The whole brouhaha over Mitt's taxes isn't going to go away. Even if he does successfully stall and doesn't release them before the election, they will eventually come out. Most of you are speculating that it would be too embarrassing for a presidential candidate to make tens of millions per year and pay next to nothing through creative accounting. I think there's something more nefarious at play.

1) Why did Mitt have a Swiss bank account? He claims it was there for purchasing Swiss francs as he engaged in speculation against the American dollar. That's patriotic. But since when do you need a Swiss bank account to speculate on foreign currencies? Did any income arising from said speculation make its way into an FBAR report? If so, for how many years? How much?

2) The aforementioned Swiss bank account was closed in 2010. Did Mitt avail himself of the IRS's 2009 partial tax amnesty on bringing unreported foreign accounts home? If so, it proves he was avoiding paying his taxes. If not, then where did all that money go? Talk about a rock and a hard place for a presidential candidate. It's flat out proof that you're a big-time tax cheat.

3) A $100 million IRA? How is that even possible? Even if Mitt contributed the absolute legal maximum $30,000 per year, outside of sprinkling magic Mormon dust on it, there is no way that accumulates into $100 million. Or, did Mitt illegally use a special IRS "safe harbor" rule relating to the taxation of a service in order to stuff far, far, far more into his retirement plans each year than the maximum allowed by law by claiming that the stock of the Bain company deals that the retirement plan acquired had only a nominal value. Now that's a tax cheat!

4) How did Mitt put together such a low effective tax rate? I want Mitt to stand up and explain to Joe Sixpack why it's proper that his "carried interest" income is taxed at half the rate of common everyday American workers. Oh, that's right, managing other people's money is much harder work than what the common manual laborers do. I'm sure he could explain it to the little people.

5) Exactly how did Mitt put together the huge Romney family trust funds? Did Mitt report and pay gift tax on the funding of these trusts or did he claim unreasonable valuations, which would expose him to serious penalties if all the facts are known?

At this point you might ask, but if any of that were true, why would he even consider running for president? I really don't know. Maybe someone could ask John Edwards what the thought process is that makes you believe you can encounter presidential candidate scrutiny and still hide your secrets. Nevertheless, the opaque candidate really needs to release his returns and answer the questions. Nixon resigning in disgrace will be nothing compared to a former President in a pin-striped jumpsuit.

Someone needs to tell me what Romney is talking about. Work has been a condition of welfare here in my state since the 1990s. If other states want it to be otherwise, why should Romney care? (Love the pun?) After all, isn't he all about turning control of federal entitlement spending, like Medicaid, etc., back to the states in the form of block grants?

Or, is this a case when the big, bad federal government knows better than the states?

Which is it, Mittens?

Feisty--not only does Mitt double down on the lie, he accuses the President of a flip flop. Really, Mitt? You really want to go there?

R-money wants all the tax breaks for himself. He is the corporate "Welfare Queen in Drag".

Feisty--not only does Mitt double down on the lie, he accuses the President of a flip flop

SF,

What continually amazes me, is how the right wing nitwits defend the blatant lies...

*shakes head*

First Read --

This isn't the first time Obama has referred to Illinois laws as if he passed them singlehandedly.

And your point?

If I had a nickel for every time a politician said that "I" passed a law, I could retire and blog out here full time.

Oh Jonathon -- CHE is watching.

TWO Republican governors requested a waiver.

Obama has stated the work requirements WILL NOT be watered down.

Without LIES Republicans have nothing.

Jon R -- Great Post!

corporate "Welfare Queen in Drag".

Bev, good one. made me laugh.

Nothing like making a few enemies with two Republican Governors either, Mitt. Way to let them know that their plans are without merit (in your lying eyes) and putting them in a tough spot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-again-puts-gop-governors-in-delicate-spot/2012/08/07/fa15e2d6-e0c7-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_blog.html

Beverly - LOVE the pic! So true for most of Mitt's events, isn't it?

As Albany might say -- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

_______________________________

AM: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but, you forgot the exclamation points!!!! :~)

Yup, that's right. Looks like no one give a SH!T

Too funny!

Team Willard couldn't even round up enough rats to fill the empty seats! lmao!

KNOCK OFF the comment spamming Elliot!

Albany --

AM: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but, you forgot the exclamation points!!!! :~)

You don't always have to shout, Joe. Feel free to get in touch with your softer, gentler side. If you can remember where you hid it. ;-)

Chris@SLC

corporate "Welfare Queen in Drag".

Bev, good one. made me laugh.

I see Willard is tiptoeing thru the cornfields getting ready for HIS MAD TEA PARTY. It wouldn't surprise me since T-baggers live in a fantasy if "MYTH" Romeny comes dressed as Alice!!!

Elliot, you guys denigrate, thinkprogress, politifact, media matters, but then you quote Breitbart to us?! Seriously!?

SeekingSanity

Beverly - LOVE the pic! So true for most of Mitt's events, isn't it?

Absolutely, and it's going to be like that even if this corporate welfare socialist releases his tax returns. His unfavorable are very high. He is really struggling to be accepted.

Poll finds Romney unfavorability rating rising among voters:

The poll notes that Romney finished the GOP primary season with the lowest favorability ratings for a presumptive nominee in the organization's surveys dating back 28 years, and the new figures suggest he has failed to address the issue with the voting public in the general-election phase of his campaign.

The poll found that among those who were undecided about Romney a year ago and have now made up their minds, Romney is trending negative. His favorability rating is up 7 points in the last year, with his unfavorable score up 18.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/242717-romney-unfavorability-rating-on-the-rise-among-voters-poll-finds

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

He'll do anything to be liked; except the simple thing. That'd be stop lying.

Got that righties? "MYTH" is going down. So stop bloivating!!!

4 more years for 44

Obama/Biden 2012

Love how President Clinton is debunking Mitt, guess Bill will need a longer spot at the convention, can't wait to hear him pounce on mittens, should give President Obama lots to work with during the debates too.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Willard is grabbing at anything he can to keep the focus off of his tax returns!

HAHAHA!!!!!

That is HILARIOUS!

Heaven forbid we talk about REAL issues like welfare reform, tax reform or the ECONOMY!

OH no! Lets totally focus on Romney's tax returns!

Obama and is lemmings are totally grasping at straws! "There MUST be something in there or he wouldn't hide them from us!"

HAHAHAHA!!!! What losers! Anything to distract and avoid the REAL issues!

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

How much higher will Obama's massive debt go to today .... "LOL"

In other words - or in these exact words - Brockton need more time to fabricate his lies. Stay tuned.... or do something worthwhile like - anything would be more worthwhile!

Obama/Biden 2012

Massachusetts today sent out close to 500,000 letters to the states Welfare Receipients in a voter registration drive prompted by our good old friends from ACORN.

They're back at it again! Cost of the mailing $275,000 for the taxpayers of MA.

Still trying to confirm if the mailing included an Obama Forward bumper sticker.

Evidently, 12 other states are being pressured to do the same. Not much pressure was needed in our Moonbat utopia.

I'll keep you all posted!

You don't always have to shout, Joe. Feel free to get in touch with your softer, gentler side. If you can remember where you hid it.

_______________________________________

AM: Where was I shouting?? I capitalize my HAHA's because I'm generally laughing as loud as I possibly can when I'm here on FR. And they say laughter is the best medicine. A BIG thank you to all the FR lefty liberals for helping keep me healthy.

BTW, I think my "softer gentler side" withered in my late 20's-early 30's. You know, it's the old "If you're 18 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're 40 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain." thing. :~)

Obama the pied piper. "Follow me" and like rats the liberals do

Romney needs to keep at it on this issue. Obama's plan is for as many people to be on welfare or ssdi as possible. The more people dependent on government the more votes they will get.

Right now in many states they are ramping up the welfare class to vote for the Food Stamp President.

Romney has it right. If you are capable of working you need to be working not sitting on the dole.

Wow...letting states decide how best to spend Federal money based on the dynamics/needs of their state?

What a concept!

Albany Joe --

AM: Where was I shouting?? I capitalize my HAHA's because I'm generally laughing as loud as I possibly can when I'm here on FR.

Come on, Joe. You know I was only teasing you. I didn't come back here to spar with you over exclamation points.

If you're 40 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain." thing. :~)

Ah. I see.

http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/gary/iq.html

JFK IQ -- 174. Jimmy Carter -- 175. Wllliam Jefferson Clinton -- 182.

I won't embarrass you with the rest.

The socialist, marxist, welfare attacks against President Obama, particularly in front of WHITE, non-college educated groups are designed to demonstrate that President Obama is not like the crowds.

Socialist, communist, marxist, welfare, are all code words for black or N&%%#r. Since a direct racist attack would lose the support of many independents and even some Republicans, the Romney campaign is reduced to coded challenges. Welfare President, Food Stamp President, Socialist President, Communist President. Each and everyone is just a formulaic racist attack and equally disgusting.

Massachusetts today sent out close to 500,000 letters to the states Welfare Receipients in a voter registration drive prompted by our good old friends from ACORN.

Isn't it sweet of Rob to keep us posted on the happenings in MA?

Tick...Tock...

Nice catch Feisty.

Brockton/ROB -- Wow are you off base. Here's the facts. In right to work states they keep the people poor with low wages which necessitates people to take subsidies such as SNAP and Welfare. Wake up. Your Party is the biggest contributor to the welfare rolls swelling.

The very recent Reuters/Ipsos poll says that 46 percent of registered voters thought Obama was stronger on jobs and the economy, compared with 44 percent for Romney. On tax matters, 49 percent saw Obama as stronger as compared to 38 percent for Romney.

100's of Mexican citizens and a couple border agents dead over fast and furious.

Guns purchased by neo-cons and sold to the Mexican cartels courtesy of the NRA and the GOP/TP Arizona legislature. WHen are we going to see the extreme right wing freaks apologize?

Just what does Mitt have for a plan to end corporate welfare and entitlements to the rich and sleazy?

And where is "NO TAXES" Grover regarding Mitt's plan to tax the middle class?

SeekingSanity

In other words - or in these exact words - Brockton need more time to fabricate his lies.

Brockton sounds desperate by hanging on to the only thing he's got: idiotic examples.

What Brockton doesn't realize is that Mitt's tax thing has been following him like a shadow for decades now.

Especially since RomneyHood DEMANDED from Kennedy to release his tax returns, saying the veteran senator needed to “prove he [had] nothing to hide.”

“It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes,” Romney said in April of 1994

Brockton Barlow

Massachusetts today sent out close to 500,000 letters to the states Welfare Receipients in a voter registration drive prompted by our good old friends from ACORN.

Hey Brockton

How 'bout that voter suppression Republicans are doing????

During the 2011 legislative sessions, states across the country passed measures to make it harder for Americans – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot. Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Studies suggest that up to 11 percent of American citizens lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.

http://www.aclu.org/voter-suppression-america

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

Voter suppression is unconstitutional.

Under the United States Constitution, states may not restrict voting rights in ways that infringe one's right to equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment), on the basis of race (Fifteenth Amendment), gender (Nineteenth Amendment), or age for persons age 18 and older (Twenty-Sixth Amendment).

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

FYI: Voter Registration is legal. Voter Suppression is not.

JustSlapMe, you're right where is it? its probably right next to the one that ends it for the poor and sleazy. That is an American problem that neither canidate, neither side will touch. Each side uses it as a talking point, just like immigration reform and every other reform out there. How come Obama won't tackle it either? Something tells me he gains a lot from the rich.

Teaparty Low IQ, you got the last two words or you moniker correct.

RedDev, guns purchased by Neo-cons? which Neo-cons would that be? have a list of names and party affiliation or is only neo-cons that own guns/ gun stores? Constitution must suck for you. RedDev, keep defending the indefensible.

hey bev how do you know if someone is 18? by the way you have to be alive to vote and a citizen right? hmmm, except in Chitown LOL.

JFK IQ -- 174. Jimmy Carter -- 175. Wllliam Jefferson Clinton -- 182.

I won't embarrass you with the rest.

_________________________________________

AM: You left off Richard M. Nixon at 155 according to your sources.

IQ scores tell only a small part of the story. Clearly Jimmy Carter was very intelligent, but, still had a failed one-term Presidency. Slick Willy and JFK were also very intelligent, they just weren't smart enough to keep their pants zipped up in the Oval office. And Tricky Dick??

Some criticisms of IQ scores:

The IQ test is one of psychology’s most widely used tools. However, IQ testing has been criticized for a number of factors--including possible bias regarding race and economic level. Critics say IQ tests may not measure imagination or moral character either, according to the APA.

Possible Bias

IQ tests have been criticized by researchers and educators for not taking into consideration race, gender, class and culture, the APA says. The tests appear geared toward white, upper-class males--who tend to score better on certain tests. Other criticisms include a minimization within the tests of practical everyday know-how, the importance of creativity and having a well-rounded character, according to the APA.

Not a Predictor of Success

One of the most vocal critics of IQ testing is Dr. Daniel Goleman, author of the book "Emotional Intelligence.” In the book, Goleman refutes the long-held idea that IQ tests are somehow a predictor of how successful one will be in life. He says research has not shown a correlation between high IQ scores and a successful life, and he questions their usefulness.

