anxiety comes from the fact that the Republicans might get back in office and do the same thing to the economy as they did during the Bush administration.

Steeler - If the GOP gets back in charge they will do worse than they did during Bush because we are not back to that level, financially. We cannot afford the GOP way. It will mean the death of the middle class and of the United States!

And of course you KNOW THE FUTURE because you picked up your crystal ball and it told you exactly what the GOP would do? Is that the sum of your post ?? Sorry, imaginations from you are useless !

jim -#'s -- No crystal ball needed. The GOP plan is too privatize everything, including education. You will be given a voucher to partially cover your healthcare and possibly your child's K-12 education. They will end SS as we know and hand over the money to the Wall Street gamblers. That money will no longer generate money for the fund, instead monies will be siphoned off the top to line the pockets of hedge funds and such. They will completely deregulate the financial institutions, including Wall Street, giving them free reign to reek havoc and to finish us off they will eliminate all regulations that protect our land, air and water from pollutions.

Look at all the teapubs who now want to be JUST LIKE Europe. LMAO

I see another "Carnak the Magnificent" wannabee in #3.16. Again, we have another libbie claiming to be an expert in everything the GOP will or will not attempt !

Well, at least this statement is the closest thing we will have to "transparency" during the Obama administration ...... we can SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU ! All the rantings and ravings in the rest of your post is designed to play the "boogeyman" ! No "vouchers" for health care, that is simply bull$hit. Romney is clearly on record as saying he would lead a repeal of Obamacare ..... which is nothing more than another ill-founded government entitlement program !

jim - feel better now after your rants? My gosh you are predictable - no information - but predictable!

Do countries....just up and decide to enact austerity programs because they think its a great idea? I hardly think so, they do it because they are broke for one reason or another. My director lives in Dijon France, but he grew up in Greece. We had several meetings last month when he was here. He told us in no uncertain terms that most of the countries in the Euro union have for the past 20 years or so lived high off the country and politicians were voted in to make sure they got their lifestyles. He has not worked for this company as long as I (We get 23 holidays with Vac included) He gets 7 full weeks off every year and a shutdown week at Christmas. He MUST take these holidays according the the Work Council of his country. And some are even worse like Italy and Spain. They are where they are because of how they have lived for the past 20 some years......flat assed BROKE.

My director lives in Dijon France, but he grew up in Greece.

Did he serve with you in Viet Name too?

You expect people to believe anything that passes your lying lips?

Sorry... Harry... once a bull@!$%#ter always a bull@!$%#ter...

jim #'s -- For now on just call me Magnificent. I'm good with that.

jim - and yet imaginations from me are 10 times better than anything from you!

THANK YOU JODY. For years, Republicans used to support deficit spending to restore economic growth. They did it under Bush 41, they did it under Bush 43, they even did it under Reagan. Unfortunately, ever since they were hijacked by the far right in the 1980s, they now attack deficit spending under Democrats. It is a sad reminder of how polarized Congress has become. Do you know WHY it doesn't get covered by the media??? Because they are either sponsoring the conservatives (Fox News, Newsmax, etc.) or terrified of being derided as "the liberal media" by their well-entrenched conservative competitors.

no joe, no bo, nj

Wow, Jody. Just wow.

Greece is in trouble because of austerity? Are you serious?

Well, technically Greece went into trouble because of their bad credit. Unfortunately, the harsh requirements that Germany put forth in return for Eurozone bailouts only made things worse.

Greece is in trouble because their spending went through the roof. When the time came to pay their bonds, they were flat broke- so most bond holders had to take less than half of the amount they lent the government. This does not make for happy lenders- anymore than you would be happy to lend money to your brother in law if he only repaid 40% of what he borrowed first time around.

