If you listen to his ads you will hear …

I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

Listen to the voice, the tone … and he sure sounds like a bi-coastal serial job killer.

Repeat the lies often enough and someone will believe them. The change Romney speaks of can't be returning to Bush's tax and spend policies that got us into this mess...but until he actually proposes something different, what are we to believe?

Romney might've been a successful businessman, but that entailed understanding corporate problems. And unless we're ordered to relinquish our social security numbers in favor of a corporate ID, Romney won't know how to handle us either.

NitMitt Romney couldn't set a meaningful, truthful, stage no matter how many times he shakes his "Etch a Sketch".

SMH...This man is the biggest flip flopper of the century. He never, ever, has a consistent stance. All NitMitt does is morph into contractions.

"The record is that we have 23 million Americans that are out of work or stopped looking for work or underemployed

Curious that Willard mentions that since he's said that "he's unemployed"!....57K a day kinda unemployed!

Romney has made his policies clear:

Lower taxes (this enables government spending cuts and government worker cuts that aren't defense related), Deregulation of the financial markets (this allows for more profit conjuring from shuffling this stack of papers over to those papers and they make money off that somehow), Repeal of the Affordable Care Act (if you get sick it is your fault and hope you have money if you need care). For foreign policy, it is back to the era of the US vs. Russia, with us arming Syrian rebels while Russia arms the regime in power (sounds an awful lot like Afghanistan in the '80s), as well as throwing our weight around recklessly in world affairs because that is what he believes our role is on the world stage.

There will be more measures to restrict the decision of Roe V. Wade, as well as access to birth control because that would go against the desires of the theocracy/oligarchy they want in place.

I find it rather amusing that they support measures to ban Sharia law (notably in Kansas), all the while trying to enforce their Christian ethical doctrine on the people. Hypocrisy at its finest.

11 score and 3 years ago America elected a President who could not tell a lie. Come this November, America may elect a President who cannot tell a truth. Come a long way have you?

As one of my Native North American friends puts it … Wayward Willard was born with two tongues, a silver spoon and a fork. He eats with the spoon and talks with the fork. Considering their sad history under the yoke of our rapaciousness (Canada's also) I give full weight and respect to his sentiment.

ToUrsula-279622 who writes about Romney.

Repeat the lies often enough and someone will believe them.

Here is another lie for Barry that you forget or are blind to see.

Barack Obama quoted - "For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs."

Politifact says False Wrong in 2009, and wrong today

ideologyspoilstheview

11 score and 3 years ago America elected a President who could not tell a lie. Come this November, America may elect a President who cannot tell a truth.

Please let's not think like that. Americans elected Supreme Court gave that Yale/Wall Street cheerleader GW Bush 2xed

I ♥ed the spilt tongue, silver-spoon analogy. Leave it to our Native American friends to give us those pearls of wisdom .

NitMitt ≠ to truthful rationality

Obama/Biden 2012

Is it me or is there something wrong with this statement? Especially the part of .....preservation of the free press and the first First Amendment, Romeny took questions during a CLOSED press - question and answer session???? WTF.......

After delivering remarks in the Newseum, a museum in the nation's capital dedicated to the preservation of the free press and the First Amendment, Romney took questions during a closed-press question-and-answer session.

The election is a reality show, Mitt is out of touch. Obama will go back to Washington for a second term, Mitt goes home crying his Mitt off.

Congrats on AZ last night Democrats!

President Obama says something that was misconstrued and Mitt wants to hold his feet to the fire.

When Mitt makes a "gaffe" or does a complete 180 about almost every issue, that's perfectly fine.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

p.s. I hope you have a lot of headache meds Dennis. It looks like your state is in for a lot of ads and press today.

Concerned....

Here is another lie for Barry that you forget or are blind to see.

Barack Obama quoted - "For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs."

Politifact says False Wrong in 2009, and wrong today

#1.8 -

if you were as concerned a citizen as you claim, you wouldn't post something that is somewhat disingenuous, here is the full story on Politifact's decision:

"For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 in a speech at Milwaukee's Master Lock plant

President Barack Obama says American manufacturers are creating new jobs for the first time since 1990

Share this story:

President Barack Obama packed an upbeat job statistic for his visit to the Master Lock plant in Milwaukee.

"For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs," the president said on Feb. 15, 2012, as he praised Master Lock for bringing jobs back from China.

"American manufacturers are hiring for the first time since 1990," Obama said in repeating the claim two days later at a Boeing plant in Washington state.

The remarks got wide media play.

The claim of recent growth in manufacturing employment rang true: Wisconsin has added manufacturing jobs at a modest pace the last two years, seeing growth in durable goods production -- things like electric machinery, manufacturing equipment and auto parts.

And Wisconsin’s economy is as reliant on manufacturing jobs as any state. Wisconsin and Indiana have been trading the top spot in that category, state officials said.

Wisconsin’s last sustained growth period was from 1991 to 1999, when the state added almost 80,000 manufacturing jobs, peaking at 597,000, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted figures. The next decade was a bumpy ride down to about 425,000 jobs.

But what about the national picture, which was what Obama cited in his Master Lock visit?

Obama claimed the nation was experiencing the first uptick "since 1990."

But the nation experienced a sustained period of modest manufacturing growth deep into the 1990s, most of it under the watch of President Bill Clinton. He presided during the longest continuous economic expansion in U.S. history.

In fact, the nation’s manufacturing boat rose with that tide, for a time at least, ticking up in the middle part of that decade and peaking in 1997, federal employment statistics show.

None of this was news to the White House, whom we contacted after checking the president’s remarks against his speech text. They forwarded a blueprint by the White House’s economic advisers that says the growth is the best since "the late 1990s."

The reference was correct in the Milwaukee the speech text, too (the italics are ours):

"For the first time since the 1990s, American manufacturers are creating new jobs, which is good for companies up and down the supply chain. You’ve all heard enough about outsourcing. Well, more and more companies like Master Lock are now insourcing."

The White House said the president deviated from the text in Milwaukee, and it turns out he did the same thing in Washington state.

It may have been a misstatement, but it was what many news outlets focused on from his remarks, and what many at home heard as well.

The manufacturing uptick of the last two years is small – a 3 percent jump after a 35 percent drop the prior 12 years. Employment is still down compared to the start of Obama’s term. But the numbers have been in the plus column since January 2010.

So, in the end, the president got it wrong after he had it right.

And we’re rating what he said, not what he was supposed to say.

We rate the president’s claim False.

AL #s - If you read the whole article instead of picking out only what you want to you would see that President Obama also took questions after the PRESS was escorted out of the room. I still find it ironic that the Obama campaign does not try to run on their record or policies. But then when the incumbent is a failure and has no record he can only run against what the challenger MIGHT DO.

sfcret - might want to re-read that post. My guess is Mitt took questions after the press was escorted out of the room so he wouldn't have his comments reported. After all, we know he can't speak without someone filling him in on what to say and he clearly can't answer a question when his answer might get back to the public!

SeekingSanity - Are you just stupid or what, maybe you can't read. Obama also took questions after the press was escorted out of the room, what part of that don't you understand. Could it be that Obama didn't want his comments reported? Get your head out of your rear end.

America may elect a President who cannot tell a truth

If that happens somehow... do you have a spare room you would like to rent out? ;o)

Why are you and your ILK so concerned as to what Romney has to say or not say. YOU are NOT going to vote for the man anyway.

Even better question, why are YOU and your ILK so concerned about keeping him under wraps? lol

It's not OUR fault you nuts selected the most flawed candidate in history...

You own Willard now - lot's of luck! lmao!

Republicans made one helluva plunderous mess then blocked the President and democrats from cleaning it up. The democrats point that out, and the republicans criticize them for calling attention to it. Now Romney, the "Jackal of carrion" wants to be the new President, solely on a platform of further messes, and the republicans praise Him as a thoughtful, caring, and qualified thing, not really a "vulture" as some think, nor an authentic "crook", as others proclaim, but just a gentle, misunderstood, and really good natured "Jackal". Hee, hee, republicans in general, are nothing short of mentally ill folk masquerading as angry fools in search of new plunder.

Romney said. "He is not responsible for whatever improvement we might be seeing."

Wait a minute Romney just admitted that there has been an improvement!!!!

Obama/Biden 2012

sfcret - no I'm not stupid like you. See Obama's event was in May. I thought, and I think most people on this post did, that we were talking about today. See I was talking current events. Clearly you're just comfortable with past history!

Let's not talk about where you head is....

NoLimit - so Americans shouldn't be paying attention? Is that what you're saying? What an ignorant stance for any citizen to take but it appears to be the way you look at the elections. Better to not be informed, right?

Obama/Biden 2012

Feisty, nice job on #1.14. I tried to explain Politifact to CC this morning. This mornings' alleged lie presented by Concern turned out to be Politifact assuming that Congress, Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney would act to prevent the student loan rate from increasing based on the comments they made that they didn't think they should increase. Since when is one's expressed opinion a basis for analysis of a factual statement by President Obama which will happen UNLESS Congress acts.

In my view, Politifact is one of the worse fact checking groups as far as their meter ratings go. You really have to read the entire summary in order to figure out how they reached their conclusion. Often times they will state in their summary that whoever said whatever was right then they rate it as mostly false (or vice versa) based on some assumption Politifact makes that has no place in the assessment of the actual statement. Apparently Politifact has never heard the expression "never assume."

There is a difference between the Obama policies and the policies that have actually been implemented. The assumption appears to be that the policies we are currently operating under are Obama's policies. That totally disregards the fact that most of the policies Obama has proposed have not been passed by congress, so the policies currently in operation are only what have been allowed through the House and the filibuster. They do not bear much resemblance to what the President has proposed.

The election is a reality show, Mitt is out of touch. Obama will go back to Washington for a second term, Mitt goes home crying his Mitt off.

Thats total BS...

Mitt will just kick off his 2016 bid for the white house...

Obama's poll numbers are staying in the dumps .... "LOL"

Even the democrats are running to the Romney camp ....

Adios , Obamos .... "LOL"

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 44%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided ....

No one really wants Obama anymore .... "LOL"

No one ....

Feisty, nice job on #1.14. I tried to explain Politifact to CC this morning.

I think you mean Gingerbread Mamma!

But that alright...

I have had CC on ignore for a couple of weeks now... I don't have your patience with dealing with someone who makes Edith Bunker look like a Rhodes scholar!

Beisty Red Rotted Head.

Please accept my apologies for thou are mightier then the broom that you fly on. I hear it has to big a big broom to carry that wait. Please keep eating the popcorn and keep ignoring me. You can send your friends after me. don't get me going girlfriend.

Ginger: please read the last sentence on your post.

And we’re rating what he said, not what he was supposed to say.

We rate the president’s claim False.

• #1.14 - Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:00 PM EDT

I have to laugh at the ignorance of having so much information and not reading it all.

NoLimitSoldier50 --

Why are you and your ILK so concerned as to what Romney has to say or not say. YOU are NOT going to vote for the man anyway.

Everything he says won't mean anything to you, so why worry? Obama is the POTUS, so what he has to say is of interest at the present time. Politicians will say anything on the campaign trail so why get caught up in the hype.

Let me guess, you don't like the fact that people are talking about Willard Bath Mitt because (a) he embarrasses you, too, and/or (b) you don't have any answers for their criticisms.

Because I didn't see any answers in your post.

I'll bet you love voter suppression, too.

By the way, "ILK" is such a repulsive word. I suppose you know that, and that's why you choose it.

Thanks for the civil chat.

Concerned Citizen --

Beisty Red Rotted Head.

Oh, dear. I do hope you're not running for Mayor of the Munchkin Moral Highground, or anything.

Your "concern" is duly noted.

"You have no power here. Begone, before someone drops a house on you, too!"

This will be nothing more than SPIT BALLS @ 5 FEET !!!!!!!!

More smoke and mirror horse hockey.

BigBenAlaska --

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 44%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided ....

No one really wants Obama anymore .... "LOL"

No one ...

Lordy, lordy ... even Sarah Palin knows that the Rasmussen daily tracking poll taken on June 13, showing the race to be WITHIN the margin of error, is THE definitive daily tracking poll of the ENTIRE election season.

In other words, "Surrender, Dorothy."

That's the strategy, isn't it? NoLimitSoldier seems to have adopted the same talking point -- the race is already decided, so give it up.

So obvious, and yet so oblivious to one's own obviousness .... how DO you do it?

Must be the poppies.

Concern Citizen-856329... a big broom to carry that wait

Weight a minute there fella, just what is a Beisty and how much do they way?

NoLimitSoldier50 --

I see you have a bad f-ing habit of calling people ignorant. I don' know you and you do not know me so I think we can keep it respectful when referring to people in this room. I know exactly what I wrote.

(emphasis added)

Yes, and so do I. Like your use of the word "ilk" to describe those who don't agree with you. (#1.19)

Very respectful. Very respectful, indeed.

You are the Zen master of respectfulness.

Concerned Citizen --

I have to laugh at the ignorance of having so much information and not reading it all.

Oh, dear. Paging NoLimitSoldier50 to come quickly and clean up after the impolitic use of the word "ignorance."

Really, you two should study up and confer before you come out here. The official playbook isn't really all that long, you know, and it's written in big typeface, just for those of your "ilk."

That was beneath me, wasn't it? But it felt SO good.

Ah-h-h....Concerned.... reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? Reading the last line of the piece doesn't tell the whole story, but it suited your mindset. See that's one of the big differences between ideologues and more rational individuals, we read the fine print, a lot of times that's where the truth lies.

Politifact is not a good source to get confirmation or even take their word on what you are checking. They do not have a very good reputation in being good at it. Try factcheck.org or Snopes/urban legends next time, most folks will better believe you.

1 score and 3 years ago America elected a President who could not tell a lie. Come this November, America may elect a President who cannot tell a truth. Come a long way have you?

Have you even done any research on your perfect president?

1. Americans want higher taxes: During the debate over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama said that 80% of Americans support including higher taxes as part of the deal. But a Rasmussen poll taken the same week showed that only 34% believe a tax hike should be included in a debt-ceiling agreement.