They Don't Measure Emotional Intelligence

What Goleman terms emotional intelligence can be more important to all-around happiness than IQ and a more accurate predictor of success in life, he says. Emotions play a greater role in decision making and success than we previously thought. He says the types of traits that make up emotional intelligence, not measured by IQ tests, include: "control of one’s impulses, self-motivation, empathy and social competence in interpersonal relationships."

They Ignore Seven Kinds of Intelligence

Another critic of IQ testing is Harvard University psychologist Howard Gardner, Ph.D., who, starting in the 1980s, attacked the concept of “a single immutable intelligence.” Instead, he offered that at least seven kinds of intelligence should be considered--linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal and intra-personal. He said this list could be extended as other types of intelligence are categorized.

They Don't Measure Adaptability or Resilience

According to the article “IQ myths” on the website IQ Test Experts, many think that IQ tests actually measure intelligence. In reality, a person with high intelligence can easily adapt to demands of new situations or problems, and tests often can't measure adaptability or resilience factors. The article says IQ is a measure of “relative intelligence,” determined by standardized testing. IQ can change as people learn and grow. Intelligence is not fixed, and a test can only measure certain fixed factors at a given time.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/171177-problems-with-iq-tests/#ixzz22yrMCFxS

Tax Man --

RedDev, guns purchased by Neo-cons? which Neo-cons would that be? have a list of names and party affiliation or is only neo-cons that own guns/ gun stores? Constitution must suck for you. RedDev, keep defending the indefensible.

Talk about indefensible.

When is someone going to ask you imaginary Constitutional experts why you think it is that the right to own guns is somehow superior to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are denied to citizens in any gun death. Any seventh-grader knows that even Constitutional rights are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable regulation where there is a sufficient state interest. In this case, it is clear that the state has a compelling interest in its citizens' lives.

Tell you what, Tax Man. Why don't you just take your self-righteous expert self over to the houses of the families of the victims of the Milwaukee shootings and explain to them why it is that the right to bear arms trumps the right of their family members to LIVE, and how it is that their family members' lives were a necessary sacrifice for the rights of gun nuts to own guns.

As for whether any of them are neo-cons, if there are 300 million guns in this country, I think you can pretty much count on it. You will note from this chart that the highest gun death rates appear to be in the traditional "red" states, rather than in the states with the largest urban areas, which is what conservatives always try to argue.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

Coincidence? I think not. Guns kill. And more guns mean more killing.

@ Albany Joe -- Too funny. Which one is smarter, George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter? Enough said.

Snarky gives Rob a 'tic toc'! Wshen that happens, the person usually goes away because Snarky gets them removed from the site.

You should know... having been banned as a re-reg a couple of times yourself...

It's no surprise you nitwits feel you are above the rules... ;o)

Three rules which conservatives live by; LIE - CHEAT & STEAL

Suck on THAT!

Barlow or Rob in MA or whatever your name is:

Massachusetts today sent out close to 500,000 letters to the states Welfare Receipients in a voter registration drive prompted by our good old friends from ACORN.

Republican freshmen who came to Congress [in 2010] promising to transform Washington's free-spending culture are no different from most other lawmakers in at least one respect: They mailed out millions of taxpayer-funded flyers and brochures during their first year in office.

GOP freshmen sent more than 25.6 million pieces of unsolicited mail last year at a cost of nearly $9.8 million, according to a review of records compiled by the chief administrative officer of the House.

The figures cover only the nine months from April 1 to Dec. 31. Prior to that, mass mailings were not broken out from other taxpayer-financed mass communications allowed under the congressional franking rule. The costs include the expense of producing the piece and the price of postage.

Among the findings:

House members sent out more than 77 million pieces of franked mail at a cost $27.9 million. That amounts to an average $63,000 for each of the 444 lawmakers who served at some point during the nine months.

•Of the 10 lawmakers who spent the most taxpayer money on franked mail, eight were GOP freshmen. Of the 25 who spent the most, 18 were GOP freshmen. Republicans Joe Heck of Nevada ($319,251), Bobby Schilling of Illinois ($293,021) and Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee ($282,385) topped the

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-15/house-republican-freshmen-mailings/54976668/1

so go f*ck yourself with your holier-than-thou attitude.

Caesar Augustus-

hey bev how do you know if someone is 18? by the way you have to be alive to vote and a citizen right? hmmm, except in Chitown LOL.

hey ceasar, prove to me that voter fraud exists because not one Republican holding office could do it but aparently you know something they don't.

I will prove voter fraud when you prove youre 18 and a legal citizen the US.

Caesar Augustus-

hey bev how do you know if someone is 18? by the way you have to be alive to vote and a citizen right? hmmm, except in Chitown LOL

Caesar

Dead people don't vote. People die after they have voted and have not been removed from the list. Take for instance in this state. Ditto many other states.

The allegations were based on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. An investigation turned up only one instance, and even this was later found to have been an error: One Alan J. Mandel was alleged to have voted in 1998, despite having died in 1997. It turned out that another Alan J. Mandell (two "l"s) - very much alive - was the guy who'd voted, but election workers simply checked the wrong name off of their list."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/06/12/do_dead_people_vote.html

So much for briebart. com and Fox News LIES

Oh Boo Hoo ! Dems are crying foul over Romney pointing out Obama's stuff ..... while they air an ASININE political ad trying to blame Mitt Romney for the death of a man's wife who got cancer ..... many years after Romney left Bain Capital !

When is someone going to ask you imaginary Constitutional experts why you think it is that the right to own guns is somehow superior to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

______________________________

AM: "the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And the Second Amendment to the Constitution has a higher legal status as the law of the land than a phrase in a declaration of beliefs.

Dear Brockton:

Many people may no longer be eligible to vote due to the TPRepub voter suppression laws. The safest way to ensure peoples right to vote is to re-register everyone. I think it'd be a good idea to provide voter registration forms at the DMV too.

Why is everything a conspiracy? Are they only mailing forms to dems? And don't even try suggesting there are no repubs on food stamps or welfare - that boat don't float.

Whenever republicans trot out the welfare queen lines, said republican is in trouble. Reagan trotted it out when it was obvious he was not going to win the republican nomination his first try. Bob Dole targeted it when it became apparent he was not going to beat Clinton. Newt Gingrich tried it during the primaries.

President Obama is NOT gutting welfare to work programs. Romney has been trying desparately to compare himself to Bill Clinton; he's doing it again with the completely false welfare claims and the ad. Reuters wrote an article yesterday disputing Romney's lies.

Mitt Romney doesn't want republicans or anyone else to know the truth about what the Obama administration did. In July, President Obama's administration decided to grant waivers to states under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) law (welfare to work). The waivers allow states to experient to improve "welfare to work" programs--not to gut them as Mitt claims. There are conditions states must meet in order to be granted a waiver. The Center for Budget & Policy Priorities explains the waiver purpose as, "strengthen welfare reform by shifting focus from process 'bean counting' (whether recipients participate in program) to outcomes (whether they actually find and keep jobs).

What Romney also doesn't want republicans, who thrive on welfare queen stories, to know is that in 2005 he signed a letter along with other Governors and former Governors requesting exactly what the Obama administration did--more power direct to the states to improve welfare to work programs. FLIP FLOP, Mitt.

Another new record for Obama.....

OVER 100 MILLION AMERICANS RECEIVING FEDERAL WELFARE!!!!!

NICE JOB OBAMA

Caesar Augustus-

I will prove voter fraud when you prove youre 18 and a legal citizen the US.

so basically, you cannot prove voter fraud. BTW, by proving voter fraud, you would easily prove to me and others that one does not have to prove to be 18+ or a citizen when voting.

BTW, what's a legal citizen anyway? I know what 'citizen' is but I am not familiar with 'legal citizen."

Albany Joe --

AM: "the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Oh, I see. So when we adopted the Constitution, we automatically demoted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from "inalienable" to some lesser status, trumped by the right of wackos to own assault weapons.

Really?!

Well, then maybe you should take a peek at the 5th and the 14th Amendments, which do appear to pay some homage to life and liberty.

And as far as I know, murder is still illegal in most jurisdictions, except for Florida, of course.

I wonder why that is.

Bayllie you want to know what a legal citizen is, go pick up an 8th grade civics book. So what makes one a citizen of the US? Just being here in the US? yep libbies are so smart.

Its funny Anna Molly, right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment. They must have felt it important enough to make sure it was the second.

By the way, murder is still illegal in Florida, if you dont believe me go down there and kill someone and let me know how that works out.

Good afternoon my dearest FR posters. I have had a very busy morning. Had to have CT on the old brain (yes, I have a few marbles left LOL) . And had an MRI on my lungs (breathing is still a problem) Now, going through all this I am actually learning a few thingsl First and foremost - we need to get a sense of humor. Think we could try it one day? Thanks for thinking about itl

U6 unemployment under Bush II in January 2009 was 13.9%. U6 unemployment under Obama in July 2012 is 15%.

Brockton, Elliot and libsux... Your comments in EVERY single post i have seen you in are simply false or are TOTAL misrepresentations.

None of you have replied to previous posts where I call for you to provide CREDIBLE sources for your rantings nor have any of you been able to DISPROVE that Romney, due to his foreign and economic policy teams and stated (but not detailed) "plans", is GWB 2.0. I guess that you foxbots think that Shrubya was agreat president who did not lie us into a war, allow banks to run amok, allow KBR and other crony companies to STEAL MILLIONS if not billions from US taxpayers, and that he had NOTHING to do with the financial crisis that occurred.

You three should simply be ignored by ANYONE (left, middle or right) who wants to have an INFORMED and COGENT discussion about decision 2012.

Sorry for the multiple posts. Must have more marbles up there than I thought (giggle)

Oh, I see. So when we adopted the Constitution, we automatically demoted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from "inalienable" to some lesser status, trumped by the right of wackos to own assault weapons.

Really?!

Well, then maybe you should take a peek at the 5th and the 14th Amendments, which do appear to pay some homage to life and liberty.

_______________________________________

AM: I didn't write the Constitution. In fact, they didn't even ask me for my opinion or advice. The Constitution does contain some language that confers some rights to the Declaration of Independece beliefs in life and liberty, but there is no explicit, unambiguous, all-encompassing "right to life and liberty" in the text. It's the same thing as the "right to vote" which has the same status in the text. Certain aspects of voting rights have Constitutional protections, but, there is no explicit, unambiguous, all-encompassing "right to vote".

BTW, just try to get the SC to hear a case on the "right to the pursuit of happiness". A lefty liberal law making it illegal to be "rich" would make all lefty liberals happy, but, it ain't goona be constitutional. LOL!!!

Brockton - The voter registration information sent to SNAP/TAFDC/EAEDC recipients is to comply with Federal Law, specifically the National Voter Registration Act. This Act has been law since 1973 and has nothing whatsoever to do with ACORN.

Hey Phine, So good to hear from you. I hope the Doctors have some good news for you. You and Mr. Phine are in my prayers.

phine- hope the tests weren't too bad. My guess is most of your "marbles" are still there and in very good shape!

Good to see you here!

Brockton Barlow

Hey Bev I got a simple solution just add a picture to all the EBT cards. That would solve the problem right there.

Nice try implying EBT cards=Dem voter but that statement just proves your ignorance.

I'm going to make your day and quote...wait for it...FoxNews.com:

GOP's fictional voter fraud charges aim to keep Democrats from voting

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/03/gop-fictional-voter-fraud-charges-aim-to-keeping-democrats-from-voting/#ixzz22z3u5W6W

the top Republican in the state House of Representatives, Mike Turzai, declared that a new requirement for voters to show identification with a photograph on it “is going to allow Gov. [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” He drew wild applause from Republicans in the crowd.
The result is that 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters are suddenly at risk of losing their right to vote.

you can read the rest if you wish

Caesar Augustus-

Bayllie you want to know what a legal citizen is, go pick up an 8th grade civics book.

Saying 'legal citizen' is like saying wet water.

citizen n. person who by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or by going through the naturalization process has sworn loyalty to a nation.

you are confusing legal citizen with 'legal resident,' illegal immigrant or you are trying to say 'American citizen'.

So what makes one a citizen of the US? Just being here in the US?

Again, how can you be an ILLEGAL citizen? You can be German citizen, Swedish citizen or American citizen, illegal immigrant or legal resident but not legal or illegal citizen.

yep libbies are so smart.

thanks for the complement and you should dust off them 8th grade civics books.

Bayllie, EBT means poor voter not dem voter. You are pathetic.

Albany Joe --

AM: I didn't write the Constitution. In fact, they didn't even ask me for my opinion or advice. The Constitution does contain some language that confers some rights to the Declaration of Independece beliefs in life and liberty, but there is no explicit, unambiguous, all-encompassing "right to life and liberty" in the text. It's the same thing as the "right to vote" which has the same status in the text. Certain aspects of voting rights have Constitutional protections, but, there is no explicit, unambiguous, all-encompassing "right to vote".