Actually, Greece had a number of problems that contributed to it's fiscal crisis. There are the cases that it had an overstretched welfare state, but that is greatly overstated. Normally, creditors would be okay with high deficits during recessions, but the problem with Greece was because they had a large structural deficit, which was made borrowing basically impossible. There are many reasons why Greece built up such a large structural deficit, besides having large social programs. For one thing, Greece had lackluster GDP growth after 2008, with revenues losing pace with spending. In addition, an inefficient tax collection system greatly reduced potential revenues, not to mention widespread tax evasion (are you listening tax cutters???). Greece was once a booming economic country; but it was hit hard by the recession.

The austerity measures Greece promised to put in place have not, yet, been enacted. People are reacting to the promise of cuts in government handouts- not the actuality. If the "Free Stuff" party wins this week's elections, you can kiss the Eurozone goodbye- Spain and Italy will follow Greece, as they will be closed out of the bond market- and, without borrowed money, there is no more free stuff.

Actually, several immediate austerity packages have been passed, along with pay freezes, bonus cuts, and tax increases. And the results included massive spikes in unemployment, crumbling GDP numbers, and mounting debt from the downturn caused by the very plan that was supposed to fix the debt problem. I am not against the Greeks balancing their finances; I am against the Greeks balancing their budget without focusing on spurring economic growth in the short-term. You cannot secure long-term deficit reduction without trying to have the economy recover. And enough with the government handout crap. Everyone here knows it's bull@!$%#. You want to attack our allies??? Fine, go ahead. More countries for us to invade.

Oh, and Jody? We're next, by the way. That cut in our bond rating? We're right after Spain in the eyes of folks who buy bonds.
Not the greatest spot in the world- not Greece, yet, but headed that way.

Spain thought they were too big to be closed out of the bond market, too- even after they were warned they were not.

If you only you right-wingers would understand that YOU IDIOTS cost us our credit rating. Your @!$%#ing obstructionism and no-new-taxes pledge cost this country it's credit rating. You refused a deal that Obama had; $3 trillion in spending cuts, $1 trillion in tax increases, that the credit agencies would have accepted. But no, you had to listen to your lobby-friend Grover Norquist instead of the majority of the American people, who by the way WANT taxes raised on the wealthy. So much for serving the American people.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Actually, Mr. Romney has no clue about the economy. He lives in a la la land bubble!

Good ole Jeb says his father and Reagan wouldn't be welcome in the Republican party today. I guess not mentioning if his brother would fit in speaks volumes. Is it because George W. would be too moderate for the Republican party now?

Look no further than this report on American wealth: “Median net worth declined from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010, a Fed survey of family finances found. The median marks the point where half had more and half had less.

That's probably why, the middle class is shrinking, the rich are getting richer, the poor getting poorer...

When I ask an obamamite what has Barry done to deserve a second term, they'll usually pause and say 'It's Bush's fault' or some variation on that tired old theme!

The truth is not even obama's strongest supporters can give a reason why they like him so much! Very interesting indeed!

Romney made Millions working for Bain Capital.

Obama Lost Trillions working for Us.

Obama has lost more money than all the bankrupt companies in US history combined.

If you took the money Obama has lost in 3 years and used it to pay for health care - we all could have free health care for over 25 years!!

Obama Lost Trillions working for Us.

Obama has lost more money than all the bankrupt companies in US history combined.

Not true. In looking at facts and figures, the national debt increase is normal spending that has been in place even before Obama took office. So he is responsible for no increase.

The right wing is selling the big lie. Truth be told, tax cuts we couldn’t afford and two unfunded wars were a main cause of national debt increase.

And if people are silly enough to believe Romney or Ryan on their budget plan, in which more tax cuts and spending cuts are the answer, then they really are fools.

So, please remember facts are facts, and you should not make up your own facts, that have been proven to be a lie.

So the 16 Trillion Debt is just made up numbers - sure it is?

Wow - You guys believe anything Ed Shulitz says

Maybe we should pass Obama's Budget - We first will have to get at least ONE person to vote for it.

Job1 - Would you have voted for Obama's Budget?

When you question "Obama's Budget", the dems get strangely silent .... ever notice that ?