2. Mother denied health insurance: During his presidential campaign, Obama said that his mother died of cancer after being denied coverage for a preexisting condition. He used her image in a campaign ad, repeated the claim in debates, and used the same rhetoric as President when he tried to sell ObamaCare to the American people. But a new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott says that Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, had health insurance through her employer and was only denied disability insurance.

3. Tax restraint for middle and lower class: Obama pledged during his campaign and throughout his presidency not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. But ObamaCare’s individual mandate will hit many under the $250,000 mark. (Obama’s own Justice Department said the mandate was a tax, not a penalty, when it argued its constitutionality.) Not to mention a higher federal cigarette tax and countless other “fees” in the health care law that hit the middle and lower class.

4. Shovel-ready jobs: When Obama was selling his $787 billion stimulus package, he consistently bragged about how shovel-ready construction jobs would be funded across the nation. Even the President later admitted that was a lie, when he told the New York Times: “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

5. Keep your doctor: President Obama repeatedly pledged that under his health care measure, Americans would be able to keep their doctors. However, with rising costs, many employers will dump their health care plans and force workers into the state health care exchanges (unless you belong to one of the unions getting ObamaCare waivers.) A survey by McKinsey & Company found that more than 30% of companies will discontinue coverage for their workers.

6. No lobbyists: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “We have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. … I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.” At least a dozen former lobbyists got top jobs in his administration at the beginning of his presidency, according to Politico, and National Public Radio reported the Obama administration was granting waivers to lobbyists to circumvent the ban.

7. Foreign money in campaigns: During his 2010 State of the Union address, and again during the 2010 midterm elections, Obama railed against foreign money influencing U.S. elections. The only problem was that there was no evidence to support the charge or, as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in the State of the Union audience, silently mouthed, “Not true.”

8. Arizona immigration law: During the battle over Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama said: “Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.” Uh, actually, Mr. President, it couldn’t. The law would allow law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status only when there is suspicion of a crime being committed.

9. Transparency: Obama pledged that transparency would be a top priority, but his administration refused to grant one-third of the Freedom of Information Act requests, according to an Associated Press analysis. He also was dishonest about transparency when he said that health-care negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN and that he would wait five days to sign a bill so people would have a chance to read it online.

10. Constitutional oath: During his January 2009 inauguration, Barack Obama pledged to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” yet he has consistently ignored the 10th Amendment giving powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. Exhibit No. 1: ObamaCare.

Hey, Conservatives --

When are you going to start demanding to see Mitt Romney's Harvard Law School transcripts?

Mark L --

But a new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott says that Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, had health insurance through her employer and was only denied disability insurance.

Maybe you ought to check that one out yourself. A "pre-existing condition" is the very reason that disability insurance is purchased, and it would never be grounds for denial. When you're too sick to work, it covers you. Perhaps it was some other reason. Either way, this statement is misleading.

When are you going to start demanding to see Mitt Romney's Harvard Law School transcripts?

I want to see Willard's tax returns!!!

If he can show them to John McCain - he can show them to US!

When are you going to start demanding to see Mitt Romney's Harvard Law School transcripts?

As opposed to Obama's? Still the only president to not release his transcripts...looks like someone may have had trouble in Economics...maybe...

SeekingSanity - Your post at 1.23 proves you really are stupid. Past history is May (less than a month ago) wow what planet do you live on? In your feeble mind, I guess, if it didn't take place today it's not current and past history, lol. The more you post the more you prove your head is up your rear end.

Let's see Romney set up a stage in front of a plant shuttered by Bain Capital. Just because Vulture Capitalism isn't illegal now, doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal -- Especially using tax payer money to line your pockets -- that's treason and treason is a serious crime.

Weight a minute there fella, just what is a Beisty and how much do they way?

Don't know what a Beisty is either, but I'm guessing they weigh way more than whey.

sfcret - so you got caught in stupidity and now want to blame me. Too bad - May is still past history. Plus our President answers reporters questions every day. Mitt has decided not to answer any that aren't pre-screened. Again, he can't stand on his own two feet. But, that's YOUR candidate!

And you're such a class act. Clearly your post shows that! No explanation needed for anyone but you on that!

@ Mark L --

As for the foreign campaign contribution issue, while it is true that the law nominally prohibits such contributions, what Citizens United did was to open the door for backdoor foreign contributions funneled through corporations with US presence. And THAT'S what President Obama was talking about when he said that, and what makes Alito's reaction evidence of either disingenuousness or utter cluelessness in a man who is supposed to be so smart.

Again, I find this statement to be misleading and lacking in understanding.

Hey AM, If that is what he was talking about, why didn't he say it instead of you having to say what you think he said?

@ Mark L --

I think you ought to look at this --

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107210001

It details how President Obama's mother did, indeed, have a disability insurance policy that denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if a person had seen a physician for the condition in the three months before starting work.

So the dispute was, in fact, about pre-existing conditions -- but disability, rather than medical insurance. A distinction without much difference, really. The fact that the medical insurer did not deny all her claims may either be a tribute to that insurer's humanity or a flaw in the way they wrote THEIR policy. Many health insurers would deny for this reason. Just apparently not his mother's.

Anna Molly - well put. Any "Supreme" Court Justice who doesn't understand the mess they've created with Citizens United is not being genuine and clearly not SCOTUS material.

Rocco --

Het AM, If that is what he was talking about, why didn't he say it instead of you having to say what he said?

He did say it, and I understood it at the time. Either Alito did, too, which makes him disingenuous, or he didn't, which makes him clueless.

The fact that the media has distorted it since then is merely testament to the state of the media today, and has no bearing on what the President actually said, which is recorded on video.

Distortion by the media is just par for the course.

Let's put this in simpler terms so you can digest it. If you don't understand or you misinterpret what your physics teacher says, that doesn't prove your physics teacher is wrong.

BigBenAlaska -- LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL.

Mark L -- To quote SNL, you ignorant slut, President Obama graduated magna cum laude (from Harvard) so why do we need his transcripts? We need to see yours.

Rocco-2976776 -- Try to keep up. We've been talking about Corporations Are People in terms of shareholders and board members who are from all around the world, and without transparency, they can drown out your "one man, one vote" with tons of money.

NoLimitSoldier, Concern Citizen, and the rest of you rightwingers, blah, blah, blah, where are Romney's tax returns?! Never mind, I don't really care what you post.

See AM? That's how I roll.

Mark L --

As opposed to Obama's? Still the only president to not release his transcripts...looks like someone may have had trouble in Economics...maybe...

So what do you suppose accounts for Mitt the genius not releasing his?

Maybe we could speculate about his Constitutional Law grade ... maybe.

True Pat --

See AM? That's how I roll.

LoL Yes, indeed, I do see. And thanks for the best laugh of my day, so far. ;-)

Tzalaran

Romney has made his policies clear:

Day 1 –

Keystone Pipeline = Create some temporary jobs for Canadians and help Big Oil export tar sands to China, because that's the real world – Ya gotta reward your campaign donors, everyone knows that.

Tax cuts and reform = Take over a country in distress, end all entitlements/safety nets and liquidate government assets, add a least 5 trillion to the debt/deficits by cutting taxes for the rich and increasing defense spending, and redistributing wealth to the 1%.

"Repeal and Replace" health care reform = Leave debt-strapped states to deal with skyrocketing health care costs, with every man, woman, and child to fend for his/herself per the Romney Race to the Bottom Social Darwinism Doctrine.

This from David Letterman: Day 2 –

Ann Romney reminds Mitt he lost by a landslide.

Let's see Romney set up a stage in front of a plant shuttered by Bain Capital. Just because Vulture Capitalism isn't illegal now, doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal

Yeah, shuttered doors...where would the GDP of America be without Baine? Here are just a few of the hundreds of companies that they invested in, or own...

AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings,Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group andThe Weather Channel.

Day 1 –

Keystone Pipeline = Create some temporary jobs for Canadians and help Big Oil export tar sands to China, because that's the real world – Ya gotta reward your campaign donors, everyone knows that.

Tax cuts and reform = Take over a country in distress, end all entitlements/safety nets and liquidate government assets, add a least 5 trillion to the debt/deficits by cutting taxes for the rich and increasing defense spending, and redistributing wealth to the 1%.

"Repeal and Replace" health care reform = Leave debt-strapped states to deal with skyrocketing health care costs, with every man, woman, and child to fend for his/herself per the Romney Race to the Bottom Social Darwinism Doctrine.

This is all just a blatant lie!

Anna Molly

So what do you suppose accounts for Mitt the genius not releasing his?

According to David Cay Johnston, Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns indicates that Romney has “been thinking about this since before Bain” but the American people deserve to learn:

Did Romney buy illegal, gray-market tax shelters?

Was Romney audited in a way that the government found serious problems?

Did Romney make use of offshore vehicles in order to defer or not pay taxes?

Did Romney take advantage of things that were not caught in audits by the IRS?

If Romney’s returns are clean, if there’s nothing to worry about, then why not just provide them?

Romney -- NOT in touch with the common man.

AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings,Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group andThe Weather Channel.

Please point out one company in your list which manufactures anything...

The majority of them sell cheap Chinese @!$%# at inflated prices!

*jeopardy music playing in the background*

We'll wait...

See AM? That's how I roll.

Ditto what Anna Molly said!

Anna - that cute little list posted by Mark L is from the site listed below. Is is the darling GOP talking point that has been circulating for over a year and has so many false statements, it borders on fake. Take this one:

Even the President later admitted that was a lie, when he told the New York Times...

Obama never admitted it was a lie. What the NYTimes article said was:

He realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works.

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/23/top-10-obama-lies/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html?pagewanted=all

SeekingSanity - Your post at 1.46, again shows your stupidity. "May is still past history". I guess in your feeble mind yesterday is past history but then you are like a little child, got caught and keep trying to talk your way out of it. But you have given me a good laugh.

Mark L --

Bain didn't start The Weather Channel. Bain has a stake in NBC, which Bain didn't start, either, although Romney IS something of a peacock. Bain used government subsidies, facilitated by high-paid lobbyists, to start Staples. Some of these were legitimate start-ups, but if I were you, I wouldn't mention too loudly that Bain has anything to do with Clear Channel. Domino's Pizza was started by some guy out of his garage, a lot like Godfather's Pizza. I doubt that Bain started HCA, or Sealy, or AMC, or Aspen, or Burger King, or Burlington Coat Factory. They're merely investors. like anyone else might be.

If I had money in the market right now, I would probably own a lot of those same companies. So what's your point? The angel investor and passive investor side of Bain not the part of Bain that anyone is concerned about.

It's the dark side of Bain -- the vulture capitalist side of Bain -- that people are concerned about, and rightly so.

If you haven't watched this video, created by Newt Gingrich's SuperPAC, you should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE

Watch this, and see whether it balances out your thinking.

Oh, come on, Feisty -- you know better than that.

Dunkin' Donuts makes donuts.

Or, wait ........................................ ????

Are you saying that they're cheap Chinese knock-offs of decent donuts?

Always fresh. Always.

@ RedDevPS --

Figures. Thanks.

BTW -- There's also a BIG problem with the Tenth Amendment statement, but I decided to let it go. The upshot is that the challenge to ACA is primarily based on the Commerce Clause, and secondarily on the Necessary and Proper Clause, and not directly on the Tenth Amendment. Of course, Mark has no other examples to show "consistent" disregard of the Tenth Amendment, either.

We could, on the other hand, show ample proof of how George W. Bush had a total lack of regard for the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, and both while he was President and while he was governor of Texas, the 8th Amendment -- all just "pieces of paper" to George W -- but I highly doubt that Mark would listen much to that, either.

Are you saying that they're cheap Chinese knock-offs of decent donuts?

LOL!

All I know is Willard has never stepped foot inside a Dunkin Doughnut's...

Him wagging his finger at the one sitting on the table the other day like it was going to attack him or something was PRICELESS!

WTF doesn't know what a doughnut is?

Maybe he should start serving them to the reporters on his aircraft rather then warm cookies...

What do you think?

sfcret - the only child in this conversation is you. And, you're really not good for a laugh - just pity. Again, Obama talks to the press daily - Mitt refuses to do so. Facts, too bad your can't handle or dispute them.

Feisty Dumb Fux @ 1.30: "I have had CC on ignore for a couple of weeks now... I don't have your patience with dealing with someone who makes Edith Bunker look like a Rhodes scholar!"

This is hilarious, it looks like your statement could be used by many participates on this board referring to you. You know, with you almost always being first to post your drivel and always being first to get collapsed.

LoL I don't think Romney gives the reporters on his aircraft cookies of any persuasion.

Or, wait ............................

Film at 11. ;-)

Hey Anna Molly,

Any thoughts on why our resident rabble-rouser has been so quite today?

Do you think it might have something to do with his prediction in ND yesterday? lol

Another difference between liberals & conservatives, liberals don't cut & run when things don't turn out as expected...

Here's hoping he can remove all of the egg from his face! ;o)

You know, with you almost always being first to post your drivel and always being first to get collapsed

You are under the mistaken impression this somehow bothers me? lol

Whatever...

Oh, yes, I have some thoughts about it, but I'm sure they're pretty much the same as yours.

But, hey, works for me.

Heading out. See you later. Have a great evening.

I'll be out and about with my daughter tomorrow. Back Friday, I hope. :-*

I'll be out and about with my daughter tomorrow. Back Friday, I hope. :-*

Have fun - nothing better then a mother/daughter day of bonding!

We'll save you a seat over at the Dew Drop Inn!

Anna Molly

A "pre-existing condition" is the very reason that disability insurance is purchased,

WRONG. There are several types of disability insurance, but all of them are IF something happens to you that you cannot work, that you will receive is money to make up for the loss in pay. I.e. you are really stretching what "pre-existing" condition really means.

To clarify the Ann Dunham story. Her health insurance paid everything they were supposed to do by contract, leaving her to pay the co-pays' - per contract. She turned those into her disability insurance to which they promplty declined to pay, because that was not the contract for them to do. Either she, like you doesn't understand insurance, or was trying to scam the business.

"I happen to believe that if you look at his record over the last three and a half years, you will conclude as I have that it is the most anti-investment, anti-business, anti-jobs series of policies in modern American history. The reason that it has taken so long for this recovery to gain traction and to put people back to work is in large measure because of the policy choices the president made," Romney said. "He is not responsible for whatever improvement we might be seeing. Instead, he’s responsible for the fact that it’s taken so long to see this recovery and the recovery’s been so tepid.”