Heavenly day, Albany. It's getting pretty thin when you start to argue that the inalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence were somehow dropped by the Founding Fathers in favor of the rights of gun nuts. Nowhere do I read THAT in the text, either, especially in light of the 5th, the 8th, and the 14th Amendments.

It's altogether possible that the Founding Fathers thought that people wouldn't be so stupid as to need to be reminded of what they had so recently called "inalienable" in the Nation's founding document.

By the way, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, with an up vote from the US, specifically states --

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

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

So, unless you are saying that YOUR personal interpretation of the Constitution somehow trumps the United State's vote in favor of the "right to life, liberty and security of the person," I guess you're plum out of luck, aren't you?

As for Tax Man, I wouldn't trust a man who didn't get his civics till the 8th grade.

bayllie got me there HAHAHA. I probably should have specified American citizen. now lets try it again this time as an American citizen. now you have to be an American citizen to vote right?

By the way, Albany Joe, as for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, take a look, why don't you, at which countries abstained. Classifying the US with those countries would hardly qualify as American Exceptionalism, you think?

AM i wouldnt trust anyone who thinks murder is legal in Florida. Give it a whirl and let me know how that worked out.

Dumbfux - Will you ever say anything nice about the President?

You spend so much time bashing the Governor that one begins to think you don't have any confidence in the President running on his record as the basis for his reelection.

Do you think you could help folks decide why we should vote for the President or have you just accepted that the President is simply the lesser of the two evils.

Scott --

U6 unemployment under Bush II in January 2009 was 13.9%. U6 unemployment under Obama in July 2012 is 15%

Be careful how you use statistics, Scott. Unemployment was at 4.9 percent in December, 2007, and 7.2 percent in January, 2009. That's ALL on Bush. It seems pretty reasonable to say that Bush was responsible for a few more months of U6 employment after that. And I do notice from this chart, that beginning in the fall of 2009, when the stimulus took effect, the overall trend in U6 has been downward, albeit slowly.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

This is another pretty handy way of looking at it.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2010/10/08/5257833-bikini-graph-of-jobs-goes-thoroughbred

And don't attack the source unless you can also attack the numbers.

Still, things are not as good as they could be. And two things in particular might have helped. One is if the stimulus and been larger and not so much of it (about 1/3) devoted to tax cuts. Another 1/3 had to be devoted to unemployment benefits and extending COBRA benefits to laid off workers. That left very little for actual job creation, except maybe in the health industry. In addition, the states should not have had such latitude to decide what to do with the money, like for example the $20 billion that Rick Perry used to pay down Texas's deficit so he could run for president. This effectively transferred Texas's deficit back to the US, and then Perry blamed Obama both for the high deficit and for the stimulus not creating any jobs.

The second thing, of course, is that the House of Representatives, instead of obstructing every attempt at passing additional jobs legislation, had simply spent some time thinking about jobs and what they might do to help, rather than thinking exclusively about women's reproductive rights and defending NPR.

Conservatives never do anything but point to numbers, most of which many of them do not understand or, apparently, have the ability to place in context. But more importantly, they never point to anything that President Obama has actually DONE that contributed to the persistently high unemployment numbers. The groundwork for that was set by George W. Bush, and has been solidified by the current Congress.

Kudos to your side.

Tax Man --

AM i wouldnt trust anyone who thinks murder is legal in Florida. Give it a whirl and let me know how that worked out.

We'll see when we get to the end of the Travon Martin case, won't we? Until then, the jury is literally out.

AM -- Pretty strange that Barry, Jesse Sr., Rev. Al and others don't seem to care very much about Trayvon (with your FAUX concern you'd think you could at least spell his name correctly) and no longer bother to talk about the tragedy. No cameras I guess.

Though there is no jury to be "out" i think i get your point. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. Very interesting.

Romney on the other hand is guilty of tax evasion until proven innocent in the world of Harry Reid. You would think that the Senate Majority Leader would be aware of the law but alas he is not.

that pesky innocent until guilty thing. lets just say he's acquitted then what? Found not guily based on the stand your ground law?

Kind of a silly statement dont you think? I mean OJ got off and murder is still just as illegal in CA

ballie --Thanks for posting #1.55. Good to see the waste thrown back at these guys.

Anna Molly -- Good to see you back in fighting spirit. You scared Joe off, lol.

Caesar Augustus-

bayllie got me there HAHAHA.

take your advice and read your 8th grade civics book before you try to make an argument.

I probably should have specified American citizen. now lets try it again this time as an American citizen. now you have to be an American citizen to vote right?

again, prove to me that there is voter fraud to support that non-American citizens are voting...or those under 18.

elliot-3020456

Bayllie, EBT means poor voter not dem voter. You are pathetic.

do you even know what you are talking about? and if you do why don't you direct your fake outrage towards hypocrite Brockton Barlow who wrote:

Hey Bev I got a simple solution just add a picture to all the EBT cards. That would solve the problem right there. But then the Democrat reps would have to field 1000's of calls from their "constituents" pissing and moaning that they can no lnoger trade their cards on the street for crack cocaine.

What's more important to the lefties? Getting high for a week or voting for a dem to keep those ebt cards flowing.

who clearly implied that EBT cards=Dem voter.

Dont_carry_it_all

ballie --Thanks for posting #1.55. Good to see the waste thrown back at these guys.

it's soooooo easy

billybob -- (dang spellchecker, First Read) --

My apologies for misspelling Trayvon. Now, just to be fair, be sure you police Tax Man on his punctuation, okay? It does appear a little unschooled.

And by the way, I'm still talking about it, regardless of what others on either side or doing.

Romney on the other hand is guilty of tax evasion until proven innocent in the world of Harry Reid. You would think that the Senate Majority Leader would be aware of the law but alas he is not.

Lordy, how your side's silly birthers must hate this. Or can't you see the irony in what Reid is doing?

Karma is a ... um, what was that, again?

Tax Man --

that pesky innocent until guilty thing. lets just say he's acquitted then what? Found not guily based on the stand your ground law? ....

I mean OJ got off and murder is still just as illegal in CA

So what does that prove, except juries are fickle?

Similarly, if Martin is acquitted, while the woman who shot into a wall to scare her admittedly abusive partner got 20 years, it will prove nothing, except maybe that the "Stand Your Ground" law is a tragic joke that turns justice on its head.

DCIA --

Anna Molly -- Good to see you back in fighting spirit. You scared Joe off, lol.

Aw, I didn't scare Joe off. It was just about time for him to pop the top on a Sam Adams or whatever patriotic brew he quaffs, check his portfolio for gains in his vulture capitalist investments, and fire up the old grill for some good old Maine (I believe) salmon that we 99 percenters can't afford.

But thanks. I believe I have lived to fight another day. Good to see you, too.

Notso legal begal youre running in circles. So a woman who shot into a wall to scare her abuser got 20 for murder? OJ was tried for murder, Zimmerman also being tried for murder. What happened to Casey Anthony again?

Bayllie mine was simple matter of terminology. You got me on the incorrect use. Yeah it so easy. Like i said when you show me you're an American Citizen, 18, not a felon i will show you voter fraud.

"Of course we take care of, in America, the people who can’t take care of themselves," Romney said. "When it comes to the spirit of America, I want to restore the spirit of independence. I do not want to install a spirit of dependence on government. And that’s the direction we’re going.”

Yea, and by taking care of people who can't take care of themselves and "restoring the spirit of independence" you mean cutting education, Medicare, and throwing people off of Medicaid. Frankly, if by the growing "spirit of dependence on government" you mean like the European welfare state and the Canadian welfare state, I say too bad. Europe and Canada have proved that welfare states CAN work; for God's sake, healthcare costs are way down over there, and their kids have practically free college education!! Imagine how that could help the U.S??? And for the right wing idiots who thinks that Europe is suffering because of "big government," you're wrong. The financial crisis led to the debt crisis, not the other way around. Ireland and Spain had low debt rates and surpluses; for God's sake, you right-wingers praised Ireland for its "free market tax rates!!!"

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

the same Europe that is crumbling under its own weight? that Europe by chance? Yeah it was the free market that brought it down. Too funny. feel free to move there freshieee, its streets are lined with Gold LOL and you dont have to pay for it

Caesar Augustus-

Bayllie mine was simple matter of terminology.

no it wasn't - you were convinced that you were right because why else would you write:

Bayllie you want to know what a legal citizen is, go pick up an 8th grade civics book. So what makes one a citizen of the US? Just being here in the US? yep libbies are so smart.

you were soooo convinced until proven wrong. Nice try flip flopping...Mitt is it you?

Like i said when you show me you're an American Citizen, 18, not a felon i will show you voter fraud.

again the system has worked way before you were born. In 2012, all of a sudden -according to the Republicans - the system does not work. You try to point out so hard that there may be "illegal" citizens or those under 18 that may have the possibility to vote. Yet you cannot prove any voter fraud. So if you cannot prove your argument, why even go there?

Tax Man --

Notso legal begal youre running in circles. So a woman who shot into a wall to scare her abuser got 20 for murder?

Oh, dear, next we'll have to work on your spelling. Sigh. It's Beagle. Remember that. I surely do have the ears for it.

And no, dear, she was NOT tried for murder. She got 20 years because the judge said "Stand Your Ground" didn't apply to defending yourself against a known abusive partner and the jury convicted her.

That's what turns justice on its head, especially if George Zimmerman gets off for killing a kid minding his own business, who was merely going home from the store with iced tea and candy in his hands.

By the way, in the case of the woman, not only did she get 20 years -- and in fact, she had no opportunity to go to a jury -- but the children who pleaded with the judge for mercy will now be without their mother for their entire childhood, and the abuser runs free. And just maybe, he'll have custody of the kids.

There's something really WRONG with this picture, Tax Man, that all your sarcasm can't cover up.

But don't just take my word for it. Look it up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/12/opinion/roland-martin-mandatory-minimums/

Oh, and by the way, Tax Man, legal "eagle" you're not.

Ceasar,

Like i said when you show me you're an American Citizen, 18, not a felon i will show you voter fraud.

I will make you a deal. If you can prove to me that you work for the US Election Assistance Commission, I will prove to you that I am an US citizen and older than 18. Other than that, for all I know, you are part of Nigerian scam and you are fishing for information.

Proving voter fraud should be easy for you since you are so convinced that it exists but I won't hold my breath....

yes my spelling, yeah not overly educated i suppose. maybe i'll get a law degree.

To correct the confusion in my post, Marissa Alexander, for whatever reason did not have a jury trial. She rejected a lesser plea agreement because she felt she had done nothing wrong. When the Judge decided that Stand Your Ground didn't apply, he gave her 20 years, claiming he was compelled to do so, under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. The mandatory nature of federal sentencing guidelines was overruled by the US Supreme Court in 2007.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-6330.pdf

Florida appears to be just a bit out of sync, in more ways than one.

Or maybe this judge just had a different agenda.

And maybe Justice Roberts, the new most powerful man in the world, will turn out to be the swing vote.

yes my spelling, yeah not overly educated i suppose. maybe i'll get a law degree.

Triple dog dare you.

By the way, I do want to say one more thing to Joe, just in case he comes back.

Jimmy Carter was, in retrospect, right about many things for which he was villified while he was in the White House. It was the launch of the Milton Friedman era of extreme conservative reactionism, and Carter got caught in that tailwind. Whether he was defeated in 1980 because of a grand conspiracy, we will probably never know. But one thing is for sure. A lot of people conveniently forgot a lot about their roles during that period, and somewhere along the line, for some otherwise inexplicable reason, Ronald Reagan agreed to an illegal arms deal with Iran.

I would be the last person to dispute that Nixon was intelligent. He was highly so. But just like Bill Clinton, he had a certain screw in his brain turned slightly askew. Not the same screw, but both ended up, to a certain extent, self-destructing.

They did share another important thing in common. Both were pragmatists. Nixon got things done with Democratic congresses, Clinton with Republican congresses. If Nixon had really had a secret plan to end the war, and had not participated in the cover-up of that smarmy, two-bit burglary -- which didn't make a bit of difference to his reelection -- then he might have gone down as a pretty good president overall. Reagan had a bit of pragmatist in him as well. George W. Bush had a bit of nothing in him, whether you're talking intellectual IQ, emotional IQ, or any of those other fancy terms you want to apply to it.

Bush was simply not qualified to be President, and we reaped the just rewards of that. We're still paying today. I'll take smart, any six days of the week.

Nighty night, Joe. It was a pleasure, as always. Hope you had some good salmon.

triple dog, well Im afraid the esteemed president ate one so you'll have to settle for a double dog. But Beagle, you said Florida was a legal place to murder, stay with that for awhile, here i'll throw you a bone and let Bayllie back ya up.

and Bayllie i evolved. PS i never said voter fraud exists, im merely saying its possible and no way of deterring it currently. If it is as easy as to go into a voting booth and say im 18 and have the legal right. I think you completely missed that. I can't personally prove it but there definitely exists the forum to do it. As for the citizen thing, yes it was my intention to imply American citizen, you knew that but thought you were ever so clever by showing that i was in error with just citizen. Touche' or is it Too Shay. I am not a liberal so i dont speak french please forgive me.

Bone. All mine. Pant, pant, pant. Got any Eukanuba or Iams to go with that?