When you question "Obama's Budget", the dems get strangely silent .... ever notice that ?

Beacuse we are weary of explaining the mechanics of this to you over and over and over. You have the facts, but you refuse to acknowledge or read or understand. You prefer instead your blind fear and ignorance and ideologue.

Oh, fielden ..... you are going to pull out the "facts" bs line again ? Whenever you libbies are at a temporary loss of answer, you try to imply mental superiority, or do a cut and paste of someone else's OPINION ..... and then try to present such as "FACT".

The "FACT" is that Obama's budget proposals have yet to receive ONE (1) vote of support from his own party ! Spin that genius.

There is no blind fear or ignorance ........ THERE IS NO BUDGET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama will not take Wisconsin. Anyway, as for personal income, I came into the world with nothing and have managed to hang on to most of it.

The people of Wisconsin aren't stupid, and for that reason they will not let Romney carry their Great State!

That's right. They are not stupid. I'm a resident. The presidential election will run along the same lines as the recall.

The presidential election will run along the same lines as the recall.

LOL!

Someone is suffering from some serious methane poisoning...

I live here. I work here. Try adding some substance to a conversation for a change.

I live here. I work here.

I'll be there getting out the vote for President Obama just like in 2008!

We all know how that one ended... lol

PS: Isn't President Obama up by 7% over Willard?

If any one thinks before they vote all states will go for Romney.

If stupidity continues then we know the outcome and America looses again with Obama.

skonsin

The left doesn't get it. They think they can tell you what to believe and that your to stupid not to see thru there BS. That's how it worked in 08 so that's what they will do again. 2010 and the recall does not make any sense to them and they can't see their folly.

Stupid is and always will be stupid.

Red- Well you have to do what you believe in. I have no problem with that. The 7% is based upon the exit polls that were done during this past recall. The Journal Sentinel did a good article about that, but that's another story. See you in Wisconsin!

Ru- Right. The 08 plan will not work in '12.

Red is from Chicago. That's a shoe-in. Wisconsin is not. It would not make sense for here to stay in Chicago to push the vote. There is no one there left to convert. Like Job1 above, I am predicting Wisconsin. I know nothing about the other states. People in this state have their minds made up, and have had long before the recall.

Skonsin-

You keep on believing that. Matter of fact, Romney has it wrapped up in Wisconsin, so just sit this one out. Don't believe all those ADJUSTED exit polls that still showed Obama up by seven points, that is all liberal spin. Kick back, relax, watch the results on TV.

Enjoy!

Alot of people here in Illinois voted Obama in 08 will not be voting for him in November and you can take that to the bank Red.

TN - maybe you misread me. I referred to an article in the Milwaukee Journal about the exit polls. It was an observational article, but knowing the folks in my community, it made sense. Dems are more likely to speak with an exit pollster than is a republican or independent. I didn't state this earlier because it's not my article and because half the people on this thread will not believe it, and I'm not going to defend someone's observation against someone elses observation. I will defend my own. I had stated that in my opinion, Obama will not carry Wisconsin.

Zap - and a lot of people who did not vote Obama in Illinois in 2008 will be voting for him in 2012. They know Mitt is nothing but an empty suit and the thought of another Republican finishing what Bush started has them determined to put Obama back in office.

Skonsin - Obama WILL carry Wisconsin - and by a larger margin than 7%.

Seeking- That may be what you want, but it's still just an opinion. No better than mine.

Skonsin: The presidential election will run along the same lines as the recall.

You mean the lines where Obama beat Romney by 7 points, right?

Fielden- Did they have the election already? I didn't see anywhere that Obama beat Romney by 7 points. Maybe you have a private source of info? You should give yourself another thumbs up.

SeekingSanity- And a lot of people who didn't vote for Obama in 08 are becoming registered voters to vote him out in 12.

Skonsin - but just as good as yours!

Zap - and more are being registered to vote him in for a 2nd term in November. We can do this all day but he'll win in November!