This is just bull@!$%#. Pure bull@!$%#. Whenever a Republican comes to office, they tout themselves as "proponents of the free market," seeking to drive back red tape in order to "help the economy grow." For three decades they have sponsored economically-flawed supply-side policies that CAUSED the bloody recession. But whenever a Democrat comes around, and says that he just wants to roll back only a few of their policies, they refer to him as a socialist. They keep saying that taxes are too high, even after THEY passed their own bloody tax cuts THAT DID NOTHING except give more money to the wealthy. At this rate, in about 40 or 50 years, the wealthy will pay roughly 10% of their income in taxes. That is, unless the people overthrow these right-wing idiots. Liberals and conservatives, lend me your ears. Obama is not a communist by any means. To be sure, his ideology is center-left, while his policies are roughly centrist. He cut taxes (numerous times, to my chagrin) for many businesses, bailed out the banks and the auto industries (while Romney only supporting the former's salvation by the government), and offered formerly conservative ideas like the individual mandate and cap-and-trade. The ONLY way he is a socialist is because the Republicans have become fascists. You could call Obama a socialist, with some credibility, if he socialized the healthcare industry, as I would have done, but if he merely established a degree of government authority over health insurers and actually keeps in place our private health insurance industry.

Mark L 1.56: Love to see how all that isn't a lie, even though it is...

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Oh no.....not only are ALL the ObamaWagon voter bases jumping ship, it looks like MSNBC has finally gotten on-board today and is jumping ship also.....NOT MANY Obama "feel good" articles today.

Good grief, these past two weeks has been really bad for the West Wing, East Wing, Media Matters, MoveOverRedRover, Rosen, Ayers, Wright, Jackson, Matthews, and the rest of the Newsvine Obamamites.

But just wait, I am so sure some "un-named", "un-disclosed", "anonymous" Senior White House official is going to stick his/her foot in the mouth again and further the final Democratic/Liberal implosion. Oh no.....the finger is starting to point at Mrs. Jarrett.

Mark L-464288 -- Okay, here's the true Land of Mitt Believe:

"It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people." Cutting jobs creates jobs.

The public sector does not contribute to economic growth because they are elves who grow their own food and sew their own clothes and never spend or pay taxes. We don't need teachers, cops and firefighters, this is a conspiracy theory. Let the states go bankrupt.

President Obama didn't clean up the Republican mess fast enough, so he is completely to blame.

The way back to recovery is to give the rich even more tax cuts, to further deregulate Wall Street, and to increase defense spending even more. Tax cuts for the 1% "job creators" will trickle down, tax cuts pay for themselves, the "invisible hand" of the free market corrects itself. Romney knows this because an angle spoke to him.

Let the middle class and working poor run its course and hit bottom.

When Republicans say they don't like compromise, they are saying they don't like the system our founding fathers set up. Romney stands by what he said whatever that was.

Romney just needs to get 50.1%, and will do and say anything to get it. Mitt Romney -- He’s not in it for you.

Anna Molly - I have to take the blame for the ILK word that you hate so much. I used it on another post and it apparently was picked up by the right wingers and followed over to this site.

My bad! :-(

Ido - no one is jumping ship from the Obama group. Certainly not going to join the Romney raft!

Mr. Romney could do ANYTHING to invigorate the economy which would be 1,000,000 % better than what Mr. Obama has done. Mr. Obama continues to tout "I deserve to be re-elected." with his "Forward" slogan which is nothing more than a continuation of his failed promises made during the 2008 campaign.

Opinion: The final implosion of his "re-election bid" is going down the tubes when SCOTUS announces the Mandated Universal Health Care legislation as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, "Fast and Furious" investigation leads to the White House back door, and the "security breaches" leads directly to Mr. Obama's White House staffers who have FAILED TO PAY THEIR BACK IRS TAXES.

First to jump ship immediately after the Obamas moved into the White House: OPRAH.

3thirty3 -- Okay, we take it back. Edith Bunker is fine. It's Archie we have a problem with.

Anna Molly -- No, Romney hands out "chocolate goodies" otherwise known as doughnuts, on the "aircraft" otherwise known as an airplane, and he does it for sport, not to be confused with sports. I'll have to say the odd choice of words or hyperventilating style is better than the shrill run-on sentences from Sarah Palin, also. Gawd, that woman makes my hair hurt.

See ya later!

I like to think of it as - Willard's ship of fools & his busloads full of idiots!

Certainly not going to join the Romney raft!

Or Marco Rubio's inner tube for that matter!

I have read most of the replies on this page and it makes me mad that I can't reply to some of the goofiest things that people write. 5 yr olds have more sense than adults. Look at it this way. Mitt doesn't want to answer questions and Barry doesn't want to give up Grades in college, Scholastic anything. This man has hidden more than any person can.

Feisty - there would be no room in Rubio's inner tube!

Ido - no implosion coming for Obama. But, you might want to cover you head to protect your from the debris caused when Mitt actually has to answer an press question. It ain't gonna be pretty!

usmc - I believe you're confused. Mitt has hidden more information than any politician running in recent history.

I just hope Entertainer-In-Chief, President Kardashian will consult with his chief advisers Anne Minataur, Sarah Jessica Parker, George Clooney and Sean Penn, coming up with some sort of coherent forward-looking policy regarding papparazzi's.

John-2032532 - I'm sure there was supposed to be a point to your post but .....

@ DB --

I asked you to read the article, and you evidently did not. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the first paragraph of your post is misinformed and irrelevant.

The operative point is this -- Whether it is included in a group health insurance policy, or in a disability policy, which was the case with Romney's mother, denial of coverage because of a pre-existing condition can be devastating.

Under HIPAA, if President's mother had had creditable insurance coverage from a previous employer within the past 60 days, the health insurer would have had to pay. Maybe she did, which is maybe why her health insurer paid, while her disability carrier did not. HIPAA does not apply to disability insurance.

What ACA changes is that it extends the HIPAA portability principle that is already law to ALL group health insurance situations. It doesn't change disability insurance law, but that doesn't mean disability insurance law is either right or fair.

The way that you say that the disability insurance was a contract is clearly meant to imply that Ms. Dunham had some responsibility for negotiating for coverage. You know that's not the case. She got the policy her employer provided, and it didn't cover -- precisely because she had a pre-existing condition, as the article that you didn't bother to read clarifies.

And I know enough about health insurance law, including HIPAA, and disability insurance law to play in this pool, so get off your high horse before you fall off and drown.

True Pat --

Gawd, that woman makes my hair hurt.

Me, too. The one that's left, anyway.

See ya later!

Ditto that. You and Feisty should bring the inner tubes. ;-)

In-Chief, President Kardashian will consult with his chief advisers Anne Minataur,

Shame John-Boy can't even get her name right...

And we are supposed to believe anything else this squirrel has to say?

I DON'T think so... lol

@ Seeking Sanity --

No problem. It wasn't your fault in any way. In fact it presented the golden opportunity I was looking for. The whole thing was part of my Anna Molly's School for Advanced Liberal Thought "Rehabilitating Your Inner Irony 101" class. I assigned myself to repeat the course after yesterday.

I do hope I passed because I really don't like double-secret probation all that much.

Although the self-flagellation part has its upside.

(We're tough on ourselves here at Anna Molly's.)

Have a wonderful evening.

2008: Yes We Can

2012: It's Bush's Fault

Mitt is a stealth candidate with a sinister agenda. I just wondered who might be chosen to run alongside Mitt? Maybe Rubio. I also wondered if there are any Rubios on Rick Scott purge list? Maybe this is the grand plan for 'Plead the Fifth' Scott to get to run with Etch a Sketch Mitt.

6 hours and no political news? No new threads? What's up nothing going on politically speaking?

Well I have a quick query for all my shills at MSDNC.  

If an American television channel displayed an image of Barack Obama's severed head on a stick would the mainstream media run a story about it? Maybe even express some outrage about it? I'm guessing such an outrage would figure prominently amongst all the major networks, perhaps as the lead story. We're talking about an Amercain President's head severed and impaled on a metal rod!

Absolutely, a disturbing sight.

Well, don't worry moonbats.  It was just our former President George W. Bush's head on a stick aired on HBO's Game of Throwns.

So rest easy libtards.. One of your fantasy has come true. Bush's head on a stick. After all he is a war criminal. So says the left. Never mind Obama has followed and in many instances stepped up the "chick hawk" mentality of Dick Cheney and the "neocons.". Right?

Hell it's even time to double down! You all can all dream and call for Mitt Romney being decapitated. I mean seriously. The mother f&cker is one of them 1%ers just f&cking us in the middle class. Am I right?  Wouldn't that be great?

From the abundance of the vile posts by liberals here on First Read it's apparent such a display would be relished.

You guys are the best,  America is so proud. 

Seriously, where would we be without you?

Feisty Dumb Fux @ 1.68: "You are under the mistaken impression this somehow bothers me? lol

Whatever..."

No, I'm not mistaken. I never thought it would bother a narcissist like you. You write like you think you're the smartest one here, but you know you're not. You're constantly posting like you think your words are important, but you know they're not. So keep on lol or lyao, or whatever.....

True Pat @ 1.77: "Okay, we take it back. Edith Bunker is fine. It's Archie we have a problem with."

"We" take it back? When did you and Feisty form a tag team?

Perhaps tomorrow the Obama administration will pivot toward a new jobs agenda going forward, laser focused on boosting employment. Are those shovel ready job ready yet?

At a luncheon in Baltimore today, Obama continues to play loose with the facts in his effort to shift blame about everything to everyone other than him and his misguided and foolish policies.

OBAMA: "This notion that somehow we caused the deficits, it's just wrong... It's like somebody, ah, goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, martini, all that that stuff, ah, and then, just as you're sitting down, they leave, ah, ah, ah, I am not making this up. I mean, Press, check, go back and look at the numbers"

FACTS:

Bush (Jan 01 - Jan 09) = $4.9 Trillion in debt

Obama (Jan 09 - Jun 12) = 5.1 Trillion in debt

Bush's spending in EIGHT YEARS was about $612 Billon per year.

Obama's spending in 3.3 years is $1.55 TRILLON per year.

I am not making this up, ah, I mean, ah, do the math!

NOBAMA 2012

.

3thirty3 (to True Pat) --

When did you and Feisty form a tag team?

Yeah, and where and when do you practice? Enquiring minds want to know. Are you accepting trainees? Do you need sparring partners, or whatever they call them in wrestling?

(Pay no never mind. 3thirty3 is just jealous. Me, too, actually. ;-))

Rob in MASS --

Seriously, where would we be without you?

Well, it wouldn't be heaven. We know that much.

The Obama campaign is a clown show. Anybody with a Sling Blade brain can see that. I'll never forget that rube David Axelgrease looking like a deer in the headlights at his first and last rally in Boston. I'll never forget the parade of Obama surragates fighting him on private equity, Bain and now on the economy.

How about James Carville telling everybody Obama can't say the economy is doing fine and he can't blame Bush anymore, because nobody believes either. What else can he campaign on?

Killing Osama bin Laden?

I'll never forget that. ;-)

Anna Molly (post 1.96)

Killing Osama bin Laden?

Yep, it was great when the NAVY SEALS killed Bin Laden. All Obama did was say "Yes, go ahead." Here's some perspective of Obama's role in "killing Osama bin Laden"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsrSAqRrCc0

"Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there, suppose they had been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible for him" FOR HIM? Obama simply allowed the Special Operations Command and CIA, build up under Bush, and of course continued under Obama, to do their job. Obama deserves as much credit for killing Bin Laden as he does for shooting those three Somali Pirates in April 2009.

NOBAMA 2012!

.

Downside, oh yes. Can you say, Jimmy Carter? I wonder how Ronald Reagan felt about that.

And sometimes I ask myself if Reagan -- or else George H.W. Bush, the former CIA director, had anything to do with it. Probably not, but it does make interesting thinking, no?

And then, of course, I suppose we could say that President Obama gets at least as much credit for killing Osama bin Laden as President Bush gets for finding Saddam Hussein. After all, it was a regular Army or Marine type, as I recall it, who was smart enough to look in the spider hole. In fact, I question whether Bush even WANTED to find Saddam, any more than he wanted to find Osama bin Laden, because finding either one of them meant eliminating the bogeymen that he depended on to perpetuate the war. If you want to know how much attention that Bush really devoted to finding bin Laden, here's a classic bit of perspective for you --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Don't forget that Bush deliberately let bin Laden go at Tora Bora. At least Obama was able to pull the trigger. If nothing else, you gun-rabid conservatives ought to admire him for that.

The first televised debate between these two is going to be a moment for the ages, as Obama pushes Romney down on the ground and cuts his hair! (metaphorically speaking, ... of course)

;-))

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.

Here's the rundown on Mitt Romney's devastating record as CEO of Bain Capital

Here's the REAL rundown on Mitt Romney's record as CEO of Bain Capital.....

As Bill Clinton said Romney's business career was "STELLAR"!

But you feel free to keep telling your lies all you want. It is America after all. Hell Obama has lied to us just about every day since stepping into the national spotlight.

GOP is not really pro-business if GOP wants to unravel necessary regulations such as their 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 - and the repeal was partly responsible for the current financial melt-down that has led to job losses.

Can you believe Romney tries to convince people that GOP is for business? In a meltdown caused by GOP deregulation, businesses always face an uphill battle.

In this worst financial melt-down since the Great Depression, Obama did not go far enough in necessary regulation in Dodd-Frank. But some businesses behave like spoiled brats, throwing a tantrum when the parents try to clean up the mess caused by these brats themselves, accusing the President and other Democrats of being anti-business.

Such a financial melt-down means there is need for necessary regulations. Good regulations tend to help maintain stability in the market place, as Glass-Steagall had done from 1933 to 1999, but the GOP-controlled congress repealed it in 1999, partly contributing to this financial crisis.

Deregulation by GOP has really hurt American businesses. In this GOP is not really pro-business, as Romney has tried to argue - in vain.