Nighty night, Tax Man. You're a good sport. after all.

Doug-384925 -- Poll results are by no means carved in stone, but it is true that after Romney's trip overseas, and proving that *business experience* does not automatically translate to qualification as a statesman, president, etc. (in fact his gaffe in the UK was precisely because he responded like a CEO with an ego), he started dropping in the polls in the only area he used to have a lead, and that is the economy.

Voters had already begun to discriminate between venture versus "vulture capitalism" in regard to Bain Capital, and now they are learning more about Romney's record of refusing to release his taxes, lying about his taxes, and cheating in general to be eligible to run for governor of Massachusetts -- Or claiming his son's unfinished basement as his residence. He's not just secretive for privacy reasons, he takes the hard drives during his governorship and shreds Olympic records to cover up all the underhanded crap he does.

Romney did not "sanitize" his taxes starting in 2002 or even by 2007 because he is that greedy and tight, as well as arrogant. He figured he may not get the nomination, so why take a financial hit? And if he did get the nomination, he would pull the same old shenanigans he's gotten away with in the past, and have time to sanitize two years returns -- or "flukes" as his father called it.

Romney didn't think it would be such a problem trying to hoodwink the American voters. It is an insult to voter's intelligence, especially since his flip-flops, vague plans, and secrecy already make Romney come off as not trustworthy. If he really thinks he can get elected without coming clean about his taxes vis-a-vis his economic/tax plans, he is has truly miscalculated.

Caesar Augustus-

and Bayllie i evolved.

keep denying - apparently it works for you

PS i never said voter fraud exists, im merely saying its possible and no way of deterring it currently.

in one sentence you say you claim you 'don't claim' but in the next sentence you claim "it's possible."

UFO is possible, winning Powerball is possible, fraud either exists or it doesn't. it's something provable.

If it is as easy as to go into a voting booth and say im 18 and have the legal right.

no it's not - there is a process PRIOR to voting. If it was that easy, you would see a widespread fraud! here again, you are implying voter fraud.

I think you completely missed that.

I didn't miss that, I just don't deal in hypotheticals when it comes to this issue.

I can't personally prove it but there definitely exists the forum to do it.

what? what forum? where? who? what????

As for the citizen thing, yes it was my intention to imply American citizen, you knew that but thought you were ever so clever by showing that i was in error with just citizen.

it wasn't clever - it was common sense, and the only reason I did it is because I'm sick of your comments like:

Obama the pied piper. "Follow me" and like rats the liberals do

THEY ADD ZERO TO CONVERSATIONS. Learn to have an intelligent conversation or leave it to the serious adults.

AM -- Spellchecker probably won't pick up such an unusual name.

Proving one's citizenship is a requirement to hold the office of President of the United States. Not sure why that was such a challenge for the President given the legal requirement.

Showing tax returns is not a law but rather a convention practiced by presidential candidates.

So no comparison really.

So Romney has released some tax returns but not enough to satisfy the critics so he is breaking with the tradition in the opinion of some.

Remember back 4 years when the President promised to use public funding as had previous candidates but then changed his mind and broke with the tradition. Pretty much the same kind of deal.

I don't care what Romney's tax returns say. My expectation is that he has followed the law and paid the tax consistent with the tax code used by all who pay federal taxes.

What do you expect to see in his returns? What will you do with the information? Will it change your opinion of Romney?

Oh really bayllie, i dont add to the conversation but your liberal brethren do? No Bayllie voter fraud isnt black and white. It is possible explain how it is not then. TELL ME HOW VOTER FRAUD DOESNT EXIST? . I dont know if you'll consider the link legit h t t p: //www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1 but there you go. yes powerball is possible, UFOS sure why not. You being not being a pompous azz is possible although not likely but possible.

There is nothing common with sense Bayllie, if it were everyone would have it. You go back to conversations with your liberal friends and all agree how Myth Romney needs his taxes exposed. I'll leave those inane arguments to your side of the aisle.

First comes the 'Executive Order' saying that work is not REALLY necessary to collect welfare, and then come the 'regulations' that basically confirm it.

Obama seems to have the idea that he can 'rule by decree' like an emperor. Legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President (Clinton) is supposed to be enforced - not changed at the whim of the current 'dictator in chief'.

I think it's time that the Supreme Court set some limits on so-called 'Executive Orders'.

@ billybob --

AM -- Spellchecker probably won't pick up such an unusual name.

Oh, no? The spellchecker read yours as "bullyboy." Even I couldn't let that happen. Even at your worst, you don't strike me as a bully.

I find it humorous when people say "Prove there was voters fraud", when they know that it's illegal to even try to prove it because of privacy laws.

There could be hundreds of thousands of illegal voters since there is no way that private individuals can check to see if they lied about their legal status. With many states having 'Motor Voter' registration, anybody can register and I doubt that anyone in government actually checks to see if they are lying.

To illustrate how important this can be, ACORN (who was convicted of voter fraud in at least one state) registered over 40,000 pro-Democratic voters in Minnesota, many of whom were acknowledged to be illegal, to vote, and Al Franken won his Senate seat by only about 300 votes, which gave the Democrats a temporary 'filibuster proof' 60 Senate seats, which enabled the Democrats to pass Obamacare, which the Democrats had written in the dark of night (We need to pass it to find out what's in it), and then they were able to use legislative 'sleight of hand' to get final approval.

In a close Presidential election, something similar could happen, and the problem is "Nobody is allowed to check to see how big a problem this is" because of so-called 'privacy concerns.

Romneys whole life is a lie along with his party and constituants

thanks Roy, but Bayllie says it isnt possible so it must be. I'm in favor of ID's not to suppress like the left thinks, I think it would benefit all, it would quell allegations of fraud. It wouldnt 100% eliminate it but reduce it. If Romney wins the presidency, lets wait and see if that allegation is thrown around. Voter fraud.

Is it just me or doesn't it just look odd to see Romney walking out of a corn field with another guy and an ear of corn strike you as strange?

Caesar Augustus-

thanks Roy, but Bayllie says it isnt possible so it must be. I'm in favor of ID's not to suppress like the left thinks,

then you should fight for taking licenses away from all drivers because couple of them MAY HAVE an accident...

BTW, Roy, just like you never provides any solid proof to support his statements. just look at his post #1.115. Not one sentence that is truthful, is it Roy?

Caesar Augustus-

the same Europe that is crumbling under its own weight? that Europe by chance? Yeah it was the free market that brought it down. Too funny. feel free to move there freshieee, its streets are lined with Gold LOL and you dont have to pay for it

Hahaha; twas the housing and financial bubble that did Europe in, not their government. Look at Germany; they have universal healthcare, strong pro-union laws, a progressive tax code, and free higher education, and unemployment is around 5.6%. Not only that, but Germany has not been affected by the debt crisis, thanks to smart financial laws. How come that welfare state is stable???? Let's look at Spain; until the housing collapse of 2008, Spain had a great economy. Now, it has 24% unemployment. The problem with Europe (excluding Greece) was that their financial sectors collapsed after the credit crunch of 2009. Then, the European countries bailed out the banks and had to service the needs of their unemployed, creating deficits. When the EU required harsh austerity measures (along with Germany) in return for a bailout, the European nations (particularly Greece, Italy, and Spain) either went back into recession and their deficits worsened or their economic recoveries weakened and deficits still increased.

And no, dear Caesar, I shall not abandon the land of my birth. But I shall work to remake the United States into the land of prosperity, which includes low cost education and universal healthcare. America will be, as it once was and always should be, a land for all people, not just those with wealth and power.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

I find it humorous when people say "Prove there was voters fraud", when they know that it's illegal to even try to prove it because of privacy laws.

Wrong. As someone who has worked in polling places for decades, I can tell you that the list of registered voters is public information - names and addresses. Anyone can go to a polling place and look at the "street index", and see who is listed as a registered voter at which address, and even if they have voted (but not how they voted, of course). Someone trying to register at a fake address would quickly be caught. Someone trying to vote under someone else's name would risk being unmasked as an impostor by neighbors stopping by to vote. (Work at the same precinct enough years, and we learn to recognize "the regulars" that always come in - nobody better try using their votes!) You could even compare voter lists to obituary listings, if you were concerned about "zombie voting".

Admittedly, some types of voter fraud would be difficult to detect. Say, someone with multiple houses in different states might register at each address, then vote from each address. Cross-referencing voter lists with home ownership records might uncover such fraud - but the Republicans would never go after that type of fraud, as it would involve the rich people that they favor.

Hmm, has anyone checked the voter records for a "Willard Mitt Romney" in all the precincts where Mitt owns a home?

So Mit accuses the President of creating a spirit of dependence. Funny since Mit is responsible for creating a "reality of dependence" with all the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to other countries he's responsible for. There's a saying in another language that goes something to the effect of "The donkey talking about ears" which seems to apply here. There are those who say Mit was just being a good businessman. Well alright, I can see that, but then don't be a hypocrit and say you never did it. Admit it... oh wait but that could hurt you with the voters. You couldn't have that. That wouldn't be honest tho, but he is a politician so what's the big deal? There's a lot of intelligent people out there but it seems a huge majority of them don't have wisdom. Then there's W who didn't seem to have either intelligence or wisdom. I think Romney is from that same select group, in my opinion.

The Obamatards have attempted the following strategies to date:

Romney hates women.

Romney is a felon.

Romney never paid his taxes.

Romney is killer.

And it is only August.

If you think the Democrats aren't desperate.....

Romney in a landslide.

"Of course we take care of, in America, the people who can’t take care of themselves," Romney said. "When it comes to the spirit of America, I want to restore the spirit of independence. I do not want to install a spirit of dependence on government. And that’s the direction we’re going.”

Doesn't anyone find this statement by Romney interesting since he has endorced Paul Ryan's plan that would cut benefits to those he made reference to in this statement ? A lie is a lie..yet Romney seems to have no problems at all handing them out...the really sad part is that the republican base is agreeing with the same lies. I guess reading what is actually said and making up what was said is cool for republicans. And this is the party that wants to oversee this nation. Bush placed this nation in a huge debt..and had a war that was not relly necessary ..yet it is Obama that is wrong and caused the problems...and republicans want to do it all over again..WOW...who will get the blame if Romney does get elected....oh yea..he will then take all the credit for the jobs that Obama had a hand in creating.

Roy & Ceasar,

This is how proving your case works. Since you cannot prove to me that voter fraud exists, I will prove to you that it does not exists so listen and learn:

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) in an attempt to discredit a NAACP report this week on the lack of voter fraud evidence has bolstered the view that there is no need for voter ID laws, imposed by many states.

Viewing the data for the period 2000-2010, the report by its own account shows there is no link between voter fraud in states and the need for stricter voter ID laws. The data shows that during the entire 10 year period, 21 states had only 1 or 2 convictions for some form of voter irregularity. And some of these 21 states have the strictest form of voter ID laws based on a finding of 2 or less convictions in ten years. Five states had a total of three convictions over a ten year period. Rhode Island had 4 convictions for the same 10 years. Taking a close look at the RNLA data shows 30 states, including the District of Columbia had 3 or less voter fraud convictions for a 10 year period.

full article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debbie-hines/voter-fraud-statistics_b_1139085.html

Pennsylvania admits it: no voter fraud problem

A court filing by the state of Pennsylvania, ahead of a trial starting later this week on a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups against the state’s new voter fraud law, contains an astounding admission:

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

In other words, the state knows that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem, but will nonetheless defend a law that could potentially disenfranchise a huge number of the state’s voters

full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/pennsylvania-admits-it-no-voter-fraud-problem/2012/07/24/gJQAHNVt6W_blog.html

the top Republican in the state House of Representatives, Mike Turzai, declared that a new requirement for voters to show identification with a photograph on it “is going to allow Gov. [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” He drew wild applause from Republicans in the crowd.
The result is that 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters are suddenly at risk of losing their right to vote.

his speech can be viewed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

so to sum this up: 21 states in 10 years had 1 or 2 convictions. That's between 2-4 people per year per state but when divided by the number of eligible voters (to simplify it let's round it up to 200 million), that's between 0.000001%-0.000002%.

DNA-test result in 99.9% certainty. That's 0.1% uncertainty. DNA testing has a bigger uncertainty % than your so-called voter fraud.

And as Jon Steward summed it up perfectly: Voter ID laws like leash laws for unicorns

Funny thing is the Obamatards never challenged Tennessee's voter ID law. Never questioned its constitutionality. Not so much as a whimper. You think that's because he doesn't have a chance here? Pretty sure that's it. So Obama only cares about voter ID laws in states that he has a chance of winning. Or perhaps better stated, states where his organizations can influence the votes either by buying them or voting fraudulently.

So the Obamatards are concerned that some of their voters are not going to be able to produce an ID. The same ID required to drive, to drink alcohol, to buy smokes and to cash welfare checks.

Careful, Bayllie, but a unicorn is dry humping your ass.

One more thing Bayllie, if I buy your premise that the percentage of fraudulent voting is so low that it is irrelevant (I believe that is Eric Holder's position as well) then why are you fighting so hard to eliminate them?