Seeking -

A. yes, it is

b. no, he won't

c. unknown

skonsin -

b. yes, he will

Seeking -

And how many of them live in the graveyards? That is one of the normal 'residences' for democrat voters around Chicago.

"

Mitt Romney now leads President Obama for the first time in Wisconsin where the president's support has fallen to its lowest level to date.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Romney with 47% of the vote to Obama’s 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Prior to this survey, Obama's support in the state has ranged from 45% to 52%, while Romney has earned 41% to 45%. Last month, the numbers were Obama 49%, Romney 45%. The president led his likely Republican challenger by 11 points in March - 52% to 41%." oops!

"The latest Rasmussen Reports"

There's your trouble. I'll believe it when a polling agency other than Fox or Rasmussen says so.

Ahhh... or until Rasmussen prints what you want to read. Sorry to add to your confusion. No, I really am.

Oh, okay, then I can use the Huffington Post as a credible source? Because it would amount to the same thing....

Oh, ok, then you can use whatever you want. The original back and forth was with Seeking Sanity and i threw that in there as a smirk. We were having fun with it all about Wisconsin.

I'm glad that Jeb Bush has taken aim at his Fellow Republicans, such as the radical right, and their failure of bipartisan support to get things done.

Jeb is married to a Hispanic ( who was arrested for not declaring thousands of dollars in purchases she had made ).....do we really need MORE illegal, rule-breaking sneaky Hispanics in our country?

The "illegal immigrant-haters' are called Americans.......they care that their country is being turned into a 3rd world mess. Anyone that defends illegals over their own countrymen is a traitor.

jw- These people are even worse. They want illegals to vote in our elections, recieve benefits that only citizens should receive, and they set up "sanctuary cities" to keep illegals from being arrested and deported, causing massive problems with gangs and crime and clogging emergency rooms.

Here's where some Obama groupie will come in and explain tha "more illegal aliens have been deported under Obama than any previous administration."

If that's true, why isn't Obama making that a major positive part of his campaigning? Why isn't he touting his record on deporting illegals? Is it because his BASE supports illegal immigration? Does he fear alienating Hispanics?

So true....every one that supports the libs also supports replacement of American workers will illegals.

Obama's deportation numbers are false and he is making up his own immigration policy, allowing Africans with AIDS, etc to enter our country. Ya'll are stupid to allow this and don't really understand the impact especially during this downturn

------Si habla espaniol?......you will soon.

jw101 - okay, not a Bush fan but just because Jeb is married to a Hispanic woman does not mean she is illegal. I'd bet against it. What a totally ignorant jump to make!

Obama's deportation numbers are accurate so get over it!

Damage123

jw- These people are even worse. They want illegals to vote in our elections, recieve benefits that only citizens should receive, and they set up "sanctuary cities" to keep illegals from being arrested and deported, causing massive problems with gangs and crime and clogging emergency rooms.

Danger, danger, danger. When are you going to realize that illegals DON'T receive a lot a benefits??? Sure, they may get tax breaks, but they even pay taxes, like the payroll tax. In fact, they are subsidizing Social Security without getting any benefits. Chances are, when you go on SS part of your benefits will come from an illegal paycheck. And many illegal immigrants are actually lawful people, mainly because they are terrified of being deported if arrested.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Illegals do not receive benefits? Are you insane?

Visit Dallas, where the illegal women jump out of the F150 trucks driven by their boyfriends, that work jobs under the table. The illegal women and children flow out of the food stamp office, over 100 every day. Free food stamps, health care and education.

Keep paying, suckers.

Also I didn't say Jeb's wife was illegal, she is just a greedy Hispanic

jw101

Illegals do not receive benefits? Are you insane?

Visit Dallas, where the illegal women jump out of the F150 trucks driven by their boyfriends, that work jobs under the table. The illegal women and children flow out of the food stamp office, over 100 every day. Free food stamps, health care and education.