To Robby at Mass: I see you and Rommel are BOTH from Mass. Is it Extreme Naivete from which you "approve" of this RASCAL or that you're BOTH from the same state. YOU want to trust your life and what is left of the American economy to Romney?? GO AHEAD.. vote for this guy. By the way Robby, Do YOU KNOW that Rommel's "hand picked" cabinet are all Shrubbers from the court of KingGeorge TheVacuumBrained. OR, are you a republicanCrimeCartelShill. A mole when they push your button?????

If our leaders words are cheap, what would we call Romney's. LOL ... I'd call them unhonorable, unethical, shameful, arrogant and phony. About everything the NEW GOP is I guess. Obviously! What a terrible chapter republicans have brought to our country's history. Again!

Ladies, Do yourself a favor and talk to some business owners about Obama......

UAWPleeeeeease - I'd advise you to do the same. I talk to business owners daily and most are for Obama since they see absolutely nothing coming from Mitt. Some are for Mitt but they can't even say why.

Try again!

Don't hold back Amy, tell us how you really feel...

UAWPleeeeeeease

The CEO of the multi-million dollar private company I work for supports President Obama. Plenty of business people support Obama. Soros is a private equity investor, after all :) So is Donald Sussman, who is a Democratic Party donor, philanthropist and billionaire hedge fund manager here in Maine.

Our billionaires are better Americans than your billionaires.

Sorry, Amy, but I find it hard to believe the CEO of a "multi-million dollar" company even knows the name of the receptionist- let alone has politicall discussions with her. I'm thinking this is just like most of the stories you tell- purely fictional.

As for your description of Obama- this is exactly what you should be putting in your emails to MSNBC- better get on it, he's going to need a job. Soon.

Americans are sick of partisan rhetoric and demagoguery! How true.

As evidence of this , I submit the latest Rasmussen poll , which has Romney taking the lead in Wisconsin , a state long considered a Democratic lock....but no more!

REally nojo? Why are you always so disrespectful of Amy and her posts? It comes across as bullying and with that cowardly. Would you really say that to her face or does the forum of anonymity give you courage?

Maybe in NJ you wouldn't find a CEO like that, but where Amy lives people are a lot more civilized and respectful of each other regardless of their positions.

Suuuuuuure "plenty" of business owners are Obama supporters. wink wink :)~

UAW & NJNB-

I work for a private company that provides high-tech equipment to the US and foreign military. As a matter of fact Seal Team Six uses some of our equipment.

Our Chairman-of-the Board was a big Hillary supporter, had her out to the ranch several times, and is now a big supporter of our President.

Not all business owners are Republicans, and a lot of small business owners would prefer a more level playing field such as President Obama offers.

For you, GM, from Dictionary.com

hy·poc·ri·sy   [hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess

An apt description of TeaPeople.......Yes!

TNSEVOL - I keep hearing the lefts talking point about a more level playing field, just what does that mean, maybe you or somebody can enlighten us.

It comes across as bullying and with that cowardly. Would you really say that to her face or does the forum of anonymity give you courage?

Gingerbread Mamma,

Hell, Snookie-Joe couldn't find a dog to play with her even with the pork chop tied around her neck!

Let alone someone to talk to her - why do you think she comes here everyday spitting her venom?

Sure thing, sfcret.

Small business owners pay around 30% on their income, right? Hedge-fund managers, private equity firms, and others pay 15% due to the "carried-interest" rule.

Small business owners almost always pay property tax. Big companies threaten to leave a state and the state gives them a big tax break to stay. States compete against each other, net gain is a loss of tax revenue.

If a small business is a corporation, they pay corporate tax on their income. Big Oil companies, big pharmaceutical companies, big agriculture companies, and other big corporations who make big donations pay little or no corporate tax.

Those are just a few examples of how the deck is stacked towards Big Business and the uber rich. I am sure I can find more as relates to health insurance, penison plans, etc. if you want.

Nojo.......No one knows hypocrisy as does a Republican and you exemplify it beautifully and as for bullying, ridicule and intimidation seems to be in your arsenal too.

I'ts really clear now that Obama will go down as the worst president in the history of history ....

Even much longer than that ....

Adios , Obamos ....

Tnsevl--successful small business owners that realize their business income on their personal return pay 35% plus state income tax and these are the people Obama is going after to pay more. The current tax code is a mess, unfair and full of gimmicks, loopholes and social engineering but the easiest way to get more revenue is to attack those already paying all the income tax so thats where Obama goes. The carried interest rule is much more complicated than you state it. Salaries and wages of hedge fund managers are still taxed at the top rate, money the firm makes on investments if they are successful is taxed at the capital gains rates. The problem is that this was set up for the real estate industry and now is being used by all industries. The fix is to punish hedge fund managers with a sledge hammer approach. If the incentives for real estate are taken away, the continued industry problems would be exacerbated. It might be good tax policy to be fair and eliminate the investment incentives for real estate too, Obama just needs to be careful who gets impacted.

As for corporations, Big OIL pays enormous taxes but yes there certainly isnt equality and fairness in the way its applied across the board. It would be nice to eliminate corporate taxes and make our US companies even more competitive against foreign competitors and just tax capital gains and dividends more because those are already taxed profits now so if the corporate tax was eliminated substantial benefit could be gained at the individual level.

I disagree that the tax code is skewed to assist the super rich or even just wealthy. The code is full of loopholes and deductions that allow half this country to not pay any income tax. The rich and wealthy already on a progressive and absolute dollar basis pay all of the income tax. That said, they can pay more and it could be applied more fairly and equitable by eliminating all of the deductions and loopholes and special rates. In addition, those who dont pay tax today but are working above the poverty level need to contribute too.

Amy, well said.

Sheldon Adelson, multi-billionaire casino owner, just gave $10 Million to Mitt Romney's SuperPAC. Prior to this Adelson gave $20 million to Gingrich. In addition, Harrold Simmons has given $5.2 million; Bob Perry, $4.1 million; Peter Thiel, William Dore', Foster Friess, Steven Lund at least $2 million. Don't care which political party you prefer, ask yourself exactly what the multi-billionaires expect from Mitt Romney in return for their multi-millions given to elect him? At least prior to Citizens United, there was a limit to the amount of the bribes.

Well, there you go, No Jo, our billionaires are better Americans than your billionaires. My CEO doesn't consider his receptionist a second class citizen just because she makes less money than him (way less money!) It used to be, the hallmark of an AMERICAN executive was a lack of class pretension. Romney, of course, thinks he's royalty and would never make small talk with a mere underling.

I think it is divided who small business owners support. Most of it is based on opinion not fact. I know several small business owners who would never vote for President Obama but I am sure there are others that would.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223769

Wow, Amy. The guy went from a multi millionaire to a billionaire in, what, a couple hours? I'll bet he actually encourages you to blog, rather than do your job, too, right? After all, its in his best interest to have the phones ringing, unanswered, because he's just such a huge Obama supporter.

Just because you can repeat-a-lie Ben, it does not make it true.

How come the worst president is not the one who inherited a good economy and low unemployment and turned it into the largest deficit in our history and bleeding millions of jobs after a recession brought to you by deregulation and greed in just 8 years?

Just what exactly did President Obama do that was worse that that? Republicans are always complaining that President Obama has not fixed the republicans screw ups fast enough and therefore the republicans should be in charge to screw up America again.

I am guessing that you also think that the obstruction that the republicans have been doing to not create any jobs and to keep our economy bad is also President Obama's fault.

Even after the republicans in congress voted on purpose to create the deficit, people like Ben want you to believe it was someone elses fault.

Meanwhile Ben is on the government socialist teat in Alaska receiving his annual oil company payouts pretending like he is anything but the socialist he is.

Prior to Citizens United the olny groups who could "pool" thier money and bribe politicians were Unions. Now liberals are up in arms that the Supreme Court says those "evil" conservatives can pool thier money now too.....

no jo

Posting comments on a political blog is not as taxing for me, as it is for you, apparently. I can participate in our democracy and support myself, just like the founding fathers envisioned, imagine that.

Actually, a lot of small business owners are democrats.

A lot are also republicans.

Depends on the type of business, and the business-owner.

But screw Citizens United, i'm more angry at Tom Barrett than CU. The establishment came and ensured Tom won, but he wasn't labor's first choice. He even said as much in his speech.

And he proved why.

Democrats need to get this 'hug' crap out of their system and start fighting.

Props to the lady who slapped him upside the head. She poured blood and sweat into that campaign and Barrett's concession was too huggy-feely.

Whatever happened to solid blue collar democratic politicians? We need those guys back. Level some drop-kicks on the congressional floor or something.

A CEO who does not know the name of the first person who greets visitors is truly out of touch. A good receptionist is often the face of the company. What's up NoJo? Only like CEOs who disdain those beneath the financially?

A good receptionist is often the face of the company.

BINGO!

People like Snookie-Joe & SpankMe seem to think it's a lowly job for the little people!

Their constant snide & snarky remarks reflect this is actually how they feel!

Having known Amy for all these years, I can tell you, you won't find a better receptionist anywhere!

Any company would be lucky to have her!

Thanks, Feisty!

So true ideologyspoilstheview!

You know, I read these comments about receptionists and I remember one thing. The receptionist is the person with the keys to the castle; to wit: getting you in the door to see the person you want and need to see. Treat that person badly...cost your company dear. I once ended a relationship with a bank over a Vice President's rudeness to a receptionist that worked for me. She asked, as requested, who was calling. He told her it was none of her (expletive) business.

The receptionist did not put the call through.

TNSEVOL - So according to you a level playing field is all businesses should pay the same tax rate? I believe Kirk said it best at post 2.20, so I really don't need to add anything to his post.

Thanks Kirk!!!

newdayDAWNING - you are soooo right. I go into offices all the time and the receptionists know me the second I walk in and are happy to see me. I've made a point of getting to know them and doing small things for them. I may bring one a plant or a gift card if I know something special is going on. And, I never treat them differently than I do the person I have an appointment with. Everyone is important.

Early in my career I was meeting with a CEO in Chicago for a photo opportunity. Jim Lovell was joining us (the astronaut). The CEO was short and very rude. I held my own with him and then Jim joined us. We had the photo and the CEO turned away and started talking to Jim. I thanked both of them and Jim made sure to tell me I was riding back to the office with him - to please wait.

When I went outside the office to wait the CEO's secretary asked me if I'd like to apply for a position they had that reported to the CEO - said no one had ever worked with him the way I did and she thought I would do well. I politely thanked her and said "no thanks."

No one should treat any person differently because of their position. You never know when that person will move up in the company, plus, it just shows a complete lack of class.

The receptionist DOES hold the keys to the kingdom!

I don't know why people don't get that, Seeking Sanity. I enjoyed your story!

newday - I was lucky to work for Jim Lovell. He and his wife are really great people.

Enjoyed your stories, NDD and Seeking Sanity.

It feels like Receptionist- Appreciation Day on First Read! Thanks for sticking up for "the little guy." I value your respect!

Amy - if you are a receptionist my guess is you're among the best. They keep the place running smoothly and make us all look good!

And, you are definitely not the "little guy." You're the really important first impression for everyone who walks in the door!

Kirk-2957282

Tnsevl--successful small business owners that realize their business income on their personal return pay 35% plus state income tax and these are the people Obama is going after to pay more. The current tax code is a mess, unfair and full of gimmicks, loopholes and social engineering but the easiest way to get more revenue is to attack those already paying all the income tax so thats where Obama goes.

Actually, Obama has cut taxes for small businesses, so essentially a mere 4% increase would be offset, at least in part, by his tax cuts for them. Not to mention the fact that businesses don't hire or fire based on tax cuts, but on demand. The tax code is a mess, I'll agree to that.

The carried interest rule is much more complicated than you state it. Salaries and wages of hedge fund managers are still taxed at the top rate, money the firm makes on investments if they are successful is taxed at the capital gains rates. The problem is that this was set up for the real estate industry and now is being used by all industries. The fix is to punish hedge fund managers with a sledge hammer approach. If the incentives for real estate are taken away, the continued industry problems would be exacerbated.

Well, I'm not sure that hedge fund managers are taxed 35%. I'd like to see some proof of that. And unless the carried interest loophole is a part of the mortgage deduction for the middle class (which I doubt that it is), the carried interest won't really affect the real estate industry because I doubt real estate agents will stop working with a higher tax; if anything, it will encourage them to work harder so they can take more cash home. The housing industry's problem's lay mostly in underwater mortgages, large numbers of foreclosures, and the glut of unsold houses that keep the market price down, hurting underwater mortgage-owners.

I disagree that the tax code is skewed to assist the super rich or even just wealthy. The code is full of loopholes and deductions that allow half this country to not pay any income tax. The rich and wealthy already on a progressive and absolute dollar basis pay all of the income tax. That said, they can pay more and it could be applied more fairly and equitable by eliminating all of the deductions and loopholes and special rates. In addition, those who dont pay tax today but are working above the poverty level need to contribute too.

First of all, the tax code puts investment ahead of labor. If it was real investment, like in startups and giving capital to growing businesses, then I'd accept a lower tax rate for that. For anything else, like stock purchases and what-not, than they ought to pay at least 25%. And since investors don't tend to be middle class, it appears that the tax code is skewed for the wealthy. I mean, the wealth for the rich has increased by almost 275%, and their tax burden had dropped by around 37%. That is obviously skewed against the wealthy.

It's also true that many people don't pay the income tax. But that is because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which essentially allows the poor and those making under $20,000 (which is a fair threshold) to avoid paying the income tax. But only 18% don't pay the income tax OR the payroll tax, and only 0.9% of all workers are people who aren't elderly and make over $20,000, so the so-called problem of the lack of taxpayers isn't as problematic as many people think it is. Obviously the wealthy pay more in taxes in absolute terms, but they pay more collectively because frankly they control more of the nation's wealth and income. Between the 1940s and 1980s, the middle class was large and controlled the majority of income in the country, and they paid the majority of taxes, or the plurality. Essentially, the wealthy pay more because they own more. I support tax reform (except lowering marginal rates for the top two brackets), but I don't want to force people making barely $20,000 to be subject to the income tax.

UAWPleeeeeeease

Prior to Citizens United the olny groups who could "pool" thier money and bribe politicians were Unions. Now liberals are up in arms that the Supreme Court says those "evil" conservatives can pool thier money now too.....