I recently walked into my Tennessee primary flashed my TN drivers license and instantly had my ballot. Piece of cake. Was the fastest I have ever voted in my life. I'd say the voter ID law made voting far more efficient and less painful thus removing concerns about how long it takes etc.

Careful with the horn, Bayllie.

Rational AmeriCAN

Careful, Bayllie, but a unicorn is dry humping your ass.

is that your porn preference: animals and humans?

One more thing Bayllie, if I buy your premise that the percentage of fraudulent voting is so low that it is irrelevant (I believe that is Eric Holder's position as well) then why are you fighting so hard to eliminate them?

I don't know how to make this clearer for you so you will understand. What Republicans are doing - AND ADIMITTING TO - is eliminating potential Obama voters so Romney has a chance to win. Even the Republicans realize that Romney is such a poor candidate that cheating is the only way for him to win.

Obama RELIES on the 'spirit of dependence' to further his political career.

Obamatards... a disgusting phrase. What starts with REP and is cold-blooded?

Republican... no I meant REPTILE. Name calling is easier than speaking to the facts. Let's all stick to facts. Read reliable sources, vary the news channel you watch. Can't we all try to work together for solutions to our problems. Facts are a good place to start. Lying is not.

Using the Huffington post as a source is far worse than using Fox news. As least you get 2 points of view. Also the cost of welfare in America is $900 BILLION in 2010. (Wikipedia)

cal20

Using the Huffington post as a source is far worse than using Fox news. As least you get 2 points of view.

so don't believe me or huffpost, that is why I included the name of the group who determined there is no voter fraud: The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA)

do your own research, prove me wrong or STFU.

using Fox news. As least you get 2 points of view

hahahahahaha, what are they? Fox view and Fox view????

A new survey from Farleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds that Fox News viewers are the worst-informed on domestic and international current events, while NPR listeners are the best-informed.

There is one reason why Mitt Romney continues to make a statement which every major media organization in America has already stated is "dishonest", "untrue", "false" ...and which Romney himself knows is false. The reason is : He is a man absent of any moral compass, who is willing to say anything in pursuit of personal wealth and ambition!

The mark of a man with no real convictions is summarized by Mitt Romney's personal motto: "Say Anything!"

And CNN's fact checker calls this one by Romney, Lier, Lier pants on fire!

Good one Mitt, keep it up and you will be the emperior without clothes!

From the article:

"Back then his work earned him praise from Republicans in the state senate. One of whom thanked him for his bipartisan support and work to get welfare reform done in Illinois.”

What the hell happened then? How could Obama earn praise from republicans while being bipartisan, but now he's completely liberal and doesn't want to do anything but send republicans to the back of the bus...

Seems to me Obama does things strictly in order to garner favor when he needs it... Something about snake comes to mind.

Or maybe the repubs in Chicago aren't as partison as they are in DC. And nobody was trying to make Obama a one term anything back then - only when he became president did it become important.

I'm thinking something about snakes too ...

Not only have two Republican governors ask for the waivers so did ROMNEY in 2005. Really can't make this stuff up. Hypocrites make up the Republican Party.

As the Obama campaign has pointed out, Romney signed a 2005 letter to Sen. Bill Frist (along with Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, etc.), when welfare programs were being reauthorized under Bush. As the governors lobbied Frist on the bill, they praised “state flexibility” (italics added):

The Senate bill provides states with the flexibility to manage their TANF programs and effectively serve low-income populations. Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.

So it’s not as if welfare “waiver authority” and changes to “allowable work activities” are facially radical. The memo/letter signify a loosening of work-activity requirements, the scope of which is yet to be determined. Those requirements were tightened under George W. Bush, according to Prof. Brodkin, who says welfare waivers have been used by Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush.

“Nobody used waivers more than Ronald Reagan. He used them to set up basically the first experiments with these kinds of work requirements,” Brodkin said, noting that Reagan allowed states to place more restrictions on recipients, not fewer. “Presidents use these waivers all the time.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/fact-check-does-obama-want-to-gut-welfare-reform/

Need some advice. Everytime I get a MRI or CT I GET panic attacks. Anyone with some good advice to avoid this problem?

phinephancy - when I'm nervous I try to imagine sitting on my favorite beach in Hawaii and listening to the waves coming onshore. My guess is you have a favorite place that makes you feel calm and comfortable. If you an envision that place, it might help. Hope so!

Brianb-999431

From the article:

"Back then his work earned him praise from Republicans in the state senate. One of whom thanked him for his bipartisan support and work to get welfare reform done in Illinois.”

What the hell happened then? How could Obama earn praise from republicans while being bipartisan, but now he's completely liberal and doesn't want to do anything but send republicans to the back of the bus...

Simple: the Tea Party dragged the Republican Party to the far right and forced moderates to tow the line; those that didn't got thrown out or were cast as RINOs. Hell, in Texas they criticized a Republican candidate for being a "moderate!!!"

Seems to me Obama does things strictly in order to garner favor when he needs it... Something about snake comes to mind.

I think you're talking about Romney, Brian....

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

It's interesting how, four years ago, Obama was saying "sometimes I wonder who I'm running against" in reference to Bill Clinton's support for Hillary, and how the Obama campaign painted Bill as a racist (with a little help from the media) in places like North and South Carolina.

As opposed to this year, when they're giving Bill a prime time speech at the convention, and counting on him to galvanize middle of the road Democratic support for Mr. Obama.

Don't count this election as being over, just yet. Even Obama has his doubts, or he wouldn't have to call upon the patriarch of the Democratic party to do his bidding for him.

It's going to be A LOT closer than some folks seem to think.

phine -- Talk to your doctor who is ordering the tests. They can give you a little something to take the edge off. Hope that's helpful.

This ad is the worst yet, not only because it is a blatant lie, but because it is a dog whistle with racist undertones. When a candidate has to stoop to racism, then you know he is really desperate and hitting bottom.

That Romney would rather have the news cycle about his LYING racist ad, just shows how badly he wants to change the subject. But it won't work.

Romney -- Show us the tax returns -- Especially 2008-2009 that McCain didn't see!

Well, True Patriot; if Romney has to show his tax returns, then Obama should explain, in full detail, how a man who was convicted on 16 counts of political racketeering could be such a close friend as to arrange for the finance and purchase of of the Obama estate in Kenwood Il.

He should also explain, again in full detail, how he could be such good friends with someone who belongs to a group that firebombed a state supreme court judge's house, and shot and killed two police officers, and a security guard during an armored car holdup.

After all, it's only fair isn't it? If Romnney has to explain about something that doesn't matter to the rest of us, then Obama should have to explain about his "small" indiscretions too.

Phine,

Good to see you out and about. My husband gets major panic attacks with MRI's or MRA's so they give him ativan (Lorazepam) after that you and stuff him anywhere.

ZMan2012 -- Wow, using Glenn Beck's chalkboard to show guilt by association, not to mention really old, debunked material. If it didn't work in 2008, why do you think this rubbish will work now? Who advised you to do this, Limbaugh or Trump?

people are smarter now. hopey & changey won't work. chicago thug has been exposed for what he really is.

people think obama should run on his record but so far he refuses to do so

i believe obama will be a one-termer

Well, which president recently went around congress to grant waivers so that now welfare recipients don't even have to PRETEND to look for work. Record numbers of food stamps recipients, especially in Mexico (yup, Mexicans are now getting US food stamps courtesy of Obama) and just today yet another article indicating that 100 million are now receiving some form of welfare, NOT counting Social Security or Medicare.

Obama is indeed the welfare president. Cloward Piven?

Zman: Rezco, Blago and a select cadre of less-than-honorable folks sure have been involved with Obama, haven't they? He launched his campaign from the home of said murdering, homegrown terrorist (just a neighborhood guy, didn't know him too well, except, of course through Ayer's daddy who was real helpful to young Barack) Now, don't be surprised if your post gets collapsed along with this one, liberals have a hard time with the truth and will bury it whenever they can.

Phine - I had to get them regularly and for a couple of years after my last treatment (MRI's). I always looked at a picture of my Father before I went in. He was the dearest, funniest man I ever knew. I also imagined that the CT/MRI was looking for bugs. Another helpful thing was, just like you said, humor. Think of funny things like some of the crazy right-wing goofballs on this thread.

NA KIM. CRAZY is hiring a community organizer to destroy the greatest economy on earth.

then hiring him back to ruin it some more!

all the gop states are doing well, while the federal govt is destroying our country and its sovereignty.

and you think the gop is nuts?

like all you libs wanting more than 2 returns.

whats wrong with the 2 he gave?

if you 'intelligent' people knew anything, youd know mitt and other business owners(like me) sign on the bottom and leave it to the accountant. its their job, and they answer for you as part of the service they provide.

why dont you spend your time reading the laws king obozo is changing without congress, and the debt your destroyng our children with.

what do you libs care anyway. youre already getting a free ride from our communist in chief.

and i love how the newsroom bombards the first page on the vine, while the real people all post after, giving a large presence. you think people dont know youre all paid shills?

obozo is an idiot. romney is a winner. always has, always will.

Well, which president recently went around congress to grant waivers so that now welfare recipients don't even have to PRETEND to look for work.

Astonishing that you can comment without actually reading any of the article! That Romney accusation was totally baseless - the waivers were only granted if the State in question had a plan to get more people to work and off welfare. Two Republican governors were asking for those waivers, do you really think a Republican governor doesn't want welfare recipients to NOT look for work?

Record numbers of food stamps recipients, especially in Mexico (yup, Mexicans are now getting US food stamps courtesy of Obama)

Not! I mean, really, if you're going to post outrageous lies, at least try to make them halfway plausible. These programs may be funded by the Feds, but they are managed by the States, so what state is going to waste their funds running EBT cards to Mexico, where they couldn't be used anyway?

just today yet another article indicating that 100 million are now receiving some form of welfare,

Let me guess - the same Obama hating teapublican source as all your other talking points? Well, the other talking points were garbage, so that's just more trash on the pile.

rightisright - Calm down - did your head just explode?

elliot - you're just as bad as Romney - with him, if he says it often enough he thinks it is true ... you with your epistles, if you post them often enough, you think someone cares about reading them!

Why do you have a problem with the truth Layton.

Whose truth Wally? Are you referring to elliot's post? My statement was more about him learning to LINK - do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

...because we all know that we can trust former President Clinton not to lie... That said, I would take Bill Clinton over Obama for president any day of the week. Obama makes Clinton look like a conservative by comparison.

Former President Bill Clinton issued a statement last night also calling the charge "not true."

Well if Slick Willie says it's a lie, then I guess it must be. Because we all know how honest and truthful he is. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well Rightwing and Zathrose, why is your boy Willard bending over backwards trying to suck up to Clinton if Clinton is so unsavory? Why is it that, for Willard and the Republicans, lying comes as naturally as breathing?

rightwingconspiracy-5426624

...because we all know that we can trust former President Clinton not to lie... That said, I would take Bill Clinton over Obama for president any day of the week. Obama makes Clinton look like a conservative by comparison.

CORRECTION: Obama makes Clinton look like a liberal. I mean come on; Clinton raised taxes and pushed for single-payer healthcare; Obama cut taxes and pushed for a REPUBLICAN healthcare plan!!! That makes him to the right of Bill Clinton.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

The sad thing is that you probably believe what you it. Sip some more.

Well, the Obama supporters do exist in an alternate universe, a universe not troubled with facts. They go out of their way to ignore facts, can't have the emperor seen for what he really is.

Feisty wrote;

SF,

What continually amazes me, is how the right wing nitwits defend the blatant lies...

*shakes head* "Brain falls out".

mygirl........ You believing republican/teaparty lies as facts puts you and others who believe, in an alternative universe.

Repeating these lies says about you, that you just accept them as fact instead of doing a little reading or research....if you cared about the truth.

Here's a link to start you of......news.yahoo.com/adwatch-romneys-welfare-ad-relies-assumptions-...

mygirl1 ... get your sweet little pea picker out of Fox News ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html

and start thinking for yourself ... you too trouble

Any by the by ... we think ... and we read ... and we love facts

B White - Betty? Is that you????

They DO leave a slime - yuck!

Ben-636 - How nice of you to find something somewhere that says "seeking sanity" which you clearly know isn't me. And, that relates to this site, how?

As I often say, I'm seeking sanity in the GOP but your desperation and lies show there is no chance of ever finding any. You not only show your desperation, you show how totally lowlife you can go. Pity - your family must be soooooo embarrassed to have to claim you - if they actually do. My guess is they hide when you come around.

I'm just realizing you got this stupidity from Wiki - just your speed! LOL

What amazes so many, is the fact that this foolish man, Willard Mitt-Wit Romney the talking lying buffoon, is the Republican choice for President of the United States. You people really sit your bar low. Sad.

Job1- I'm not even sure they have a bar anymore. More like they GO to a bar for their selection!

Obama/Biden 2012

You not only show your desperation, you show how totally lowlife you can go.

If they're not imitating posters, they're digging up @!$%# which they know is phony...

They can't focus on their candidate so instead they personally attack those who disagree with them...

YUP... it's desperation, all right! lol

*popcorn*?