Correction: I said that illegal immigrants do not receive Social Security benefits. And no, I'm not insane. I'm just tired of people bashing illegal immigrants. The truth is, we need immigration reform, along the lines of McCain and Ted Kennedy's bill. We cannot deport 11 million people; that is just unethical and impossible. The vast majority have been here for at least 5 years. My personal position is model immigration on the lines of countries like Canada, raise the cap of all foreign student visas to roughly 600,000, offer every college graduate with a green card, and focus especially on chemists and engineers. We will need an extra 2.8 million of these scientists and engineers, but we will only have about 540,000 people for them. I say let every illegal who has been here for more that 5 years to apply for citizenship AS LONG as they have not committed a crime, but reduce their sponsors to their nuclear family. I also offer a 6 year work grant for low skilled laborers that can renew such a grant twice, so as to avoid hurting businesses that, unfortunately, rely on illegal immigrants.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Anything new to post, or just the same distorted "cut and paste" from yesterday?

Enjoy your environmental collapse, liberal-hater. Hope you're proud you helped warm the planet and destroyed our amber waves of grain.

It looks these folks on the right have finally lost it. It sounds like they believe their own fake outrage.

Liberals support Obama

Obama has:

Allowed taxpayer money to be "loaned" to private car companies and investment firms

Allows the banks to charge any interest rate they want on Credit Cards

Allows illegals to work under the table and will not E-Verify them for jobs

Extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

------------with a liberal like that, why are you all afraid of Republicans??

Duh, yea. Glad to see the writer made sure to spin the left side explanation of how this is a good thing. Also I did not see the part about how the rich are getting richer and the corporations have more profits than they know what to do with. Let's face it people, dem. or repub. or indep. we are all screwed. Obama has made sure that America will be in debt for hundreds of years if not forever as I have seen the numbers on how long it would take to repay the deficite. Romney does not care about the poor, he says that there are already safe guards for them. I guess thats why there are no one going living on the street or going hungry. He will privatize social security and medicare so that his rich buddies get more than they get already while at the same time reducing the benefits to the elderly . Money buys government offices not votes. You would thing people would have wised up by now but a free lunch and a beer and a lie still gets the vore.

Doctor Seuss was a liberal. Some even say, a socialist. You are a hack. Cute, but a hack.

Your going to make all the LWNJ's cry - they dont like facts that aren't "fine"

We don't need to get no facts right. All them smart folks are libs!!

Run for cover... chicken little...

You are hilarious. Reading your nutty posts are even more hilarious. You have 3 things working against you. Red hair, you live in the broke state of Illinois, and you are a full fledged democrat communist without a clue. Get a job!

fine

fine

fine

fine

those are 4 letters Obama will choke on in the debates!

The reasons they give are clearly made up fake outrage reasons of people who just hate the President, with no facts to show why. It’s more of the canned and false made up facts from the extreme right wing play book. I think many Obama haters just don’t like having a man of color who is smarter than them in charge.

A sad lot these republicans have become.

Obama has already explained his out-of-context "private sector is fine" remark. Romney claims it shows Obama is out-of-touch.

When the debates start, how will Romney explain HIS frequent "out-of-touch" comments:

1) The $10,000 bet with Rick Pery during the Iowa debate last December.

2) After listening to a group of unemployed Floridians explain the challenges of looking for work, Romney stated "I'm also unemployed." and chuckled. "I'm networking," Mr. Romney replied. "I have my sight on a particular job."

3) Romney also said: "I like the fact that most of the cars I see are Detroit-made automobiles. I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pickup truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. And I used to have a Dodge truck, so I used to have all three covered."

4) The $55,000 elevator for the extra cars stowed in the 3,600-square-foot parking bay in his 11,000 square feet, $12 million beach home.

5) When asked how, if elected president, he would address housing and foreclosure problems in the U.S., Romney stated "One is, don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up."

6) Romney responded to an illegal immigrant question in a debate with: "So we went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property, I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."