The problem with your argument is that unions, for one thing, were made to serve the workers. Some, like police and firefighter unions, can be swing voters, while labor unions are more for the Democrats. Corporations are created for profit, and if need be they'll be corrupt to increase profits (I'd advise reading The Unraveling of America and referring to the Walmart bribing scandal). Secondly, ever since the 1980s the power of unions have diminished as the unionized workforce shrank, severely limiting their financial power. Private unions have been all but eliminated; only public sector unions exist in strong numbers. That is why unions are battling conservatives who want their states to become Right-to-Work; because doing so would essentially eliminate the power of unions and thus give the GOP a monopoly on power. I highly doubt that unions could raise enough money to counter the $400 million being spent by the Koch Brothers over the presidential election, much less the combined power of the GOP SuperPacs for all elections. Thirdly, when unions are powerful and have considerable sway over our political system, the fact is that it is usually beneficial society. Aside from all accounts of union corruption and money-laundering, they are quite beneficial for society. When unions had their way between the 1940s and the 1980s, the middle class (and the rest of the country) experienced the largest economic expansion in the nation's history. The middle class was strong and powerful; politicians were moderate and bipartisan; businesses grew; salaries and benefits were constantly going up; essentially, the middle class got a great deal. When corporations got their way from the mid-to-late 1980s to the present, the middle class barely received any net income gains and it's stake in the national economy shrunk while that of big companies and the wealthy grew exponentially. The policies of the corporations (deregulation and supply-side economics) caused our economy to implode in 2007, as they had infected both parties (the Democrats may or may not share the blame for the housing implosion; that is debatable). Basically, when unions rule, we (everyone) prosper. When corporations rule, we (the middle class) lose. Unions don't usually buy elections because even then there can be limits on their donations (either legally or via public opinion), and even if they do it is usually for the better. Even before Citizens United, corporations ruled. Unions are now just going even more swamped with unlimited amounts of cash being used against them.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

DEATH TO CITIZENS UNITED 2012

Amy: There is not a receptionist working in the country that is the "little guy." They are the heart and soul of the operation. Good CEO's know that, the rest are arrogant sob's and are the true "little people."

No jo and Spanky have given us constant examples of that.

UAWPleeeeeeease
Ladies, Do yourself a favor and talk to some business owners about Obama......

That won't happen any time soon. Business owners don't ride city busses, go to the SNAP card office or live in Section 8 housing.

You obviously don't know what the word "lie" means. And you'd have to know what the word "fact" means in order to know what a lie is. Extremist rightwingers don't understand either word.

True how true... Remeber "hope and change" & change you can beleive in"

Change takes time. More time when you're dealing with an obstructionist Congress.

Maxx Power

,

True how true... Remember "hope and change" & change you can believe in"

That was waaay to easy!!

Surely, NitMitt does not have that easy strategy. The road ahead for NitMitt is much, much, more diffucult for him. Just look at the polls. Americans don't want to look back.

Obama/Biden 2012

Willard Romney the wannabe:

"My own view is that ... the record of an individual is the basis upon which you determine....

[whether or not to vote for them.]

BINGO!!! Give the man a cigar!!

Then let us examine the record of Governor Romney and Bain CEO Romney, look at how the people were treated and their situations before and after Mittens - - - then let us hold HIM to HIS word!!

President Obama for President 2012! Continue the progress...

When Obama was selling his $787 billion stimulus package, he consistently bragged about how shovel-ready construction jobs would be funded across the nation. He later admitted that was a lie, when he told the New York Times: “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

Obama lies; Obama supporters lie. Not coincidence.

Maxx! I keep hoping that you will change......believe it.

Give us a break kannin...

The President eased the economic mess dumbya/cheney created and prevented a full-blown depresion with the stimulus package;

YOU know it, I know it, I know you know it, and the entire country knows it...

so please lay off Limbaugh's RNC-tea talking point of the day.

Limbaugh lies; Romney/GOP supporters lie. No coincidence!

Change takes time. More time when you're dealing with an obstructionist Congress.

The interesting part is that almost 50% of Americans believe the GOP party is intentionally stalling efforts to improve the economy.

Almost half of U.S. voters believe Republican lawmakers are deliberately obstructing efforts to revive the economy in order to strengthen their party's chances of booting President Barack Obama from office in November, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/351321/20120612/republicans-sabotaging-economy-damage-obama-poll.htm

That is going to hurt around election time.

During the debate over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama said that 80% of Americans support including higher taxes as part of the deal. But a Rasmussen poll taken the same week showed that only 34% supported a tax hike. He lied!

“I will close Gitmo within one year!” He lied!

Obama lies; Obama supporters lie. Not coincidence.

He later admitted that was a lie, when he told the New York Times: “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

Post the citation where he admitted he lied. Hint, it doesn't exist at the New York Times. What is it with these pathetic GOP/TP trolls that plagiarize plagiarizers? It certainly gives credence to the old adage "spinning a web of lies".

RedDevPS -hint - it doesn't exist at all!

"I can no more disown [Rev. Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” (March 2008) The following month, when it became apparent that America wasn't as enamored as he was with Wright's blatant racism, Obama said he is "outraged" by the comments of his former minister, and is "saddened by the spectacle." He lied!

During the debate over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama said that 80% of Americans support including higher taxes as part of the deal. But a Rasmussen poll taken the same week showed that only 34% supported a tax hike. He lied!

Kanin the plagiarizer, where is your citation to support this claim or is this your opinion all made up in your own itty-bitty head?

Put it together Red: I will create shovel-ready jobs/there is no such thing as shovel-ready jobs. If you can't see that as admission, then I can't explain it so that you will.

Red - http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/top-10-obama-lies/

Obama said he is "outraged" by the comments of his former minister, and is "saddened by the spectacle." He lied!

Gee Kannin - what did Obama lie about? He wasn't lying when he said he was outraged and saddened. He wasn't lying when he said can't disown Wright. Are you trying to convince us that you can't be saddened by someone you won't disown. Now, as to the real comments from Obama:

"I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-29/politics/obama.wright_1_wright-barack-obama-speech-on-race-relations?_s=PM:POLITICS

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" FY 2008 Deficit: $459 billion; FY 2012 Deficit: $1,327 billion. He lied!

At a certain point Red, the excuses start to sound kinda desperate. Give it up.

RedDev - well now you're just not being fair. You're stating facts! How is a little right winger supposed to combat that? Hrumph!

At a certain point Red, the excuses start to sound kinda desperate. Give it up.

Why give it up? You want to continue posting lies and crap, I'll continue to expose your desperate failed attempts.

I guess it's a left-wing "fact" that Guantanamo was closed two years ago?

Why give it up? You want to continue posting lies and crap,

Always nice to see a right wing nut get his ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Some of them never know when to tuck their tails between their cheeks & give it UP! lol

Good times...

This dude is bouncing around worse then a run away pin-ball...

I guess it's a left-wing "fact" that Guantanamo was closed two years ago?

Obama wants to close Gitmo, Congress won't let him and has blocked his every effort to keep his campaign promise. That doesn't make Obama liar.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

This dude is bouncing around worse then a run away pin-ball...

Feisty, tell me. Talk about a 'power bottom' .. this one keeps taking it and taking it and then begs for more. When is enough, enough?

When is enough, enough?

LOL!

Like all good tea-baggers... when he can't sit down for a week without a pillow!

when he can't sit down for a week without a pillow!

Touche - spurt alert on RedDev PC - you owe me a new keyboard. I'll put in an order for a whoopie cushion for poor old Kannin.

2008: Hope and Change

2012: Dope and Strange

Feisty and her groupies: Kinda juvenile, but it brings delusions of adequacy to their otherwise-empty lives.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Republicans scream that all Obama does is blame GW Bush (who was in charge when this mess happened) then they turn around and blame Obama for all 23 million unemployed?

Romney's solution to the slow job recovery is to return to the policies that CAUSED the job losses in the first place?

"Hey, you aren't putting that fire out fast enough - No, you can't have any more water - Let's throw some more gasoline on it!"

And get this:

Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has written a great piece in the New York Times on tax reform and cites the true cost of the George W. Bush presidency:

Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

As Andrew Sullivan notes:

When you check reality, rather than the alternate universe constantly created by Fox News and an amnesiac press, you find that Bush had a chance to pay off all our national debt before we hit the financial crisis – giving the US enormous flexibility in intervening to ameliorate the recession. Instead, we had to find money for a stimulus in a cupboard stripped bare – its contents largely given away, by an act of choice. I’m tired of being told we cannot blame Bush for our current predicament. We can and should blame him for most of it – and remind people that Romney’s policies: more tax cuts, more defense spending are identical. With one difference: Bush pledged never “to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.”

Mitt Romney has no qualms about doing that very thing. And he will, if he is given the chance.

Job1

As Romney said,"The record is that we have 23 million Americans that are out of work or stopped looking for work or underemployed. That is a compelling and a sad statistic."

My question to Romney is how many of these people did he and Bain Capital put out of work?

Forget it? Rob-me's implanted chuckle gets in the way.

Obama/Biden 2012

My question to Romney is how many of these people did he and Bain Capital put out of work?

It's a secret.....can't talk about Bain...that's how capitalism works (at least for the Corporations are people too crowd).

I wonder how many of these darn blind fools who support Willard will still be loving him when their jobs take a vacation overseas?

Remember, stupid is as stupid does.

Romney created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Repeating the left-wing lie doesn't make it true.

He made his money by leading floundering companies back to profitability. Which is just what our country needs today.

He founded Bain Capital which manages approximately $65 billion in assets, and has founded, acquired, or invested in hundreds of companies including AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Toys R Us, Unisource, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

He was behind the start up of Staples. Starting with one store in 1986, Staples now is the world's largest office products company with $24 billion in sales in 2009.

There were a handful of companies in which jobs were lost, but the jobs created by all the others number in the hundreds of thousands ... hundreds of thousands of US workers.

What is even more noteworthy is the fact that he never blamed the previous management for his own difficulties – he just fixed what was wrong.

Romney created hundreds of thousands of jobs

Fox news/Limbaugh HORSE HOCKEY pure and simple!

He made his money

Oh, so veyr true!

Look in his secret Swiss & Cayman Island bank accounts!

Romney created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

OK, so how many of those jobs at Burger King, Sports Authority, Dominos, etc. actually paid a living wage, full time employment with benefits?

Just askin'!

Romney created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Repeating the left-wing lie doesn't make it true.

True overseas!

Romney created hundreds of thousands of jobs

Not according to the nonpartisan website Factcheck.

And then there are the job losses. Bain took over other companies where layoffs, and even bankruptcies, followed. Romney said that 100,000 figure was “net-net.” So, whatever job creation figure one could use, we’d have to subtract jobs lost, such as 385 jobs cut at American Pad & Paper; 1,900 positions cut or relocated at Dade International; 2,100 workers laid off from DDI Corp.; 2,500 jobs lost at Clear Channel Communications; and 3,400 layoffs at KB Toys.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/

Thinking that Romney's Bain experience somehow translates into job creation is ridiculous. If Romney had an 80% success rate at saving businesses and you apply that to actual PEOPLE (not corporations) then can we expect a 20% unemployment under a President Romney?

Ursula, These were companies that were failing when Bain took them over. They were all going to go out business with a job loss of 100%. Saving 80% of these distressed companies is an excellent record. Remember that when people start new businesses that 90% of the new businesses fail.

We are talking about reversing failure. When MR took over as governor in MA in 01/2003 the state was 51st in job creation (including DC); when he left office in 01/2007 MA was 30th in job creation. This last month BHO's economy created 69000 jobs; this is not enough to maintain the current unemployment level. During BHO's time in office the average household income dropped by 7.7%. What kind of jobs is BHO's economy creating?

Bruce, Romney was not in the business of saving failing companies. He was in the business of making a profit, which is why he was buying low....to sell high. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't a savior. He was just doing business.

Romney created hundreds of thousands of jobs

Not according to the nonpartisan website Factcheck.

@Amy - more proof that the 'hundreds of thousands of jobs created' is mere myth.

In an effort to sell Mitt as someone who "understands the economy", unsubstantiated figures of over a "100,000 jobs created" became regular talking points early in the primary season. Curiously, the campaign never provided evidence, causing even the likes of Fox News celebutante Sarah Palin and former GOP candidate Newt Gingrich to question Romney's veracity.

BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller reported the former governor's campaign now claims an obscure "thousands of jobs" at Bain: another embarrassing example of the candidate's flip-flopping. Alex Seitz-Wald of Think Progress reported that even the "thousands of jobs" figure is suspect considering the only evidence offered was a vague editorial reference by right-wing newspaper Washington Examiner that lacked any verifiable statistical data.

Ursula, These were companies that were failing when Bain took them over..

BS Jax Alert - more myths from the Romney supporters.

As CEO in 1993, Romney and his partners purchased Kansas City's GST plant, a successful company with a 105 year history, and thousands of workers. Romney's team extracted profits, reduced employee levels, and by 2001 the company was forced into liquidation. Workers -- many of whom had been with GST for decades -- lost pension and health benefits. By contrast, Romney, Bain executives and investors reaped millions in profits. The result? A bailout in which the federal government was forced to guarantee the pension fund to a tune of $44 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-wyckoff-williams/mitt-romney-bain_b_1520130.html

So Romney fans - tells us more about those troubled companies purchased by Bain, and those hundreds of thousands (why not claim millions - heck trillions) of jobs created.

Kannin

Romney created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Repeating the left-wing lie doesn't make it true.

People doubted that he created even a hundred thousand jobs. Back in the 90s, he said tens of thousands of jobs. I'm not even sure that Romney himself knows how many NET jobs he created.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Romney created the very same jobs that don't make enough money to pay taxes that the republicans complain about.

So that the poor have even less, Romney wants to raise their taxes. Funny how the republicans are more than willing to raise taxes on everyone but the rich fat cats. Everyone is to do without and sacrifice except the rich fat cats.

In the way of word-speak from the book 1984 the rich fat cats are now to be known as job creators whether they create any jobs or not. Yes just pretend words for pretend jobs and the republicans on this board fell for the lies hook, line and sinker and then want to act like someone other than themselves are the ones who have been suckered into voting against their own country for the rich.