Feisty - it just makes them look more desperate! *popcorn* definitely!

vitural popcorn in virtual reality. Meanwhile America crumbles.

Caesar Augustus-

vitural popcorn in virtual reality. Meanwhile America crumbles.

Caesar,

Au contrarie , "MYTH" is crumbling. See, his unfavorables are up 18%.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/242717-romney-unfavorability-rating-on-the-rise-among-voters-poll-finds

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

Get It?

Why is there still a rise in Obama's record number of food stamp recipients .... "LOL"

Hey bev are you insinuating that the 'crumbling' numbers of Romney are tied to the rise in demise of America?

So if more and more people like Obama, the worse off America is. Makes sense to me.

Observers consider Romney's desperate attack on the welfare rules to be directed at the "downscale republicans". This euphemism means poorly educated white males who really don't want to be informed.

So give me a shout out you regulars like Caesar, Ben, Bob in Virginia, Ben in Alaska, Union, Layton. Let us know you are not the "downscale republicans" the commentators are pointing to.

Hey Texan, I'm not a snarky downscale republican!!!!! Let US know????? Read a post or two of mine! JEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Why would I want to hump a doorknob? I have a hard enough time breathing?

are you a libtard, i doubt you would then? but good point.

For clarity a democrat isnt a libtard

phine - ignore the disgusting post of Caesar. He's fascinated with doorknobs - don't know why.

libsux - we never discuss hate at the DDI - just lots of laughter and good times. Too bad you're stuck in such a quagmire.

Obama/Biden 2012

yes ignore my disgusting post as it is implied that i am a poorly educated white male. That isnt disgusting. Seeking is just mad cause it looked in the mirror and saw itself for what it really is. But you have the right to ignore who you want, it wont hurt.

Caesar - I believe you hit the nail on the head - "poorly educated, or just stupid, white male." I like the person I see in the mirror, thank you!

I take it your mirror is braille then

Hey check it out that Boston Herald story I referenced earlier today about ACORN bullying Massachusetts into sending out voter registration letters to 500,000 welfare receipients got picked up by Brietbart.com after I forward a heads up on their tip line. How cool is that?

Drudge will be next to run this story. I used his tip line this morning. I will have to check out the "political grapeview" tonite on Brett Baier's 6pm show on FOX. My favorite part of the story is that Elizabeth Warrens daughter was the lead council for ACORN (well whatever name they go by these days) and was behind the whole ballot box stuffing plan.

Imagine? If pretending to being an Indian wasn't enough now she has her daughter out there trolling for welfare votes!

How funny is that???

oops that's "political grapevine" not grapeview....

To view those comments goto a google search: feistyredhead.newsvine roselle IL

Oh Dear!

Poor little safecracker has never fully recovered! lol

How much fun it is watching you & the nitwit from NJ still having a tizzy over our chat room!

Please do & make sure to check out his comments under the SodaHead site! ;o)

wait, i thought i was safecracker? Oh Dear, you dont know what you are doing do ya you old crone LOL.

Feisty doesnt quite understand much unless it is vile behavior, that is how you talk to it, thats all it understands. Oh well let it continue to toss its stones from its glass double wide

Caesar Augustus-

vitural popcorn in virtual reality. Meanwhile America crumbles.

While Romney and the Republicans fiddle as America burns....until November 6!!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

libsux - why would I do that? Why would anyone? I'm not going to go and research your snarky comments. I don't have the time or the desire. It just seems stupid to me to waste your time doing that!

except Nero played a lyre not to be confused with Obama a Liar. And there is no proof that Nero did that.

you have to be on the payroll libsux. to direct the narrative by being first post. it may not be a full time type job but nbc, who has a phD for doctoring things, said hey Feisty you aint doing anything, how bout you do us a solid and steer the narrative here. little bit of privledge access and bam, paid troll

Hey out there, if I am banned from NBC.NewsVine, then Snarky has information that she is covering up!!!!!!!

Jaysus! Paranoid much? lol

Poor thing...

If you're playing by the rules you have nothing to worry about... however that is not the case now is it? ;o)

♥

Snarky!

It is always just a matter of time... lol

care to outline those rules? The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs.

the thing is Feisty doesnt know libsux. I got the same accusation. talking out your rear doesnt equate to knowledge.

Caesar, libsux and the rest of you right-wing weenies out there who are attacking Feisty, what about her scares you so? We have an election coming up. FOCUS and try not to be so intimidated by a woman with some spunk, intelligence and power. It makes you look weak and small.

Keep up the fight Feisty!

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!

libsux - I'm just saying that perhaps you should FOCUS on your guy Romney and educating yourself a little instead of freaking out about Feisty exerting whatever influence you imagine she has. If going away happens to you and your weenie friends, perhaps this just isn't your arena. Too bad FOX doesn't allow you the ability to put up or shut up and speak your mind or allow you to intensify your Obama hate games in a more friendly field of play. Wah, wah, wah.

Too many ...tards in these posts. The special needs people deserve more respect.

Oscar: Random drug testing for any one who holds political office....since their salary is from the taxpayers.

Dragon,

I agree that all the politicians should be tested for drugs. I don't think Obama's cocaine use in high school and college (That he freely admits) would still show up, so he will be safe. Welfare recipients are getting a salary from the taxpayers. They should be drug tested too.

Oscar -

They tried that already in Florida, and it kind of backfired and ended up costing the state some big bucks. See, they - like you - were operating under the assumption of "guilty until proven innocent", and were forcing people to cough up the $30 for the test in advance. Then - surprise, surprise! - about 97% of those people passed the test, and suddenly it was just one more example of "big government" run amuck:

"From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=1

They should be drug tested too.

Didn't they do this in FL, and didn't the results showed the majority of people clean?

Joanne,

I believe the math mentioned above is incorrect.

148 people did not get the average welfare check of $400 each month.

That is 148 * $400 or $59,200.00 per month that Florida did not pay. For July through October, that would be 4 months or 4 * $59,200 = $236,800.00

$236,800 - $118,140 = a savings of $118,660.00

And one of the most interesting parts of the FL story is that Gov Scott's wife's company made a killing on providing those useless drug tests. So the State of FL was the big loser, but someone made money from this boodoggle.

Dragon, I agree that politicians should have the drug testing also. Anyone who is paid with taxpayers' money. If I, as a taxpayer, have to be drug tested to get a job, then those that benefit from my job, should be tested.

JoAnne, I'm not willing to throw in the towel on drug testing welfare recipients based on ONE state for one FOUR MONTH period. As JC stated, there seems to be some funny math going on. Also, as with everything the government overspends on, I can get a test kit at the pharmacy for half the price that Florida paid.

Oscar Rules-

So what about the legal costs to defend lawsuits filed by those who are denied benefits? This is another one of those "feel good" issues that don't solve any problems.

What's next - drug testing before qualifying for a Federal student loan? How about before receiving a Small Business Administration loan?

Corporations are people too - should drug testing be extended to Big Oil/Big Pharma/Big Agriculture subsidies?

ANY Federal grant, subsidy, or entitlement?

One state? How about Utah's similar experience?

"In a September 2011 brief by Health and Human Services, the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) estimates that operating
the program could include: purchasing the drug tests; laboratory fees; staff
time to administer the tests, monitor compliance and eligibility; deal with
increased administrative hearings; and modify computer programs to include drug testing ineligibility, substance abuse treatment and legal fees if the law is
challenged.

How cost effective is it for the state to start a bureaucracy to do drug testing that could run in to the millions? According to ASPE, for some states that have implemented the program for testing — 20 percent of the recipients — the costs range from $92,487 to $20 million."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765594544/Drug-testing-welfare-clients-wastes-tax-dollars.html?pg=all

How about Michigan's experience?

"DETROIT - Michigan's attempt to impose mandatory drug tests on all welfare
recipients has finally come to an end, the American Civil Liberties Union
announced today after a settlement was reached with the Family Independence
Agency (FIA). The FIA can now require drug testing of welfare recipients only where there is a reasonable suspicion that the recipient is using drugs."

In April 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law. She wrote that drug testing an entire class of citizens simply because they are poor ""would be dangerously at odds with the tenets of our democracy."" In April 2003, the appeals court affirmed that decision.

Before the ACLU filed its lawsuit, Michigan was the only state in the country
that required all welfare applicants to submit to drug testing without suspicion
of drug use.

In the five weeks that the program was in effect, the drug tests were positive in only eight percent of the cases, a percentage that is consistent with drug use in the general population. Of 268 people tested, only 21 tested positive for drugs and all but three were for marijuana."

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/settlement-reached-aclu-michigan-lawsuit-over-mandatory-drug-testing-welfare-recipie

See, there's that pesky old constitution coming into play again. You can't perform an unreasonable search and seizure on an entire class of people just because you think SOME of them may be on drugs. These states tried to do so. There's some good reasons why more haven't been stampeding to follow in their footsteps.

JOB1, I do believe they did testing in Florida. Low positive results for a such a HUGE investment of tax payer $$$. What a waste of Funds............................ OHH, gee.. Almost forgot something. Silly me!? Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't the testing lab for this costly "experiment" owned by GOVERNORS wife??? Thought so. Follow the $$$ they say...

Just Pondering: is that true, that the entire point behind the test was just to enrich the FL governors family. Is this the same governor who had the health care group that committed Medicare FRAUD ?

But hey, don't worry, vote Republican, they plan to "reform medicare, medicaid and social security."

They reformed Countrywide and Lehman Brothers, too.

They tried that in Florida, Oscar; you know Gov Rick Scott signed it. Guess what, it cost tax payers a bundle and got nothing for it.

JoAnne PA, great job!

Just Pondering, another great rebuttal and I had not heard about the governor's wife. I'm still trying to figure out why Floridians would elect as their governor a man who paid the largest fine for medicare fraud ever. Seriously, why would even republicans willingly elect a criminal.

Wow,

I pointed out that the math was wrong, and everybody that is against it just ignored that point; or, they simply mentioned constitutional rights instead. For those of you that are concerned about constitutional rights, why are you not up in arms that all military personel are drug tested? Law enforcement? Union electricians? Fleet truck drivers? Train engineers? Ship captains? Are we abusing the constitution to insist that they are drug tested? No, we are doing it to improve safety for the general public. Is giving money to drug addicts a way of improving public safety?

The government is not saying "All you poor people must be drug tested". That in fact would be unconstitutional. They are saying: "If you want us to take other people's money and give it to you, those people have a right to know you are going to use the money for its intended purpose; like buying food for your children."

How about when your house is on fire, you have to pee in a cup before the fire department puts it out? They're "taxpayer funded," after all. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed on a bridge unless you can prove you don't smoke weed. Breathalizer before you can dial 911?

Or maybe you're really saying that we should go ahead and have a different set of laws for poor people.

Cape cod,

If I was asking the fireman to give me money, then yes, I should have to pee in a cup. If I expect to be paid for crossing a bridge, sure, test me. If I dail 911 and ask them to bring me a pot of money, sure, check for pot in my system before giving me money. Your points are ludicrious. They are not the same, don't you see that?

Someone applying for welfare is asking the taxpayers for their money. Taxpayers have already agreed to pay for their safety and mobility and security. Yes, taxpayers get to enjoy the safety, mobility and security they have already paid for and don't mind sharing these with people that don't pay for them. I am very happy to support the local police department through taxes so that they can save the indigent drug addict on the corner from being beat up. I don't want my tax dollars spent to make another indigent drug addict.

JC in G -

You do realize that you answered your own question, don't you? All of the jobs you mentioned where drug testing is required involve public safety. And the people who take those jobs have a CHOICE as to whether or not they want their constitutional rights "abused" if that's the way they see it. And it's not just drugs; many of those employers have rules about alcohol consumption within a certain time frame as well as sleep requirements for the same safety reasons. Do you advocate giving welfare applicants a breathalyzer test or a sleep study, too?

And anyway, just from a practicality standpoint, it's pretty much an unenforceable proposition. Look, I actually agree with you that people on welfare shouldn't be spending my tax dollars on things I can't afford myself. But what's to stop someone from staying clean long enough to sign up for benefits and then going out and buying drugs or alcohol later on anyway? Are you going to do the tests every month before you hand over their check? Whether the applicant's ever had any history of drug abuse or not? The logistics - and the government bureaucracy that would be involved - would be staggering, and all just to catch a handful of people who are going to abuse the system somehow anyway.

Aren't conservatives the ones who are always arguing for LESS government intrusion in our lives? I'll bet you'd argue against similar drug testing for potential gun purchasers - but you want some elderly granny to pee in a cup before she can buy her bus tokens and cat food?

Somehow, government intrusion into our private lives is never a problem with conservatives - as long as it's someone else's private life, that is.....

The government is not saying "All you poor people must be drug tested". That in fact would be unconstitutional. They are saying: "If you want us to take other people's money and give it to you, those people have a right to know you are going to use the money for its intended purpose; like buying food for your children."