7) Romney said : "I think it's a real problem when you have half of Americans — almost half of Americans that are not paying income tax. My own view with regards to tax policy is that we ought to provide help to the people that have been hurt most by the Obama economy, and that's the middle class. It's not those at the low end and it's certainly not for those at the very high end. It's for the great middle class, the 80 to 90 percent of us in this country."

8) Mitt Romney, January 2012: "Even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work [...] And people said, "Well that's heartless." And I said, "No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that day care, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work." (I guess if you are a woman and don't work, one Cadillac makes you a welfare queen; two makes you Ann Romney.)

9) At a NASCAR race, Romney said he doesn't follow the sport "as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners.'' Football, also: "I've got a lot of good friends — the owner of the Miami Dolphins and the New York Jets — both owners are friends of mine," Romney said in an interview with an Alabama radio host.

10) Can't find a job, college grad? Borrow money from your folks to start a business. April 2012 Romney said: "We've always encouraged young people -- take a shot, go for it, take a risk and get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business." Romney then shared the story of sandwich magnate Jimmy John, who Romney said borrowed $20,000 from his parents to launch his first sandwich shop.

Now who is out of touch with the middle class?

The only economy growing is the welfare/food stamp economy.

job1 -- Is your contention that if one disagrees with the President then they either hate him or they are racist?

I do not hate the President, I dislike his policies. I am against the ACA as passed, I am against Dodd-Frank as passed, I am against the stimulus, I am against the government takeover of the student loan program, I am against his energy policies, I am disappointed that he has divided this great country, I am disappointed that he is not the unifier he claimed to be, I am against the Attorney General and the President's support of him, I am surprised at his alleged (by the New York Times) policy of choosing what terrorists to murder given his outrage at the alleged mistreatment of terrorists, I was disappointed that he ordered the murder of an American citizen, ...

If the state get to excersize ther rights, our livs get better. Like raising the speed limit to 90 in TX (more roadkill for dinner!!) and Vote IDs keepin ilegal alians out!!

Figures you are from Texas. Alians? LMAO

CherylLM

The econonomy is growing, compared with some European countries. It's adding jobs, but at a much slower pace. And the Dow Jones is "up", but not as high as it was.

Is MSNBC kidding? Is this how they define "recovery"?

We're growing compared to some European countries? Almost our entire history as a nation we've been growing compared to "some European countries"! We're "adding jobs", but still don't have as many people as we had working before Obama took office and something like 23 MILLION people are unemployed or underemployed! And the Dow Jones is not based on ANY economic indicator other than the supposed worth of the companies that people invest in.

Cheryl, you do realize that MSNBC is merely comparing our economic situation with many European countries, that have adopted Republican-like austerity measures and have fell deep into recession, right??? Now, we could have had 2 million extra jobs over the few years had we past a paid-for jobs bill, but apparently all you righties want is a bad economy to criticize Obama with. We could also put hundreds of thousands of people back to work with infrastructure bills, but unfortunately the GOP doesn't want to.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to get serious about our economy. Millions of people are out of work; consumer demand is lagging; and our recovery is slow. At the same time, our infrastructure; roads, bridges, waterways, etc, are crumbling. Right now, bond yields for Treasury bills are in the negative. We can easily borrow money and have little to now future cost. We must tackle our infrastructure crisis. That is why I advise a massive, $2 trillion plan over the next 10 years to fix our roads and bridges, modernize our power grid, and fix our water infrastructure. That will create, based on an economic rule of thumb that $1 billion=25,000 construction jobs and assuming that roughly 75% of all funds will be used, around 37.5 million jobs over the next decade. A simple way to pay for this is to raise the gas tax to 30.4 cents and raising a 10% surtax on anyone making over $1 million. The rest, if there is any, will be borrowed. This is a massive jobs program; every dollar put into infrastructure would add $1.59 to the economy; assuming that $1.5 trillion is spent on infrastructure, that means that nearly $2.4 trillion will be pumped into the economy over the next decade, increasing estimated economic growth by anywhere between 1.7% and 2.4%. This is a great economic opportunity, and it should not be ignored.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

What are you 12? Scratch that, even a twelve year old can remember the Bush administration and the disaster his policies wrought.