It`s truly insane if americans will vote for Romney and other Republican politician because their mission is to cripple our country in order for Republicans and their lobbyist only to prosper our country and to take away the poor and the middle class a chance to live with dignity and prosperity. That is the reason why if you notice those states with Republican governors eliminating union rights, firing public servant employees the most ,like teachers, firemen and police officer.Romney is a pathologic liar. When he ran for governor in our state of Massachusetts he promised to bring prosperity to Commonwealth and not to raise taxes but later on we realized when he was elected that what he actually mean was for the rich because he only not raised the middle class and hardworking citizen but also fired public service employees, cut social services and education fund which lead our town and cities rumbling like a catastrophe.

So this is a common sense, why would people choose the same man who has proven as a disaster leader in one state then that same man will lead our country and for most to the world into calamity? Holy crap. Republicans even wants to eliminate our voting rights as a valid citizen in this country just to push their very selfish ideology to dominate our country similarly like Russia and chinese government as a communist government.

Listen my fellow citizen,Romney and his fellow Republicans connive to opposed everything what President Obama and Democrats propose to help all hard working citizen in order to agonize and halt our country to prosperity so that people will turned the blame to Obama administration and his fellow Democrats so that Romney will be elected and Republicans will swept both the senate and the house which of course Republicans will become superpower and turned our country like a communist .

GOP’s Seven Biggest Economic Lies - by Robert Reich

Robert Reich is one of the best in calling out the GOP!

Tn--where did you get this list? It is full of facts that can be debated by various statistics and facts that provide different points of view

1. GDP growth was huge under Reagan and Clinton who both reduced tax rates and created incentives to invest. The largest tax revenue as a percentage of GDP the government has ever received came under Clinton after reducing the capital gains tax. Wages began a slow process of stabilizing during the Reagan and era of globalization and end of our manufacturing monopoly over the rest of the world. So many factors primarily the education gap caused a big part of this and to simplify your post through a one sentence conclusion on tax policy has no credibility.

2. You do realize that during those eras of large marginal rates (generally on passive income not working wages), the wealthy paid a much lower share of the overall tax burden right? You cant equate the two because overall tax policy was different and wealth was generated in different forms. For example, your statistics dont take into account that wealth was created via ownership of businesses in corporations themselves a taxable entity. Tax rates were lower for corporations and dividends from corporations you owned were not subject to a second level of tax. So business owners built up wealth in corporations. There has been a fundamental shift towards not owning businesses in corporations because the current double tax system makes it prohibitively expensive. So you cant just make flat responses like this.

3. It depends on the government service.

4. There are many points of view and both sides are politically pandering for votes. No one really knows who is right or wrong on this one.

5. Its not wrong as they are huge drivers of the deficit as you point out.

6. Social Security is similar to a ponzi scheme and both parties are to blame. Its also a current wealth transfer from the working poor and middle class to our wealthy seniors who in the aggregate own over 80% of the nation's wealth. I realize we made a social compact with our seniors but lets at least be honest about the debate. No raising the limit doesnt help because that means you have to raise the benefits for those who pay in more unless you want to make social security more of a welfare plan where you are only providing benefits for those who are in need based on some economic test.

7. It is unfair because as you just pointed out social security is a retirement benefit and claim its not a ponzi scheme. So that means payroll taxes are your retirment contribution that you get back which means its not a tax. The other taxes support state and local needs not the federal government so its not fair that 50% of taxpayers dont pay federal income taxes even if you argue that the rich need to pay more.

Reich's policy recommendations have always been questionable, Reich's former boss Bill Clinton has said that Obama should delay raising taxes on the rich.

Tn--where did you get this list? It is full of facts that can be debated by various statistics and facts that provide different points of view

Classic - Kirk calling Robert Reich an unqualified economist.

Robert Reich?

This Robert Reich is the left authoritative qualified voice? The one that in the attached link obviously knows that Obama is in deep sh&t?

That guy?

1. GDP growth was huge under Reagan and Clinton who both reduced tax rates and created incentives to invest. The largest tax revenue as a percentage of GDP the government has ever received came under Clinton after reducing the capital gains tax. Wages began a slow process of stabilizing during the Reagan and era of globalization and end of our manufacturing monopoly over the rest of the world. So many factors primarily the education gap caused a big part of this and to simplify your post through a one sentence conclusion on tax policy has no credibility.

Well, for one thing Reagan didn't just cut taxes. He spent like hell on defense and the Fed cut interest rates. Remember that Reagan didn't fix an actual recession; it was started by the Fed it control the inflation in the 70s. And by the way, if globalization was such a pain in the ass for wages, along with the education gap, how come we don't see the same kind of income inequality in industrialized countries like Germany and Canada????

2. You do realize that during those eras of large marginal rates (generally on passive income not working wages), the wealthy paid a much lower share of the overall tax burden right? You cant equate the two because overall tax policy was different and wealth was generated in different forms. For example, your statistics dont take into account that wealth was created via ownership of businesses in corporations themselves a taxable entity.

I'll give you the means of gaining wealth, but the reason why the wealthy paid a much lower share of the overall tax burden was because they controlled LESS of the economic stake in the US. They didn't own as much wealth and income earned in the US as they did back them.

Tax rates were lower for corporations and dividends from corporations you owned were not subject to a second level of tax. So business owners built up wealth in corporations. There has been a fundamental shift towards not owning businesses in corporations because the current double tax system makes it prohibitively expensive. So you cant just make flat responses like this.

Well, not necessarily. Companies don't pay 35% in taxes; some pay anywhere from 0% to 22%. It's a smorgasbord in the corporate world as to who pays what in taxes.

3. It depends on the government service.

4. There are many points of view and both sides are politically pandering for votes. No one really knows who is right or wrong on this one.

Technically, there are no more government sectors that can be privatized and be proven to be more efficient. The loss of demand from the firing of government workers is usually much larger than the gain in private sector employment. And cutting the budget does not work; it deliberately takes money out of the economy. It is normal for governments to run deficits during a recession; the object is to spend money on creating jobs to create more demand and thus create more jobs and economic growth, encouraging the private sector to invest so the government doesn't have to keep running deficits.

5. Its not wrong as they are huge drivers of the deficit as you point out.

Well, not now. They will be, when the Baby Boomers retire, but the major drivers of our deficits right now are the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

6. Social Security is similar to a ponzi scheme and both parties are to blame. Its also a current wealth transfer from the working poor and middle class to our wealthy seniors who in the aggregate own over 80% of the nation's wealth. I realize we made a social compact with our seniors but lets at least be honest about the debate. No raising the limit doesnt help because that means you have to raise the benefits for those who pay in more unless you want to make social security more of a welfare plan where you are only providing benefits for those who are in need based on some economic test.

Technically, Social Security is, in theory, structured like a Ponzi scheme, as it pays retirees with current "investors." But Ponzi schemes are usually investments that rely on voluntary investments; Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme as it is required to be funded. It does not rip people off; it gives retirees secure benefits that they wouldn't otherwise get in the private sector. The elderly are not the major owners of wealth in the US; it is the top fifth of Americans. Raising the full retirement age would technically reduce the shortfall, as calculated by AARP. As would extending the cap to 90% of earnings, using progressive indexing, adjusting COLA, and raising both the payroll tax and taxes on benefits, and keeping the estate tax. That would easily fund SS for the next 75 years. Even if AARP is flawed, and we are to trust the CBO, they estimate that increasing the payroll tax by 2 points to 14.4% would reduce the shortfall over the next 75 years. It may redistribute wealth, but it is well worth it as it reduces poverty among seniors. Call it welfare, but it should be kept.

7. It is unfair because as you just pointed out social security is a retirement benefit and claim its not a ponzi scheme. So that means payroll taxes are your retirment contribution that you get back which means its not a tax. The other taxes support state and local needs not the federal government so its not fair that 50% of taxpayers dont pay federal income taxes even if you argue that the rich need to pay more.

Technically, the poor do pay taxes, just not the income tax. It's fair, considering that most non-income taxpayers are either the elderly or people making less than $20,000. Part of me wants them to pay a higher tax, but we could easily just raise existing federal taxes on the 47% who don't the income tax. The wealthy ought to pay more in taxes, not just the income tax, and that is fair. If you still have misgivings, we could just raise existing taxes on the people not paying the income tax. And payroll taxes are a tax; not an investment in retirement.

Bruce from Jacksonville

Reich's policy recommendations have always been questionable, Reich's former boss Bill Clinton has said that Obama should delay raising taxes on the rich.

But he also said that the tax for the rich should eventually be repealed. That is contrary to what most Republicans want. They want the tax cuts to be permanent, while I say all the tax cuts should be repealed.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

while I say all the tax cuts should be repealed.

Is that what you say? Here's what I say....

Thankfully, you don't speak for me. Thankfully, this country has had it with tax and spend liberals. The country collectively made a huge mistake in 2008 by electing a liberal incompetent fool. We somewhat corrected that mistake in 2010 by electing republicans particularly Teaparty Republicans in large numbers to shut down the destructive influences of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and all the other moonbats.

Get ready libtards. Republicans are taking back the Presidency and the Senate in 2012!

NO TAXES INCREASES UNTIL THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT SPENDING CUTS! NOT CUTS IN GROWTH BUT REAL CUTS!

VOTE OUT ANYONE THAT PASSES A TAX INCREASE PERIOD!!

Reich is a fraud.

Tax and spend liberals? Such amnesia you have. Just where did this huge deficit come from anyway? You do remember that the republicans were looking at a surplus left by Clinton and the democrats and the chance to pay off our debt by 2010 decided instead with their majority to give tax cuts our nation could not afford and started borrowing on the Chinese credit card instead.

Then after starting two wars (massive spending if you hadn't noticed) and decided to borrow even more money and create an even larger deficit so they could give the rich more tax cuts.

Then after the republicans create this mess then people like you want to blame anyone but the republicans for what they did.

After all the republicans have done to our country, the major complaint you hear from republicans is that President Obama has not been able to fix the bush economy mess fast enough.

Being that Romney's plan is to return to the bush policies that were so good for our country, now the mess is all President Obama's fault because we certainly can't blame bush. Then the good little republicans can vote for a republican because bush left our country in good shape and it was President Obama who destroyed our economy.

If you are stupid enough to believe the republicans, then we are doomed to repeat the bush years. The tax cuts only account for about a third of our deficit so now the brilliant republican plan is to make the tax cuts permanent and who cares about the deficit as long as the rich get richer.

If you have half a brain why would anyone want to return to the very same republican policies we are trying to recover from? You have seen him, Romney thinks whatever he is told. Romney is just the bush puppet in a new suit.

the republicans were looking at a surplus left by Clinton and the democrats and the chance to pay off our debt by 2010

They even thought that we would face trouble in our economy for paying off the debt too fast....

Rob in MASS

while I say all the tax cuts should be repealed.

Is that what you say? Here's what I say....

Thankfully, you don't speak for me. Thankfully, this country has had it with tax and spend liberals.

Since when is Obama a tax and spend liberal??? He had trillion dollar deficits, even though that was caused by the recession, but he didn't really raise taxes, unless you count the sin taxes. Obamacare has yet to be put into full effect.

The country collectively made a huge mistake in 2008 by electing a liberal incompetent fool. We somewhat corrected that mistake in 2010 by electing republicans particularly Teaparty Republicans in large numbers to shut down the destructive influences of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and all the other moonbats.

Unfortunately, electing those whining Tea Party Traitors cost us our credit rating and led to an increase in gridlock (if you applaud gridlock than you are un-American and a traitor to the country).

Get ready libtards. Republicans are taking back the Presidency and the Senate in 2012!

We'll see about that, Robbie.

NO TAXES INCREASES UNTIL THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT SPENDING CUTS! NOT CUTS IN GROWTH BUT REAL CUTS!

VOTE OUT ANYONE THAT PASSES A TAX INCREASE PERIOD!!

Is this Grover Norquist??? You're damn attitude is screwing up this country. And by the way, we have $2.2 trillion in cuts about to happen, including a "real" reduction in the defense budget. It's time to raise everybody's taxes, including yours.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Reich is a fraud.

And what pray tell, qualifies you to make this type of claim?. Work on the G.E.D., and once, if ever, achieved, perhaps you can tell us what is fraudulent about Reich's work.

perhaps you can tell us what is fraudulent about Reich's work.

...the fact that RWNJ's don't agree with him and that he proves the RNC-TEA political platform plank positions for the lies and spin that they really are.

Thus, to the unable to think GOP/TEA Rove, Luntz, Koch bros zombies, it must be fraud.

You know: if it goes against their assinine mantra, it can't be true.

Examples: "The economy wasn't so bad under Dubya/Cheney; it is all Obama's fault."

"Bush is the one who really got Bin Laden; Obama didn't do anything."

"Hands off my healthcare." (Of course first you have to HAVE healthcare, then you have to be able to afford it!)

"Obama is out of touch." "Corporations ae people..."

"Deficits don't matter." (Unless they occur under a Democratic President.)

"The profits from lower taxes for the wealthy will trickle down..."

"Saddam has WMD's and they are pointed right at US!"

.... It all sure gets old doesn't it. NO MORE LIES WINGNUTS! And no more double standards!

President Obama for President 2012!

perhaps you can tell us what is fraudulent about Reich's work.

...the fact that RWNJ's don't agree with him and that he proves the RNC-TEA political platform plank positions for the lies and spin that they really are.

Thus, to the unable to think GOP/TEA Rove, Luntz, Koch bros zombies, it must be fraud.

You know: if it goes against their assinine mantra, it can't be true.

Examples: "The economy wasn't so bad under Dubya/Cheney; it is all Obama's fault."

"Bush is the one who really got Bin Laden; Obama didn't do anything."

"Hands off my healthcare." (Of course first you have to HAVE healthcare, then you have to be able to afford it!)

"Obama is out of touch." "Corporations ae people..."

"Deficits don't matter." (Unless they occur under a Democratic President.)

"The profits from lower taxes for the wealthy will trickle down..."

"Saddam has WMD's and they are pointed right at US!"

.... It all sure gets old doesn't it. NO MORE LIES WINGNUTS! And no more double standards!

President Obama for President 2012!