Technically, since most poor people get some form of welfare, you are requiring them to pee in a cup in order to get your benefits. Drug-testing sounds good on paper, but couldn't people squeeze through by not having drugs until after the test or before it???? It would only work if the tests were made every day, and that would be VERY expensive. I doubt it would save enough money to be considered a success. If you want to drug test people, you'd have to check their public records to do it efficiently, and who knows whether they will take it up after getting a welfare check??? You would have to do it regularly, or at random, and they both sound like a pain in the ass for taxpayers...

have to disagree as it infringes on your privacy. Where would you draw the line. Need to reform welfare, to pick people up, not use as tool to keep people on in order to receive votes. Like UE benies, needs a time limit or something to checks and balance but drug testing just i think is too much.

I'm still asking, though, JC....Do you think people who are desperate and impoverished should not have the same legal and constitutional protections as the rest of us?

Willard should consider Newt for VP!

Chilled,

That might be a wee bit awkward, since Newt himself called Willard a liar!

I can see the commercials now... lol

On CBS' "The Early Show" this morning, CBS News chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell asked Gingrich about comments he had previously made about his chief rival and the Super PAC whose negative campaign ads have hurt his campaign:

"You scolded Mitt Romney, his friends who are running this Super PAC that has funded that, and you said of Mitt Romney, 'Someone who will lie to you to get to be president will lie to you when they are president. I have to ask you, are you calling Mitt Romney a liar?" "Yes," Gingrich replied.

"You're calling Mitt Romney a liar?" "Well, you seem shocked by it!" said Gingrich. "This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC - it's baloney. He's not telling the American people the truth.

Two liars, Feisty....birds of the feather stick together.....that's the ticket. I wonder if Newt has apologized to Willard......Naw!...'cause it's true!

That might be a wee bit awkward, since Newt himself called Willard a liar!

And Biden called Obama clean and articulate. Harry Reid called Obama a light-skinned negro with no accent. Obama called both Clinton's racists so what's your point?

Alan -

Exactly when did President Obama call the Clintons racist? I don't recall that every happening.

Is that a fact or another one of those "1+1=3" leaps of logic?

Why is there a 47 year high in the poverty rate now under Obama .... "LOL"

Exactly when did President Obama call the Clintons racist? I don't recall that every happening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clint_n_81205.html

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary. [See the full memo here.]

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/04/bill-clinton-ob-2/

ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama’s campaign of "playing the race card on me" and told a Philadelphia radio station that the Obama campaign took his Jesse Jackson comment and "twisted it for political purposes."

And as the interview concluded, Clinton turned to an associate and said, "I don’t think I should take any s–t from anybody on that, do you?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/us/politics/24dems.html

Former President Bill Clinton defended himself Wednesday against accusations that he and his wife had injected the issue of race into the Democratic presidential primary in South Carolina, and he accused Senator Barack Obama of Illinois of putting out a “hit job” on him.

Scolding a reporter, Mr. Clinton said the Obama campaign was “feeding” the news media to keep issues of race alive, obscuring positive coverage of the presidential campaign here of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Alan-

Just like I thought, none of those statements show President Obama calling the Clintons racist.

You take a few articles that discuss how race played a factor in the primaries, or protesting certain things said by Clinton or her supporters, and escalate it into "Obama called the Clintons racist".

There is a big difference between disagreeing with a statement or the way something was phrased and calling someone a racist.

"1+1=3"

Just like I thought, none of those statements show President Obama calling the Clintons racist.

I forgot. Obama is not responsible for anything that his campaign, his cabinet, his advisers or his administration do, unless it reflects well on him.

When a memo originates from his campaign to paint his opponent as racist of course he is not responsible.

The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage.

To accept your premise, Barack Obama is the biggest empty suit since Robert Redford played one in the candidate. Your denials assume that he has no control, nor responsibility, over any aspect of his campaign.

In reality it's unbelievable but go ahead and defend, it's all his supporters do. I assume you think Harry Reid is acting on his own? You think the ad about the cancer victim wasn't OK'd by Chicago? Believe that and Barack Obama is just a front for the power behind the curtain.

...and just follow up on the lack of responsibility of President Obama. He is not responsible for a campaign memo, nor an adviser who claims unemployment will remain below 8%, nor a promise that Obamacare will cost under $1T, nor a statement that he will cut the deficit in half.

But Romney is responsible for the death of woman who had no insurance, which she had lost 3 years previously, when she worked for a company Romney did not own, because her husband lost his job 5 years previously and could not find a similar one in the intervening period?

Can anybody see a double standard?

Alan: and what has this to do with the fact that the current GOP leadership is full of old white guys who use euphemisms (socialist, kenyan, foreign, marxist, communist) to indicate that the President of the US is BLACK and should not be trusted.... how is that not racist ?

Alan -

I never said Obama was not involved or responsible, and nowhere in my post did I dispute the facts you presented. I strongly disagree with your one-sentence conclusion that Obama called them racists - I agree with the "1+1", just not the "=3".

A difference of opinion, I guess. I don't jump from "using race-related issues for political leverage" (which almost ALL Republican candidates do) to "racist".

I guess you feel they are one and the same - so I look forward to you calling the next Republican candidate that uses "race-related issues for political leverage" a racist.

Alan: and what has this to do with the fact that the current GOP leadership is full of old white guys who use euphemisms (socialist, kenyan, foreign, marxist, communist) to indicate that the President of the US is BLACK and should not be trusted.... how is that not racist ?

I'll give you kenyan and foreign, but the others? In what conceivable way do they indicate skin color? I would use then to describe Bernie Sanders of Vermont rather than Barack Obama.

A difference of opinion, I guess. I don't jump from "using race-related issues for political leverage" (which almost ALL Republican candidates do) to "racist".

So how do you categorize it, so I know for future reference?

Alan,

nor an adviser who claims unemployment will remain below 8%,

I don't see how you can turn something clearly labeled a "projection" on a supporting graph into a "promise". I hope you are as diligent in holding Romney to his below 4% unemployment "promise".

nor a promise that Obamacare will cost under $1T

The cost of the AHCA is about the same as projected, the CBO ten-year period just rolled. The CBO still projects the AHCA will result in a net deficit reduction. More "smoke and mirrors" like the "temporary" Bush tax cuts.

nor a statement that he will cut the deficit in half.

I agree that this was a campaign promise unkept. I could argue that the "grand compromise" would have resulted in at least some deficit reduction if Boehner would not have walked away, but it still would not have cut the deficit in half.

I said this on another post, but you seem to have gone from writing fact-based posts with a Conservative approach to anti-Obama posts, repeating Republican talking points.

I for one miss your old posts, they usually led me to at least critically review my own opinions.

Alan, NJ

...and just follow up on the lack of responsibility of President Obama. He is not responsible for a campaign memo, nor an adviser who claims unemployment will remain below 8%, nor a promise that Obamacare will cost under $1T, nor a statement that he will cut the deficit in half.

But Romney is responsible for the death of woman who had no insurance, which she had lost 3 years previously, when she worked for a company Romney did not own, because her husband lost his job 5 years previously and could not find a similar one in the intervening period?

Can anybody see a double standard?

i see where you are coming from, but no one i've seen is defending the ad that the pro obama group let out, and you are making an assumption that chicago is involved in your previous post. I personally think it is just as bad as the ads put out by the pro-Romney groups which are nothing but lies and distortions of facts as well, and think it is time that we put a stop to the slash and burn swift boat election tactics that do nothing but divide the nation against itself.

candidates should talk about issues and platforms they support, and STFU on everything else...

I used the 8% projection as an example of how the Administration will distance itself from statement that come from it's own members. I accept that it was a projection, but you can be sure that if that projection had came true it would be embraced by the Administration. The real disgrace is the projection that unemployment would be under 6% now, given the stimulus.

On the ACA, I am not talking about the CBO projections. I am taking about what the president promised.

Obama Promised That ObamaCare Would “Cost Roughly $900 Billion.” OBAMA: “Now, what I’ve proposed is going to cost roughly $900 billion, 800 to 900. That’s a lot of money. Keep in mind it’s over 10 years. So when you hear some of these figures thrown out there, this is not per year; this is over 10 years. So let’s assume it’s about $80 billion a year. It turns out that about two-thirds of that could be paid for by eliminating waste in the existing system.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At A Town Hall Meeting, Grand Junction, CO, 8/15/09)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-200900649/html/DCPD-200900649.htm?utm_medium=email&utm_source=et&utm_content=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gpo.gov%2ffdsys%2fpkg%2fDCPD-200900649%2fhtml%2fDCPD-200900649.htm&utm_campaign=1383831_209319_RNC%20Research

Obama Said His Health Care Package Would Cost “$900 Billion Over 10 Years.”OBAMA:”Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.” (President Barack Obama, Address Before A Joint Session Of Congress , Washington, D.C., 9/9/09)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care

So not once, but twice the President stated that the ACA would cost less than $1T and that this would be the amount for a 10 year period. he never mentioned deficits nor revenues, only costs.

i see where you are coming from, but no one i've seen is defending the ad that the pro obama group let out, and you are making an assumption that chicago is involved in your previous post. I personally think it is just as bad as the ads put out by the pro-Romney groups which are nothing but lies and distortions of facts as well, and think it is time that we put a stop to the slash and burn swift boat election tactics that do nothing but divide the nation against itself.

No one is defending it on the Obama side but no one is denouncing it. As to being just as bad? factually I may agree with you but it is in such bad taste to claim that Romney is somehow responsible for this woman's death is despicable. I said in a previous post that this is a new low, and I was appalled by the swiftboating ads. They tried to destroy a mans character, but they never claimed his actions led to the death of another.

You really think this is on a par with a misleading ad about welfare reform?

thats the thing Alan, someone in his Admin mentioned unemployment would stay below 8%. How can that not be tied to Obama? Just ask Noid. It wasn't someone like me making that statement where I have no ties to any Admin, it was an official in the Obama Admin.

The costs associated with "Obamacare" have not increased substantially over the initial estimates:

Republicans and conservative media are cherry-picking a figure in a new Congressional Budget Office spending estimate (PDF) to assert that the cost of "Obamacare" has nearly doubled to $1.76 trillion. But the claim ignores the corresponding savings during the additional period of the spending projection, thus distorting the actual cost estimates of the law.

"The new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years — well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed," Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), the No. 4 House Republican, declared in a press advisory. Republicans on the powerful Energy & Commerce Committee said the CBO report "reveal[s] a shocking new sticker price of $1.8 trillion."

Fox News and other conservative outlets have trumpeted the out-of-context number as vindication for those who warned that the Affordable Care Act will cost far more than advertised.

CBO's actual revised estimate is that the "gross costs of the coverage provisions," — the money used to provide people Medicaid or private insurance — has risen by about $50 billion over the 2012-2021 period since its previous estimate, from $1.445 trillion to $1.496 trillion. That's the only relevant change to spending projections in the report.

So where are conservatives getting the idea that the cost of the law doubled? When it passed in 2010, CBO said its 10-year outlays would be about $940 billion. But because the law isn't set to be fully implemented until 2014, when the coverage expansion takes effect, that initial estimate included several years in which the law cost very little. Now that it's 2012, CBO's 10-year outlook captures more years during which the law will be in full effect. The law's price tag appears higher, but its costs in no way doubled.

Conservatives, however, want to use the effect of this sliding window to make it appear as if the health care law is a budget buster. But this latest CBO report focuses exclusively on the law's spending provisions, and ignores its savings — the taxes and spending cuts, that also mostly take effect in 2014.

Indeed, CBO still holds that the law reduces the deficit by billions of dollars over 10 years. That's just not in this report.

"CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the other provisions of the ACA; over the 2012-2021 period, those other provisions were previously estimated to reduce budget deficits," the CBO report reads.

All of which means that the cost projections have only experienced minor changes in the CBO report, a far cry from the conservative claims that the Affordable Care Act's price tag has skyrocketed or doubled.

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/conservatives-distort-cbo-data-to-claim-obamacare-costs-have-exploded.php

So the Cost Estimates of the AHCA have NOT increased dramatically, just the 10-year window in which they are being viewed. President Obama's statement was accurate.

And once again, no one in the Obama administration "mentioned" that unemployment would remian under 8%.

It was a data point on a supporting graph (clearly labeled a projection, and subject to change) included in a presentation supporting the proposed stimulus. Neither the graph nor the "under 8%" number were ever mentioned, referenced or vocalized.

That is why I have a hard time calling it a "promise".

On January 9, 2009, just eleven days before Obama was inaugurated, future administration officials Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein published a fourteen page report entitled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, and in that report - specifically informed readers that if the new president's stimulus plan was enacted, unemployment would not rise above eight percent.

but thetotas, that doesnt count since Obama didnt say it himself. After all wouldnt you need a selling point why 800b would be needed for the economy. that aint pocket change. It never went under 8, it rose above nine and has stayed steady above 8. it doesnt seem to sink in with the far left

Bigben - "Why is there a 47 year high in the poverty rate now under Obama"

Because they all lost their jobs at the end of the Bush Administration and the economy was so bad they haven't yet found new ones. As more and more jobs are created, the poverty numbers will fall. It would probably have happened already except the Republicans won't pass the jobs bill lest the President get credit for something and get elected for another term.

And once again, no one in the Obama administration "mentioned" that unemployment would remian under 8%.

Christina Rommer was the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Jared Bernstein was economic adviser to VP Biden.