Tell it to Barack Obush he might care what you have to say.

Let's remember that if we stay the course with President Obama, jobs and the economy will continue to get better, and in 4 years the troubles caused by the W. Bush years will be a great history lesson on the failures of the Republican Party.

Wow ! Job1 and Amy are back to the blame game !! "Staying the Course" of ongoing, massive $1.3 trillion annual deficits is heading our country toward a financial cliff which will include another credit downgrade ! As of now, $.40 of every dollar goes for debt service alone. And you guys want to increase the debt ???

Until our country makes fundamental changes to encourage manufacturing in this country once again, and focuses on the long-overlooked balance of trades deficit, we will continue to struggle and the recessions will be both longer and deeper. Staying the course of Obama's failed economic policies is staying the course for bankruptcy !

jim-1455434

Wow ! Job1 and Amy are back to the blame game !! "Staying the Course" of ongoing, massive $1.3 trillion annual deficits is heading our country toward a financial cliff which will include another credit downgrade ! As of now, $.40 of every dollar goes for debt service alone. And you guys want to increase the debt ???

Actually, we may be able to avoid a credit downgrade by simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and the sequestration to start, cutting deficits by over $5 trillion over the next decade. And, if Congress doesn't bungle the debt ceiling crisis again, they most likely won't downgrade us.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

foxturd lies AGAIN! See below:

See attached:

BUT there is no doubt that shrub cut taxes, started at least one war of convenience and gave grandpa near free viagra for life all the while presiding over the biggest economic crash since the 1930's...

fox turd just on dept. of treasury they stated in 2000 there was a 230 billon surplus. Don't give half fact's.

mike -

Projected surplusses are meaningless unless realized.

Besides, if there was a surplus, then why did the debt grow?

By definition the debt is added to by deficit spending that was in excess to the tax receipts if it is not paid back the same fiscal year.

Besides, if there was a surplus, then why did the debt grow?

By definition the debt is added to by deficit spending that was in excess to the tax receipts if it is not paid back the same fiscal year.

Well, surpluses don't necessarily have to be used to pay down debt; in many cases, they are used in spending measures or tax rebates (aka Bush tax cuts). Plus debt doesn't necessarily have to result from deficit spending. With Treasure bonds/bills commonplace all over the world, investors can easily buy those bonds even when surpluses occur, because let's say the Treasury wants to bankroll a bridge across Lake Superior but didn't want to use any surplus money; so they borrowed it. You're looking at the very basic, microeconomic definition of the debt. National debt requires complex and macroeconomic positions about the debt.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

End of 1992 - $6.5 trillion GDP
End of 2000 - $10.0 trillion GDP
End of 2007 - $14.1 trillion GDP

So under Clinton, GDP grew by $3.5 trillion and under Bush in 6 years it has grown by $4.1 trillion.

CitizenBain -

You should check the facts about Romney's record as governor. Better yet, let's ask the people who lived there while he was Governor:

Mitt Romney’s Approval Ratings as Governor

Date / Approval / Disapproval / Notes

Nov. 18, 2003 / 66% / 33% / Before Supreme Court ruling on Gay Marriage.

Nov. 27, 2003 / 45% / 39% / After taking a stance against Gay Marriage.

July 2004 / 48% / ?

Jan. 2005 / 56% / ?

March 2005 / 52% / 37% / After rumors of running for president.

April 2005 / 43% / ?

March 2006 / 46% / 47% / After announcing not running for re-election.

May 2006 / 46% / 52%

June 2006 / 39% / 56%

Nov. 2006 / 34% / 65% / Lowest approval of governorship.

Dec. 2006 / 39% / 59% / End of governorship.