Freshiee--I am sure you know that each of these points can be debated with reasonable counter arguments and that there isnt any black and white concrete answers but only different perspectives. I have actually met Robert Reich and spent a large group dinner listening to him and regardless of whether you are a liberal or conservative, he is just in this to entertain and make money no different than many others. He is not someone I respect in providing sound financial conclusions or recommendations. As to your responses:

1. Reagan certainly was president during an economic recovery from a deep recession and manufacturing bubble bust. You can argue that Volcker intentionally drove the country into recession with high interest rates to stop inflation and of course the oil embargo and huge increase in energy aided to the recession but it was a recession none the less. Whether you think Reagan's financial policies worked or not doesnt change the fact that the country grew at 6% GDP growth for many years and we had a very nice cyclical recovery in most economic sectors except manufacturing and even that came back a little. Germany and Canada are not good examples because they dont have the same education gap and nonhomogenous society as a result of immigration as the US. My guess is you understand this more than you are letting on this is the unfortunate not politically correct response to income inequality in the US

2. Yes they did, as I pointed out the ownership was just in different forms. If you control for education and skill set and for the conversion of corporate ownership where wealth was built into flow through entities, wealth has always been concentrated at the top.

4. Your conclusions are subject to debate. Many people argue both sides to this and you cant just make generalized conclusions. Government employment takes the same money out of the same pockets and just redistributes it unlike private enterprise. In your example, you are ignoring the tax payments that are needed to pay the government workers--where do you think that comes from? You act like its free money. There is no productivity or efficiency or service that is adding to overall wealth because the loss in demand from letting go the government worker is the same loss in demand from taking the tax revenue out of the hands of the local taxpayers. Plus, if the government worker gets a job in the private sector its works in favor of overall economic growth. Sorry but this isnt a slam dunk for the liberal argument.

5. The Bush tax cuts should never have happened across the board but the recession is the largest driver as we had huge economic growth and tax revenue increases for 5 years after the Bush tax cuts so lets keep things in perspective.

6. The elderly control 80% of the wealth in this country and that makes absolute sense because of the vast real estate and retirement benefits they control so not sure why you even try to refute that statistic. I have seen statistics as high as 85% of the wealth are controled by seniors. I dont have a problem with means testing or calling it welfare but if we do then lets stop the charade of giving social security to everyone and calling it retirement benefits. Its one or the other. If it is a retirement benefit then payroll taxes are not taxes but your contribution to your future retirement. If its welfare, then its a tax and we can reduce the current benefits substantially and we dont have a social security issue. However, if you are going to give it to everyone and you raise the cap, you need to increase the benefits for those who contribute more and there goes SS being solvent for 75 years.

7. Of course the poor and middle class pay tax but all of those sales taxes etc fund local and state governments. We are talking about funding the federal government and nothing else. Everyone working should pay also for our federal government.

Well, I'm not much a viewer on the personality of Robert Reich than his proposals. Regardless of whether he's in for the money, he has some great points, like how the recovery is slow because the middle class receives a smaller portion of the wealth and income than they used to.

1. I wouldn't say that Reagan didn't help the recovery; his spending boost did work, at least I hope it did, as I am unsure whether military spending stimulates the economy in an effective manner. He did help us, in the short-term. However, he gave a breath of fresh air to a small, radical part of the GOP that had been thought to have been suppressed completely. In fact, that radical part suddenly swallowed the party whole, and the country reversed much of its gains during the post-New Deal era and began to resemble the pre-progressive America of old, with trusts, monopolies, and high income inequality.

2. Not quite. The wealthy did own massive corporations and wealth, but the income distribution was much more equal. The more equal distribution of wealth and income was helped with the fact that the vast majority of Americans, back then, were in the middle class; a few were poor, and even fewer were wealthy.

4. Of course the government pays its employees via taxes taken from the private sector. However, government workers do create wealth, or help do so, via demand. Without them, chances are that the unemployment rate would be much higher. But government jobs also create private jobs via their demand, offsetting at least part of the cost that taxes incur on the private sector.

5. Well, it is a subject of debate. The Bush tax cuts didn't really help the economy, in my opinion, because much of them went the wealthy. Even if the majority went to the poor and the middle class, it only kept them afloat, not advance them economically as their wages were stagnant. Plus, the Bush economy wasn't the best economy; most of the growth was artificial due to the inflating of the housing bubble. There is not much proof other than deductive reasoning (or inductive, whatever) that the Bush tax cuts helped the slumping post-dot com bubble economy.

6. Well, I would like some proof of the statistics. I don't think that we should cut benefits substantially; only enough to help cover the shortfall along with increasing revenues. The cap was removed sometime after the Clinton administration, I believe, or at least after the 1980s. I don't believe that removing the cap made SS less fiscally sound. Besides, the cap doesn't restrict certain income groups from paying anything; more like affecting how much they pay. I don't think we would need to increase benefits, or at least not to such a level that it would remove the shortfall completely.

7. Actually, the poor and the lower parts of the middle class do pay federal taxes, payroll among them. Most people who don't pay the income tax just don't make enough. I don't think squeezing money out of them would make a huge dent. Maybe rescinding the tax credits that Obama placed in his stimulus would suffice, but anything else is just too regressive. We need a stronger, more progressive tax structure, where EVERYONE pays more, but the poor are given a bit more slack than everyone else.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Rudy - great points!

I second what Sanity said, Rudy!.....Great post!

Rudy- Obama's words are not cheap, they are very exact as demonstrated by the number of high profile Al Qaeda taken out with drone aircraft.

When Bush in office killings bad. When Obama in office killings good. Make up your mind lefties.

When Bush in office killings bad. When Obama in office killings good. Make up your mind lefties.

Zap - When bush was in office, Americans died. While O is in office, mostly terrorists die (those Drones are a bitch).

So I'll take (When Obama in office killings good.)

Rudy Gonzales, excellent points!

Zap, what a load of manure you dumped. Obviously, you don't know the difference between starting an unnecessary war in Iraq and fighting the actual terrorists who hit us on 9/11. Worse, Bush charged his wars on the credit card and now the GOP whines about the debt they created.

They (GOP-Tea Nuts) like to play dumb and ask those ridiculous question that are not germane.

I would ask Zap, "If our President went on national tv tonight and gave Chavez 48 hours to get out of Venezuala or we will come into his country with guns blazing, then proceded to invade his country losing some 5,000 U.S. troops in the process, would you consider the killing good or bad?"

Doesn't matter who the President is in the above senario - Bush, Obama, Clinton, Lincoln - I would consider the killing bad in that case. This is identical to what Bush did to Saddam & Iraq.

On the other hand, getting the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on America and reducing the responsible organization to leaderless footnotes in history, I consider good WARFARE (because NO killing is truly good.)

Now Zap.... where do YOU line up in this situation and what arguements do YOU present for your position?

Yeah....

thought so.

.

Off the subject a little, On the Colbert Report Colbert said after Romney gave his speech saying that Obama was out of touch with the American people, Mitt flew on his private jet to NJ to watch his horse Rafalca compete in the National Dressage Championship.

Who is out of touch?

When Bush was in office I gave due criticism on some of his policy's yet you leftards go above and beyond to defend anything Obama does. And don't try to defend one President to another regarding how many American deaths there are in these wars that's just pathetic. Besides Chicago has more shooting deaths this year as opposed to Afghanistan. Try to defend that. Go.

Attempted deflection zap....

And don't try to defend one President to another regarding how many American deaths there are in these wars

Oh we know you would like to distance yourself and the tea/gop from this statistic, but the 5000 brave Americans who did not come back from Iraq is stuck on Dumbya/Cheney's chests.

Appearances to the voters is that they, the Republicans, considered oil and profit much more important than the lives of our soldiers.

Sad AND stupid IMO....

We can see why you would want to get away from these facts, buy your RNC/TEA excuses and "expainations" just don't hold water.

Since your a statistical wizard tell me how many American deaths are on Oblamya's record? I understand if you don't want to go there because those facts are a b!tCh for libtards.

tell me how many American deaths are on Oblamya's record?

Apples to apples Zap:

You want to know the number of American soldiers killed in action from the wars President Obama started?

Is that your question, or are you attempting another deflection to bring in another arguement?

Well, the answer is..... gee Zap! The answer is ZERO!

Kindly ruins your point and kills your argument doesn't it...

As an independant, if I hear or see Bush getting blamed one more time, I think my head will explode

Sirie - Its Bush's fault. All of it is Bush's fault. Bush's fault, Bush's fault, Bush's fault!!!!!!!!

I can't wait to see the explosion.

Obama/Biden 2012 (BTW It's Bush's fault)

Bush did it...It's Bush's fault.....Bush is to blame!.......

But it is Bush's fault. If it wasn't for him Obama would never have been elected and we wouldn't be in this mess.

Got to go get some Tylenol... ugh!!

Thanks guys!!

Dear sirie:

As an independent of some 40 yrs. after spending 20 years as a registered Republican, I am compelled to remind you,

the last time Republicans controlled the White House and Congress, they turned a budget surplus into a deficit through war spending, tax cuts for high-income earners and a new, unpaid-for prescription drug plan.

So, when you or the other RWNJ's spout off that,

if I hear or see Bush getting blamed one more time, I think my head will explode

when the facts are so obviously true, I really must question your statement that you are an "independent." By all indications, you are a dyed-in-the-wool tea-publican-nut.

We understand that the truth and the historical facts of what Dumbya/Cheney did is something you would like to forget and distance yourself and the GOP/TEA from, we MUST point out that denial and creating some alternative reality and re-writing history is tantamount to LYING TO THE AMERICAN VOTERS pure and simple.

As to your claim of being an independent: Since you lie about that , you will lie about anything (and reading your posts, I see you do.)

If you are believing Obama then you clearly don't know what facts are and aren't smart enough to figure it out for yourself.

Romney is just what America Need in Nov..

Any sources for that lucky, or are YOU just repeating the RNC/TEA spin talking points too?

Oh...

re-reading your post the answer is clear.

If your candidate does not have any position,

does not have any answers,

does not have any solutions,

does not have a handle on the causes of the problems,

does not have any true national leadership experience =

in fact, if your candidate does not have anything concrete of value except tons of other peoples' money to spend, then I can see why all you RWNJ Romney supporters can do is repeat the RNC/TEA/FOX/GOP rhetorical spin and talking points....

but that won't win any elections!

Well Not as stupid, you must be right, because you think so.

I don't think President Obama is doing a good job, and that must burn your butt that someone who actually voted for him (as I was hoping he could change politicts as usual, as he told us he would). His arrogance is what I really don't like about him, that and the fact that he said that if he couldn't bring unemployment below 6% in 4 years he doesn't deserve to be re-elected. Nevermind what he says, he is destructing this country, he crybaby antics of blame bush, telling people to call their congressmen and tell them to follow his lead (what kind of a leader does that?), I actually used to think he was smart!

Now, if you can tell me one of my past posts that says anything I say good about Romney (who I also think will be bad for this country) then please paste it word for word, or just keep your head in the sand and vote party line, i'm sure you are one of those types that thinks your party knows best about everything, don't you? That says alot about how your name came about... your not as stupid as we think, but that doesn't mean your smart, could be you are worse than we think... ever think of that brainiac?

Loser...

I don't think President Obama is doing a good job

As compared to the eight years before, or as compared to the eight years under President Clinton? "Good job" is a relative term requiring a value judgment, so additional specifics are necessary to convey your meaning.

His arrogance is what I really don't like about him

"Oh yeah Massa Sirie... we gots to keep that uppity boy in his place!" Is that what you mean? Certainly sounds like what you are saying.

he is destructing this country

Again, specifics please, and do you have any authorities to cite in support or is this simply your opinion?

he crybaby antics of blame bush

Well, FLASH:

Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has written a great piece in the New York Times on tax reform and cites the true cost of the George W. Bush presidency:

Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.

Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.

As Andrew Sullivan notes:

When you check reality, rather than the alternate universe constantly created by Fox News and an amnesiac press, you find that Bush had a chance to pay off all our national debt before we hit the financial crisis – giving the US enormous flexibility in intervening to ameliorate the recession. Instead, we had to find money for a stimulus in a cupboard stripped bare – its contents largely given away, by an act of choice. I’m tired of being told we cannot blame Bush for our current predicament. We can and should blame him for most of it – and remind people that Romney’s policies: more tax cuts, more defense spending are identical. With one difference: Bush pledged never “to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.”

Mitt Romney has no qualms about doing that very thing. And he will, if he is given the chance.

See = even Republican teanuts know it is Bush's fault; to continually accuse the President of placing blame instead of taking responsibility is assinine and tantamount to telling lies to the voters. Stating facts is not "antics of blame bush" as you post, so get over it and stop with the RNC-Tea rhetorical spin; voters are sick and tired of hearing it.

Your thinnly veiled support of the teapublican Romney is obvious, so your final paragraph is bunk.

Maybe you do not like the truth because it is contradictory to your TEA/RNC beliefs, but it is still the truth. Accept and deal with it!

And, finally, IMO YOU could be a television star....

on that show:

BIGGEST LOSER!

Bush sucked as President ... never voted for either of them. However Obama took a job and said that he would:

bring unemployment below 6% -- FAIL

cut the deficit -- FAIL

check the budget line by line for wasted programs --- what budget?? -- FAIL

In contrast, he has done some things very well, and I do give him credit for his foreign policy, however that would be down on my list of things needed for this country.

Much more rational post Sirie, thank you.

The three item listed as "FAIL" are actually "in the works" and progress IS being made.

Pretty good progress considering:

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 Obama is a one-term President".

The President has attempted to reduce waste and duplication of government services, and has repeatedly asked Congress for authority to slash programs, but = true to their obstructionist plan (above) - they have refused to allow it; same with Gitmo. Obama tries to close it, Congress wants to keep it so they won't let him. He has faced roadblocks and interference for everything he has tried to accomplish, and has STILL been able to move the nation forward and make progress.

As for your budget complaint, we haven't passed a true budget since 1997;Congressional continuing resolutions have finance the nation:

http:/ /prospect.org/article/does-congress-even-need-pass-budget

Perfect? Far from it... but so much better than we endured 2001-2009, and deserving the opportunity to finish the job (hopefully without the obstructionism from this first term) and heal this country.

Together with the foreign policy successes you mentioned, I have to support President Obama for President 2012 - especially considering the alternative.

RWW, guess you'll be voting in about ten years.

Commie stuff?