They were responsible for the proposal that the stimulus was based on. Are you trying to say that they are not members of the Administration?

As to you point on ACA, I don't understand your reasoning.

So the Cost Estimates of the AHCA have NOT increased dramatically, just the 10-year window in which they are being viewed. President Obama's statement was accurate.

If the President stated that it would cost under $1T for a ten year period, and the we now move to years 3 through 13, and it now costs $1.76T, a 75% increase in less than 3 years, you don't consider that a dramatic increase in costs?

Please never do my budget for me.

But you just prove that the President's supporters will never allow him to take responsibility. Look at what you are arguing.

"The ACA will not cost more than $1T over 10 years." For the first PROJECTION, this is true as the program does not exist.

Two years on, the PROJECTION is 70% higher, meaning that the first two years of real costs and 8 years of PROJECTED costs are now available and so should be more accurate.

Or if we look at this section

So where are conservatives getting the idea that the cost of the law doubled? When it passed in 2010, CBO said its 10-year outlays would be about $940 billion. But because the law isn't set to be fully implemented until 2014, when the coverage expansion takes effect, that initial estimate included several years in which the law cost very little. Now that it's 2012, CBO's 10-year outlook captures more years during which the law will be in full effect. The law's price tag appears higher, but its costs in no way doubled.

The President was basically being disingenuous (or lying as am sick of that word) when he used the 10 year period as there were minimal costs in that initial 10 year period. He was like a bad mortgage salesman who offers a teaser rate for the first 3 years and then hits the borrower with the full cost later in the loan.

Brian, I'd probably be drunk after his opening statement! (Great idea, though!)

Brian J - you will get sloshed in a very short time! Does Mitt get through 2 sentences without lying or flipping?

At what point during the debates will the moderators look at Mitt and just burst out laughing because of his flips? The "man" is amazing and the fact anyone supports him is beyond belief!

Layton - It would make the rest of his speech easier to endure!

Obama/Biden 2012

SeekingSanity

Brian J - you will get sloshed in a very short time! Does Mitt get through 2 sentences without lying or flipping?

SeekingSanity,

Let's not forget the nervous laughter.

It must be Asperger syndrome. Asperger syndrome is characterized by impairment in social interaction accompanied by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior;

Social interaction impairment ☑

Impaired nonverbal communication ☑

Motor clumsiness ☑

Odd speech ☑

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

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

OMG it's all over Willard's face. He's rich, clumsy, laughs at inappropriate times and he's hilarious.

4more for 44

You know... Instead of over seeing the Olympics... Romney should competed in the Olympics. In GYMNASTICS... Flip, flip, flip... He would have come home with the GOLD!!!!

You simply have to love how the libbies will take an article about Democratic dirty political tricks, totally ignore the reality it represents, then launch into their own vicious little circle jerk of attacks.

Wait ! I guess that IS what the article is about, and libs posting here are affirming that their campaign strategy is to stay the hell away from Obama's record of incompetence, and to attack, attack and try to destroy the opposition.

Anything at all to stay away from major issues like high 8.3% unemployment, massive annual spending deficits of $1.3 tillion or more and NO BUDGETS at all !

It sounds to me like many of our liberal friends are confused about what it means to tell a lie. Every time a conservative says something you disagree with, you say that they are lying. Actually, that is called a difference of opinion.

I believe, like Mitt Romney does, that our current president wants more and more people to be dependent on government for support, because he knows that all of those people will be lifelong democrat voters.

Rightwing, we just understand that saying something loudly and often doesn't make it true. We like statements that are based on empirical facts.

You might want to explain that to Harry Reid, and the President, for that matter.

rightwing...... we will after you explain it to Mitt and the rest of the GOP!

Obama/Biden 2012

Caesar and Big - What's with all the LOL's?. Are you BFF 12 year old girls?

mlkboneundrwear

my dog wants to meet you.

Guess i'll have to change my name then. It's just an old joke...

It's a dog eat dog world out there, and i'm stuck with milkbone underwear.

Amy - now there you go trying to be rational. That NEVER works with Republicans - you know that!

I hope your co-worker succeeds. She sounds like she is really trying hard to be successful and raise her child.

Great points Amy....

I always wondered if Mama Grizzly was receiving any taxpayer support (wrapped in her salary as part-time governor, of course) for her special needs child. Perhaps that fit very well in her medical coverage 'pre-existing condition' clause...I got mine attitude!........

Then add Bristol and her child to the mix.........

Amy,

Your friend does not sound like the typical recipient. There are many people on welfare that are not; in your words "Moochers". Needing assistance is different than needing assistance from the government. I think Bristol's mom is in a position to help her out. Does your friend at work not have any family or church affiliations that are willing to help her out?

Amy--you forgot the basic Republican idea that your colleague wasn't supposed to have sex---would have solved all of her problems.

Steeler - that was the put the aspirin between her knees part, right?

Then add Bristol and her child to the mix.........

The brat who likes to call people faggots?

While Mommy & Auntie *giggle*?

Apples don't fall far from the tree in that klan!

Don't forget, those who accept government assistance that they are legally entitled to are "moochers" and "freeloaders", supported by those who work.

Those who pursue tax-avoidance strategies and Cayman Island tax shelters are successful businessmen who need to be respected - because they are legally entitled to those deductions and would be foolish to not take them.

Which do you suppose costs taxpayers more?

JC in G

My friend at work does get help from her parents.

Sometimes she feels like giving up her job and going on welfare because the cost of child care is so high, and if her child gets sick (or has lice!) she has to stay home, and the boss has already complained about that. It's a tough row to hoe. I tell her to hang in there, life will get better.

yeah Feisty casting stones from a glass house again eh? bristol called people faggots all the while you insult people daily on here. She should be up your alley. keep chasing your tail harpy.

And the second question oughta be: Which one is more humane and Christain?

PS. My church bulletin contained a fact sheet about TANF recipients in Maine. Here is some info about typical recipients:

Family Characteristics: The vast majority of TANF families are headed by a woman raising young children on her own.

Gender.

Of all respondents to the 2010 survey, 92.4% were women, reflecting the fact that

TANF families are predominantly headed by women raising children on their own.

The average age of parents receiving TANF is 31 years.

Age of Child.

Children receiving TANF tend to be very young. The median age of a child in a TANF family is just under two years old.

Family Size.

Respondents have an average of 1.7 children per family. This is the same child per family ratio that exists in the general Maine population.

Support.

Only 12% of all respondents that were due child support from an absent parent reported receiving it on a regular basis.

http://www.mainewomen.org/assets/files/Families_in_Focus_Final%20Report.pdf

Did Obama's massive debt reach $16 trillion dollars yet .... "LOL"

President Obama has massive debt?

I thought it was US debt, mainly created by Republican presidents and their policies.

Go back to sleep TNSEVOL ! Obama has increased the national debt more in 3.6 years than his predecessor did in 8 years. Furthermore, most of his predecessor's runup came in his last 2 years of office .....under a Democratic Congress !

I am WIDE awake - are you?

If you really think the increase in national debt is a result of President Obama's policies then you must be dreaming!

What are the big drivers of the debt?

Iraq War/War in Afghanistan: started by Bush

Bank bailouts: proposed and supported by Bush & the Republicans

GM/Chrysler Bailout: Bush initiated, Obama supported and led (50/50)

Bush Tax Cuts - Bush & the Republicans

Stimulus - Obama (although Republicans supported the embedded tax cuts)

President Obama's signature legislation, the Affordable Healthcare Act, is just now starting to take effect and will reduce the deficit in the long run.

Amy, interesting facts on your post.

Can anyone tell me why Obama does not use his bully pulpit to encourage fathers to support their children, or couples to actually practice birth control or abstinence, or to encourage reversible vasectomies?

If he's such a great leader, why not lead?

Instead, he encourages more and more people to join the welfare ranks. Why is that??

I find it interesting that the only interest Republicans have in women and children is before the children are born. Once born, the women and children are on their own.

Instead, he encourages more and more people to join the welfare ranks.

My goodness, who knew "Willard Syndrome" was a disease that can be spread. It is apparently an airborne illness. Where do these right wing extremists come up with these 'Willard Syndrome' lies?

Sort of like Obamanitis, which is most commonly spread by dung flies.

mklboneundrwear-

Can anyone tell me why Obama does not use his bully pulpit to encourage fathers to support their children, or couples to actually practice birth control or abstinence, or to encourage reversible vasectomies?

President Obama has publically stated his belief that the welfare system can only do so much, and that values are important. He said for children to succeed parents needed to "turn off the TV and help them with their homework". He devoted an entire chapter in one of his books on it.

He also gave a speech at a black church near Chicago on Father's Day a few years ago, and told the young black men they needed to take responsibiity for their children - I believe he told them if they could buy expensive athletic shoes they could take care of their children.

A couple of speeches made over the last four years equals talking points but not leadership.

milkboneundrwear - which is, of course, more than his predecessor or Mitt have done. But, President Obama also shows his leadership in that area by helping raise his two beautiful and very capable daughters. He is the epitome of a good father. So, the leadership is clearly there.

Obama/Biden 2012

Google "Obama Values" and see how often he has mentioned it.

I only listed a couple of examples. Personal responsibility and values have been part of almost every speech I have heard from President Obama.

TNSEVOL, The wars you reference were voted on and approved by Congress, including votes by some leading Democrats.

Obama extended Bush tax cuts .... basically keeping taxes the same.

The bailout of GM was a sad joke. It screwed GM bondholders with the normal liquidation preference being tossed out in favor of sucking the union votes by bailing out woefully underfunded Union "Cadillac" health care plans for retirees. GM still filed for bankruptcy.

Obamacare ? You have got to be kidding me if you think this hor$e$hit legislation will lower costs for ANYTHING. It broadens coverages to those who cannot afford coverage now and will subsidize them ..... WELFARE ! It removes maximum payouts which will increase costs. It imposes the creation of something like 159 NEW federal bureaus, boards, agencies and commissions .... just to administer the law.

Then, of course, there is the sneaky little taxes built in ...like 21 or 23 of them, mostly designed to take away medical deductions. It includes a 2.3% gross tax on medical devices the manufacturer must pay. Did you count these in your fairy tale cost-savings assumptions ? I doubt it.

Not to good at Cost Accounting are you there genius ?

Amy,

I wish your friend well. I hope she succeeds; maybe even get a raise or a more pliable boss.

You posted information from your church bulletin. Are you one of the religious fanatics that the liberals on here are always bashing? You know, religious bad, all other good and smart and knowledgable. To them, religion is just a means to combat their inherant homosexual tendancies. If you are homosexual, that is fine with me. It is called tolerance, and I am one of those religious republicans.

JC - I don't know anyone who bashes religion - just the fanatics who use their religion to promote hatred of anyone who isn't just like them. Many Independents and Democrats are religious - we just don't like organized religion and it's hypocrisy

There is an old Lynard Skynard song that would make a great campaign tune for Romney. "So Don't Ask Me No Questions, And I Won't Tell You No Lies"

Job1

You know when a Willard is lying, because his lips are moving.

Willard Romney is, "DAMN GOOD AT LYING."

Job1

And he laughs nervously because he is not sure anyone believes. See "Myth" is numb in all the wrong places.

"MYTH" and poor performances; BOOOH.!

Da Noid, and he didn't author Romneycare either! So what we want as a candidate ... a forgetful arrogant liar.

I would never vote for a lefty libtard like Romney.

damn right Caesar. I like my Presidents to be in the political center.

and you say Obama is LOL.. He's about as center as Lenin

I don't know if he is a zombie, but he is safe from zombies, because I understand they go after people to eat their brains.

Steeler - Nope - zombies do MUCH better than Mitt but nice try!

I don't know if he is a zombie, but he is safe from zombies, because I understand they go after people to eat their brains.

Forrest, you are too funny!

It seems you know as much about Vegas economics as any other.

The seniors staying in the budget hotel? Well, their hotel makes a profit from their room rates, and the casinos make a profit from their penny slots.

The college kids staying on the strip? Their rooms cost the hotels money- and if they are only seeing shows, those cost money, too.

The high rollers? Well, as I've stated above, room rates are actually below the cost to the hotels on the strip, so, comping high rollers is actually a good business practice. The money they lose is the lifeblood of the casinos- and nobody- and I do mean, nobody- beats the house long term in Vegas. Or Atlantic City. Or any other gambling site.

So, if you give your money to the little old ladies on the bus and they do move to the strip, their hotel rooms take money out of the hotel coffers- thus, out of the tax,an's pocket. Their penny slots still pay off for the casino, however.

Your college kids wil still be a net negative.

The high rollers? More to gamble, more to lose. More for the casino- more for the taxman.

Liberals as simply incapable of understanding economics.

TN, You have to know the businesses and governments financed in those "risky" portfolios" mean jobs for the people who work for those companies and governments. As shocking as this may be to a Liberal. Private investors finance 99.9% of the private sector jobs and 100% of the government jobs. Extracting those investment $$ to give to the government isnt going to create more jobs. Let's focus on increasing GDP and you won't have to worry about giving entitlements to old ladies and college kids to gamble.... ROMNEY 2012