If he did such a great job, why was he so unpopular?

If the people of Massachusetts didn't want to give him four more years, why should all of America take a chance?

It's on the treasury web site,there was a surplus.

I find it ironic, the rightwing is always spouting off about personal responsibilty, freedom and the free market, but since the country isn't as prosperous as we'd like, suddenly it's all the President's fault. Not Congresses,' mind you, or local and state government, or, God forbid, corporate CEOs, but the executive of the federal government's fault, the same entity Tea Partiers keep telling us should be shrunk to the size it can be drowned in a bathtub. The right wing wants government out of our lives, but President Obama is still supposed to create jobs for one and all. Irrational.

Given the choice between Obama and Romney there is no choice. The JOBS programs Obama tried to create have not happened thanks to the Republicans blocking his every effort.. Can't find a job? Thank the Republicans. They have done their best to destroy this economy over the last four years. "I hope he fails" has been the Republican motto no matter which average American gets hurt. Raise taxes on the very rich: "Never". Cut services not just for the poor but for the middle class as well: "Of course".

I want the Republicans to win:

-----they will help their wealthy friends

----they have no clue how bad the economy is

---they will give more tax breaks to people/companies that don't need them

----they will have to answer to millions of broke angry citizens

This should b fun !!--------------------

FoxturdActionFigure

How fortunate for the fate of the Nation that your vote will count for naught.

Foxactionfool - as A. Lincoln said "Conservatism is the application of the tried and true as opposed to the untried and unknown.

Heading further into and further into nat. debt, every day adding $4B to the debt, is going to ruin us all.

Libertarians are so funny....

and they always have long posts that with lots of words signifying nothing.

Sorry Bill Still did not get the nomination of the libertarian party.... neither did Ron Paul

Job1 - are you serious? President Obama has told so many BS stories and used inaccurate fuzzy numbers relative to the economy he'll be made to look a fool easily. Couple that with Romney taking what Obama said then and comparing it to what we have now spells doom for the Dems.

Job1 - "Walker will not be re-elected"

Your record is almost as bad as Obama's - Maybe you should run for Senate so you can be the ONE senator that votes for Obama's budget.

Job1, it's hard to take Romney seriously. He's as breathless as a Miss Universe contestant, all wide-eyed and incredulous. I don't find him persuasive as he pants "don't you see?! don't see?!" trying to convince you of an idea that is based more on ideology than facts. No I don't "see" Mr. Romney. Sorry, go back to one of your five home states, would ya?

Job1

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

My favorite example of Romney trying to worm his way out of owning up to a past statement was this unbelievable Romneyism:

"I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was."

A fiction writer couldn't up with a character that is as much a stereotype of a lying politician as Romney actually is.

rebel, can you explain why the last three presidents 3 republican during recessions increased government employees at all levels and why during these times the recovery was faster. Can you explain why it is good when Republican Presidents do this but now it is bad when a democrat wants to do the same thing. Why are republicans bent on destroying this country and its people for party first mentallity. Is this only a power play to complete the republican take over of this country and make this a 1 party nation or otherwise known as a dictatorship.

They didn't increase govt. the way President Obama has in 3 years when you look behind the BS numbers he trots out that are disingenuous at best he has increased fed. govt. expansion by almost 20%.

Every Administration falls into the Beltway Boondoggle - and two wrongs whether a Republican or Dem do not make a right.

I guess Reagan destroyed the country by taking the mess he inherited from Carter and creating 16M jobs? Clinton created 20m - and he had an unprecedented tech boom which Reagan did not and was able to cut defense spending thanks be to Reagan.

It's time for that to change and Romney can start by shutting down the Dept. of No Energy and the Dept. of No Education. That'll save $550B a year. Control of public schools can back to where it belongs in the state and local govt's.

You are right rebel, the last 3 republican presidents didn't increase govt the way Obama has in the past 3 years. They (meaning the last 3 republican presidents) increased Govt way more than Obama has.