Wow you used a scary hate word, color me impressed.

That would be a great queston! The fun fact would be how many people got in the same situation under Obama's direction.

Change now...

Actually ask the people at Staples how many have lost their jobs, or Sports Authority, since both of them started out AFTER Romney invested in them. I'm sure that those companies feel particularly "raided" now that they employ thousands upon thousands of Americans.

But don't ask those at the steel factory that shut down that Obama and you on the left love to use as an "example", because it shut down two YEARS after Romney left and Bain was being run by an OBAMA bundler.

And it's NOT "raiding" when you INVEST in a company by the way. And if the company fails, you actually LOSE your investment. Hardly "raiding", don't you think?

It's only raiding when you tell people that although they will get absolutely NOTHING out of it, they must give their Federal tax dollars to pay for the employment of some union public employee or union teacher in another State.

It's only raiding when you STEAL a half a Trillion dollars from MediCare so that you can "show" how ObamaCare will "save" money. It's only raiding when you lie about how people's health insurance premiums will go down and they'll save "on average" $2500 a year, and instead those premiums are MULTIPLIED by as much as four times like our family's was.

It's only raiding when you spend our children's, grandchrildren's, and great grand children's futures to pay for your "social justice" garbage now.

CherylLM-

You apparently know very little about how Bain or LEVERAGED BUYOUTS work. Bain did not invest their money in these companies, they borrowed money. Bain had no risk, they took their 2% management fee right off the top, win or lose. If the company succeeded, great. If the company failed, Bain declared bankruptcy and walked away with their management fee- leaving the taxpayers to cover the pensions.

You also claim the steel company failed after Romney left, but almost all of the job growth at both Staples and Sports Authority occured AFTER Romney left Bain - you can't have it both ways!

So people get nothing out of teachers and firefighters - they don't protect us, teach or kids, or buy products?

You are wrong on stealing money from Medicare, and if your premium went up it had nothing to do with the ACA, premiums have been going up for years - way before Obama became President!

I would consider it raiding when you borrow from China and spend our children's, grandchrildren's, and great grand children's futures to pay for more tax cuts for your wealthy friends.

But the private sector is doing fine Tom, or did you miss that proclamation by Obama?

So since the great God Obama has spoken and has decided that paying off, ooops, I mean "supporting" State public employee unions and teachers unions is now the responsibility of the Federal Government and the private sector is "doing fine", how is it that Romney is the one that's out of touch?

Why are you so jealous of someone that's more successful than you? What's the matter Tom, can't make it in the private sector as well as Romney has? Need Barack to keep those "entitlements" coming in for you?

As for nightmares, the longest period of high unemployment since the Depression itself. Record borrowing, record debt, record deficits, and record spending that have literally produced nothing for the economy. New laws, wait...I mean "regulations" being written by the EPA without the approval of Congress. Including things like calling a ditch a "waterway" so they can take control of people's property, shutting down an oil drill because an icebreaker "might" affect the air quality of a town of 400 people SEVENY miles away, and shutting down coal plants which is forcing energy costs up. An unConstitutional "mandate" shoved down this nation's throat. Class warfare filth and racism promoted in an election. An actual assassination list, with the President himself picking out who's dies and who lives. Massive intelligence leaks.

Obama ALREADY is a nightmare for America. Romney would be like a trip to Disneyland compared to the incompentent fool we have in the White House now.

He earned it, and he can spend it as he pleases. If I had that kind of money I'd have a huge yacht and a house in the South of France. And guess what, after Obama leaves office, he is going to make a ton of money in speaking engagements, and probably more books, and he and Michelle will move into a bigger mansion and spend lots of money too. So what? If you had his money you'd be living large too. The last thing we want in the White House is a poor, unsuccessful person who does not understand high finance.

Cheryl & MsEddy, you missed the point.

Romney claims Obama is out of touch, yet Romney is and has always been extremely wealthy. I don't envy it, I strive to get here too. But that also means he never had to work for a living, never had to worry about how he was going to make the mortgage payment, never had to worry about whether his health insurance would cover everything if his family got sick, never had to worry about losing his job - he basically has NO IDEA about how most of us live our lives.

Remember, he talked about "firing" his insurance company if he didn't like their service? Most of us are stuck with what we can afford or what our employer offers.

And as for being jealous, why are all the Republicans jealous that the public union workers have pensions and health insurance? They don't work for it? CEOs deserve their 15% tax rates, golden parachutes, and "cadillac" health care plans but teachers don't deserve benefis and a pension?

@MsEddy: Of course you mean; "Understands how to steal the finances from others". Fixed it for you.

And guess what, after Obama leaves office,

MsEddy - That is exactly his plan. He has it scheduled for 2017!

Obama/Biden 2012

at this rate, by July 1 there will be some huge momentum building...

sirie - and all of the momentum will be for Obama.

SeekingSanity........Keep seeking that sanity, because right now you still seem to be lost in Liberaland.

Bob-

One poll, by an organization headed by a Romney cheerleader, that is historically off by at least five points to the Republican side, and you get all excited?

Why have you not mentioned the recent poll in VIRGINIA that shows Obama up by five points?

Romney has managed to put together a few good weeks, but it's a long way to November.

CheryLM - as I often say - but clearly your comprehension is lacking, I'm seeking sanity in the GOP but people like you show, daily, there is none to be found. So sad.

Obama/Biden 2012

You almost had an intelligent comment going there Seeking.

If you want TRUE sanity, then stop demanding that what I EARNED should pay for someone else's failure to even try. Stop thinking that what I WORKED for somehow belongs to either the government or someone that that literally refuses to work. Stop thinking the the government has the absolute right to tell me how to live my life, or to even tell what I WILL purchase.

And of course you ended your comment with your proof of your failed search for sanity.

No real Americans want Obama anymore ....

He's done ....

Cheryl, everything that you post proves I'm right - absolutely no sanity to be found in the lost world of the GOP!

Hey Vag-Bob

Which polls are you talking about? Every poll I've seen, shows O up in Wisc. Boobie boy, you poor feeble minded little pachyderm, you better get to work in your own State, because O's up in Va. too.

Obama/Biden 2012

Poor Cheryl....

Hangs on the GOP stance to the end.. Like a true GOP member she hates paying her taxes for any reason and would like them lowered even more. Just because you can't micromanage where all the tax money is going doesnt mean it should not be collected Cheryl...

Popular gop stance: "Lower taxes for everyone, more money for the military!"

2+2 does not equal 10.. Where does all that money come from for your GOP pet projects if you lower taxes on an already minimized work force? You've already lost 4.5 trillion in tax revenue from companies and employees that vanished due to Bush's policies and tenure.

He might have to cancel a fundraiser, but Yeah he will make that up somehow.

lollllllllll

yep.

O's a gonner.

Lol. Can't wait to see your heart sink when Obama gets another 4 years and the Democrats take majority in the house/senate.

Finally things will start getting done around here. Your gridlocking, oil loving republicans masters have been exposed this year. Perhaps thats what the POTUS meant when he said more transparency. He exposed the Republicans in congress for what they are.

You might be right GCOOPER, maybe we will be better off with Obama rather than Romney, that would sure be a dark scenario. Let me tell you this though, I'm voting for Mitt, would rather vote for Hillary but I sure won't have my children bogged down with 25 years of debt that I caused by re-voting for Obama.

Obama, out of ideas, out of touch, out of time, out to redistribute your wealth...he's managed to take 30% of your wealth in just 3 years...can't imagine what will happen to the US if he gets four more years.

I'm still trying to figure out why Obama wants to be president for four more years, what is it that he has planned to solved the problems that he hasn't already tried and failed to accomplish. If he has any new ideas why haven't they been tried in his first term, because he has led us to a desperate place in our history.

It all starts with a proper education. I believe the term you're looking for was " He wants all Americans to succeed."

Romney doesn't give 2 sh1ts if everyone succeeds or not. Remember he is all about free market and capitalism. While religion is dandy for some folks, contrary to what Romney would have you believe, praying won't find you a job any faster than sitting at home. You can take your flip flopping religious zealot to Mexico, i hear they are looking for a new President this fall as well.

GCooper, your opinion is based on faulty fundamentals and some really bad logic. It is Obama who does not give 2 @!$%#tts about the middle class, except at this time of year when he needs something from them. He spends his free time with the rich elite who like him only use the middle class and the working poor for their own wealth generation.

Can you explain how you think he should have done that when the Republican side sat down as soon as he was elected to strategize how to prevent that from happening? It takes two to tango.

Heartlight3 - you don't understand. Most of the right wingers on this site "tango" alone.

For 2 teams who have historically fought against each other a major reshuffle has to happen. The bad apples with secluded and self righteous agendas need to be exposed and expelled. Obama ran on a promise for government transparency as well. The POTUS is living up to that promise right now. The Republicans have been exposed as traitorous stalwarts who are against genuine progression for the interest of the American people.

Be patient, the change is coming again in November. Republicans will be uprooted and their majority will vanish. Could be more Independents, could be more Democrats, but either way the Republicans are history. Once that happens the remaining members will unite and finish bringing us out of this depression.

Hey stockpile - you hit the nail on the head! Glad to see someone with sense that can call it like they see it. Leadership is what the job is all about, and when the going gets tough, Obama goes fundraising!

The President's "job plan" was and is NOTHING except payoff and paybacks to the public employee and teacher's unions for their financial support of him and Democrats.

Tell us all how that creates a SINGLE job in the private sector where over 20 MILLION Americans are unemployed or working part time?

There are THIRTY bills sitting in the Senate right now that have been passed by the House. Many of them were writtent to create jobs in the private sector and NOT to simpley pay back unions.

A couple of those bills are actual BUDGETS for the Federal government. You remember budgets, right? Something the Democrats have REFUSED to not only have a vote on, but REFUSED to even discuss in the Senate for three years now.

Do you know where EVERY one of those bills are? Sitting in a desk somewhere because Harry Reid won't take the chance that Democrats will vote for them and make Barack look bad in an election year. Buried so that there can be NO negotiations on them whatsoever. Killed so that people like you will continue to believe that idiotic "party of no" mantra that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama throw around like candy.

You and millions like you voted good old Barack in on "hope and change"........Did you "understand and evaluate" that before you went in the polling booth?

Cheryl. I've read your posts for a long time and most of them have been full of misinformation and exaggerations.

So, about this "fine private sector" business...what's your opinion on the record profits a lot of the bigger corporations (energy, oil) are experiencing with fewer employees?

If you could actually POINT OUT the "misinformation and exaggerations" that you talk about, then get back to me.

As for energy and oil corporations profits; it's pretty simple on oil....just go to the nearest gas pump. The prices of gas were at RECORD levels (to of course go along with the record deficits, record borrowing, record spending and recored debt) and are still high. It's going exactly where Obama's energy guy said he wanted it, higher costs that will literally FORCE people into "alternative energy".

As for the "energy" companies, since over 100 Billion taxpayer dollars have been handed out in "grants" and "guaranteed loans" to "green" energy, their profits are soaring. Especially since EVERY single one of those companies have a guarantee from the Dept of Energy that CEO's, Executives, and investors lost absolutely NOTHING if the companies go under and the American taxpayer takes the loss. Interesting that over 70% of those "green" companies are Obama and Democrat bundlers, supporters, and even staff members that are making hundreds of millions of dollars whether the company itself makes a profit, loses money, or even goes bankrupt.

SMALL businesses do most of the job creation in this country, not the "corporations". And small businesses are not hiring because of the costs of ObamaCare, new regulations, the fact that banks aren't loaning anymore because of Dodd-Frank, and the fact that Democrats and Obama want higher taxes. That doesn't even count the States that, like California, are demanding higher and new taxes on businesses and individuals.

Tell me where my "misinformation and exaggerations" are please.

Cheryl, come on. $100 billiion in taxpayer funds has already been handed out?

to of course go along with the record deficits, record borrowing, record spending and (recored)? debt)

All to pay off republican IOU's swept under the carpet by Dubya. Do some homework honey.

It's going exactly where Obama's energy guy said he wanted it, higher costs that will literally FORCE people into "alternative energy".

WOW!! Frank H. is right. You are a lying sack of hammers Cheryl!! Gas prices would be high no matter who was in office now. You people claim Obama incapable of doing anything, but somehow he can magically move world oil prices single handedly?

Obama is making gas prices high because that'll increase his re-election chances, eh? Your adroit use of truth and logic are stunning Cheryl, simply stunning.

Obama couldn't fiscally manage a wiener and potato chip cart

Really Big bun? Well yer' Momma wears Army boots,....and,...she dresses you funny.

The Wall Street Journal reported that growth in spending under Obama is the lowest in 60 years, when Eisenhower was in his first term. That's a fact, Jack. Let's guess whose increase was the biggest, Dubya.

There is an annual budget debt and there is the cumulative national debt. Get it?

I can do this all day there are only 57 more that are rated false. You are all welcome to

Concerned - They're tied in the false category at 15%. But Mitten's has a big lead in the "Pants on Fire" category 10% to O's 1%.

Mitten's is the all time leader in the Flip-Flop category. He has too many to count....

Obama/Biden 2012

Affinity/GT

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 2006

GET IT??????Probably not because you are speaking like the dung from the donkey.

It is absolutely crazy for anyone to think Mitt Romney would be better for this country than President Obama.

The people that support Mitt Romney have no idea what he stands for, they are strickly following him for the color of his skin, he's not the Black guy. They won't even ask him what he stands for and make him give real answer to anything.

I think he needs to give a speech on race relations to America, just like President Obama had to do, and all Presidential candidates going forward should have to. The Presidents job is to serve all the people, from all classes, cultures, creeds, religions, back grounds, genders, races, sexes. Can Mitt Romney serve the people versus the special interest groups paying for his campaign? Who does he owe special favors to?

Think about what Mitt believes, "Corporations are people", not unless they can provide a legitimate birth certificate signed by a licensed doctor, showing mother and father. and we can do a DNA test on them.

What's his plan for America?

What's his plan for Health-care, and pre-existing conditions?

What's his plan for the education system?

What's his plan for getting the Infra-Structure of America back up to par?

What's his plan to create job's both in the Private and Public sector, they do work together?

Sounds like Obama.I would like to see them debate without preplaned questions.and no teleprompter.